4 ms·

And you don’t seem to understand that AI influencers are already here, and are generating far more accounts and amassing far more followers than actual people.

by EGreg 2y ago

And you don’t seem to understand that AI influencers are already here, and are generating far more accounts and amassing far more followers than actual people. And also actual people (including onlyfans models) who used to fake the real connection by using men (like the Tates) to type it are now using AI and bots. The sea shift will come When people on both sides (not just the influencer side) PREFER multimodal AI to dumb texting. And then you don’t need the human model herself anymore because the AI model is far more versatile (in commercials too). Followers and engagement is a gameable metric, so expect capitalism to slowly favor AI in everything. If an AI model can ingest millions of publicly available videos and back up its points with the best B-roll and clips, it can also convince better than a team of 3 people. Even if its argument is bullshit. As you said, it’s not just about truth and results, it’s about follower counts and clout! So it’s not just about losing jobs, it’s also misinformation at scale, across many accounts. Enjoy the brave new world! I am talking about only what’s there NOW and possible with CURRENT technology.

keiferski 2y ago
I’m pretty unconvinced by the AI influencer idea. Most of them are just niche aggregator type of things, not accounts with real influence. By the time AI can replicate a streaming live video, devices and platforms will have already implemented real-identity features. Remember that the platforms themselves don’t benefit from AI content dominating everything and are pretty incentivized to ensure that content is from real people.
- ben_w 2y ago
  I don't buy any of that. Well, except for "most are just", which is plausible. > platforms will have already implemented real-identity features FB already has this, in theory, but that doesn't stop people scamming with it. Those policies didn't even stop people organising a genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_content_management_controversies#Incitement_of_human_rights_abuses_in_Myanmar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_content_management_co... > Remember that the platforms themselves don’t benefit from AI content dominating everything and are pretty incentivized to ensure that content is from real people. These platforms themselves are AI. Even when the posts are made by humans — and posts don't need to be "real time" nor do they need to be video — the feed is algorithmic to maximise your attention, and the choices of which advert to stick in front of your eyes are chosen algorithmically to maximise revenue… and even before the use of LLMs for copy and diffusion models for images, the ads themselves are AB tested by the businesses to see which have the greatest effect.
  - keiferski 2y ago
    YouTube, instagram etc. do not benefit from a world in which their entire content base is AI generated slop. They need real people to spend time and attention there in order to sell ads, and that includes creators.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      > YouTube, instagram etc. do not benefit from a world in which their entire content base is AI generated slop. "slop" being the key word. I remember when all 3D animation was "slop". But even ignoring technological progress, lots of people have regularly criticised mass media for being "slop", and yet the masses keep eating it up — the other side of that coin is that even if we had an AI that was essentially a perfectly sublime artist, I'd expect it to go like this: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/ai-12 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/ai-12
      - keiferski 2y ago
        As I said in the original comment, I think people largely follow content creators for “human reasons”, including that they feel a connection to the creator. This doesn’t exist with AI tools and functionally never will. The future of media is even more personality-driven than it is already.
        ben_w 2y ago
        > I think people largely follow content creators for “human reasons”, including that they feel a connection to the creator. This doesn’t exist with AI tools and functionally never will. The feeling is already found to exist entirely independent of the reality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasocial_interaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasocial_interaction
        keiferski 2y ago
        Where do you propose the future AI influencers of the world are going to get their inputs? How can they make content so good that it replaces human creators, if those human creators aren’t even expressing themselves? It will be entirely disconnected from culture and therefore not be compelling to viewers in the first place. The AI-replacement theory just doesn’t line up with how online trends and social behavior actually works. Creators become popular because they are relatable, are charismatic, etc. not because they have a formula that can be replaced by a machine.
cableshaft 2y ago
> AI influencers are already here, ...and amassing far more followers than actual people The only one I've seen that gained any significant following is Neuro-sama, and that's largely thanks to Vedal's own constant involvement, during streams, in trying to improve her, by coding plugins to interact with games, training her, and combining different models (text and visual) and having her interact with chat and himself. Essentially Neuro-sama is more of an extension of Vedal, and wouldn't exist without his efforts. Also half of what makes her entertaining is the banter between her and Vedal. He's a great straight man to her wacky sayings and non sequiturs. Not saying there won't eventually be some big AI influencers, but I don't see them taking over anytime soon, or even most people prefering them to actual people even when they do become widespread (there will still be enough that do prefer the A.I. that I believe there can be a few that have big followings though). I think for the most part it will remain pretty niche, though. I watch Neuro-sama sometimes, but I watch content with actual people far, far more often (Neuro/Vedal is like ~0.1% of all the content I watch right now, while I could be watching most or all of time, as there's quite a few archives on Youtube/Twitch...but I don't). Also I'm assuming by making this claim you're aware of more than just Vedal/Neuro-sama, so I'm curious which AI influencers you're thinking of that have such massive followings.

by EGreg 2y ago

keiferski 2y ago

I’m pretty unconvinced by the AI influencer idea. Most of them are just niche aggregator type of things, not accounts with real influence. By the time AI can replicate a streaming live video, devices and platforms will have already implemented real-identity features. Remember that the platforms themselves don’t benefit from AI content dominating everything and are pretty incentivized to ensure that content is from real people.

ben_w 2y ago
I don't buy any of that. Well, except for "most are just", which is plausible. > platforms will have already implemented real-identity features FB already has this, in theory, but that doesn't stop people scamming with it. Those policies didn't even stop people organising a genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_content_management_controversies#Incitement_of_human_rights_abuses_in_Myanmar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_content_management_co... > Remember that the platforms themselves don’t benefit from AI content dominating everything and are pretty incentivized to ensure that content is from real people. These platforms themselves are AI. Even when the posts are made by humans — and posts don't need to be "real time" nor do they need to be video — the feed is algorithmic to maximise your attention, and the choices of which advert to stick in front of your eyes are chosen algorithmically to maximise revenue… and even before the use of LLMs for copy and diffusion models for images, the ads themselves are AB tested by the businesses to see which have the greatest effect.
- keiferski 2y ago
  YouTube, instagram etc. do not benefit from a world in which their entire content base is AI generated slop. They need real people to spend time and attention there in order to sell ads, and that includes creators.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    > YouTube, instagram etc. do not benefit from a world in which their entire content base is AI generated slop. "slop" being the key word. I remember when all 3D animation was "slop". But even ignoring technological progress, lots of people have regularly criticised mass media for being "slop", and yet the masses keep eating it up — the other side of that coin is that even if we had an AI that was essentially a perfectly sublime artist, I'd expect it to go like this: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/ai-12 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/ai-12
    - keiferski 2y ago
      As I said in the original comment, I think people largely follow content creators for “human reasons”, including that they feel a connection to the creator. This doesn’t exist with AI tools and functionally never will. The future of media is even more personality-driven than it is already.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        > I think people largely follow content creators for “human reasons”, including that they feel a connection to the creator. This doesn’t exist with AI tools and functionally never will. The feeling is already found to exist entirely independent of the reality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasocial_interaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasocial_interaction
        keiferski 2y ago
        Where do you propose the future AI influencers of the world are going to get their inputs? How can they make content so good that it replaces human creators, if those human creators aren’t even expressing themselves? It will be entirely disconnected from culture and therefore not be compelling to viewers in the first place. The AI-replacement theory just doesn’t line up with how online trends and social behavior actually works. Creators become popular because they are relatable, are charismatic, etc. not because they have a formula that can be replaced by a machine.

cableshaft 2y ago

> AI influencers are already here, ...and amassing far more followers than actual people The only one I've seen that gained any significant following is Neuro-sama, and that's largely thanks to Vedal's own constant involvement, during streams, in trying to improve her, by coding plugins to interact with games, training her, and combining different models (text and visual) and having her interact with chat and himself. Essentially Neuro-sama is more of an extension of Vedal, and wouldn't exist without his efforts. Also half of what makes her entertaining is the banter between her and Vedal. He's a great straight man to her wacky sayings and non sequiturs. Not saying there won't eventually be some big AI influencers, but I don't see them taking over anytime soon, or even most people prefering them to actual people even when they do become widespread (there will still be enough that do prefer the A.I. that I believe there can be a few that have big followings though). I think for the most part it will remain pretty niche, though. I watch Neuro-sama sometimes, but I watch content with actual people far, far more often (Neuro/Vedal is like ~0.1% of all the content I watch right now, while I could be watching most or all of time, as there's quite a few archives on Youtube/Twitch...but I don't). Also I'm assuming by making this claim you're aware of more than just Vedal/Neuro-sama, so I'm curious which AI influencers you're thinking of that have such massive followings.