AI George Carlin
- Thread starter Mistake
- Start date
Jinzo Prime
Member
That's the proper response to all this.
Vicetrailia
Banned
SuperBabyMethod
Member
Huge Carlin fan and I thought it was funny as fuck. It doesn't sound like him much but it does a good job of mimicking his cadence and style.
E-Cat
Member
My cat can play chess, but his endgame is weak
E-Cat
Member
It did, maybe towards the latter half?
Tams
Member
Well, he is dead, so...
Chuck Berry
Gold Member
What's your point Vanessa?
Danteyke223
Member
That god part is a literal rehash of one of his older material, and it almost sounds verbatim the same jokes from decades ago.
This is just depressing.
This is just depressing.
FullMetalx117
Member
Wonder if we'll eventually see copyright laws for someone's likeness once they die. Would rather not, heirs should make their own money. Not rely on father's, many don't.
abstract alien
Member
This is amazing to be honest. We've come from stupid robot voices that can barely do text to speech, to AI generated personalities that can imitate.
E-Cat
Member
That's what the recent Hollywood actors' fuss is all about.
Totally. People who diss this are missing the forest for the trees. "It's not even as funny as George Carlin" -- umm, it's a fucking AI that's imitating George Carlin. It's taken a text file and spit out audio that sounds like a dead person talking. That's fucking AMAZING!
How quickly we adapt...
Last edited:
ultrazilla
Gold Member
No thanks. I'll re-watch his older specials when he was alive.
I'm more worried about the implications of people who are so desperate to generate and consume endless slops of 'entertainment' that they're literally willing to revive an actual deceased celebrity to spew purely hypothetical bullshit for them. Do you not see how low that bar is?
But it's literally not that impressive. I feel all this AI shit is targeting the lowest common denominator, in this case people who don't get off their couch much.
E-Cat
Member
I'm not sure what you mean by "purely hypothetical".
I feel like you're approaching this from a content / societal impact angle, whereas I'm looking strictly at the text-to-speech generation. It IS impressive. I have been waiting for 20 years for a computer to do that.
the dead are dead. their brains stop putting out information based on previously received inputs. no algorithm can replace that.
My bad. I was talking about both really. But yes we've come a long way since Microsoft Sam and the like. Something I was actually enthralled by as a kid. But I don't see how it's neat at best. Feel like I'm taking crazy pills in that regard when I see people losing their shit over it lol.
Mistake
Member
Did you ever look into how long it took apple to make siri? Now some rando with a YouTube channel can do it, with a lot less effort. It actually is quite impressive. Some videos with dead music artists were very cool, and generated art is making a lot of controversy these days
I think the scariest part of this AI stuff are all the incoming scams we have yet to see. Scambots are going to be insane.
E-Cat
Member
That's not really the point of the video, I think. They're not trying to create the impression that this is comparable to new content from Carlin if he were alive. It's interpolating new stuff based on his past work and current trends. Of course it's derivative, AI is not at human levels yet to where it can be genuinely creative in the same way as us. It gave me "Carlin vibes" nevertheless.
Text-to-speech is practically solved. If that doesn't impress you, I don't know what will lol
Purely from a technical standpoint, I sorta agree.
I'm more worried about the opposite. I've seen too many people dismiss genuine information with actual video proof as being AI generated. Which is what I meant by lowest common denominator. Dummies will not be able to see the difference. Too bad dummies make up for the majority of the population.
a machine that can toast bread and make a good cup of coffee at the same time
teleporters
thats it
Mistake
Member
Once this technology is perfected, I honestly wouldn't blame someone who can't tell the difference, or if they would question the authenticity of what is presented more often. It makes sense. Look at photoshops. Before you could always tell easily something was altered, now you can remove stuff from photos like they were never there
Last edited: