ECO PRO
Balancing AI Photography and Conservation in Diving by Alex Brylske, Ph.D. , President, Ocean Education International, LLC
A S DIVE PROFESSIONALS, we’ve long realized that the ocean most people ‘know’ is the one they see in pictures. For non-divers, underwater reality is almost entirely shaped by us, our guidance, briefings, and in- creasingly, our images. In my August 2024 column, “Why
making dangerous encounters seem normal or portraying wildlife as greater threats than they really are.” She describes AI-generated big-cat attacks, fake leopard sightings in Indian cities, and even false CCTV-style tiger killings. Authorities have wasted valuable resources investigating scenes that never happened, leaving local communities more frightened and less trusting. Both Butler and Guynup also highlight a second, more subtle distortion: cute, anthro- pomorphized wildlife tigers lounging on hu- man backs, ‘pet-like’ animals cuddling with people, or exotic species decoratively arranged in living rooms. These images normalize close contact with and ownership of animals that are neither safe nor ethical, and they fuel the exotic pet trade. None of this is limited to terrestrial environments. It’s easy to imagine (and, in some parts of the internet, already see) AI-generated underwater scenes: whale sharks in areas where they don’t usually live, orcas playfully nudging toddlers, manta rays like household pets in pools, or ridiculously perfect coral reefs promoted for locations whose ecosystems collapsed years ago. For dive professionals, the risk is twofold: AI can exaggerate dangers when they are minimal and create false perceptions of health and beauty as they fade quickly. In addition to attention from popular media, a recent article in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Conservation Biology further explores the issue. Professor Jose Guerrero- Casado from Spain’s University of Cordoba and his colleagues explain why AI wildlife fakes spread so effectively, and why their consequences can be especially harmful to conservation. The authors list three traits of modern society that worsen the problem. First, the widespread influence of social media and realistic portrayals, whether true or fake, shapes attitudes toward wildlife, and engagement incentives (‘more clicks’) encourage sharing the most shareable images rather than the most truthful. Second, while promoting empathy for animals is positive, AI-driven narratives often exaggerate ‘human-like’ emotions and relationships, leading to widespread miscon- ceptions about animal behavior and ecology. Third, and perhaps most relevant to our industry, a growing disconnect
Take Bad Pictures?” I argued that we have an ethical duty to balance beauty shots with what I called ‘bad pictures’: images that genuinely document degradation, damage, and decline. Those ‘bad’ images, I suggested, are often the ones that most powerfully influence conser- vation. Over the past year, however, a new compli-
The question is no longer just: What kind of pictures should we take? It is now also: How do we maintain trust when pictures themselves can no longer be trusted?
PAGE FORTY-SIX | SCUBA DIVING INDUSTRY In her article, Guynup explains how this unfolds in practice: “Fake footage distorts public understanding of animal behavior, cation has emerged, one that fundamentally alters the stakes of our visual storytelling. AI-generated wildlife images and videos are now so realistic, common, and easy to produce that they are changing how the public perceives animals, ecosystems, and risk. This has major implications not only for land conservation but also for the oceans and for everyone involved in diving, tourism, and marine protection. The question is no longer just: What kind of pictures should we take? It is now also: How do we maintain trust when pictures themselves can no longer be trusted? This issue was recently highlighted by Rhett Butler, founder and CEO of the online magazine Mongabay , and Mongabay contributor Sharon Guynup. Their views have significant im- plications for the ocean and for everyone who works at the intersection of diving, tourism, and marine conservation. Butler’s article highlights the key issue: “AI-generated wildlife photos make conservation harder. Wildlife conservation relies on a shared understanding of reality, but as artificial images blur that line, conservation efforts become more challenging.” He points out that wildlife imagery has always been exaggerated: staged shark feeds, carefully composed reefs, and ‘once-in-a- lifetime’ encounters that somehow happen every week in marketing brochures. What has changed is the ‘speed, scale, plausibility, and ease’ with which AI now enables anyone often with no real connection to wildlife, to create convincing scenes. To experts, the errors may be obvious. To the public, they are not.
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker