As long as they're not GenAI altered photos, I'm cool with these things.

I'm a pretty avid member of various history groups, and one thing that has absolutely driven me nuts for the past couple of years is how many people there are that use AI for upscaling and colorization of photos - not knowing or noticing how the models fundamentally alter the photos. A couple of zooms in on the photo, and it is nightmare fuel.

A week ago me and some members spent a couple of hours trying to find a building from the early 1900s, because someone had uploaded a photo and asked about the building. Sifted through old maps, newspapers, etc. but couldn't find anything. Turns out said photo had been upscaled via AI, which in turn had added some buildings here and there.

But, yeah, for stuff like OP posted it could work out nicely.

I have mixed feelings about this. It's absolutely phenomenal that such a treasure trove was unlocked thanks to AI, but presenting the AI results are "definitive" (even with an "edit" or "report" feature that's applied equally to human-located and AI-located results) isn't really a win. The old dataset might have been incomplete, but where locations were determined, they were a result of a (probably neural/autistic/ocd) human contributor that had some measure of true confidence in the results. AI contributions are great, but imho they should never be allowed to freely mix with and dilute human contributions: the resulting dataset is permanently polluted.

Ideally they'd always carry an "AI-generated" flag (in the db and in the frontend) until manually reviewed (or never) by a human. If anything, this is actually in AI proponent's favor as it would let you periodically regenerate or cross-validate (a subset of) the AI contributions some years down the line when newer and better models are released!

AI had been a super useful for processing historical data. Interviewed a volunteer last month from the diary archive in Germany, and they're using supervised AI for diary transcription. Going from (old) personalized hand script to text is a lot of work, even for experienced transcribers. Being able to automate the first pass of that has been a huge boon to their processing pipeline.

It really says something about the current state of affairs that after reading the headline, my first thought was oh god no, the photos are probably all hallucinated...

But it's actually really cool how they used AI to better determine the locations of the photos. I love this!

I checked 3 spots I'm familiar with and 1 is wrong

https://www.oldnyc.org/#707133f-a this is supposed to be here https://www.oldnyc.org/#702487f-a

also, if folks are interested in these old depictions of NYC, check out https://1940s.nyc/ as well!

Super cool project, nice work.

This is pretty sweet. Funny seeing all the dots circling around New York and then abruptly stopping at Jersey City.

If the images are "edited by AI" then they are not. They are prompted by the source image, but a new image is generated.

I haven't seen an "AI edited" image that hasn't changed important details, and so the result is just yet more slop.

Very cool! I am surprised at the use of 4o, but I guess it was pretty good at OCR for its time