6 ms·

Sheryl Crow: 'Resurrecting Tupac with AI Is Hateful'

36 points by belter 2y ago

fullshark 2y ago
“It's hateful. It is antithetical to the life force that exists in all of us.” As we move to a world where art is totally devalued, the early returns are not promising at all imo for AI generated music. It doesn't seem to make great art, but to allow talentless people simulate great art for cheap. It doesn't seem to inspire humans at all, it just makes them annoyed and angry. Its primary use case to me seems to be "create royalty-free music for my amateur tiktok/youtube video that sounds how I want it to sound." That's valuable as long as the royalty-free thing exists, but no one is sitting around excited about the idea of prompting AI-Tupac rap to about them or their personal interests.
- chongli 2y ago
  Genuine art will never be totally devalued. Art is fundamentally a form of communication. AI “art” will never be genuine art until it’s produced by some genuine intelligent being. As for economic value, such as in the case of paintings or sculptures worth millions, that has always been about supply and demand, status and signaling. A form of communication in its own right, albeit not born of introspection.
  - ajb 2y ago
    AI doesn't devalue art, it devalues corporate pablum. But guess what many artists earn their living off, when they haven't made it with their vocation yet.
    - tinyspacewizard 2y ago
      Expect a wave of artists moving into education to make ends meet.
  - drewcoo 2y ago
    > Art is fundamentally a form of communication. AI “art” will never be genuine art until it’s produced by some genuine intelligent being. So recordings of whale songs are art? IFF whales are intelligent? And field recordings of factory equipment and wind blowing through leaves are not art? If a painter paints in the woods and no one's there to see it, is it art? Does it become art when it's seen? I'm really curious about what people see as the "real" at the heart of art. It seems to be more complicated than mere human creativity. I just like to make things and I enjoy things other people make when they challenge me. I don't understand art.
    - lukas099 2y ago
      I’d say whalesong is art in the same way that a photograph of a whale is art. And the artist is the photographer or person recording and producing the whalesong.
  - threatofrain 2y ago
    We don't know whether a letter from the past was written by a human or by a committee of people who wanted to be trolls and all used the same name together (this happens). We won't know whether intentful communication was written by a robot either.
  - Bluestein 2y ago
    > AI “art” will never be genuine art until it’s produced by some genuine intelligent being. The ultimate Turing test?
- everforward 2y ago
  I mean, I am, as are several others I know (although the majority find it abhorrent from an art perspective). I don’t have any dreams of using it to make high art, but at the very least it should be fun for memes. I wouldn’t mind being able to make a shitty song out of a friends funny misphrasing or having a silly song to play over a video of my dog doing something silly. I’ve done the same for other things. I’ve made some one-off get well cards for people with AI generated silly images relating to them. I’ve definitely used it for Hugo sites where the page looks worse with images removed. I use it frequently when I’m not sure my interest will hold out enough to be worth trying to get a friend to make real art, because the effort is so lopsided. I can make a Hugo site in 30 minutes and drop it in less than that because I’ve invested so little; asking someone to spend hours making art for it means they’re investing more effort than I am into a project that I’ll probably forget about.
  - al_borland 2y ago
    After watching Apple's take, this seems to be their approach. A user can generate a quick AI image, in a few different styles, to basically joke around with friends or get a quick relevant image to stick in a paper. While professionals currently use stock photos which may get someone paid, a vast majority of images used for this purpose will not be published, and people are doing a Google Image search, finding something, and copying it into their paper/presentation. Replacing that with AI isn't really hurting anyone's livelihood, it's just saving time. I'm sure stock photography will take a hit as well, but I could see major publications still using it to differentiate themselves from sites operating on a tighter budget using AI, or to get accurate pictures of what is being talked about rather than something from AI that's deemed close enough.
- ralusek 2y ago
  Alternatively read as "I'm struggling to come to grips with the fact that the life force that exists in all of us is becoming more and more likely to simply be a series of surprising and emergent properties of simple cellular automata."
  - wasted_intel 2y ago
    I get the point you're making, but I'd argue that even when stated in a reductive fashion, the complex system that leads simple cellular automata to artistic expression is orders of magnitude more elegant and special than AI.
  - mcphage 2y ago
    As always, there’s a relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/2933/ https://xkcd.com/2933/
- scotty79 2y ago
  Things being devalued is awesome. It means more people can afford them. Keeping things being luxury was never a sign of progress. > but no one is sitting around excited about the idea of prompting AI-Tupac rap to about them or their personal interests Are you kidding? I specifically asked AI to generate songs about joys of programming and I was rewarded with very catchy and inspiring "Code until your dream compiles!" in the style of 80s rock/pop and among other things soft female voice singing about romantic love for her code "I know it's just text, it's true. But it's in my IDE's hue." It's a goldmine. I haven't had so much fun "creating" "music" for at least few decades. And I'm definitely not alone. Some AI generated catchy songs on funny subjects already started to circulate as memes. I don't care for human artists that never thought about creating something like that even though they theoretically could. The artists that get mimicked are the lucky ones. Last famous singers of humanity.
kelsey98765431 2y ago
Watching elvis vhs tapes is hateful!
tengbretson 2y ago
If it makes someone happy, I don't see how Sheryl Crow could think it was that bad.
- santoshalper 2y ago
  Take my upvote grudingly.
- eyelidlessness 2y ago
  Much like your reference, every day is a winding road.
  - eddieroger 2y ago
    Surely this opinion was her favorite mistake. Maybe the result of a good beer buzz early in the morning.
    - andrewfromx 2y ago
      what's your name? I'm sure it must be billy or mac or buddy
      - Bluestein 2y ago
        Whatever the name, I am sure the good people of the world, washing their cars on their lunch breaks would agree
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- librasteve 2y ago
  what if god was one of us? (or an AI)
dav43 2y ago
I thought recently, we knew AI programs where coming along time ago. They were coming for accounting, repetitive corporate jobs. Having seen/listened to the technology at the heart of AI (caveat, I don’t program and am looking from a mile high) I find it interesting the link I see. The jobs where randomnesss and errors are at part of success - art, writing, creativity - this is where AI has impact first. The jobs where accuracy is paramount and errors not tolerated - medicine, etc - maybe that’s where we see impact last if at all. Just a reflection. *edit spelling late at night
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  Yes it's ironic, AI was supposed to free us from drudgery and give us time to spend on creative passions. Instead AI is taking over all the creative work and leaving only the drudgery. I'll be interested in AI when it can clean my house and do my laundry.
  - dsr_ 2y ago
    It's doing the creative work badly, which I find particularly interesting. It's recapitulating the best criticism of the original Marxist definition of value: value is not labor added to materials, value is quality improvements to those materials.
  - lukas099 2y ago
    Is it actually taking over all the creative work? I haven’t seen any signs that it is
    - SoftTalker 2y ago
      It's doing passable pop music, art, and writing already, and still improving.
      - lukas099 2y ago
        What I'm trying to get at is that musicians are still music'ing. We just also now have musicians that we didn't have before who are using these new tools.
richie-guix 2y ago
Sheryl Crow is expressing things a little less than eloquently here. Try Rick Beato. A favorite teacher on YouTube discussing how AI generated music is towards the end of the climb out of the uncanny valley already. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbo6SdyWGns https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbo6SdyWGns The tune had been haunting London for weeks past. It was one of countless similar songs published for the benefit of the proles by a sub-section of the Music Department. The words of these songs were composed without any human intervention whatever on an instrument known as a versificator. But the woman sang so tunefully as to turn the dreadful rubbish into an almost pleasant sound. -- 1984
AlchemistCamp 2y ago
> When Crow heard the song, she was so “terrified” that she was “literally hyperventilating”. “I know John and I know the nuances of his voice,” she says. “And there would be no way you’d have been able to tell that he was not singing that song. > … > “You cannot bring people back from the dead and believe that they would stand for that” Wait until she realizes that the voices and music of the dead can be played with apps like “YouTube” and “Spotify”!
crazygringo 2y ago
"Hateful" is such an odd adjective to choose. And it seems intentionally loaded, as if to associate it with hate crime. When nothing could be further from it. I think there are a lot of valid criticisms of using AI to mimic other artists, things we need to think about as society. But I don't see where "hate" enters the picture here (assuming you're not actually trying to deepfake people saying legitimately hateful things, or similar). Making that accusation feels inflammatory and counterproductive.
- drewcoo 2y ago
  > as if to associate it with hate crime But she sees it as a hate crime. "It is antithetical to the life force that exists in all of us." Granted, she also thinks we can trick frogs into being boiled when all evidence is to the contrary. And she doesn't want to be "innocuous." There are many reasons in that article alone to dismiss what Crow says. https://www.iflscience.com/boiling-frog-syndrome-isnt-real-you-can-stop-boiling-frogs-now-72346 https://www.iflscience.com/boiling-frog-syndrome-isnt-real-y...
  - epgui 2y ago
    Under what definition of “hate crime” is this possibly remotely a hate crime? IMO we should not grant nonsense the courtesy of allowing it to frame the conversation. It’s important that words mean things.
- epgui 2y ago
  Yeah it seems like a lot of totally meaningless words that overall suggests that she’s just feeling uncomfortable. Not to diminish her feelings, but as far as I’m concerned the words are rubbish.
- apwell23 2y ago
  > "Hateful" is such an odd adjective to choose. Its maybe odd but its literally her job to be in news and be seen as relavant. we wouldn't be talking about her on HN if she had some balanced sensible take.
- tokai 2y ago
randomdata 2y ago
Fortunately we now live in a post-hate world. Hate once oppressed, but now emboldens. So carry on, Tupac AI.
1024core 2y ago
> “It's hateful. It is antithetical to the life force that exists in all of us.” Where does one draw the line? People could have said the same things when Edison recorded artists and played them on his phonograph. But today we are thankful that he invented that device as it allows us to listen to musicians who are not around anymore. I mean, if you look at it: the underlying digital technology takes Crow's voice, breaks it down into little pieces and then when needed, combines those pieces back into some semblance of her voice. This allows her to make oodles of money. I bet she's not against _this_ technology!
- memothon 2y ago
  I think your post is taking these AI voices out of their original context. First let's consider CD -> streaming as a media change. Streaming didn't really exist when Tupac was around. But nobody would say putting Tupac's catalog on streaming is inherently disrespectful to his artistic legacy because it's preserving (more or less) the same artistic product. Here are a couple other examples that I do think are more analogous than improvements in recording technologies: Posthumous releases with material not created by the artist. Sometimes record labels will try to capitalize on the brand of an artist and release material that really only has snippets of random recordings that an artist made. In my view, this is disrespectful to the artist because it's not a piece of artistic material they wanted to release. Another example is colorizing black and white movies. Similarly, this action changes the actual artistic product in a way that's disrespectful to the creators of those films. Creating AI voices of artists is similar to these examples because it's changing the artistic output of an artist and disrespecting their artistic legacy. It's creating content under their name without the ability for them to say no or have any input into the output.
s0teri0s 2y ago
There should be some kind of legal document an artist can choose to complete, a "Do Not Reanimate Me" choice. If they decline to make a decision, or agree to be simulated, fine. If they they make their wishes known, that should be respected by their estate.
- yoyohello13 2y ago
  Really it should be opt-in. All currently dead artists should be off limits by default.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    The question would be who this rule is for. It's not for the artists, they're dead. It's not for the right holders, as they're already in control of what happens with the likelihood of the deceased artist. If it's for the family, they should be set as right holders from the start if it mattered to the artist. Is it for the public then ? Should the public have a say on how the right holder monetize their assets ? I see an argument from preventing art pieces from disappearing at the will of the right holder, but preventing creation of new art should not be a public decision IMHO.
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    How does that notion mesh with existing precedent on the public domain regarding intellectual property?
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  Dead people generally don't have rights.
  - grugagag 2y ago
    Most societies learned to respect their dead. We may be at a turning point.
  - JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B 2y ago
    That’s false. They write wills that we respect, and we don’t make kebabs out of their bodies. But it’s the kind of respect that is not trendy anymore…
honeybadger1 2y ago
Considering he wasn't a thug at all and he was an educated theater kid, seems like it's being supportive. He was constantly pretending to be someone else for money, seems like now AI can pick up where he left off.
causality0 2y ago
If anybody wants to use AI to immortalize me after I'm dead they can go right ahead. Imagine getting to be the person who plays or voices a beloved character, forever, instead of just being the person everyone after you imitates.
blacksmith_tb 2y ago
What Crow's remarks reminded me most of was Pat Matheny's scathing critique of Kenny G (ab)using Louis Armstrong[1], or what he called "musical necrophilia". 1: http://www.jazzoasis.com/methenyonkennyg.htm http://www.jazzoasis.com/methenyonkennyg.htm
coretx 2y ago
People really need to learn that they themselves Can Not decide the intentions of others. Especially not when ( publicly ) judging people, because that's slander/defamation.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
snapplebobapple 2y ago
If it makes you happy it can't be that bad sheryl
j45 2y ago
This is a very poorly titled article, by BBC no less. Tupac is merely mentioned twice, while everything else is about Generative AI. I'm not sure the relevance of Sheryl Crow to have much to say about Tupac when there are clearly people from his estate already dealing with things who might have a more insightful perspective than an artist and a journalist looking for clicks and eyeballs.

36 points by belter 2y ago

“It's hateful. It is antithetical to the life force that exists in all of us.” As we move to a world where art is totally devalued, the early returns are not promising at all imo for AI generated music. It doesn't seem to make great art, but to allow talentless people simulate great art for cheap. It doesn't seem to inspire humans at all, it just makes them annoyed and angry. Its primary use case to me seems to be "create royalty-free music for my amateur tiktok/youtube video that sounds how I want it to sound." That's valuable as long as the royalty-free thing exists, but no one is sitting around excited about the idea of prompting AI-Tupac rap to about them or their personal interests.

chongli 2y ago
Genuine art will never be totally devalued. Art is fundamentally a form of communication. AI “art” will never be genuine art until it’s produced by some genuine intelligent being. As for economic value, such as in the case of paintings or sculptures worth millions, that has always been about supply and demand, status and signaling. A form of communication in its own right, albeit not born of introspection.
- ajb 2y ago
  AI doesn't devalue art, it devalues corporate pablum. But guess what many artists earn their living off, when they haven't made it with their vocation yet.
  - tinyspacewizard 2y ago
    Expect a wave of artists moving into education to make ends meet.
- drewcoo 2y ago
  > Art is fundamentally a form of communication. AI “art” will never be genuine art until it’s produced by some genuine intelligent being. So recordings of whale songs are art? IFF whales are intelligent? And field recordings of factory equipment and wind blowing through leaves are not art? If a painter paints in the woods and no one's there to see it, is it art? Does it become art when it's seen? I'm really curious about what people see as the "real" at the heart of art. It seems to be more complicated than mere human creativity. I just like to make things and I enjoy things other people make when they challenge me. I don't understand art.
  - lukas099 2y ago
    I’d say whalesong is art in the same way that a photograph of a whale is art. And the artist is the photographer or person recording and producing the whalesong.
- threatofrain 2y ago
  We don't know whether a letter from the past was written by a human or by a committee of people who wanted to be trolls and all used the same name together (this happens). We won't know whether intentful communication was written by a robot either.
- Bluestein 2y ago
  > AI “art” will never be genuine art until it’s produced by some genuine intelligent being. The ultimate Turing test?
everforward 2y ago
I mean, I am, as are several others I know (although the majority find it abhorrent from an art perspective). I don’t have any dreams of using it to make high art, but at the very least it should be fun for memes. I wouldn’t mind being able to make a shitty song out of a friends funny misphrasing or having a silly song to play over a video of my dog doing something silly. I’ve done the same for other things. I’ve made some one-off get well cards for people with AI generated silly images relating to them. I’ve definitely used it for Hugo sites where the page looks worse with images removed. I use it frequently when I’m not sure my interest will hold out enough to be worth trying to get a friend to make real art, because the effort is so lopsided. I can make a Hugo site in 30 minutes and drop it in less than that because I’ve invested so little; asking someone to spend hours making art for it means they’re investing more effort than I am into a project that I’ll probably forget about.
- al_borland 2y ago
  After watching Apple's take, this seems to be their approach. A user can generate a quick AI image, in a few different styles, to basically joke around with friends or get a quick relevant image to stick in a paper. While professionals currently use stock photos which may get someone paid, a vast majority of images used for this purpose will not be published, and people are doing a Google Image search, finding something, and copying it into their paper/presentation. Replacing that with AI isn't really hurting anyone's livelihood, it's just saving time. I'm sure stock photography will take a hit as well, but I could see major publications still using it to differentiate themselves from sites operating on a tighter budget using AI, or to get accurate pictures of what is being talked about rather than something from AI that's deemed close enough.
ralusek 2y ago
Alternatively read as "I'm struggling to come to grips with the fact that the life force that exists in all of us is becoming more and more likely to simply be a series of surprising and emergent properties of simple cellular automata."
- wasted_intel 2y ago
  I get the point you're making, but I'd argue that even when stated in a reductive fashion, the complex system that leads simple cellular automata to artistic expression is orders of magnitude more elegant and special than AI.
- mcphage 2y ago
  As always, there’s a relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/2933/ https://xkcd.com/2933/
scotty79 2y ago
Things being devalued is awesome. It means more people can afford them. Keeping things being luxury was never a sign of progress. > but no one is sitting around excited about the idea of prompting AI-Tupac rap to about them or their personal interests Are you kidding? I specifically asked AI to generate songs about joys of programming and I was rewarded with very catchy and inspiring "Code until your dream compiles!" in the style of 80s rock/pop and among other things soft female voice singing about romantic love for her code "I know it's just text, it's true. But it's in my IDE's hue." It's a goldmine. I haven't had so much fun "creating" "music" for at least few decades. And I'm definitely not alone. Some AI generated catchy songs on funny subjects already started to circulate as memes. I don't care for human artists that never thought about creating something like that even though they theoretically could. The artists that get mimicked are the lucky ones. Last famous singers of humanity.

kelsey98765431 2y ago

Watching elvis vhs tapes is hateful!

tengbretson 2y ago

If it makes someone happy, I don't see how Sheryl Crow could think it was that bad.

santoshalper 2y ago
Take my upvote grudingly.
eyelidlessness 2y ago
Much like your reference, every day is a winding road.
- eddieroger 2y ago
  Surely this opinion was her favorite mistake. Maybe the result of a good beer buzz early in the morning.
  - andrewfromx 2y ago
    what's your name? I'm sure it must be billy or mac or buddy
    - Bluestein 2y ago
      Whatever the name, I am sure the good people of the world, washing their cars on their lunch breaks would agree
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
librasteve 2y ago
what if god was one of us? (or an AI)

dav43 2y ago

I thought recently, we knew AI programs where coming along time ago. They were coming for accounting, repetitive corporate jobs. Having seen/listened to the technology at the heart of AI (caveat, I don’t program and am looking from a mile high) I find it interesting the link I see. The jobs where randomnesss and errors are at part of success - art, writing, creativity - this is where AI has impact first. The jobs where accuracy is paramount and errors not tolerated - medicine, etc - maybe that’s where we see impact last if at all. Just a reflection. *edit spelling late at night

SoftTalker 2y ago
Yes it's ironic, AI was supposed to free us from drudgery and give us time to spend on creative passions. Instead AI is taking over all the creative work and leaving only the drudgery. I'll be interested in AI when it can clean my house and do my laundry.
- dsr_ 2y ago
  It's doing the creative work badly, which I find particularly interesting. It's recapitulating the best criticism of the original Marxist definition of value: value is not labor added to materials, value is quality improvements to those materials.
- lukas099 2y ago
  Is it actually taking over all the creative work? I haven’t seen any signs that it is
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    It's doing passable pop music, art, and writing already, and still improving.
    - lukas099 2y ago
      What I'm trying to get at is that musicians are still music'ing. We just also now have musicians that we didn't have before who are using these new tools.

richie-guix 2y ago

Sheryl Crow is expressing things a little less than eloquently here. Try Rick Beato. A favorite teacher on YouTube discussing how AI generated music is towards the end of the climb out of the uncanny valley already. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbo6SdyWGns https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbo6SdyWGns The tune had been haunting London for weeks past. It was one of countless similar songs published for the benefit of the proles by a sub-section of the Music Department. The words of these songs were composed without any human intervention whatever on an instrument known as a versificator. But the woman sang so tunefully as to turn the dreadful rubbish into an almost pleasant sound. -- 1984

AlchemistCamp 2y ago

> When Crow heard the song, she was so “terrified” that she was “literally hyperventilating”. “I know John and I know the nuances of his voice,” she says. “And there would be no way you’d have been able to tell that he was not singing that song. > … > “You cannot bring people back from the dead and believe that they would stand for that” Wait until she realizes that the voices and music of the dead can be played with apps like “YouTube” and “Spotify”!

crazygringo 2y ago

"Hateful" is such an odd adjective to choose. And it seems intentionally loaded, as if to associate it with hate crime. When nothing could be further from it. I think there are a lot of valid criticisms of using AI to mimic other artists, things we need to think about as society. But I don't see where "hate" enters the picture here (assuming you're not actually trying to deepfake people saying legitimately hateful things, or similar). Making that accusation feels inflammatory and counterproductive.

drewcoo 2y ago
> as if to associate it with hate crime But she sees it as a hate crime. "It is antithetical to the life force that exists in all of us." Granted, she also thinks we can trick frogs into being boiled when all evidence is to the contrary. And she doesn't want to be "innocuous." There are many reasons in that article alone to dismiss what Crow says. https://www.iflscience.com/boiling-frog-syndrome-isnt-real-you-can-stop-boiling-frogs-now-72346 https://www.iflscience.com/boiling-frog-syndrome-isnt-real-y...
- epgui 2y ago
  Under what definition of “hate crime” is this possibly remotely a hate crime? IMO we should not grant nonsense the courtesy of allowing it to frame the conversation. It’s important that words mean things.
epgui 2y ago
Yeah it seems like a lot of totally meaningless words that overall suggests that she’s just feeling uncomfortable. Not to diminish her feelings, but as far as I’m concerned the words are rubbish.
apwell23 2y ago
> "Hateful" is such an odd adjective to choose. Its maybe odd but its literally her job to be in news and be seen as relavant. we wouldn't be talking about her on HN if she had some balanced sensible take.
tokai 2y ago

randomdata 2y ago

Fortunately we now live in a post-hate world. Hate once oppressed, but now emboldens. So carry on, Tupac AI.

1024core 2y ago

> “It's hateful. It is antithetical to the life force that exists in all of us.” Where does one draw the line? People could have said the same things when Edison recorded artists and played them on his phonograph. But today we are thankful that he invented that device as it allows us to listen to musicians who are not around anymore. I mean, if you look at it: the underlying digital technology takes Crow's voice, breaks it down into little pieces and then when needed, combines those pieces back into some semblance of her voice. This allows her to make oodles of money. I bet she's not against _this_ technology!

memothon 2y ago
I think your post is taking these AI voices out of their original context. First let's consider CD -> streaming as a media change. Streaming didn't really exist when Tupac was around. But nobody would say putting Tupac's catalog on streaming is inherently disrespectful to his artistic legacy because it's preserving (more or less) the same artistic product. Here are a couple other examples that I do think are more analogous than improvements in recording technologies: Posthumous releases with material not created by the artist. Sometimes record labels will try to capitalize on the brand of an artist and release material that really only has snippets of random recordings that an artist made. In my view, this is disrespectful to the artist because it's not a piece of artistic material they wanted to release. Another example is colorizing black and white movies. Similarly, this action changes the actual artistic product in a way that's disrespectful to the creators of those films. Creating AI voices of artists is similar to these examples because it's changing the artistic output of an artist and disrespecting their artistic legacy. It's creating content under their name without the ability for them to say no or have any input into the output.

s0teri0s 2y ago

There should be some kind of legal document an artist can choose to complete, a "Do Not Reanimate Me" choice. If they decline to make a decision, or agree to be simulated, fine. If they they make their wishes known, that should be respected by their estate.

yoyohello13 2y ago
Really it should be opt-in. All currently dead artists should be off limits by default.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  The question would be who this rule is for. It's not for the artists, they're dead. It's not for the right holders, as they're already in control of what happens with the likelihood of the deceased artist. If it's for the family, they should be set as right holders from the start if it mattered to the artist. Is it for the public then ? Should the public have a say on how the right holder monetize their assets ? I see an argument from preventing art pieces from disappearing at the will of the right holder, but preventing creation of new art should not be a public decision IMHO.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  How does that notion mesh with existing precedent on the public domain regarding intellectual property?
SoftTalker 2y ago
Dead people generally don't have rights.
- grugagag 2y ago
  Most societies learned to respect their dead. We may be at a turning point.
- JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B 2y ago
  That’s false. They write wills that we respect, and we don’t make kebabs out of their bodies. But it’s the kind of respect that is not trendy anymore…

honeybadger1 2y ago

Considering he wasn't a thug at all and he was an educated theater kid, seems like it's being supportive. He was constantly pretending to be someone else for money, seems like now AI can pick up where he left off.

causality0 2y ago

If anybody wants to use AI to immortalize me after I'm dead they can go right ahead. Imagine getting to be the person who plays or voices a beloved character, forever, instead of just being the person everyone after you imitates.

blacksmith_tb 2y ago

What Crow's remarks reminded me most of was Pat Matheny's scathing critique of Kenny G (ab)using Louis Armstrong[1], or what he called "musical necrophilia". 1: http://www.jazzoasis.com/methenyonkennyg.htm http://www.jazzoasis.com/methenyonkennyg.htm

coretx 2y ago

People really need to learn that they themselves Can Not decide the intentions of others. Especially not when ( publicly ) judging people, because that's slander/defamation.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

snapplebobapple 2y ago

If it makes you happy it can't be that bad sheryl

j45 2y ago

This is a very poorly titled article, by BBC no less. Tupac is merely mentioned twice, while everything else is about Generative AI. I'm not sure the relevance of Sheryl Crow to have much to say about Tupac when there are clearly people from his estate already dealing with things who might have a more insightful perspective than an artist and a journalist looking for clicks and eyeballs.