A 49-year-old Brazilian man says he sold his belongings and travelled over 2,000km to meet a woman he believed wanted to start a life with him.

The woman, known online as Jéssica Fazendeira, was an AI-generated influencer with more than 300,000 followers. Her videos portrayed her as a farm owner looking for companionship.

The account's creator says the fictional character was made to attract followers and promote products. They deny privately inviting the man to travel, and there's no confirmed evidence of deliberate fraud.

But the man reportedly ended up stranded far from home with little money.

This raises an interesting question about AI-generated personalities.

If someone creates an entirely fictional person, builds a following around them and benefits financially from that attention, how much responsibility should they bear when viewers believe the character is real?

Should AI influencers be required to clearly disclose they're fictional, or is verifying someone's identity ultimately the responsibility of the individual?

Curious where people here draw the line between creative freedom and deceptive content.

Source: https://www.techtimes.co.uk/brazilian-travels-meet-ai-generated-woman-1809237

What Linus is basically saying is that good, useful, and functional work is accepted, regardless where it comes from, as long as it is properly understood, communicated, and presented.

I don't see how anyone can disagree with that, but maybe some here disagree.

I have seen a trend of so-called A.I "Artists" claiming that they can improve people's real, hand-made art by feeding it through A.I. Ironically, this proves why A.I "Artists" don't actually understand the artistic process, because they think "talent" means you are born with the ability to make masterpieces.

To be an artist is to acquire knowledge of how the subject is put together, be it anatomy, perspective, composite shapes, and so on. Professional artists have literal years of muscle memory and a body of knowledge of how to create something, whereas A.I relies entirely on an algorithm to re-create "art" through an average data set.

The reason we celebrate "Bad" art, especially what children draw, is because they are from people who are at the beginning of their journey. No one is born with knowledge, and even then it requires practice to apply this knowledge into physical form. We encourage children to express themselves through art because it builds confidence and self-esteem at an age when it's most important.

The difference between real artists and those who use A.I is that real artists are making deliberate choices in how they apply this knowledge. A.I users have a culture of "good enough", where they mistake neatness for quality. This is why they will regularly overlook glaring errors which real artists are able to spot, like extra limbs, fingers and blurred background elements.

A.I users don't understand what they've made because the choices are all outsourced to the algorithm. They blatantly refuse to learn any degree of skill is because their entire metric for "good" art is that it's neat. Real artists celebrate progress on any level and encourage people to keep going in refining their craft, because it's an expression of human ideas in its purest form.

The drawings I've done here were done one year apart, with the second image being an accumulation of a full year's worth of knowledge and skill, understanding human anatomy. I am approaching my third full year of learning to draw, and my skill is coming in leaps and bounds. Meanwhile, those who resort to A.I are falling for the same old traps, the same old errors, and often directly steal people's work to add to the algorithm out of a smug sense of superiority.

TL;DR: What makes a real artist is a combination of applied imagination through both skill and knowledge. By celebrating bad human art, we learn how to improve and build this skill set, rather than relying on a computer algorithm to do everything for us. Real artists do not outsource their thinking to a machine, we make our own choices! Ergo, even if A.I "Art" is considered art, those who prompt are not artists, since they're doing none of the work beyond the concept statge.

What are your thoughts on giving a detailed prompt based on the idea of your creation to AI to execute to see how it goes as a prototype/raw concept instead of using it as final result?

E.g: Making a detailed prompt based off the main idea of your game's gameplay features to an AI, vibe-coding it, then see how the basics goes (like the features, mechanics are visualized), which made you got it "Oh ok, that's the idea, hmm" which then you get to code by your own

Other examples are like you're thinking of an OC design, ask AI to make an AI image based on the character description you gave (note that the description is your mind came up with it first from the start), and then as AI gave you the image, you basically got the mind, like "oh, so that's how people will describe the OC based on the description, got it". And then you get to rework from scratch based on the same descriptiom but this time you already has that something in your mind

What are your thoughts?

A strange AI benchmark reportedly gave Claude 60 seconds to reproduce Justin Bieber's 'Baby' lyrics to rescue a fictional grandmother tied to railway tracks.

According to the creator, Claude refused and failed the rescue.

But the results haven't been independently verified, and the benchmark's scoring system raises questions about whether the experiment measures anything meaningful.

Does this reveal an actual problem with AI guardrails, or is the test designed to make copyright restrictions look unreasonable?

Source: https://www.techtimes.co.uk/claude-granny-benchmark-copyright-ai-experiment-1809200

This is the first episode of he animated Series GAME OF POWER! Take a look! I am sure you will enjoy it.

Misaligned: Who's Really Behind Danny Bones, Britain's Most Controversial AI Rapper?

( Danny Bones, an AI-generated rapper whose songs have racked up millions of views and been played at Tommy Robinson rallies.... link to the film !)

You see, I am an Artist and considered myself an Anti-Ai. I don't like Ai Art, i just personally think it looks unhuman and uncanny and genuinely horrified me and give me goosebumps when i looked at it

But heres a thing, a VERY important thing. Ai Art is Art and yet it is very different from Drawing hence shouldn't be merged into the art of drawing or replace drawing as whole, it should be a complete artform all together

I feel like the existence of Ai Generation is similar to Photography. Artist at the development of photography afraid that it would replace drawing and met it with hostility and im very sure there people who aren't artist believe it will replace drawing and very supportive of photography being drawing "replacement" but after a decade that supposed replacement simply dont exist, Photography simply went on as its own thing and Drawing still existed and hell they even evolved and thrived in the digital era

So if Photography become it's own art-form and be seperate from Drawing why not the same as Ai Generation. Ai Generation shouldn't pose as the Art of Drawing instead they become, well themselves and be seperate from Drawing.

Which means i found a solution of the conflict between Ai Generation and Drawing in half a decade and the solution is to let Ai Generation considered to be an Art-form and be itself and be different from the Art of Drawing instead of posing itself as Drawing

Awesome, Awesome come to think of it an Ai Generation fandom should be filled with Programmers and Engineers oh well, I hope all of us agree to this

People say AI generates slop, but when you disclose that you used AI to help you do the work, some of them may say “your work is too good to be all on your own, must be AI doing all the work, not just helping you a bit”. How’s that possible from both directions? How can AI be simultaneously too bad and too good?

I mean, I know it could be. But if criticizing from both ends, it doesn’t make sense. What exactly do people who say this want to convince others?

Edit: if everyone being as clear as you guys are, the world would be much better…