#but now it’s like—compared to AI generated content (‘slop’)

[hungergameshyperfixation]

I’ve seen AI images of Katniss and Peeta on Pinterest (like, painfully obvious ai) and all I have to say is that we truly need to re-embrace the art of shitty photoshopping. I’m begging. I cannot stand to see any more AI; I would literally rather see a million photo edits of Peeta and Katniss’s heads put over stock images, with a B&W filter over the image, and a white text caption in cursive font about love. I’d take 100 “cringy” imagines and personally frustrating fan theories over circulating AI image generated stuff.

At least those are all made by real people 💀

I guess you really don’t know what you have until it’s missing.

[probablyasocialecologist]

Regardless of what companies and investors may say, artificial intelligence is not actually intelligent in the way most humans would understand it. To generate words and images, AI tools are trained on large databases of training data that is often scraped off the open web in unimaginably large quantities, no matter who owns it or what biases come along with it. When a user then prompts ChatGPT or DALL-E to spit out some text or visuals, the tools aren’t thinking about the best way to represent those prompts because they don’t have that ability. They’re comparing the terms they’re presented with the patterns they formed from all the data that was ingested to train their models, then trying to assemble elements from that data to reflect what the user is looking for. In short, you can think of it like a more advanced form of autocorrect on your phone’s keyboard, predicting what you might want to say next based on what you’ve already written and typed out in the past. If it’s not clear, that means these systems don’t create; they plagiarize. Unlike a human artist, they can’t develop a new artistic style or literary genre. They can only take what already exists and put elements of it together in a way that responds to the prompts they’re given. There’s good reason to be concerned about what that will mean for the art we consume, and the richness of the human experience.

[...]

AI tools will not eliminate human artists, regardless of what corporate executives might hope. But it will allow companies to churn out passable slop to serve up to audiences at a lower cost. In that way, it allows a further deskilling of art and devaluing of artists because instead of needing a human at the center of the creative process, companies can try to get computers to churn out something good enough, then bring in a human with no creative control and a lower fee to fix it up. As actor Keanu Reeves put it to Wired earlier this year, “there’s a corporatocracy behind [AI] that’s looking to control those things. … The people who are paying you for your art would rather not pay you. They’re actively seeking a way around you, because artists are tricky.” To some degree, this is already happening. Actors and writers in Hollywood are on strike together for the first time in decades. That’s happening not just because of AI, but how the movie studios and steaming companies took advantage of the shift to digital technologies to completely remake the business model so workers would be paid less and have less creative input. Companies have already been using AI tools to assess scripts, and that’s one example of how further consolidation paired with new technologies are leading companies to prioritize “content” over art. The actors and writers worry that if they don’t fight now, those trends will continue — and that won’t just be bad for them, but for the rest of us too.

[bravecrab]

Some thoughts about Spotify's "AI" DJ:

The DJ doesn't seem like an issue compared to other generative "AI", it's not using data sets of stolen intellectual property, and I've seen it being applauded as the Right Kind of AI. However, I want to consider what potential harm it might be doing, to the consumer users of Spotify, and the musicians on the platform.

The way people use Spotify differs from person to person, but I've spoken to many people whose use of Spotify is mostly listening to the various playlists provided by Spotify. They're already curated by genre or vibe, so it's pretty easy for the consumer to find something that fills their need. This is, however, harder on the musicians who now have to spend a significant effort trying to get onto those playlists.

The DJ seems to be a continuation of this, except using an "AI" to at least act as a presenter of what is essentially a mix of your most played songs and some artists who play similar music. I would not be surprised if there is large adoption of DJ, that they might add a chatbot function to ask your mood or what genre you want to hear right now, although I can't imagine it getting any more complex than that. It's just merging Playlist Listening, with a high-tech looking interface, trying to cash in on "AI" hype. This will likely mean more people listening to Spotify playlists rather than non-Spotify curated playlists, meaning it's even more important for artists to get on them.

Another thing I want to highlight is that I find the use of "AI" assistance to curate a near endless stream of content worrying. This isn't new, this is just another algorithm like those used by social media and youtube, to capture our attention, and encourage addiction. Having a little DJ pal to do your thinking for you, slopping "good enough" content suggestions into your music trough, is eroding agency away from consumers. Spotify doesn't care about music, it cares about getting the most engagement.

There is also the threat that "AI" generated music, away from all the expenses of labour costs, will likely become a thing, and the way they will sneak it into the ears of consumers will be through the use of things like Spotify DJ. Mindful consumption is required to make sure that the musicians, who are already getting a shit deal by having to use a platform that undervalues their work, do not have that work further undervalued, or are pushed out of the profession entirely.

[eldritchtouched]

Honestly, it's a whole rabbit hole, how capitalism has altered various storytelling trends and media creation.

It's a fucking nightmare.

There's how "cash cow" franchises which are never allowed to end because it makes loads of money. However, this completely fucks up the narrative and pacing of those works because companies will milk that cow until it dies, and the creators are kind of stuck in making it until that point if they want to continue to, you know, eat and not get blacklisted by publishers/companies/etc. and stuff.

It's also why American soap operas are structured like they are, compared to telenovelas. (America's form of capitalism is Ayn Rand's wet dream of the unregulated uber-wealthy taking everything and sabotaging everyone else for their own greed.) Soap operas are meant to continue indefinitely with a changing cast, while telenovelas are meant to tell a complete story with a beginning and an end and are written with that end in mind.

Conversely, it's why some series and shows get cut off after a single season or two despite being successful. They weren't doing insanely, impossibly well, so they get cut short. It's to the point that writers are now writing around it, like the people making that new Scott Pilgrim show mentioned they were writing it around having only one season.

The increasing speed that puts undue strain on creators. Creators, artists, writers, etc., are being pushed to make more and more stuff at faster rates. Game industry practices like crunch are a good example of this, but it also applies more generally, like with how artists doing commissions online have to work at a much, much faster pace than artists have ever had to back in the day. People burn out because this kind of pace is simply unsustainable.

Audiences have several different things going on as well. Such as people being burnt out by the constant deluge that they want all "filler" (i.e. narrative breathing room) cut out of a work and stuff to only serve the plot. They want to engage with the work, but since there's so many to engage with, anything seen as irrelevant is seen as wasting the audience's time. Or else stuff like the mentioned lack of patience for sequels.

This in turn also ties into the "AI" "art" bullshit- a machine can infinitely pump out content slop forever, while a normal creator will inevitably burn out from this kind of pace. All that work is stolen from people's countless dedicated years of effort, only to be sold back to everyone to endlessly make the line go up, too. Because that's the one thing capitalism is good at- the merciless exploitation of people.

In ye olde days, a lot of writers did a lot of what is now called "purple prose." Many people were paid by the word, so overwriting passages was how you ensured you made more money.

It's also tied into stuff like copyright lengths, gating off massive swaths of culture behind either transformative works which cannot make money while still being recognizable as works relating to that original cultural thing (ie why fanfiction is generally unable to be monetized unless you file the serial numbers off), or else requiring some agreement with the rights holders and paying them loads of money for the right to make the story. It's why everyone uses Sherlock Holmes and Lovecraft's stuff and the Iliad, but not, IDK, Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings unless they change all the names and change enough stuff to avoid getting sued into the dirt.

It's also why you get stuff like the constant fucking remakes and adaptations of already existing properties, without generally changing things up, and few original works. Original works take risks and risks can either pay off substantially, or else bomb. But companies don't want to take risks because it's a gamble.

And then there's how various cultural things get reinforced by what is allowed to be made and by who. You aren't going to get something which ruthlessly mocks Disney's gluttony from Disney, for example. It's also why status quo narratives tend to be very mainstream (with characters who point out the need for change being villainized and given random uncharacteristic evil actions to avoid audience sympathy). Anything which seriously questions the status quo may resonate with someone, BUT it's also far less marketable to the people who have most of the money and are doing relatively well...

Like, beyond the whole reading speed discourse (I genuinely think you should let people read slow or fast as they damn well please) there is a deliberate commercial aspect to the notion of reading lots of books per year. It didn't sprout out of nowhere. Goodreads challenging you to read as many books as possible cannot be divorced from the fact that books are a physical product that someone is trying to sell to you.