Support NeoGAF

[DragoonKain]

I've been listening to some AI generated songs and some of them are kinda catchy. And it had me thinking that it kinda feels icky to say that it's good music. It's not real people singing it or playing the instruments. And there are real artists out there who grind away practicing and putting in work to create "real music" and it feels like a slap in the face to them.

But then I thought, what makes something "real music"? Someone created the software, the code, or put the effort into making these AI songs. Sure, it may have not be the same route that traditional musicians create their music. But if it's good enough to not tell the difference, then does it make it any less good or interesting?

And then that made me think about things like AI generated art and eventually movies as well and the same debate applies.

How do you view it? Do you view it as fake art that is a mockery to real artists and you'll never be a fan of it? Or do you view it as just another form of media and if it's good it's good, regardless of how it got made?

 

[PSYGN]

Most of the time, no... the vocals have a touch of dial-up era raspiness to them still that I can easily pick out. But some things are done well and catchy like



I think a lot of AI will just be filler content e.g. background noise whether working, working out, or just needing it to sleep. But real music will resonate with people to where they want to connect with others at the concert, online, etc. There is a sense of community that is lost with AI stuff. AI is junk food. Gets the job done quick and sometimes surprisingly good like flaming hot cheetos in my sandwich.

 

[AJUMP23]

Ai stuff can be fun but I don't know that I would invest money into it.

 

[p_xavier]

Electronic music is pattern recognition. So yeah sorry for the artists.

 

[DragoonKain]

Most of the time, no... the vocals have a touch of dial-up era raspiness to them still that I can easily pick out. But some things are done well and catchy like



I think a lot of AI will just be filler content e.g. background noise whether working, working out, or just needing it to sleep. But real music will resonate with people to where they want to connect with others at the concert, online, etc. There is a sense of community that is lost with AI stuff. AI is junk food. Gets the job done quick and sometimes surprisingly good like flaming hot cheetos in my sandwich.

I think it will come down to how people appreciate media.

Is it something someone just consumes as pure entertainment? ie... it sounds good to me and it's all I care about. Or a movie is fun to me and it's all I care about. Or do you consume it thinking about the work that went into it and the effort it took to make it. If you're the latter I think those people will always have trouble warming up to AI generated media. If you're the former you'll probably be much more receptive toward it.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

For sure. When you got beauty YT sites like this ragging on pro athletes, it's hilarious.

DangerousAI

✅ AI Parody Content 📩 BUSINESS EMAIL: TheDangerousAi@gmail.com ✅ I create my content by writing original scripts and I use AI for the voiceover. ✅ Edited by me to add that extra flair and ensure you get the best entertainment possible. I ensure all my videos are transformative, featuring...

www.youtube.com

 

[poppabk]

Isn't there a band that has been blowing up that people think might be AI but no-one is really sure. I imagine that will become more common to the point that you won't really know and we will have a Milli Vanilli episode fairly soon where we have humans pretending to be a group that is really just AI.
Edit:
It was a 'band' called Velvet Sundown and the AI search told me that they have been confirmed to be AI - probably detected with AI.

 

[Vaquilla]

No, it's meaningless slop.

 

[GateofD]

No, it's good for stupid meme YouTube videos, but would never financially support it out of my own pocket

 

[rm082e]

Isn't there a band that has been blowing up that people think might be AI but no-one is really sure. I imagine that will become more common to the point that you won't really know and we will have a Milli Vanilli episode fairly soon where we have humans pretending to be a group that is really just AI.
Edit:
It was a 'band' called Velvet Sundown and the AI search till me that they have been confirmed to be AI - probably detected with AI.

It sounds like boring generic shit:

 

[Lord Panda]

Not yet, but I imagine one day it will be a robust and amazing tool for storytelling.

 

[poppabk]

It sounds like boring generic shit:

Yeah but it is/was also a commercially succesful 'band'.

 

[ReBurn]

AI doesn't really sit around generating stuff on its own. It's a tool. If someone uses it to create something I think is interesting I'm not going to care how they created it.

 

[rm082e]

Yeah but it is/was also a commercially succesful 'band'.

So are Nickelback. Look at this photograph.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The first person to perfectly personally customized AI generated porn will become the richest person on Earth

 

[Heimdall_Xtreme]

I LOVE AI!!!

 

[calico]

Everyone will be, unless they restrict themselves to art/media they have seen created right in front of them.

I suspect it's already being leaned on heavily in writing music, books, scripts etc.

 

[IDKFA]

I've been listening to some AI generated songs and some of them are kinda catchy. And it had me thinking that it kinda feels icky to say that it's good music. It's not real people singing it or playing the instruments. And there are real artists out there who grind away practicing and putting in work to create "real music" and it feels like a slap in the face to them.

But then I thought, what makes something "real music"? Someone created the software, the code, or put the effort into making these AI songs. Sure, it may have not be the same route that traditional musicians create their music. But if it's good enough to not tell the difference, then does it make it any less good or interesting?

And then that made me think about things like AI generated art and eventually movies as well and the same debate applies.

How do you view it? Do you view it as fake art that is a mockery to real artists and you'll never be a fan of it? Or do you view it as just another form of media and if it's good it's good, regardless of how it got made?

My answer is no because I don't consider it art.

For me, Art is more than just output. it's an expression of consciousness, emotion, struggle, and intention. Art is connected to meaning, suffering, cultural context, and personal stories. These are things AI doesn't truly experience and never will experience.

In addition to this, do we really want AI to take over human creativity? Art is part of the human experience. It is unique to us as a species. I don't want humanity to be just consuming whatever fake art the AI gods feed us. I want art created by humans.

 

[IAmRei]

no, i don't like AI, and there is no art in AI, never will.

 

[Dr.D00p]

It's just the latest 'tech bros' grift and the latest way for the scum on Wall St to make money for doing fuck all and contributing nothing of value to society.

 

[calico]

For me, Art is more than just output.

But the 'output' is the only part you are exposed to in most cases. Any deeper meaning or expression you believe you see in it is discerned from that output.

What will you do once it is impossible to tell whether a given output is human or AI created? Will meta knowledge of the creation of the output become a prerequisite before you allow yourself to discern meaning or expression from a given output?

 

[IDKFA]

But the 'output' is the only part you are exposed to in most cases. Any deeper meaning or expression you believe you see in it is discerned from that output.

What will you do once it is impossible to tell whether a given output is human or AI created? Will meta knowledge of the creation of the output become a prerequisite before you allow yourself to discern meaning or expression from a given output?

You make a good point and this forms the core of the philosophical argument.

I agree that the output is often the only thing we directly experience in art, but that doesn't mean it's the only thing that matters. Context, authorship, and intention have played a central role in how we understand and value artistic works. Art has never just been about what's on the canvas or the page, but about the human being behind it and truth they chose to express.

The suggestion that we should only judge art by its output assumes that deception doesn't matter, but it does. If I find out that something I found moving was created by AI with no feelings, no experiences, and no inner life, that realisation changes how I relate to it. It feels more like manipulation than expression. An illusion rather than a connection. Authenticity, in this case, isn't just a romantic ideal. It's what makes art a bridge between people and culture.

For me, meaning in art comes from the human experience. If I read a poem about grief written by someone who has lost a loved one, I connect not just with the words, but with the fact that someone felt those things and turned them into art. AI can simulate the structure and tone of a sad poem, but it doesn't feel sadness, nor does it choose to express anything. It never will. What it generates is hollow imitation which might look convincing, but is emotionally empty.

Personally - and I hope I'm not alone here - I've always valued authenticity: hand-written letters, signed artworks, live performances, original paintings. These things matter because of the person behind them. So, meta-knowledge — knowing who made the work and why — will become more important, not less.

Art should not be just about what pleases the senses. It should be about what connects us to one another. Only humans can offer that. AI can imitate the outer shape of art, but it's a forgery. A deception of the human experience.

This all links to a deeper concern I have. AI and robotics are currently replacing humans in the workplace. Soon they'll replace us with creating art. If we lose work and creation to AI, what becomes of humanity? Are we just living to consume what AI feeds us? To become like the humans in Wall-E? That's not a future I want to be part of.

 

[Wildebeest]

It depends. If someone has the position that all AI content is "bad" or "slop" then as time goes on their position is likely going to get weaker and weaker. If their position is that it uses too much water or resources or something then okay but humans and other things also use a lot of resources.

There are other issues like AI can produce styles but it can't produce taste or culture. But those things are already deprecated by the corporate art that we consume today. Games are like the vanguard of that sort of corporate art where taste and culture are not valued and all that matters are things like production standards, amount of content, profit and engagement.

 

[_Idea_of_Evil_]

Maybe someday (soon). Some 80's dark fantasy AI stuff I've seen is cool. When AI gets even better it's likely we'll see some good/significantly better stuff generated.

 

[xrnzaaas]

I will always avoid AI-generated content, no matter how much the final quality will improve over the years. I understand it as a tool to assist real work, but not when it's created something independently.

And sure, it will become more difficult to distinguish real person vs. AI work, but that's where doing research comes in. I'm already verifying my planned purchases to avoid potential fails and giving money to someone I wouldn't want to (like a russian game developer).

 

[kunonabi]

I would never pay for AI content but there is definitely some free ai video content on the net that I don't mind watching when the mood hits.

 

[tamago84]

AI never looks pleasing to watch. it has this weird as fuck and disturbing saturation effect. honestly the only ai i use normally is for coding at work

 

[Lux77]

yeah, I love Stormtroopers and Bigfoot vlogs

 

[Aces High]

People who hate on AI have never asked themselves how the human mind comes up with ideas.

 

[SnapShot]

I got sick of seeing them pop up on my feeds every now and then, They really are genuinely soulless and depressing

 

[calico]

If I read a poem about grief written by someone who has lost a loved one, I connect not just with the words, but with the fact that someone felt those things and turned them into art.

I think this is the crux of it for me. If the knowledge of writer losing the loved one is a necessary component -and any artistic merit of the poem disappears upon finding out it was not written by a human at all- then I would say it suggests that not only was the connection 'not just with the words' but that it was not really with the words at all. The poem itself (the words on the page) cannot have had inherent artistic merit if it cannot survive the hypothetical change in creator.

If meta knowledge about eg. the creator losing a loved one (or similar) is not a necessary component for a piece of art to move someone -and I suspect many would say they have been moved by art before without any such meta knowledge- then I believe there is no doubt that AI created 'output' will be able to move people in the same way. I think if it does achieve that, then it is impossible imo to retroactively deprive it of 'art' status later upon learning it was not created by a human, because it has already performed as such. The reader may feel tricked (although deception is not a given here if the reader only wrongly assumed the creator to be human), but the sadness they felt cannot be unfelt, and any reflection upon the human condition cannot be unreflected.

I think what really discomforts people about the possibility that they might be 'tricked' into feeling a 'connection' with art which they later find out to be AI created, is not the possibility of being tricked per se, but having to confront the reality that they absolutely felt a genuine connection which they now know they wholly imagined. If that connection was imagined, then how many other connections we were sure we felt were actually imagined?

It will be interesting to see where we end up with this as a society. I think if we end up with regulations that the nature of the creator (human or AI) must be clearly stated, that will be a pretty damning indictment of how uniquely human art really is, and of those connections people claim to feel.

 

[IDKFA]

I think this is the crux of it for me. If the knowledge of writer losing the loved one is a necessary component -and any artistic merit of the poem disappears upon finding out it was not written by a human at all- then I would say it suggests that not only was the connection 'not just with the words' but that it was not really with the words at all. The poem itself (the words on the page) cannot have had inherent artistic merit if it cannot survive the hypothetical change in creator.

If meta knowledge about eg. the creator losing a loved one (or similar) is not a necessary component for a piece of art to move someone -and I suspect many would say they have been moved by art before without any such meta knowledge- then I believe there is no doubt that AI created 'output' will be able to move people in the same way. I think if it does achieve that, then it is impossible imo to retroactively deprive it of 'art' status later upon learning it was not created by a human, because it has already performed as such. The reader may feel tricked (although deception is not a given here if the reader only wrongly assumed the creator to be human), but the sadness they felt cannot be unfelt, and any reflection upon the human condition cannot be unreflected.

I think what really discomforts people about the possibility that they might be 'tricked' into feeling a 'connection' with art which they later find out to be AI created, is not the possibility of being tricked per se, but having to confront the reality that they absolutely felt a genuine connection which they now know they wholly imagined. If that connection was imagined, then how many other connections we were sure we felt were actually imagined?

It will be interesting to see where we end up with this as a society. I think if we end up with regulations that the nature of the creator (human or AI) must be clearly stated, that will be a pretty damning indictment of how uniquely human art really is, and of those connections people claim to feel.

I'm spending too much time on this philosophical debate, but sod it. This is fun!

I agree we often respond emotionally to the output of a poem, painting, or song before we know anything about the artist. However, art isn't just about triggering emotions. If it were, we could say roller coasters, advertisements, fapping to porn are all "art" in the same sense because they can also elicit powerful, real feelings, but we know they're not the same. I feel euphoric after a tug, but there is nothing artistic about it.

For me, art is not just about emotional effect. It's about human expression. It comes from meaning. The idea that someone felt something and chose to express it. It's that bridge that turns language or an image into something more than decoration. The merit is not just in the feeling, but in the human story the feeling connects to. I'm twisting my melon trying to get this into words, so I hope that makes sense!

Onto your other point, if society chooses to label AI created work, it's not because human art has failed. It's because we still care deeply about who is speaking to us. I don't want to mistake imitation for expression. Not because expression is fragile, but because for me it's sacred.

Knowing whether a work came from a person or a AI chat bot allows people to make informed decisions about the kind of connection they're entering into. It's the same reason we care if a memoir is faked, or if a journalist staged a tragedy for clicks, not because the effect wasn't powerful, but because the ethics and authenticity of creation matter.

Art is part of the human experience because it comes from our emotions. Those human emotions, the human lived experience, is something AI will never have and ever be able to fully understand.

The irony of all of this is that I don't know for sure if your posts have been created by AI. I'm sure they're all your own words, but I can't be 100% sure.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

A fan? No.
But it is inevitable, so I'll use it as a productivity tool; it's stupid to ignore these LLMs completely.

 

[PaddyOCanager]

I said Yes but not because I'll be a "fan", but because it is inevitable.

 

[spookyfish]

I like some of the AI "trailers" based on games playing on YT.

Gotta say, based on those: Henry Cavill should be Chris Redfield.

 

[DaciaJC]

It can hardly be worse than avant-garde modern "art."

 

[Liopleurodon]

If you guys only knew just how much NSFW content I made with Stable Diffusion...

If you guys only knew just how much I don't share the same opinion as most of you...

 

[Poppinfresh]

I posted this in another thread, and Randy Travis helped with this by writing the song, but it's AI singing, and it's amazing.

 

[Superkewl]

Generally, I think AI is slop, but there are some interesting examples out there

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

Soulless trash for zombie consumers.

Not even for free.

 

[jason10mm]

AI has absolutely NAILED the female body, undoubtedly because there is so much content to train it. But that vapid far away look in the eyes, plus the glossy plastic look, limited motion, and difficultly in facial feature consistency limit it a lot. Once it can keep faces the same, learn better emotions, and improve the shiny look, whoa. Plus backgrounds tend to be overly cluttered, there are still numerous nonsensical elements, and its missing the economy of effort you see when a human has to actually draw everything on screen (manga style also tends to be very over drawn and busy, hard to find a focal point to draw the eye).

I think once it lets you fill in gaps or takes crude sketches and turns them into polished art, the world of online comics is gonna EXPLODE, as drawing talent has always lagged behind the desire to write. Gonna be a lot of shitty comics, but some real gems as well.

 

[Hookshot]

I enjoy the pictures of women it makes, but I'm getting annoyed with the shitty AI narrations all over YouTube now.

 

[Trogdor1123]

I enjoy the pictures of women it makes, but I'm getting annoyed with the shitty AI narrations all over YouTube now.

This is bugging me too. The stuff on YouTube is everywhere and the implementation is all over the board. Some is well done and makes sense but most senseless stuff put up for the clicks on mass with little actual substance

 

[Sub_Level]

There is a 100% chance that I have choked my chicken to AI generated hentai. It has flooded the net already. Same with music, I listen to study music/lofi/chillwave during work and I am sure some of it is computer generated.

Like Snake says in MGS2, what you think you see is only as real as your brain tells you it is. Ultimately we are just responding to external stimuli whether its manmade or computer made, that hasn't changed.

 

[Aces High]

Art has never just been about what's on the canvas or the page, but about the human being behind it and truth they chose to express.

When the identity and the background of an artist becomes more important than the art itself, the appreciation of art shifts towards signaling taste or status.

Or in other words: snobbery.
A perfect example is Salvator Mundi.

When it was first discovered, people thought of it as some random painting. Not bad. But definitely nothing special. But when experts began speculating that it might be a lost Leornado da Vinci, everyone declared it a masterpiece and it became one of the most expensive paintings of all times.

Another extreme was NAZI Germany under Hitler:

Art was declared.

It became a political battleground. Jewish art was labeled "degenerate". Artists were celebrated or censored based on their identity.

I am convinced that art is in the eye of the beholder. It's a mirror.

 

[IDKFA]

When the identity and the background of an artist becomes more important than the art itself, the appreciation of art shifts towards signaling taste or status.

Or in other words: snobbery.
A perfect example is Salvator Mundi.

When it was first discovered, people thought of it as some random painting. Not bad. But definitely nothing special. But when experts began speculating that it might be a lost Leornado da Vinci, everyone declared it a masterpiece and it became one of the most expensive paintings of all times.

Another extreme was NAZI Germany under Hitler:

Art was declared.

It became a political battleground. Jewish art was labeled "degenerate". Artists were celebrated or censored based on their identity.

I am convinced that art is in the eye of the beholder. It's a mirror.

Slight misunderstanding here.

I don't care who created the art, as long as it was created by a human.

I don't want to live in a world where a majority of novels, movies, music etc are created by AI.

 

[Redeeming Casualty]

The whole point of creativity to me is teaching yourself to learn to create and express yourself through artistic mediums. Its helped me look internal at myself to prove I can do anything. That my ideas are expressions to help me learn and express a issue I see or something I want to talk about through an artistic medium. AI generating anything creative would rob me of my chances to grow as a person. I'm not the best artist but I think people can understand that self improvement journey we take part in life. AI can't do that. I don't know where AI goes in creative fields and currently my view point is negative. Maybe in a few years when they are more things out in the wild or people use it as tools in someways that I could see helpful maybe. I still don't think it belongs in an artistic space but I would hate to limit somebody from trying to create with it, but I just don't think its for me. And plenty of people I know that are more talented then me in music, and the arts don't like it either so I think there is still going to be push back and human made art will still shine.

 

[Hawk The Slayer]

I already like certain A.I videos on YouTube that makes their own trailers from existing franchises or brand new ones. Once they improve upon it to make it look even more polish and real than it'll be awesome.

Lots of cool potential 50s or 80s style films they could make that unfortunately never happened in this timeline.

 

[MidGenRefresh]

Yes.

 

[InterMusketeer]

Nahh, AI content is slop. It's not even at the level of fast food.