I experimented with some ai generated political spam on YouTube. The reality is a lot of people can’t tell the difference or don’t care. Given the demographic this site selects for, it’s easy to forget how many dumb people there are in the world.

▲

o11c 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Remember that even ELIZA fooled people.

That doesn't make it useful, unless you think fooling people is itself a goal.

▲

jordanb 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I know people who get confused and consume AI content but when you point out that it's AI they're embarrassed they were fooled and upset. I've never heard the response "I don't care that it's AI." The tech bros will say that it's a "revealed preference" for AI, but it's really just tricking people into engaging.

▲

lotyrin 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I caught my mom watching a bunch of AI impersonations of musicians on Youtube singing slop that rarely rhymed or had any kind of message in the lyrics and with super formulaic arrangements. I asked her what she liked about them and it was like "they seem well made" and I showed her how easy Suno is to use and then showed her some of the bad missed rhymes and transcribed the lyrics to where she could see there wasn't any there there to any part of it (and how easy it is to get LLMs to generate better). It seemed to have been an antidote.

This is stuff that used to take effort and was worth consuming just for that, and lots of people don't have their filter adjusted (much as the early advent of consumer-facing email spam) to account for how low effort and plentiful these forms of content are.

I can only hope that people raise their filters to a point where scrutinizing everything becomes common place and a message existing doesn't lend it any assumed legitimacy. Maybe AI will be the poison for propaganda (but I'm not holding my breath).

▲

somenameforme 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The issue is that one could reasonably argue that about 95% of pop music is was already formulaic slop. Not just pejoratively, but much of it was even made by the same people. Everybody from Britney Spears to Taylor Swift and more modern acts are all being driven by one guy - 'Max Martin'. [1]

Once you see the songs he's credited with, you instantly start to realize it's painfully formulaic, but most people are happy to just bop their head to his formula of highly repetitive beats paired with simplistic and easy to sing 5-beat choruses.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Martin

	▲	palmotea a minute ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> The issue is that one could reasonably argue that about 95% of pop music is was already formulaic slop. The existence of some handmade slop does not justify vast qualities of even lower quality automated slop.
	▲	jordanb 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Max Martin is considered incredibly good at what he does. https://youtu.be/DxrwjJHXPlQ?si=m-A6M8xrad5MrQqZ&t=151 Adam Conover discussed ad bumpers from the 1990s and 2000s. These were legal requirements for children's programming from the FCC. They're a compliance item, yet they were incredibly well made and creative in in many cases: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vI0UcUxzrQ Because people at the top of their game will do great creative work even when doing commercial art and in many cases, will do way more than is perhaps commercially necessary. So much of this AI push reminds me of the scene in 1984 where they had pornography generating machines creating completely uninspired formulaic brainrot stories by machine to occupy the proles.
	▲	SoftTalker 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Also since autotune technology got good, a lot of them can’t even sing.
	▲	lotyrin 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I do argue that, actually. I mostly avoid manufactured corpo-pop.