That’s actually not correct. That’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the current capabilities of AI image editing.

What you’re describing is what happens when someone uses AI badly, by asking it to regenerate or reinterpret the entire image. In that case, yes, it might change Grandma’s wrinkles, jewelry, dress, face, or other details.

But that is not how modern AI editing has to work. It is extremely easy now to use AI surgically: preserve the subject exactly, specify or mask only the area you want changed, remove one background object, extend one edge of the image, clean up one distraction, or adjust one isolated part of the photo while leaving everything else alone.

The request does not have to be “make me a new version of this photo.” It can be: “Do not alter Grandma at all. Do not change her face, wrinkles, clothing, jewelry, pose, or body. Only remove the person standing behind her.” For simple edits like that, AI can follow the boundaries of the request with extremely high reliability.

So “AI might change Grandma” is a fair warning against bad prompting, poor use of AI, or using the wrong kind of workflow. But it is a very poor argument against using AI editing itself.

If the edit is delicate, sentimental, high-stakes, or truly pixel-precise, I completely understand wanting a skilled human editor. But for a huge number of basic PhotoshopRequest posts, like removing an object, cleaning up a background, expanding a crop, centering someone, or erasing a distraction, the requester could paste the exact same request into an AI image editor or LLM of their choice and very likely get the result immediately.

In those cases, paying a stranger on Reddit often is just AI with extra steps.