this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
412 points (90.7% liked)

Technology

59693 readers
2890 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

AI-created “virtual influencers” are stealing business from humans::Brands are turning to hyper-realistic, AI-generated influencers for promotions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SkippingRelax@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Human influences have always given me dystopian vibes. And they were just making some executives and themselves rich, is not such a big loss..

[–] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Human influencers are just celebrities at a smaller scale, and frankly the assumption that influencer/celebrity culture will go away if influencers are replaced I'm seeing in this thread is completely unrealistic. We will just get Coca-ColAIna and L'ÓreAI-chan instead of people occasionally peddling products.

If there's any real concern of artificiality and parasocial following as a replacement for real human connections behind this disdain at influencers, then in no way replacing them with AI is going to fix anything. It will only make it worse. It will lead to custom-tailored indoctrination by brands.

Worse than that, I already see people treating actual artists much in the same way. That the human element in culture doesn't matter as much as having an endless source of nebulous content, and that anyone making art should get a "real job" instead. Nevermind that those are also in line for automation...

[–] xor@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

"influencers" are more like models than celebrities... they add nothing

[–] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Do you really think models add nothing? Because that is a form of art too. If anything the comparison only serves to give some credit to influencers.

[–] SkippingRelax@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'll bite.. what do models add?

[–] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

What is there to "bite"? Photography would be a lot more limited without them. Fashion, whether you are into it or not, needs them. Traditional artists rely on them to learn. This is not even bringing up the more salacious side of it which, regardless if you think that is "worthy" or not, it's enjoyed by a lot of people.

[–] SkippingRelax@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I hadn't though about traditional artists. I'll give you that, though most of us don't think about a static model posing while an artist is sculpting or painting them.

Let's be honest photography can stand on its legs without models. And as for fashion, you guessed it right not really into it, but most importantly it adds to the same question we keep asking in this thread, who benefits from this besides Mr versace and a couple other assholes? Really what do they "add"?

[–] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Let’s be honest photography can stand on its legs without models.

This is not honest, this is a absolutely bonkers. What do you propose? Only having scenery and animal pictures?

Or should the photographer pose on their own? Maybe get some random people to do it? Guess what, what they are doing is modeling. That's just reinventing modeling in a roundabout way.

The way you question fashion illustrates how all this matter is deeply subjective. Why do people pay money to Mr. Versace? Because they want to look good and they are convinced by his brand's sense of style. Does it seem excessive? To me it does. I don't see the appeal and it's way too expensive for me. But I do appreciate the style some other brands offer, or even what people cobble and sew together on their own.

Is there no art that you appreciate, and couldn't it similarly be judge in such a manner? I play a lot of games. They bring me a lot of fun and occasional thoughtful insights. One might say I'm just wasting time pressing buttons on something that is fake. It wouldn't be an invalid observation but it would gloss over the value that I see in them.

Even getting back to influencers, as fake and greedy some might be, the value they add is not all that different than the value any art adds: the value which the audience sees in them. For any influencer to succeed, there must be many people following them. You can judge their taste but it is worth something for them.

But lets also put in perspective that influencers aren't all millionaire grifters. Some of them are small creators who cultivate an audience with a fun performance and interesting opinions which people enjoy. It's like celebrity culture, but immensely more accessible. If they are gone, and we are back to only having Hollywood worship, would that really be better?

[–] xor@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

it's not an art, it's advertising...

[–] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Do you realize artistic photography uses models too? I mentioned it right below in this discussion.

Consider that maybe you associate modeling with advertisements because our society is more driven by marketing than culture.

[–] xor@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

actually, no. It's a line from the movie Mia... about a model... and i, an artist, have given it thought prior to this discussion...
photography IS an art, yep... models posing isn't... it can be kinda artistic, i suppose... there's an expression in it... but it can be artistic without being an artform.
like making a wood dresser, it's more of craftsmanship than an art (but carpentry cooooould be used in art, such as wooden sculpture...)
and, yes, influencers coooould be taking artistic pictures of themselves, but that's not what influencer really means.
at any rate, i hope they all die painful deaths... and it's about the only artsy thing i feel ok with AI replacing.
And if you consider beauty filters, AI replaced influencers a long time ago...

[–] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Arts and crafts is a whole another discussion, and some say this distinction is only made to demean artisans when compared to academic artists. Similarly, if photography is art, and physical expression such as dance is art, I don't see why modeling wouldn't be art.

Influencers aren't all Logan Paul either. Would someone who offers useful recommendations or makes good comedy skits deserve to die either? Seems extreme. This whole thread seems way too hateful of the idea.

[–] xor@sh.itjust.works 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

i see you only skimmed my comment and then treated my joke as if im serious... pretty lame

[–] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

C'mon...

If you wanna judge me for my comments you gotta do better than "As an artist I thought about it and decided X is an art and Y isn't" as if everyone should just take your opinions as fact without any reasons for it. You didn't give me anything to ponder any deeper about.

If it was all a joke, it wasn't all that funny either.

[–] xor@sh.itjust.works -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

you're so dense, i was responding to "Consider that maybe you associate modeling with advertisements because our society is more driven by marketing than culture." and explaining that's not why i consider modeling advertising... not you're strawman of "so everyone should just take my opinion as fact"
and the obvious joke was about wanting them to all die painful deaths, not all of it.
i find it hard to believe you're that stupid and still able to use a keyboard, so i have to assume you're a troll

[–] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So? What I said is just as applicable either way. Funny how pissy people get when they run out of arguments. You sure didn't come across as a great philosophers even before you started hurling insults like an elementary grader.

But if I was interested on what you had to say before, now I sure don't.

[–] xor@sh.itjust.works 0 points 11 months ago

yep, just another troll

[–] SkippingRelax@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Replacing influencers with ai is not going to fix anything for that we should dismantle social media and have a serious talk all 8 billion of us, but it's not going to make anything worse either, it is already custom tailored indoctrination by brands and a handful of assholes are making stupid amounts of money. I'm not going to cry if that money shifts to different hands.

Yes artists come up often in this kind of discussions, the ones that are losing their job to ai never had one in the first place, same as influencers. What are we talking about, Jim that makes you a custom logo and business cards for your business?

The guy that gets a commission from the newly opened local microbrewery for graffiti-ing their walls is hardly losing any work to ai. If anything they could integrate ai in their creative process.

[–] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Good luck convincing 8 billion people all to agree on anything, especially to drop something that has become so enmeshed with people's lives already.

But it is going to make it worse. All the data they are collecting from us will be directly funelled into how best to manipulate us in an individual manner. It is not custom tailored to a personal level yet. Even the most cynical and greedy influencer doesn't have the means to individualize ads. But if it's all AI-created, then it can be done.

Yes artists come up often in this kind of discussions, the ones that are losing their job to ai never had one in the first place

Nice No True Scotsman, sounds like you don't really value their work, that anyone who could be replaced never deserved to earn a living to begin with. I don't think there is anything I can respond to that, because at that point we have a fundamental conflict of values and worldview.

I believe artists, even small artists, deserve to be supported and that our world and culture is better off for that. Including Jim.

The guy that gets a commission from the newly opened local microbrewery for graffiti-ing their walls is hardly losing any work to ai.

That is, until a drone can physically print AI-created graffiti and replace that guy in the same way that the digital artists get replaced

If anything they could integrate ai in their creative process.

Assuming said artist even wants to do that, why would that business hire someone to use an AI if it could do it themselves? The benefit of AI is making content creation easier and faster. It's not enough to say that "artists could just use it" because inevitably that makes it so less artists would be needed or hired for any given work. Say the graffitti artist manages to use said AI and drones and get by. Well, then it doesn't need a team and apprentices anymore. And these won't manage to do the same because the graffiti worked is already handled.

Ultimately, what is all this for? Rather than automation freeing us to have leisure and be creative, it's freeing us to carry boxes in an Amazon warehouse.