Estate agent AI photographs.

Herzlos

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82159062#Comment_82159062

It serves to show the house off and entice buyers. Everyone expects them to be fairly generous but I've seen ones where it's completely changed the house - adding 30+ year trees to gardens, moving paths, moving internal features like Emily mentioned.

People expect the advert to be "sort of accurate" and not presenting a fictional house.

saajan_12

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82159182#Comment_82159182

Absolutely and I'm not condoning the practice. I just mean we're nowhere near illegal with the amount of creative licence allowed in other advertising imagery. Especially where in properties the ad is followed up by an in person viewing and often surveys, not just a contract concluded based off an ad.

Dustyevsky

I'd like to send a few complainants back to the days of a grainy B&W photo in a newspaper, and that's if you were lucky.

My first house was bought from a single 3 or 4 line ad in the local rag. Despite that, it went to sealed bids within a week.

"Aye, we had it tough!"

Herzlos

That was as much as the technology could do that and expectations matched. You didn't know what the house looked like until you visited.

I guess we've come back round to that, whilst you can have 3d walkarounds and high definition images, you now can't be sure you know what the house looks like until you visit.

AI is pretty succesfully rendering virtually all digital information useless.

MyRealNameToo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82160174#Comment_82160174

But what information isnt digital these days? How many people still use film cameras? Even if you do you can scan the negative still. Plus its not limited to digitial, you can use AI to touch up a photo or even generate a photo and then print it out the same way as you print a photo you've taken yourself so just because your holding a leaflet in your hand doesnt make it any less suspect.

Its not as if photo editing etc is unique to AI anyway, even before computers people would do a double exposure if they wanted it to appear that there was a fairy at the bottom of the garden and its not like all published books are fact checked else we wouldnt have had the anti-vax leaflets in the 1800s claimig the small pox vaccine turned you into a cow with most famous one having the "ox faced boy" on it.

Herzlos

Photo editing used to involve some effort, whether that was messing with paper in the darkroom, or editing digital images, but the output was at least controlled by the author.

AI total opens the floodgates to automatically feed anything through it and the output is at risk of any kind of halucination to meet the brief. I've seen people asking AI to clean up old family photos and having strangers appear in them.


And yeah, virtually everything is digital now so we need to accept that it's all garbage.

Yorkie1

I've seen the same photos in more than one property advert - the ad indicated it was "so you could see what was possible" … so although it was not hidden, it was likewise hardly representative if reused in multiple different houses!