My spouse yelled at me after she showed me too many AI videos, and I would watch it and 1) if it’s under 15 seconds, 2) too good to be true, 3) has unrealistic physics, and/or 4) has AI artifacts, I wouldn’t enjoy the video, and just say “yeah, that’s AI.”
She just wants to enjoy the videos, and didn’t care if staged or AI or what. She likes the concept of what’s on the video. AI takes that away from me, and not her, apparently.
If the video is obvious a fake and overexaggerated, I dont mind AI videos. Its no different than the shitposts people made before. But its the click farming shit that really irks me.
I’d be firmly on your side of that fence, the idea being its cute or cool cause it happened in real life. this is a recording of real life. if its a computer drawing using the severed and reconstituted husks of other things and did not happen, its just something completely different- would she watch a hand drawn cartoon of the same thing? Would she really?
Another possibly interesting way to tease it out, is say it’s a video of her close friend being given an award from a prestigious institution and she feels a sense of pride. Or, its a video from the same friend where her partner does something very sweet and poignant. In both cases, she then finds out that this never happened, its just a computer drawing her friend made of these non-events. Too different to draw out the reason while real vs fake matters? Possibly.
Say the video of a cat that can accurately work and excel spreadsheet. Does that one matter (spoiler, its REAL)
Usually when people share a post, it’s because the post evoked a reaction, and they want to share that with someone. Making the conversation about the provenance of the post truncates the exchange in an unsatisfying way. For a news story, propaganda, or the like, the source is important. For funny dog videos? Maybe the quality of the exchange is more important. A nice middle ground would be to react as if it were true, and then point out it’s probably AI. Videos are easier to spot, but the difference between an image that’s obviously AI and one that looks real is like 10 min of work in Photoshop. So we’re often better off saving our faculties of discernment for the stuff that matters.
Yeah, that’s what I was thinking as well, with the comparison to hand drawn animation. Honestly, I’m not sure, but I expect that would not hit quite the same way. Claymation…maybe the same, actually. It might also be just no glasses scrolling and quick reactions without discernment.
I’ve explained how to recognize AI videos, and she knows how to ID most (I hope), and I have noticed that she shows me fewer AI clips now. Not none, but fewer. I think she knows I don’t like them, and doesn’t want me too be the killjoy.
I even made a clip in Sora of our cat doing stuff, as an olive branch. I think that sort of made the point you were making about the friend getting an award.
this is all very thoughtful, and it seems like your thinking on it is aligned quite closely to my own.
just to say, I think its understanding and kind of you to be hands off and respectful of what she enjoys. I find all gen AI slop disquieting, but if someone else really enjoys it with their eyes wide open, really who gives a shit, there are very real and serious things to worry about and someone liking an AI cat video or not prolly isnt one of them
I’ve found, as I’ve gotten older, that my desire to believe things that are true is far from universal. It’s mind boggling to me that people willingly delude themselves for a hit of dopamine or whatever, while they slowly lose the ability to tell the difference between reality and fiction
One of the things that makes a staged video less troubling is that the staging itself always comes with tells. Camera angles, cuts, framing, and of course actual staging.
AI videos can have that too, but they aren’t the inherent tells. AI tells are unnatural: bodies that shift in subtle ways, objects warped or searching outside the center of frame. It’s not stuff that you look for because it’s not stuff that actually happens in nature, or even in human constructed CGI all that often. But it does add up to a sense of uncanny valley.
If someone were to say to you “why did the chicken cross the road?” You wouldn’t demand that there is actually a chicken. You would accept it as a framework for a joke.
The same holds true for staged videos or AI or anything. Is the framework important to the point? A video claiming people can fly and using AI as proof… That’s problematic. A staged bit where it would still be funny if it was just told verbally by a standup comedian? Who cares how real it is, the realness was never the point, the concept of the situation was.
Almost all comedy movies are just long staged bits.
And “how funny would this be if a standup comedian told this as a joke” vs “the context of this potentially actually happening is very important to the underlying humor of it” is a variable line for people. And that’s ok. Unless someone is in danger (don’t let someone jump off a cliff because ai said they can fly), other people’s lines don’t really affect you
When you sit down to watch a movie, you know it isn’t real. When you watch media coverage of current events, you should not have to guess if it is or isn’t.
I agree. But that’s wrong because lying about current events is wrong. This is what I meant about framework. AI is a tool in that regard and not the problem. There is plenty of “real” journalism out there spreading lies too that I have problems with.
I’m fortunate I guess that most of the AI slop I dismiss is things more akin to baby panda sneezing scares mom panda. Where it doesn’t REALLY matter if it’s real because there are no consequences. It’s either funny or it’s not.
If all we were seeing is the prompt used to generate the video, then there wouldn’t be a problem. Human-written fiction is generally valuable.
Instead we’re getting single sentences masquerading as “a picture worth a 1000 words”, or worse with video. Only 1% of that is actually the valuable part (the prompt), the rest is filler words and hallucinated slop.
A video or picture of reality is inherently more informative than any AI generation.
I have the exact same problem with AI-generated articles. They’re nearly empty of any actual information, and it completely wastes your time to filter through it and find the actual point. Just like the backstory that gets put before every online food recipe; it’s useless fluff.
My spouse yelled at me after she showed me too many AI videos, and I would watch it and 1) if it’s under 15 seconds, 2) too good to be true, 3) has unrealistic physics, and/or 4) has AI artifacts, I wouldn’t enjoy the video, and just say “yeah, that’s AI.”
She just wants to enjoy the videos, and didn’t care if staged or AI or what. She likes the concept of what’s on the video. AI takes that away from me, and not her, apparently.
If the video is obvious a fake and overexaggerated, I dont mind AI videos. Its no different than the shitposts people made before. But its the click farming shit that really irks me.
thats actually pretty interesting.
I’d be firmly on your side of that fence, the idea being its cute or cool cause it happened in real life. this is a recording of real life. if its a computer drawing using the severed and reconstituted husks of other things and did not happen, its just something completely different- would she watch a hand drawn cartoon of the same thing? Would she really?
Another possibly interesting way to tease it out, is say it’s a video of her close friend being given an award from a prestigious institution and she feels a sense of pride. Or, its a video from the same friend where her partner does something very sweet and poignant. In both cases, she then finds out that this never happened, its just a computer drawing her friend made of these non-events. Too different to draw out the reason while real vs fake matters? Possibly.
Say the video of a cat that can accurately work and excel spreadsheet. Does that one matter (spoiler, its REAL)
Usually when people share a post, it’s because the post evoked a reaction, and they want to share that with someone. Making the conversation about the provenance of the post truncates the exchange in an unsatisfying way. For a news story, propaganda, or the like, the source is important. For funny dog videos? Maybe the quality of the exchange is more important. A nice middle ground would be to react as if it were true, and then point out it’s probably AI. Videos are easier to spot, but the difference between an image that’s obviously AI and one that looks real is like 10 min of work in Photoshop. So we’re often better off saving our faculties of discernment for the stuff that matters.
Nah, screw that. I am disgusted by the way AI looks. I’d rather people not send me anything than to send me slop.
Yeah, that’s what I was thinking as well, with the comparison to hand drawn animation. Honestly, I’m not sure, but I expect that would not hit quite the same way. Claymation…maybe the same, actually. It might also be just no glasses scrolling and quick reactions without discernment.
I’ve explained how to recognize AI videos, and she knows how to ID most (I hope), and I have noticed that she shows me fewer AI clips now. Not none, but fewer. I think she knows I don’t like them, and doesn’t want me too be the killjoy.
I even made a clip in Sora of our cat doing stuff, as an olive branch. I think that sort of made the point you were making about the friend getting an award.
this is all very thoughtful, and it seems like your thinking on it is aligned quite closely to my own.
just to say, I think its understanding and kind of you to be hands off and respectful of what she enjoys. I find all gen AI slop disquieting, but if someone else really enjoys it with their eyes wide open, really who gives a shit, there are very real and serious things to worry about and someone liking an AI cat video or not prolly isnt one of them
I’ve found, as I’ve gotten older, that my desire to believe things that are true is far from universal. It’s mind boggling to me that people willingly delude themselves for a hit of dopamine or whatever, while they slowly lose the ability to tell the difference between reality and fiction
Oh man I’ve noticed zero difference. Religion, a thousand times religion.
But that’s the point for the AI owners. To get people to not care about the destruction of your brain, the world, our income, our art, etc.
At that point, when we stop pushing back, AI slop peddlers have won.
Honestly I’ll take staged videos. At least it’s real humans doing it.
One of the things that makes a staged video less troubling is that the staging itself always comes with tells. Camera angles, cuts, framing, and of course actual staging.
AI videos can have that too, but they aren’t the inherent tells. AI tells are unnatural: bodies that shift in subtle ways, objects warped or searching outside the center of frame. It’s not stuff that you look for because it’s not stuff that actually happens in nature, or even in human constructed CGI all that often. But it does add up to a sense of uncanny valley.
“I’ll take people shitting into my mouth over dogs. At least it’s real humans doing it.”
If someone were to say to you “why did the chicken cross the road?” You wouldn’t demand that there is actually a chicken. You would accept it as a framework for a joke.
The same holds true for staged videos or AI or anything. Is the framework important to the point? A video claiming people can fly and using AI as proof… That’s problematic. A staged bit where it would still be funny if it was just told verbally by a standup comedian? Who cares how real it is, the realness was never the point, the concept of the situation was.
Almost all comedy movies are just long staged bits.
And “how funny would this be if a standup comedian told this as a joke” vs “the context of this potentially actually happening is very important to the underlying humor of it” is a variable line for people. And that’s ok. Unless someone is in danger (don’t let someone jump off a cliff because ai said they can fly), other people’s lines don’t really affect you
It’s kind of a shame you’re getting down voted for this. It’s a perfectly reasonable perspective, and makes sense.
When you sit down to watch a movie, you know it isn’t real. When you watch media coverage of current events, you should not have to guess if it is or isn’t.
I agree. But that’s wrong because lying about current events is wrong. This is what I meant about framework. AI is a tool in that regard and not the problem. There is plenty of “real” journalism out there spreading lies too that I have problems with.
I’m fortunate I guess that most of the AI slop I dismiss is things more akin to baby panda sneezing scares mom panda. Where it doesn’t REALLY matter if it’s real because there are no consequences. It’s either funny or it’s not.
If all we were seeing is the prompt used to generate the video, then there wouldn’t be a problem. Human-written fiction is generally valuable.
Instead we’re getting single sentences masquerading as “a picture worth a 1000 words”, or worse with video. Only 1% of that is actually the valuable part (the prompt), the rest is filler words and hallucinated slop.
A video or picture of reality is inherently more informative than any AI generation.
I have the exact same problem with AI-generated articles. They’re nearly empty of any actual information, and it completely wastes your time to filter through it and find the actual point. Just like the backstory that gets put before every online food recipe; it’s useless fluff.
I feel like the photorealism is what makes it bad. When you notice it’s fake you feel lied to. If it’s a cartoon, or blatantly cartoonish, it doesn’t.