Background music in distracting environments, where the listening is maybe the third or fourth thing I'm doing, maybe AI will be acceptable.
The irony of reading an article that talks about AI slop that clearly seems to have been written by AI. Hey, I could be completely wrong, and it wasn't, but there are so many flags.
Do I care? Not really, but whoever wrote this is right. I guess we developed a pattern recognition for these things
What if it advances to a point where people can't? Chances are that's anywhere between "we're already past that point" and "could be a decade or more away" depending on the type of work.
Imho AI is ultimately just a tool. Use where it improves things, avoid where it doesn't. Right now companies seem to try & shove it everywhere. Which clearly isn't working.
Vindaloo [price]
[short description]
Vindaloo [price] |red curdled horror|
[emoji riddled description] |in a weird bowl |Personally I used to love Markov Chains, Kalman filters, Supervised learning, etc. and resent the fact that people called it AI. But LLM has nothing but hate from my heart. Ironically, I love that people call it AI, and do so enthusiastically my self. A bad and hyped up technology deserves a bad and hyped up name.
Ironically, I can't think of a platform that does personalization worse. Not only does it regularly surface music I don't like, it surfaces the exact same music I don't like over and over again. I don't know whether this is bad recommendation or their pushing music on me (ie payola) but it's supremely irritating.
I would have thought that adding semantic search to a photos app might be a better example of good AI, not these bolted-on-top examples.
Well, in general I do not care either way. I regard all ads as propaganda that attempts to steal my time. However had, even then it is indeed true that AI just is an additional annoyance factor, because it means that no real human really invested time - just AI slop that is spammed down onto people, and wastes their time. So I don't agree with the premise in the article to begin with, but most assuredly it is also true that AI slop just is pissing off people. I am noticing this on youtube too and although I don't have data, it seems that enough people were annoyed that the no-AI movement gained more grounds in the last some weeks. Hopfully we'll eventually reach AI extinction - not likely to happen, since some humans are already addicted to AI (see all "contributed with claude" on github spam), but I regard this as a noble goal. Rid this world of AI.
- not their target group, thinking it was cringe and boomer-ish
- their uncritical target group, who loved a polished picture of blonde people
Soon - and even now - there are people getting away with using it that you guys can’t detect.
Including young illustrators on Twitter with a whole audience convinced they are drawing by hand.
Companies will do the same. At the very least they are offloading accountability so they can do a big apology every time they are caught (they are especially doing this in AAA games).
People like the anti-AI HN crowd are basically forcing everyone to start lying about AI.
They’re gonna use it no matter what, but people will come up with all sorts of excuses how it counts as personal use or they “didn’t know” and only the honest users of it who actually disclose tools will get roasted.
It would be a billion times better if everyone - especially technically inclined - embraced new technology and realized it isn’t going away no matter how much you complain. It’s just like those who complained about CGI in film - those complaints just got quieter and film studios got quiet about the technology until it was more accepted.
You’re allowed to criticize art, but you’re alienating yourselves as consumers, as gamers, and connoisseurs by acting so over-the-top.
that's called being a grifter not an illustrator
In the case of AI generated imagery, maybe it will get to the point where people can't tell just by looking at it. If it does, at what cost? It seems to me that token cost is rising, I can't help but wonder if hiring an illustrator might end up being less expensive in the long run.
The first thing I do when I find a nice track is to lookup the album and the artist. I may not like all the tracks on the album, or all the albums of the artists. But the album vision and the artist motivation and skills is why an album (I listen by album) get added to my collection. That collection is meaningful for me, not for the quality of the tracks (which is fairly subjective) but the emotional resonance I have with it. Kinda like the house I grew up vs a random penthouse. An AI produce piece may be nice, but it won’t have the emotional depth to anchor it for me.
But I feel you are underestimating how much people care about the artist as well. Could AI get that level of support from people knowing its not a real human being? I don't think so. I mean most artist stories are also fabricated but if you explictly tell people hey this is like not real at all and fully ai but its a rapper from this particular city who grew up struggling with this particular issue so people from that city and facing those issues could relate to him probably, dont think it will work because people will still know its a bot pretending to be from their city and facing their particular issue.
Lastly i also generally public likes authenticity and the idea of an algorithm just spamming music is not very inspiring in that regard. Maybe in a blind test, they wouldn't even be able to tell which track is ai and which is not but the moment you tell them which one it is, they will likely think its bad, because who made the art completely changes the prespective of the consumer
Setting aside how simplistic a simple good/bad scale for any art is, who made a piece of music and what they were expressing with it is absolutely part of the quality consideration.
Sure, but that seems largely irrelevant to what's being discussed here.
The public in general is anti-AI, so any marketeer thinking that associating AI with their brand is a positive is misreading the room, and any thinking that the public are unable to detect it most of the time, especially in something like a video, are just wrong.
Is that going to change - will AI-generated content become harder to detect? Sure, but "we know the public hate this, but we can con them" doesn't really sound like a recipe for success. In a world increasingly awash with AI generated content, it's easy to predict that human-generated content and interaction is going to be increasingly valued, and smart companies will realize this.
You really need to get out of your echo chamber – the public is not even in the slightest "anti AI" it's pretty limited to corporate shills and (oldish) luddites.
The vast majority of people literally don't care. Bitching about new technology literally does nothing. In general bitching is pretty pointless but especially if you believe it's going to curtail the advancement of creative technology lol It is never going to happen.
I comment because it's painful to see!
Oh, I get that. LLMs are here to stay, like pyramid and Ponzi schemes, like Bitcoin and NFTs. It will be here until it isn't or we aren't. (And it just may help with that last.)
Like for example a lot of legitimate and useful companies are completely dependent on the advertisement, which is a net negative absolutely vile and disgusting invention. But we all collectively picked option to defect, and not because we are bad humans, and are paying for that decision collectively too.
hope this isnt some smartass selfrefretial joke
sirnicolaz•1h ago
trollbridge•1h ago
verzali•48m ago
okamiueru•41m ago
I dislike AI because the result has consistently been bad. The most enthusiastic AI co-workers are producing garbage at a 100x rate, while the non-enthusiastic responsible ones are left reading and reviewing it.
Analemma_•55m ago