No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
Philosophically, yes. One is created with intent, one is created to mimic intent. Human made works can challenge norms and explore entirely new ways of thinking about a subject. AI content is essentially trying to take everything relevant to a given prompt, blend it together, and give you something that meets your expectations.
Now as far as is it practically the same, that's where things are going to start getting sticky. If an AI makes a piece of art that resonates with people the same way that a human created piece of art does, those feelings are just as genuine. There is no practical difference. We're seeing that right now with AI generated music. Just this week an AI country song hit #1 on billboard. The people that enjoy that song enjoy it regardless of how it was made. Personally, I think that country is kind of a low hanging fruit since it has effectively been following the same formula for a couple of decades, but it's a great proof of concept.
Yeah, I think AI optimising commercial music genres is just effectively doing what the corporate music industry has been doing for years anyway. It's like gamification of the auditory processing system.
Disagree slightly, human created content can have intent but doesn't automatically have it.
A corporate ad does not have any artistic merit besides grabbing as much attention as possible. Actually creative ads where some thought was put in are the very rare exception.
The same goes with a lot of pop music today. I cannot speak too much about English language pop but German pop is nothing more than fast food. See the Wikipedia article of Menschen Leben Tanzen Welt.
Or take a look at video games. How much artistic effort is put into AAA games? Maybe someone spent 40 hours making the lootboxes as satisfying as possible to open but that's probably where the most thought was put in.
And movies? Aren't Disney's recent "live remakes" of their old, successful animated movies anything but CGI slop? Sure, I admit it takes a lot of effort to make and animate all these models. Just like it takes effort to shit when you're constipated.
Honestly, the only thing distinguishing AI from megacorp content is that the latter has more consistency and fewer "mistakes" than the former. The sole intent of both is making money.
All very good points. Now the brakes are off and the corps can just churn out generic crap at an even more aggressive rate. Who knows, maybe the onslaught will end up pushing more people away from corporate content in the end. Or it'll kill small art creators more than companies already have. I'm choosing to have hope that enough people will make a conscious effort. Time will tell. Thanks for your thoughts!
From an article about the song: "AI artists won't require things that a real human artist will require, and once companies start considering it and looking at bottom lines, I think that's when artists should rightly be concerned about it," she added.
That quote explains all political theatre currently making the rounds. UBI or soylent green - which will win out?
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Culture/ai-generated-country-song-topping-billboards-country-digital/story?id=127445549
In the US? Soylent green all the way. If we had any ability to constrain capitalism from destroying art for profit, AI wouldn't essentially be a legal IP theft machine.
We thought it was bad when iheart took over all of the radio stations and the record labels started making bands to sell derivative music to the masses. AI is going to destroy any remaining ability for small artists to make profit off their work. It already has in quite a few spaces.
AI music really caught me off guard. One day I was looking for something very specific to vibe to. I wanted instrumental power metal, like Dragonforce but no vocals. And I found that in Metal Mastery, a YouTube channel. I liked it so much I looked into it more, turns out it's AI and the guy is very upfront about it and all. But I would have never known if I wasn't told. There's also nothing that really fills that niche either, so I still listen to the albums now and then.
I still think it's problematic to be making money off of AI music due to the nature of how the systems are trained. I do think it's significantly better when people are upfront about it in the way you describe. I have a huge problem with Spotify boosting it on their platform with no mention of the artist being AI anywhere, though.
Last night, some account spammed multiple communities and they got upvoted and some users replied, apparantly didn't realize it was a LLM bot (like 20 posts within a few hours, un-human). I also didn't notice at first glance, now I kinda feel like shit for even responding lmao. 2026 is gonna be even more cooked.
Yeah man, were rapidly approaching a point where society is "post-evidence". Seeing isn't believing anymore and a very large chunk of our society is built on the idea of proving things with audio/photo/video based evidence. I fear that our systems aren't protected against the volume and physical accuracy of what's becoming increasingly arbitrary to generate at home and at scale.
The legal system has some standards for evidence, but public discourse certainly doesn't.