382
The band Rush just put out a handful of gross and lazy AI-gen music videos. So sick of this trend/degradation
(media.piefed.world)
This careless interpretation (if you can even call it that) completely misrepresents the meaning of the original work. It represents the idea of using a delicate touch to handle something with the idea of punching it like a child would instead. As another song by them put it:
“Don't feed the people
But we feed the machines”
I feel like I say this a lot, probably because, AI is trying to force itself into my space every day. Anyhow, As a graphic designer...
I agree 100% that just because it's not your expertise doesn't make it better. I butt up against the need to use music and copy. I don't write and I can't compose music. I'm very conscious to not use AI for either. I just had to grab a 6 sec jingle for a podcast intro to accompany my graphics. I had the option to use AI from a stock music website, but I bought it from a human instead. Kind of sickening they even allow AI junk to be mixed in with human created content and make people pay for it.
Regardless how easy it is to do so, their is always something missing. That human touch. I have to explain it more and more and I'm holding to my guns. No AI in the creative spaces, no exceptions.
My biggest take on it, even if someday it does a better job. What are we saying as a society? That we'd rather give up our creativity and do the menial tasks instead? AI should be handing the boring repetitive tasks, not be the one doing the higher level art, that's just fucked. Where do people think that AI got it's ideas from, it stole it from us! Everything I put out is a piece of me, to have something gobble that up and regurgitate it is beyond offensive.
I don't know, I feel like I'm losing. Probably going to switch careers when I move on to my next gig. Before this their was always extremely low respect for what I do. Now I think no one cares they are putting out garbage, they just want to skip quality for quantity.
AI, by its very nature, is incapable of capturing the human condition.
No matter how extensive its datasets, this will never change. This is because the human condition is just that, flawed and twisted and emotional, in all the ways humans are, and all the ways programs fundamentally cannot be.
A computer program's only goal is to do what it is programmed to do perfectly. An issue arises when it tries to copy, or augment the human condition perfectly.
How can you perfectly augment something that is, by its very nature, unpredictably imperfect?
This is why AI created "art" is so uncanny and soulless; you cannot augment the human condition.
I think there's also the notion that people won't invest emotional time for nothing. It has to be part of a larger transaction with a human being. Even if the transaction is extremely lopsided, as in "I love Taylor swift but she doesn't know I exist", it still has to have a human recipient.
A good analogy is psychotherapy. 99% of the work is done by the patient, but it just doesn't work without the other human. The process absolutely requires an ape to meet with another ape for anything to happen. It would work better with an untrained psychologist, than with the best fine tuned "almost-AGI" model. It's not about performance it's really existential. The concept of therapy doesn't do anything for your brain just like the concept of a strawberry doesn't do anything for your mouth.
Just like the concept of a rock song or a painting doesn't do anything for your soul.