I tried it on a few of my pictures. I didn't think the feedback it offered was very useful, but I was kind of staggered by its ability to recognize things in a photo. It identified this as including weeds, machinery, metal, and a tire. It didn't identify a tractor, though.
2/
I thought I'd throw it for a loop with something really abstract, but it surprised me by identifying rust and a "cutout" in the surface, which indeed, it is. It did describe the un-rusted parts on the left as "muddy lighting," though.
3/
I tried getting ChatGPT's feedback on this William Eggleston photo, and the machine was (to my surprise) entirely negative. Its critiques were not crazy: "Composition Feels Loose," "Lack of a Strong Visual Hierarchy," "Scene Risks Looking Accidental Rather Than Intentional." (Aren't an awful lot of photos made to record scenes that are "accidental rather than intentional?)
But all of that could all be summarized as "This doesn't conform with the conventional wisdom of what 'good' photography is."
In this task, at least, I feel ChatGPT is akin to a dancing bear or a singing frog: Enormously surprising and impressive, but perhaps not as much use as the hype men were hoping for.
/fin
