Sure works, but not for a photojournalist 
Please expand. The subject was rather oriented as being technical, but we can go this way up, as well.
Here my piece:
From Shadows to Pixels: AI and the Cave of Perception
Plato’s Allegory of the Cave describes people chained in darkness, seeing only shadows cast on a wall. For them, those shifting silhouettes are reality itself—until one escapes and discovers the dazzling truth outside. When he returns to share it, the others resist. The illusion is simply more comfortable.
In many ways, artificial intelligence in photography has built a new version of that cave. The shadows are no longer cast by firelight but by neural networks. Instead of physical puppeteers, algorithms decide what we see—what’s beautiful, believable, and even “real.”
For most of photography’s history, the camera acted as a witness, tethering us to the world through light and chemistry. A photo might have been framed or edited, but it still carried the weight of something that had been. With AI, that anchor has drifted. Images can now be generated entirely from text, assembled from data, or reimagined beyond recognition. They no longer record the world—they invent it.
That doesn’t make AI an enemy of truth. Like Plato’s freed prisoner, we might discover that the shadows were only one step toward a broader vision. Every artistic tool, from pigment to pixel, has extended human imagination beyond the visible. The danger lies not in the technology itself, but in mistaking its simulations for reality.
Today’s photographers and viewers must learn to see the code behind the light—to step outside the digital cave and recognize the difference between image and illusion. In that awareness lies our creative freedom: not the rejection of AI, but the understanding of what its shadows truly mean.
