Doctor, Doctor! Give me the news!

[marble falls]

?si=tsl_zsJogkqv8z4h

[pwb]

1. Looks like Trump comforting Epstein.

Sorry you got caught buddy.

[magicarpet]

2. Jon Stewart did a skit saying the guy in the bed ill being comforted by Jesus Trump,...

.... looked like himself - Jon Stewart.

The link of that portion of the show is below. Quite funny.

https://youtube.com/shorts/YaMUAEomwpU?si=9d7VJBeJldoWY_gt

[marble falls]

3. I've heard both are suspects. I think it's Epstein, myself, being raised from the dead.

[magicarpet]

4. Whoever is intended trump has a lot of audacity to post that while being president of the USA.

No respect for protocol or decorum.

[marble falls]

5. There's been an artist who paints large canvases of TACO doing all sorts of things he is not capable of doing.

[magicarpet]

6. I think I know of the artist who you refer. He has a very religious context to his trump art.

Have been looking or someone to mention the identity of the artist who did the trump is Jesus picture. Or someone was saying it is just AI generated slop.

[marble falls]

7. He's pretty sacreligious for a Christian artist.

[magicarpet]

9. The artis thinks trump is the second coming of Jesus. So they pretty much delegate the real Jesus to the trash heap

.... and swap trump in the place of Jesus. They should call this cult
"Born Again Satan."

[magicarpet]

8. Could be this artist, he just loves him some trump.

Sourced from Wikipedia,...

Jon Austin McNaughton (born November 1967) is an American artist. He is known for his paintings depicting American conservative political figures, in particular prominent Republicans, and Christian imagery. He began his style of political painting during the Barack Obama administration, creating works in support of the Tea Party movement. He subsequently became a supporter of Donald Trump.[1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_McNaughton

[highplainsdem]

12. It was Trump fan and flunky Nick Adams who first posted a version of that AI image, though it isn't known if

he generated it.

Article on this, showing both AI images Adams posted back in February:

https://www.9news.com.au/world/donald-trump-jesus-christ-ai-image-nick-adams-sydney-australian-usa-news/58c686df-0eae-4708-a6b3-b415c160a0cb

[thought crime]

10. Whoa! That sent me right to You-tube to listen to Robert Palmer. Thanks!

[highplainsdem]

11. That YouTuber has a lot of AI slop art in many of his videos, as is immediately obvious from the

thumbnails:

https://youtube.com/@patmfitz/videos

I don't care about the AI slop image in the video in the OP, since Trump had posted that. But a lot of the other videos on that channel use so much AI slop art I'd never recommend them.

That YouTuber apparently uses the backing tracks from records, which is okay - at least he identifies them.The lyrics may or may not be his. The singing may or may not be his (some definitely isn't). His older videos, pre-AI, include some live performances, so he can sing, and he can write lyrics. But if he's unethical enough not to see anything wrong with using a lot of AI slop images for his videos, I really can't be sure he wouldn't also have a chatbot generating at least part of the lyrics at times.

[marble falls]

13. Whose copyright is he abusing? Whose job is he taking? Whose graphics is he skimming? What if this is/was CGI?...

... When I was much younger I adapted to CAD from velum and lead. I was told that CAD was going bury draftsmen out of a job. I CADed a house into an optical illusion impossible to exist in reality and the caption read "just because an idiot has a CAD program, it doesn't mean the idiot is a draftsman." CAD is just another drafting tool like a lead holder or a compass. It allowed me to become a 3D drafter and increased my value as a Draftsman.

There are ethical uses of AI. And AI can be abused to steal jobs and violate other peoples intellectual property. That's not the fault of AI any more than Ford is responsible for having it's autos used as getaway cars in bank robberies.

It's time to have a rational discussion about the ethical use of AI and the unethical use of AI. There's movie coming out that uses an AI Val Kilmer that the director claimed was necessary because Val Kilmer was a great actor and there was no time to recast the part. That was pure bullshit because that cinematic simulacrum was a con to make people come to see Val Kilmer. Now that is unethical and a con. I will not be seeing it.

Demonstrate where any of this piece was scraped off the net from other's work or some other unethical use of AI in that video, or even that it was AI vs some other form of production like Animator or CGI or whatever else and I will take this post down.

It is aggravating that you use my OP to promote your absolute hatred of anything you think is AI regardless of the source of the material, ethically, or not. And not just once but twice in the same thread, when what the discussion should be about the difference between ethical and unethical use of AI. They don't make buggy whips anymore and cars put black smiths and livery stables out of business, too. Computers put people out of work, too. CNC machines put machinists out of work. It's called progress. We need to be looking for ways to separate the good from the bad. Or at least label it AI work.

[highplainsdem]

14. Generative AI trained on datasets of stolen work is unethical, period. It doesn't become ethical because

you or anyone else likes the way it was used.

In the case of the video in the OP, he's mocking that specific piece of AI slop Trump posted. So I didn't mind that.

But a lot of his videos use AI slop when there's absolutely no need to do so.

Just as there was no need for that new film - which I posted about in the thread you commented on - to use an AI simulacrum of Val Kilmer when a living actor could and should have been given that role.

The YouTuber who did the video in the OP is doing song parodies. He does not need to use AI slop for the thumbnails you see as the first image, or any images/video in the videos he's uploaded to YouTube. He could upload videos of himself performing the songs. Or just show people the lyrics. That's what people used to do with satirical songs. They didn't need AI-generated images and video from tools trained on other artists' stolen work to create music videos.

If he wanted images/video, he could have paid artists, or asked them to help him in return for being given credit. That would have been the ethical thing to do.

Most musicians seem to understand that. Professional musicians who are at all well known have caught hell from their fans if they used AI art/video for either album covers or music videos. I've posted threads about that here in the past. Musicians who see what a threat AI music generators are to real musicians usually understand what a threat AI image and video generators are to real artists, visual artists.

The same goes for novelists who will catch hell for using AI art for book covers.

Artists usually stand together because they have to. If they don't want generative AI used to compete with their type of art, it's foolish and hypocritical to act as though it's just fine and harmless to use genAI trained on different types of artists' work. AI companies love it when any artist is that hypocritical, because they just undermined arguments against genAI use in general.

And then there's the problem that anyone using genAI inevitably raises questions about how much they use it.

I wish to God that the YouTuber whose video you posted had never used genAI, because then I could enjoy his satirical lyrics without wondering if he actually wrote them himself or had a chatbot write them for him. The same questions are inevitable if someone uses a music generator. Even if someone actually wrote the lyrics, no one else can know that for sure unless there's some earlier record of those written lyrics...and even then, how the hell do you know that AI user didn't have a chatbot write the lyrics for them before feeding them into Suno or Udio to turn into a recorded song?

You can't even know, with AI users, whether even the basic idea for something they generate was theirs, or if they asked a chatbot to come up with a list of ideas for them. I've seen YouTube encourage their channel owners to ask AI for ideas.

So with genAI you can have people with zero artistic skills and zero ideas for anything creative ask AI for ideas and have AI generate something, with the YouTuber basically having nothing to do with it, beyond wanting a YouTube video about something.

GenAI destroys credibility and authenticity. It's inherently pretense.

And so I hate to see anyone who has some real talent, as that YouTuber showed he has in pre-AI videos, hurt their own credibility using AI when it was absolutely not necessary.

[marble falls]

15. I'll remember that after my wife's breast tumor was too small to be picked up by humans, but AI found it last week. ...

... the problem isn't AI it's the unethical use of it. Like the misuse of firearms, drugs, insider trading ... just think of it: if we ban auto travel we'll be saving 50,000 deaths on the road each year. The problem isn't traffic or autos, it's the misuse of them. the same with firearms, drugs and market trading.

Please consider putting a finer point on your attitude regarding AI.

[highplainsdem]

16. The type of AI that caught your wife's cancer early - for which I'm very thankful - is NOT the type of AI

trained illegally on data sets of stolen intellectual property. AI bros would like people to confuse hallucinating generative AI models with those other types of AI trained legally on scientific data the AI companies had the right to use, but they aren't the same technology.

I've made it clear again and again here that my objection is to illegally trained generative AI.

Re AI for detecting breast cancer - see this Substack from February of this year by Eric Topol, and see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Topol and https://www.scripps.edu/faculty/topol/ for his background.

https://erictopol.substack.com/p/why-all-mammograms-should-incorporate

The models that led to currently approved or cleared mammography AI tools are all derived without generative AI.

Again, the very unethical AI bros peddling generative AI like to confuse people about this.

No one had to steal the world's writing, visual art and music to train AI. That was not done to help humanity. It was done for the profit of AI companies.

No one had to steal the world's software and coding websites, either, to give us generative AI models that can generate code very rapidly but still hallucinate, producing vast amounts of code faster than humans can check it properly.

The reason all of it was stolen was that generative AI companies hoped that if they just kept dumping more data into their AI models, they might create a truly intelligent machine. They haven't succeeded.

But they did -after stealing what's probably trillions of dollars' worth of intellectual property they had no right to use - succeed in creating AI models that offered an imitation of real knowledge and real creativity. AI models that could be marketed to businesses that wanted to fire workers, and to people without that knowledge and those skills who wanted to pretend they possessed them. Of course the genAI models still hallucinated and their results had to be checked and corrected, and using those AI models dumbed down the users, deskilling people who already had skills and discouraging people who didn't have those skills from bothering to acquire them. But the AI bros didn't care. They had expropriated the world's knowledge and culture in the hope of selling it back to us and making everyone dependent on generative AI and chatbots designed to be addictive.