Meta's AI-Generated Northern Lights Post Sparks Controversy and Ethical Concerns

No, Meta - I won't fake my northern lights photos even though I'm gutted that I missed the real thing

On May 10 this year, the strongest geomagnetic storm in over 20 years occurred, delivering a northern lights display that reached parts of the world it rarely does. I was lucky enough to learn that it was happening with enough time to venture out with my camera gear, and it was a truly memorable evening. The G5-rated geomagnetic storm was so strong that the aurora borealis could be seen even where I live in the south of the UK, dancing in the night sky and illuminating the landscape with other-worldly hues. I wrote about my experiences of that night, pitting a mirrorless camera against a smartphone to see which could get the best Northern Lights pictures. More recently, on October 11, there was another chance to see the aurora, but sadly on this occasion I only discovered that it had taken place the next day. And yes, the images on my news and social feeds were spectacular. The night sky had been clear, I was at home with no particular plans, and I had learned a thing or two about photographing the lights from my first experience that I wanted to put into practice should I ever be lucky enough to see them again - so I was heartbroken to have missed out. A few days after the event, as I watched a steady stream of spectacular photos appear in my social media feeds that only heightened my disappointment, Meta piped up on Threads with a sentiment that fell completely flat, and worse. "POV: you missed the northern lights IRL, so you made your own with Meta AI" read Meta's post on Threads, together with an AI-generated image of the aurora over famous landmarks, including the Golden Gate Bridge (see the main image above). Cue a Meta roasting. I was one of those people that missed the northern lights IRL. However, even though I was disappointed to have missed out, especially after seeing so many incredible photos from photographers around the world and especially the UK, I'm not going to fake the experience of capturing the real thing, whether it's with AI or old-school Photoshop fakery. For me, such events primarily are about being there, and experiencing them in the moment. I echo the sentiment of my colleague Phil Berne, who gave up trying to capture April's rare total eclipse in the US with an array of camera gear to ultimately enjoy the once-in-a-lifetime event. When I witnessed the northern lights for the first time back in May (you can see one of my photos above), there was an otherworldly feel to the night, and the atmosphere was electric. I got distracted taking photos and timelapses, much to my own detriment. I wish I had taken a photo or two that I was pleased with artistically, then put my camera away and spent more of my time simply soaking it in. I don't need a photo to prove I was somewhere, sometime, especially if it limits my enjoyment of the moment. On the most recent occasion I missed out, but I'm okay with that; you win some, you lose some. But, if you listen to Meta, you don't ever have to lose some, thanks to the magic of AI-powered photo editing. I do not echo that sentiment. For the less secure, FOMO is what Meta has peddled ever since it was born as Facebook. Yet Meta's post last week wasn't just in poor taste - there's a darker side to it. Look, I get it, Meta's post on Threads was simply a way to show off its fresh AI image-generator skills. But the message it contained didn't just go down like a lead balloon, it had a sinister element to it: you can fake being at an event with AI. It's one thing to use photo-editing tools creatively - though image manipulation has been a gray area ever since the arrival Photoshop - but to fake elements of real events with AI editing and image generation? That's not okay. Once you start using Meta AI's tools to fake reality, where does it end? The creation of fake news (and potentially catastrophic consequences) is just one example of the darker side of AI. AI-powered photo editors and image generation can be delightful tools to use, helping you to realize your creative vision with ease. In and of itself, adding the northern lights to photos actually looks like a good use of Meta AI in that you can get reasonable results (however scientifically inaccurate they may be). But displaying these images in a way that tricks people into believing that you were there? That's a no from me. In the wrong hands - and there's no control over which hands will be using it - AI image generation can be all too convincing, to the point where we simply don't know what's real. If Meta is actively promoting the deceptive use of AI image generation when it should be leading the fight against it, what hope do we have?

Missed the Northern Lights? Meta says you should just fake photos with its AI instead

For all the benefits of the best AI image generators, many of us are worried about a torrent of misinformation and fakery. Meta, it seems, didn't get the memo - in a Threads post, it's just recommended that those of us who missed the recent return of the Northern Lights should just fake shots using Meta AI instead. The Threads post, spotted by The Verge, is titled "POV: you missed the northern lights IRL, so you made your own with Meta AI" and includes AI-generated images of the phenomena over landmarks like the Golden Gate Bridge and Las Vegas. Meta has received a justifiable roasting for its tone-deaf post in the Threads comments. "Please sell Instagram to someone who cares about photography" noted one response, while NASA software engineer Kevin M. Gill remarked that fake images like Meta's "make our cultural intelligence worse". It's possible that Meta's Threads post was just an errant social media post rather than a reflection of the company's broader view on how Meta AI's image generator should be used. And it could be argued that there's little wrong with generating images like Meta's examples, as long as creators are clear about their origin. The problem is that the tone of Meta's post suggests people should use AI to mislead their followers into thinking that they'd photographed a real event - and for many, that's crossing a line that could have more serious repercussions for news events that are more consequential than the Northern Lights. Is posting AI-generated photos of the Northern Lights any worse than using Photoshop's Sky Replacement tool (above)? Or editing your photos with Adobe's Generative Fill? These are the kinds of questions that generative AI tools are raising on a daily basis - and this Meta misstep is an example of how thin the line can be. Many would argue that it ultimately comes down to transparency. The issue with Meta's post (which is still live) isn't the AI-generated Northern Lights images, but the suggestion that you could use them to simply fake witnessing a real news event. Transparency and honesty around an image's origins are as much the responsibility of the tech companies as it is their users. That's why Google Photos is, according to Android Authority, testing new metadata that'll tell you whether or not an image is AI-generated. Adobe has also made similar efforts with its Content Authenticity Initiative (CAI), which has been attempting to fight visual misinformation with its own metadata standard. Google recently announced that it will finally be using the CAI's guidelines to label AI images in Google Search results. But the sluggishness in adopting a standard leaves us in a limbo situation as AI image generators become ever-more powerful. Let's hope the situation improves soon - in the meantime, it seems incumbent on social media users to be honest when posting fully AI-generated images. And certainly for tech giants to not encourage them to do the opposite.

Meta's AI Northern Lights Post is a Stark Reminder of Big Tech's Contempt For Artists

Over the weekend, Meta's official Threads account posted a series of AI-generated images of major cities with the Northern Lights overhead along with the line, "You missed the northern lights IRL, so you made your own with MetaAI." It's a stark reminder of the contempt Meta, and much of big tech, have for artists. When I say contempt, I say it with an emphasis on the definition of the word that reads, "the feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration [or] worthless." It's not that Meta doesn't notice artists or know they exist on its platforms, it even understands that Instagram would not be what it is without them. But the leadership at Meta -- and many other large tech companies -- is that what artists do is of little value. Meta's post was met with the response you would expect from a platform that succeeds largely thanks to the artists who use it. "Utter rubbish," "ridiculous," "livin' the lie," "I'm disappointed with you," and "this is why we hate you" are just a few of the sentiments shared in response to Meta's post. But the social media company remains undeterred and at the time of publication, the post has not been removed. And why would Meta remove it? The company's actions show it clearly believes that making recreations of the spectacular aurora with AI is just as good as taking a photo. This is the same mentality that leads to celebrities simply taking a photographer's work and posting it without permission. When people don't foster a skill, they don't see the effort that goes into honing it into something that people want to see and enjoy. Many simply see photography and all visual arts as a means to promote something of theirs without considering what about the work makes it so good at being the impetus for that promotion. It's a remarkable show of cognitive dissonance: visual art is both worthless and valueless but at the same time the best medium for promotion. If you scrutinize generative AI as a concept for even a few minutes, this sentiment is hard not to see. It's a technology that takes something that used to cost money and takes a little bit of time and compresses it into something that's in many cases free and provides instant gratification. To get to that point, though, that technology first had to "learn" how to recreate these visuals by looking at what a human did first. But big companies, celebrities, and powerful people have been stealing photos for years, so asking a computer to do it hardly feels like a change in mental direction. It's business as usual. There is no such thing as a photo and we as users should be more concerned with how a memory made us feel than how it actually happened. There are exceptions to this mentality, but the vast majority of big tech is ready to forgo actual experiences if it means they can monetize faking it. The irony here is that despite their obvious contempt for visual artists, these companies need it. Their models rely on it. Generative AI is not capable of creating something new, it has to base it on something. When the technology has no human-created content to work with, it ends up producing visual garbage. Photographers are used to being undervalued and in the age of generative AI, nothing has changed except for at times, their overt disdain slips out from behind their mask.