AI singer-songwriter ‘Anna Indiana’ debuted her first single ‘Betrayed by this Town’ on X, formerly Twitter—and listeners were not too impressed.

  • PoisonedPrisonPanda@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Looking at the hateful comments gives me shivers when thinking how humans will proceed with machines on an emotional level.

    If we ever reach sentinent AI, it will go towards I-Robot plot. Ill bet.

    Edit typos

  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    There can be nothing new or original out of AI because all of its inputs are stolen from what already exists. Real creativity comes solely from humans. Also, that clip - the song, singing, and visual - is dreadful in every way.

    This needs to be hammered into techbro’s heads until they shut the fuck up about the so-called “AI” revolution.

    • Hubi@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Still, AI is able to “create” new things by a combination of existing concepts. It can generate a Roomba in the style of Van Gogh for example, which is probably not something that currently exists.

    • aelwero@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Except that it’s wrong… AI is capable of creativity. It created the artist name. It’s clearly not a very developed or robust sense of creativity because it clearly just hashed up the name Hanna Montana, and the song is probably likewise just a hashed up existing song, but I’m guessing it probably did a better job of creating an original work than vanilla ice…

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Right just as soon as all the people proclaiming that can point to the soul bit of my brain. There is absolutely no reason to say that AI cannot be creative there’s nothing fundamentally magic about creativity that means only humans can do it.

      • Mahlzeit@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        The belief that only humans can be creative is interestingly parallel to intelligent design creationism. The latter is fundamentally a religious faith, but it strongly appeals to the intuition that anything that happens needs a humanoid creator.

      • Knusper@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        I don’t think, the human brain is special either, but we are still two big steps ahead IMHO:

        • We can perceive what we’ve generated, to judge whether it’s good or bad.
        • We perceive many, many inputs throughout our lives. Not just text, visuals, audio, but also taste, smell, touch and more. To be simultaneously creative and relatable to humans, AIs would need to be equipped with these concepts and would need to be given ‘memories’, which are fleshed out with all these kinds of input.
  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    This is the worst AI will ever be, again.

    Right now, at the end of 2023, you are seeing barely a year of public interest and widespread development, after maybe a decade of slowly grinding academic experimentation. And already it’s enough to build some Vocaloid knockoff from scratch. You can tell it’s fake, as surely as a seven-fingered hand on some anime girl staring dead into the camera. But if you think all AI drawings still look like that… you should go check.

    This isn’t a threat to artists, though. It’s a threat to the industry. Real human beings who want to make art will have more and better tools than ever before. Audiences that want an endless spigot of AI content… won’t need recording studios. You can already run this stuff on your computer. Some networks are getting better by getting bigger, which demands a really fancy computer. Other networks are getting better by getting smaller. Smaller networks train faster, even if they’re deeper, more abstract, and less predictable. They run faster, too, and on lesser hardware.

    Hold onto your butts, folks. It’s gonna get weird.

    Also, far from the most pressing issue here, but: just say Twitter. You don’t have to respect the stupid rebrand. You know it’s stupid because everyone keeps clarifying what they mean.

    • RickyRigatoni@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Elon has no problem with people deadnaming trans people on his website so why should we avoid deadnaming his website.

      • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        The actions of bigots are not a good “golden rule” situation. You are called what you want to be called.

        But a business is not a person. Fuck what they want. Businesses are called whatever people recognize.

        Same shit goes for Blackwater and Facebook. Reputation is a necessary part of commerce and politics, and escaping it through shell games is idiotic bullshit we should never respect.

        • sic_1@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          This is a good and valid point but in the case of X, the real shit show started after our during the renaming period. Do if you want to point out the idiotic bullshit, I think X is the way to go. Nevertheless, that’s hard to pronounce, like “I re-X-ed your X” sounds like a messed up relationship issue.