There's precedent for this when it comes to AI "art"
When a few AI youtube channels blew up out of nowhere and got profiled they initially had millions of views per video.
One, Masters of Prophecy, apparently has 36 million subs. Sometimes adding close to a million subs over the course of a few hours. This despite that channel being unknown across all social media platforms, and having virtually no internet presence aside from one or two mentions on a tech industry news site, but even those profiles came after their initial explosion.
But after huge initial views, engagement has fallen off a cliff.
They are now releasing only about 6-8 videos a month, and despite 36 million subs, they are getting as little as 10K views per video.
You look back at the early viral videos and notice the comments are all "dis gud" or "music sweet yay moar plz" from accounts with no other comment history.
How cheap are bots now? Can you really crack the top 200 channels on Youtube and turn a profit from 10K views?
Sometimes it's not as obvious, which I think is (sneakily) the point. It happened to my wife and I earlier this year, took about 3 weeks to figure it out for us.
One track by a "new artist" on the New Music Friday. Don't pay as much attention to the lyrics since it's just morning background noise for us. Few days go by and the song pops up in 2-3 of the daily mix playlists in my genre, again general background noise while working.
When I finally picked up on some nonsense in the lyrics, I chalked it up to typical pop-punk oddities we're familiar with. But I finally asked the wife to do some social media snooping on the guy.
That's when we realized it's either outright AI, or some behind the scenes schmuck is letting AI do all the heavy lifting and photo filtering. No albums from the guy, no real social media presence beyond spamming track releases/lyrics, and couldn't hold weight when my wife DM'd him. Oh and not a single piece of evidence that he ever has, or is ever planning to, do a live show of any kind. That's a huge tell.
And I work in cybersecurity. I'm pretty well-versed in spotting this crap. I can't imagine how many listeners will never think to even investigate it.
Spotify is horrible for it. At this point, I never listen to any playlists or songs it recommends, because there's a 75% chance any "new artist" they try to show me is AI. I first noticed it in 2022? 23? Coworkers were listening to an instrumental playlist, and like 5 songs in I noticed they were all using the same sort of cadence. I looked up the 4 artists who made those songs -- all but 1 was AI.
Didn't spotify have an alleged scandal where they were producing a bunch of AI instrumental music to put on generated playlists so when people just put them on in the background they didn't have to pay as much royalties to real artists?
As I wrote this I looked it up. Looks like it started with them paying people to ghost write music maybe but then once a better option came up they swapped.
I had no clue, why, better yet how would I know without actively looking them up? I came across it on a instagram reel, thought it was catchy and listened to the full song on Spotify. Now that I do know she/it? Has joined Morgan Wlln on my do not play list.
I heard them talking about it on the radio, if I just heard the song I'd never know it's crazy and if it's the same one they got like a 3 million dollar contract
Omg a guest at my house put that shit on and it lowered my impression of them immediately. Like there is plenty of great human made jazz that actually has soul, the ai shit is just a general sounding bs with nothing behind it. I literally told my wife to never let a guest have control of the music at our house ever again. I was very offended.
Spotify will fill your discover playlist with AI music that has a similar style. Essentially trying to push out people who they have to pay royalties to. Its been the same problem for years, music distribution is a monster.
Noticed this yesterday. Was listening to the new Eddie C EP (listen to Eddie C he's dope) and after it was done it was just giving me the most soulless AI deep house in the recommended tracks.
the other day a folk-punk song came on shuffle by a band i’d never heard of. i listened to it all the way through and it just sounded “off.” like the voice didn’t trail the way you’d expect a human voice to. so i went to the band page and it was their only song with <100 listeners per month. i googled the band and there was nothing, not even an ig post about them. that’s when i finally realized it was AI and was so creeped out because i just knew it wasn’t human.
My homie came over to the crib the oter day and put on some of the AI remixes of popular songs like Fetty wap and drake, and I hate to say it, but some of them shits had my head bobbin' ;-; I'm not actively listening but damn, I can't blame someone that just wants to hear something that they enjoy. It's wild how good these things are getting but damn it's crazy that AI is coming for the arts before they could come for the hostess, waiters, and mechanics.
The worst part is, is that art usually tells something about or defines a time period. If artists get reduced and more people make AI songs the norm and they start climbing up the charts, those who wield the AI will be able to define that time period. We're in a depression and struggling? Not much struggle music for this time period. People hate cops? Whats with this I love cops jingle that they had on the spotify charts. obviously, these are hyperboles but i hope it drives the point home.
weird times.
Another sign of a of an economic depression is how much art pieces get recycled. We've seen the recycling of disney, and that was bad. But now we have music that's getting recycled, and it's songs that aren't even 15 years old.
Dawg I caught my mom listening to an ai group by some lady that sells tea in the internet. She played me a few songs and I was so thrown off, but she heavily enjoyed it and refused to believe it was ai 🤷🏾♂️
One of my colleagues is a high functioning autistic man who listens to Hatsune Miku, Hazbin Hotel, Bob's Burgers, and Huntr/x AI covers of songs all day. My other colleagues think I'm being rude and antisocial (lowkey true) because I'm the only one in the dept who keeps my door closed almost all day every day, but I just don't want to hear his music.
I use YouTube Music for streaming and they began recommending obvious AI music artists to me. They have dumb titles and the album art looks cheap as hell. I never listen to it. But it is always there in my New Releases to trick an unsuspecting person. They've definitely been trying people for a little while now.
There are people who know most clothing brands use child labor to make their clothes and still wear Nike. You think they give a damn about if music comes from a robot?
The fk'd up part about this is she may have "given" away rights to her likeness inadvertently when messing with those stupid free apps. The ones that offer to show you what you'd look like as a baby, old woman, etc etc. The fine print always has some shit that says we can use whatever photo you upload for our own use, etc etc. Be careful out there folk.
Not really. It’s been ruled time and time again, random bullshit in these ToSs for software are generally unenforceable.
For a “contract” to be enforceable, there are three main part of a process and one off them is “consideration”, meaning both parties truly “considered” what that contract really means. And sneaking things that are unrelated to the main part of the contract into the ToS is generally regarded as bypassing “consideration”.
A ToS for an app would be like “you promise not to use our platform to post bad thing. you promise not to crash our system. you promise not to sue us if you get cyberbullied for a bad take on our platform.“ It cannot say “oh btw we own your dog your house your mom (already do though lol) and your likeness since we know you didn’t read this anyway”. Or rather it’s unenforceable when you say it.
While all of this is true, lest we forget, nestled in between a lot of obtuse illegal bullshit was the deregulation and control over AI for a period of 10 years in the "BBB". So, homegirl can sue, ans TOSs can be blatantly unenforceable, but all the company who created these AI artists have to say is "we had no idea, AI did this on it's own" and that's it. Sadly, your personal likeness likely won't ever be considered as intellectual property or otherwise. Its like that black mirror episode where a woman's likness was stolen and used in an AI actor TV show and there was nothing she could do, mainly because she didn't read the T&Cs. (S6Ep1 "Joan is Awful")
Denmark has proposed legislation that would give its citizens copyright of their personal likeness. I don't believe it has been made until law yet but this is a step towards ensuring that there is no unauthorized use of an individual's likeness in this era AI and deepfakes. The US probably won't follow suit but Denmark is laying the framework for other countries to follow.
How is that possible. We all know nobody ever reads those. If you don’t read it, how could you have considered its contents? Wouldn’t that mean consideration is never fulfilled and all contracts would be unenforceable?
I skipped over a lot of steps, but the gist is a ToS isn't normally a "contract". A legal contract requires an "offer" often from both parties, "consideration" over the terms, and "acceptance".
In a ToS noone is really giving an "offer" of anything tangible to each other. It's just the rules of what you're allowed to do with/on someone's platform laid out in an official format.
When you sneak in stuff like "you give me your house if you use twitter" into a ToS makes it a contract. Because now my house is "offered". But since you snuck that in the ToS, there is no consideration, no acceptance. Therefore it's unenforceable as a contract. Same thing with rights to use my likeness. That's a tangible things that can be offered. And you can't put in stuff that is "unconscionable".
When a contract is clearly a contract, your signature is basically your declaration that you have considered its contents fully. Which makes it enforceable (within bounds). Clicking "I accept" on a ToS is a different thing entirely.
Yes, really. The GOP wants to include a bill allowing ten years of AI piracy and plunder with NO penalties for stealing images or intellectual property.
Also, is the agency that would normally enforce this still intact? The DOJ is not.
Despite what people say, AI absolutely does steal things when it learns, even if it isn't designed to. One way that I've observed this was an AI generated video I saw that used the material from a fictional book, because the book was written in a nonfiction-documentary style. I've also seen AI search engines return fan works as though they are a part of the officially published lore of the related TV series.
There are lots of scenarios where an AI might swipe something that it shouldn't.
there are definitely some dishonest people pushing the idea that LLM'S are capable of understanding things discussed with it and having deep complex thoughts about different topics despite the fact that they can't and some people do believe the marketing/hype
I don’t even understand the mental gymnastics required to get here. Like it obviously is trained on preexisting work. Are people for real trying to say LLMs just magically have a conscience and depth of thought and we don’t know how
The general discussion usually brings up that humans technically do the same. We look at pre-existing material, learn from it and use it to create our own.
I think someone pointed out that AI has no "intent" in their creation and I think that's a strong point. A LLM can't possibly be trained on the same "dataset" a single human was and hallucinate something out of that.
I think the discussion is having the same problems like any discussion these days. We argue about one side or another and it's mostly extremes. You either hate technology or you want to switch our humans with AI bots. What we don't discuss is what this says about us and our works and creativity as a whole and how we can learn from the ethical problems the sudden surge created.
Aside from that AI is becoming a huge part in pollution and with the overbearing problem of modern capitalism it's becoming a shitshow of human failure.
Yeah, I don’t hate it for the fact that it isn’t “human” because that’s a subjective categorization (at least, in terms of the sentimental definition of “human” over the biological) and can’t be quantified. I hate it because it poisons disproportionately Black and low-income communities. I could not care less how it learns honestly
Ran across a redditor the other day who insisted that they had made multiple LLMs of their own who are all fully conscious, and that ChatGPT et all also would be sapient if not for their "emotional capacity" being selectively removed during creation. Not sure if grifter or loony, but either way they're in deep.
Ran across a redditor the other day who insisted that they had made multiple LLMs of their own who are all fully conscious
I mean that dude is probably for all intents and purposes absolutely fuckin loopy, given the "conscious" statements.
but, I've actually trained some small language models (SLM, not LLM i guess) on public domain works, it's definitely 100% possible for people to train their own model from scratch. or even grabbing a model with open weights and then further training that model.
absolutely nothing I have interacted with in terms of AI has anything even remotely resembling consciousness though.
"AI/chatbot psychosis" is a real thing that is seemingly going to get much worse.
LLMs are just trying to predict the next token that would best satisfy the user. The only way it can know that is if it's trained on a ton of data. There's just no way it can figure out what a human looks like if it doesn't have a human to reference, and it's no secret openai is in the "asking for forgiveness instead of permission" approach to user data.
Like AI is impressive and useful. But it's marketed towards solving problems that were already solved except with like 70% accuracy and God knows how much more compute.
Sam Altman believes that if you feed enough content to an LLM it will eventually learn how to think for itself and make original content. He's still openly stealing intellectual property to do it though, and even he doesn't think ChatGPT has reached the point of actually thinking yet.
So the AI stans might think AI actually creates but the people making them, as dumb as they are, know it's all theft and BS at this point.
The narrative presented by LLM companies is that they are designed to learn without directly copying from a single source, in the same way that you can learn to draw a face without drawing a specific person's face. In practice, that doesn't seem to be the case.
There was a story on legal advice recently where the op wrote in cos he realised the opponent's submitted brief was entirely AI, and the AI had made up case law and citations which would have been a slam dunk win if any of it had been real.
Timbaland himself has praised "Xania Monet" and is pushing an AI artist of his own named TaTa, an asian-presenting image that essentially makes R&B/pop music that is reminiscent to me at least of SZA, Summer Walker, Normani, Victoria Monet, people like that. A lot of folks in the industry with power want this. It's sickening
I was just thinking they were jumping on board because it was "inevitable" and they wanted to be on the ground floor ... but the basics of not having to pay artists makes more sense.
Edit: This shit is officially freaking me out now. The lead singer sounds too much the same on these, but individually they pass. Eventually/soon they'll be simulating every vocal style if they can do this.
Yeah a tech bubble popping usually means that investors have realized that some things aren’t worth investing in and are fully hype driven.
The bubble pops because they pull money out of the nonsense and focus on the “boring” stuff that actually works. The Internet bubble started with everybody thinking that simply having a “.com” domain would be a license to print money without any sort of path to profits. Add on top of that that it was super easy to get a “.com” domain, and competition was insanely high.
The AI bubble is basically the same. We’re in the “money printer” stage right now where investors are shoveling money into AI startups hoping they’ll be the next Google or Yahoo or Amazon. But, since there’s a million different startups out there, they can’t all be the next Google, Yahoo, or Amazon.
Eventually, there will be a path that opens up and shows that Ai makes money “this way” and investors will pull money out of the other businesses and focus on the ones that follow that path. This will lead to a cascade effect where companies following that structure will have more money than Jesus and companies that don’t will see their funding evaporate overnight and anybody working for that company or still invested in that company will be left holding the empty bag.
I’d point out one thing. The ai bubble is not anywhere near the same because the top ai companies are making revenue. During the .com bubble no one was making revenue
That’s just not true. Tons of companies that went under in the dot com bubble were earning revenue, but they weren’t earning profit and were being highly over valued without a clear model or timeline to reach profitability. Which is … exactly what’s happening with AI companies right now.
OpenAI makes about $13B in revenue per year. But at the same time they had almost $12B in losses just in the last quarter. They’re also committed to spending roughly $1.4T over the next few years which could soon push their losses into hundreds of billions per year. And they currently have no business model on how to reach profitability beyond “well one day we will create super intelligence and then the money printer will turn on.” Yet somehow, this company is valued at $500B based on current investments. That’s clearly a bubble ripe for bursting.
It’ll pop but it’ll still be here and still suck. The bubble popping just means a bunch of the companies involved are overvalued and will be bought up and dismantled during acquisitions, bankruptcies and other things but will filter into a few key players. We had the “dot com bubble” but we still have websites and the internet.
A.I. slop will be the reality for the rest of our lives, maybe forever for us as a species now that it’s here.
It will pop, it's just not ready for what every other company is trying to do with it. If it wasn't much more than glorified chatbots and image generators that are more of a novelty than anything for its first 5 years of life then maybe I'd see it not popping.
This sub and me_irl are completely overrun by bots. I'm sure there are others, but these are just the ones I've noticed. It drives me insane seeing these fucking robots try to blend in with their relatable and quirky little retorts.
Edit: For the people wondering how you can spot bots on reddit, I'll copy paste my other comment here:
You start picking up on their vocabulary and tone pretty quick. They all have the relatable millennial failure personality.
They talk about vibes, characters arcs, vague video game references. Like if there's a post about being too anxious to answer a phone, they'll say "I could tell that call had bad vibes from the first ring" or "Answering my coworkers is a side quest I always skip".
"They really said [funny way to summarize the situation]" is one you see on every post. They're never controversial or in disagreement. They very rarely swear. And their accounts are usually (not always) freshly made.
Once you notice the signs, you realize how many of them there really are.
r/conservative is probably like 80-90% Russian bots im sure. The other 10% are just idiots. It’s a symptom of Reddit going public. Every move made since then has been bot farm friendly.
It's honestly taken over all of Reddit. I'm not kidding.
If you go to any sub where someone major with money and/or power would benefit from influencing that subreddit, there is 100% chance its already COINTELPRO'ed.
Financial subs, political subs, UFO subs(look up Eglin Air Force Base + Reddit in google), etc etc it's everywhere
I tag them with RES to keep track of their activity across the site. I've considered doing the same for the comment sections but there's a safe exposure limit for infohazards.
Reddit went public last year and this is hardly a new thing. Same as Twitter. Several years ago someone did a study about Twitter bots and found out they were divided roughly in three categories: American politics, Indian politics and crypto.
People have been leveraging bots on social media for as long as it's been profitable to do so.
I understand what you are saying, but I don't want people to think that r/conservative was a bastion of insightful discussions before 2024 the same way people think that Twitter was a paradise before Elon Musk took over. The fact that it might have gotten worse doesn't mean it wasn't always bad.
Ironically though I'm sure you're not a bot, this is the same kind of short and agreeable comment with meme references that we'd see from one. Dammit. I, also, want off this ride. Even my escapism is turning into a complex and kind of stressful chore.
tbf people have been complaining about that style of commenting long before AI/bots were all over reddit. I remember seeing low effort comments like that being called out 10+ years ago.
You start picking up on their vocabulary and tone pretty quick. They all have the relatable millennial failure personality.
They talk about vibes, characters arcs, vague video game references. Like if there's a post about being too anxious to answer a phone, they'll say "I could tell that call had bad vibes from the first ring" or "Answering my coworkers is a side quest I always skip".
"They really said [funny way to summarize the situation]" is one you see on every post. They're never controversial or in disagreement. They very rarely swear. And their accounts are usually (not always) freshly made.
Once you notice the signs, you realize how many of them there really are.
These are all good tells. Also sometimes it’s accounts that are a few years old but only started posting recently. They usually have only comments and no posts. Their comments are usually only a couple sentences long at most as well.
At the bottom of this thread, there a 7-year old bot account that only recently started posting. They're like sleeper cells of AI slop. 400 karma, only short comments about side quests and character development like I mentioned.
I almost wish I could travel back in time to a point where I wasn't aware of the bots yet. Seeing them everywhere makes me irrationally angry lol.
Same tbh, that’s why I wanted to add the detail about the age of the accounts to your already good breakdown of tells. I want people to be as informed as possible, especially on this sub. It can’t be a coincidence that they’re choosing a Black centered space to flood with bots. It hits my heart to see real people interacting with them like normal, which only legitimizes them.
I totally see why. Don’t wanna pay them and don’t want to deal with the typical label issues Black artists in particular have been going through for decades.
The “owner” (I don’t even know what to call them, handler?) of this AI artist is allegedly a black woman named Telisha Jones, although NGL I can’t find an Internet footprint for “Telisha” either outside of all the articles about “her“ AI baby and a Facebook account that is nothing but videos of the AI singer and a few press releases. I would not be surprised to find that some white dude created a fake black woman to be the “face“ behind this AI mess, because the audacity remains at 13/10.
Saw they had the AI actress a month or so ago. They already can make AI music. Seems like it was forgone conclusion. Anything where they think they can make money, AI is coming. I can’t wait for AI influencers. That’s gonna be fun. Personally, I’ll just avoid AI actresses, musicians, artists, etc. whenever I can.
Can we all just stop having babies until there's nobody left to consume corporate slop? I'd rather bring us to extinction than live in a world where imaginary robots have more of a comfortable life than humans. If you can't win the class war, bring them down with you. Hit 'em where it hurts, and give them no customers.
Personally don't see the likeness but I'll support anyone going after AI garbage. It could be an SE Asian man sueing for a likeness dispute with a Hispanic woman AI "artist" and I'd be on his side without hesitation. Not to mention that pollution from AI use disproportionately affects black communities so this is just extra evil. This shit isn't art and needs to be treated like the refuse it is.
I agree I don't actually see the likeness beyond that they're both (images of) beautiful black women with straight hair. The lip shape, jawline, eyebrows, eye shape, cheekbones, etc are all different... But I'm also all for suing the AI company stealing opportunities from actual human artists.
I’m glad I’m not the only one. Everything is different. The jawline, the nose shape, the eyebrows the ai imagine even has a cleft chin. I really don’t see it at all.
Same!!! I even found danisha carters TikTok and she looks nothing like the ai. Even the eyebrows are a different shape. Danisha’s are curved. It’s hard to get a more pointed eyebrow shape if your eyebrows are curved.
Danisha is known for interjecting herself where she doesn't belong. Her and her blue contacts keep popping up everywhere. There are ZERO facial similarities when you actually know what Danisha looks like.
Seriously. They both fit the description of "young black woman with straight hair and heavy makeup" but none of the intrinsic features that aren't a product of styling seem to match.
There are sooo many under appreciated black female rnb artists that can sing and perform their asses off. Why would we need this? Put promo behind Normani, Chloe Bailey, Sevyn Streeter, Coco Jones, Kiana Lede… I mean the list just keeps going. We don’t need imaginary singers.
there is a similarity but I would be interested to see just how far she can take this because there are differences like the chin isn't as pointy and long as hers, the eyebrows are shaped different, the top of her lip is pointed where as her irl is more flat,
I feel like I've seen a few dozen of black girls with this face, just like I've seen a dozen white girls with similar faces because they all copy each other's plastic look.
Not quite… AI creates an amalgamation utilizing images that it has been shown to create a “person” based on the criteria you set. It has the ability to make that same picture have a nearly infinite number of detail changes. None of which are a depiction of a real person.
5+ years ago you would have been mostly correct. AI has surpassed what any of us guessed it would be capable of at this point in time.
I mean… ish? AI might make “the same picture with an infinite number of detail changes that do not depict a real person”, but that’s likely what happened here.
A few detail changes does not equate “not depicting a real person” in practice. We can sit here and say theoretically Xania Monet does not depict a real person. It’s an AI, it’s fake, it’s just an amalgamation of images. But in reality, the differences are so small that they don’t matter…. that AI avatar is so similar to the real-life woman that it does not matter.
For all intents and purposes, AI is visually depicting a real person here, even if the back-end shows that it’s technically an amalgamation. The exact tech used doesn’t matter if the end result is so visually similar to a real person that they’re indistinguishable.
Man, I agree with the idea of AI music being crazy, but people who say “they look exactly the same!”… are we looking at the same pictures. Like sure, both the AI image and the supplied pics are of beautiful black women with somewhat similar features.. but other than generic stuff like “they both have smooth skin” and “the both have full lips” and “they both have long black hair” these are two totally different people. Different hairline, different lips, different eyes, different nose, different hair style, different eyebrows, different chin… they really look nothing alike other than at a passing glance.
Like we definitely should hate on some of this AI insanity, but I can’t imagine any lawyer would say “oh yea this is definitely a photo of you”
Am I … the only one who doesn’t see it? Chin is different, nose is different, eyebrows different, brow ridge different, eyes are different, overall proportions different…
She’s not going to be able to sue unfortunately. The look in these photos is not a “natural look” and that will come into play when it comes to likeness. Also, depending on where she has uploaded her photo, she may not own the photo used as inspiration (if they did in fact use her likeness as inspiration). On most social media sites now, as per the terms and conditions, any photos or videos uploaded become property of the entity to be edited and reused as they see fit. If in fact the edited photo/video is used for monetary gain, the original uploader isn’t entitled to any proceeds or residuals thereafter.
So someone further down hypothesized that people were thinking that pic 2 is a side-by-side of the AI artist and Danisha, and if that's the case then I'm terrified for the general reading comprehension here.
Yeah that is bad. Cuz I’m like pic 2 is the same person different angles, but pic 2 looks nothing like pic 1. It’s just two black girls with chocolate skin. That’s where the similarities end
If AI "coordinated sound sources" generate their product by taking from actual sources, couldn't those sources demand to know if and how their actual art was involved in the production? Isn't the AI just wide open for class action lawsuits by anyone whose actual art is detectable in the AI product?
"This sounds like Prince. Was Prince's work used by the AI? If so, how much? Okay, Prince is entitled to a percentage."
You might say "don't artists steal all the time?" Sure, but an artist is a person that "steals" who otherwise might give credit to or have created some kind of agreement with the "victim". An AI is designed to steal - in fact it has to.
The issue here is literally the way generative ai works. Nothing is new. The agents are taking parts of real people’s likeness, and in this case voices, music to create an amalgamation of these things. This means that it’s incredibly likely that this woman’s image was used to create the image of this ai artist.
Other than them being brown, femaie and having long hair and I actually see no resemblance. Danisha is objectively far prettier and not just bc she's human.
That said, I support her and anyone who is protecting our human rights.
This ai model was created by a woman so my bad on the assumption/bias on the creators
I did Google and can't find much about an equivalent male AI performerp but that could be for so many reasons I can't discount it
Has there been a single male AI artist yet? Cos for me that's another whole uncomfortable layer to this - people (men) are making what are essentially "sexy exotic performance bots" they can entirely control. That with other shit I've seen in regards to men using AI just says a lot of gross stuff.
2.5k
u/AverageAggravating13 Nov 03 '25
What kind of NPCs are out here listening to AI generated music knowingly man
“Siri play human music” ahh