Shakira posts AI video for her song with Anitta

[Teletubby 159,807]

https://www.instagram.com/p/DXcnjeJik1t/

Edited April 22 by Teletubby

[Jill 31,298]

People will complain but we have to get used to it. Technology doesn't go back. It never does, it never did.

[timdrake 1,673]

lame

[Hydrangea 7,113]

5 minutes ago, Jill said:

People will complain but we have to get used to it. Technology doesn't go back. It never does, it never did.

Because all technology ever has been successful and used still

[timdrake 1,673]

2 minutes ago, Jill said:

People will complain but we have to get used to it. Technology doesn't go back. It never does, it never did.

I don't think people DO need to get used to it.

Sure, it will be more and more unsurprising when people use it, but I'm not going to lower my standards & expectations of artists when they share computer-generated slop. I'll be just as judgmental of it in the future as I am now.

[Jill 31,298]

2 minutes ago, timdrake said:

I don't think people DO need to get used to it.

Sure, it will be more and more unsurprising when people use it, but I'm not going to lower my standards & expectations of artists when they share computer-generated slop. I'll be just as judgmental of it in the future as I am now.

Same thing they said when we transitioned from silent films to sound, or from 2D to 3D animation and many other examples.

[tylerjs 6,069]

Yeah idk I just find the “it’s inevitable” take so defeatist, like people can absolutely refuse and shame this sort of garbage and change the trajectory of its rise. they just need to be okay with shaming people publicly for it

[Jill 31,298]

4 minutes ago, Hydrangea said:

Because all technology ever has been successful and used still

It's honestly unbelievable to me how far removed some people seemingly are from the concrete facts and the deep penetration of AI into the production processes of countless high value industries and pipelines around the world. It's not a hobby or a fad. It has a very real and firmly established presence. It's not only chatbots or videos, although they are a part of it too. It's has a very large presence. There's no turning back.

[Jill 31,298]

Just now, tylerjs said:

Yeah idk I just find the “it’s inevitable” take so defeatist, like people can absolutely refuse and shame this sort of garbage and change the trajectory of its rise. they just need to be okay with shaming people publicly for it

I'm not a defeatist. I'm an optimist. AI as a technology has the potential to actually help people. The problem isn't AI, it's how capitalism handles it.

[tylerjs 6,069]

Just now, Jill said:

I'm not a defeatist. I'm an optimist. AI as a technology has the potential to actually help people. The problem isn't AI, it's how capitalism handles it.

I simply disagree. There are swaths of technologies that are widespread right now that people are finding they do not actually want in their daily lives, and their presences in our lives consequently decrease over time because of it. The problem is, absolutely, in believing that AI will ever be complex enough to perfectly mimic the processes of the human mind because the human mind is imperfect and not truly predictable to every degree. Because of that, AI is useless. We have plenty of advanced tech as it is, we do not need to relinquish our means of using it for ourselves to automated imitations of thought.

[Jill 31,298]

3 minutes ago, tylerjs said:

I simply disagree. There are swaths of technologies that are widespread right now that people are finding they do not actually want in their daily lives, and their presences in our lives consequently decrease over time because of it. The problem is, absolutely, in believing that AI will ever be complex enough to perfectly mimic the processes of the human mind because the human mind is imperfect and not truly predictable to every degree. Because of that, AI is useless. We have plenty of advanced tech as it is, we do not need to relinquish our means of using it for ourselves to automated imitations of thought.

Again, you're limiting AI to a very superficial consumer-facing product. That's not the entirety of AI, it's more like 10% of it. And I absolutely don't think AI will achieve AGI anytime soon. It's a pattern-based tool, simply an evolution of mathematical calculations based on our language and use of information. The same way we evolved to adopt machinery during the Industrial Revolution, we will do the same with AI. It's happened countless times and everytime people would say "no, not this!" yet the nature of human evolution always prevailed.

Edited April 22 by Jill

[timdrake 1,673]

10 minutes ago, Jill said:

Same thing they said when we transitioned from silent films to sound, or from 2D to 3D animation and many other examples.

I feel like that's apples and oranges. Sound for film is still created by artists, as is 3D animation. Computer-generated content is an amalgamation of other works, put together by a computer. It's just empty and so uninteresting. 

[Jill 31,298]

1 minute ago, timdrake said:

I feel like that's apples and oranges. Sound for film is still created by artists, as is 3D animation. Computer-generated content is an amalgamation of other works, put together by a computer. It's just empty and so uninteresting. 

AI still needs to be handled by humans, repaired by humans, overseen by humans. To say otherwise is to have a very simplistic and idealized conception of it.

Edited April 22 by Jill

[tylerjs 6,069]

4 minutes ago, Jill said:

Again, you're limiting AI to a very superficial consumer-facing product. That's not the entirety of AI, it's more like 10% of it. And I absolutely don't think AI will achieve AGI anytime soon. It's a pattern-based tool, simply an evolution of mathematical calculations based on our language and use of information. The same way we evolved to adopt machinery during the Industrial Revolution, we will do the same with AI. It's happened countless times and everytime people would say "no, not this!" yet the nature of human evolution always prevailed.

True but there are many times when tech has become widespread and done us poorly, and now we’re stuck because we didn’t stop it before it was too ingrained. I also understand the benefits and potential of machine learning, which I find totally opposite of anything intelligence-imitation type AI would be working toward

[timdrake 1,673]

7 minutes ago, Jill said:

AI still needs to be handled by humans, repaired by humans, overseen by humans. To say otherwise is to have a very simplistic and idealized idea of it.

I'm not talking about AI as a whole, it has its potential positive uses in society, but I'm talking specifically about the types of posts Shakira made, or how other artists like Nicki Minaj, Katy Perry, and Ava Max have used it.

In Shakira's case, that's not her in the video, it's an AI generated approximation of her. The jewelry she's wearing isn't real. The location she's at isn't real, it's not even a location shot for a green screen, It's just hollow and fake and uninteresting. 

I understand that it needs to be "overseen" by humans when they're using their little prompts to churn out AI-generated videos, but to me that's so far removed from what art should be that I don't care to see it. 

Edited April 22 by timdrake