Your, "AI Actress," is a Thinly-Veiled Publicity Stunt and Sham

Tilly Norwood doesn't exist. She was generated by an AI that studied a bunch of acting talents and spat out a soulless CG approximation of an actress. That hasn't stopped those who stand to benefit from AI being shoved down our throats, claiming that she'll be, "Signed," to a studio, somehow. I mean, cartoons are intellectual property of a studio (Disney with Mickey, copyright expirations aside), so I guess she's sort of an IP that can be owned as she is not real...so why claim she's, "Signed," as if she existed? She is not real; she's AI slop.

Tilly is what happens when a computer takes pieces of other real people and manufactures what it, "Thinks," people want in acting talent. It reminds me of that scene in a movie, "Simone," where Al Pacino creates an actress with a fancy computer and digitally inserts her into movies. He steals bits of other talents to create what he thinks others will consider a great actress. The movie was admittedly mediocre overall, but eerily prescient in its prediction of AI, "Actors/Actresses," despite coming out back in 2002, (when such a thing seemed more like the basis for a science-fiction-ish comedy than possible). SAG-AFTRA obviously is enraged by this threat to flesh-and-blood acting, and others are asking if the tech is really there yet for Norwood to scare or excite others with an actual possibility of her being used in a legit movie. Anything we've actually seen of Norwood looks almost technically impressive, but has that weird fake AI sheen, wooden line delivery, and otherwise literally lacks humanity. I don't think any AI studios actually want her, "Signed," so much as this is all a publicity stunt, an elaborate sham.

I will say, there is some weird lesson to be learned from what an AI gave us when it was requested it create a bland and inoffensive acting talent. It gave us a generic, vaguely pretty, white woman with little acting skill who is still getting major headlines. Somebody could make a meaty PhD thesis out of how much psychological, sociological, and political meaning such an output from the AI holds, I'd wager--and it would be more interesting than the actual creation that is Tilly Norwood, "Herself." We see what the AI companies are doing, trying to shove the tech into our lives in ways we don't need it--and AI does have uses! ChatGPT once scoured the web for me to figure out the title of a movie I could only vaguely recall the details of (an old horror flick called, "Sugar Hill," for those curious), and little pieces of code or shortcut prompts can be made with the assistance of AI. It can be a useful tool just like a hammer or pencil--but nobody has ever called a hammer a carpenter or a pencil an artist--it is the person using the tool we give the credit. 

This supposed AI actress is a fraud and little more than computer code--bits and bytes presented as if it were an actual person putting in the work. It isn't garbage in, garbage out, because one assumes tons of useful data is being put in. It's more like, "Humanity in, AI slop out," and until the tech geniuses can give the AI humanity, things will stay that way. Actually, though, don't make the computers self-aware. We don't need a, "HAL 9000," kind of situation.

This AI Advertisment From the Local Firm Onder Law is Awful for a Variety of Reasons

Onder Law is a local law firm. We have a lot of them in Saint Louis as we're a sizeable city. Various lawyers have ads that range from serious to silly. Many of them use real clients, some of them use actors, "Reenacting," a client's account of how the lawyer helped them. Both ads at least use real humans. Not Onder Law, however. They have proudly debuted an advertisement that they brag is 100% AI. Ugh.

Supposedly, the idea is to spark conversations, but many STL-based Reddit users (and I) agree that this is more AI Slop. Onder Law couldn't help the local economy by hiring actors for the segments? They didn't pause to consider that a law firm that deals with real cases would look like they couldn't get any real people to voice support? They didn't consider that the optics in the ad itself are weird, too? I saw someone point out online how it's strange when the only grouping of people of color in the ad is pictured on a basketball court covered in graffiti (and it is identified as Jennings) while white folks are shown in country club outfits playing tennis or cornhole in other Saint Louis areas. Yeesh.

A real ice cream shop would have spelled, "Custard," right.

If Onder Law cares about Saint Louis, they sure have a funny way of expressing it. Spending a bunch of money outside our region to create a messy AI ad filled with stereotypes, dumb jokes, and that just looks a little wrong (AI ain't perfect yet) doesn't inspire confidence. I mean, it makes me want to never use Onder Law if I have need of a law firm. An advertisement that turns people off to your services is a pretty bad marketing idea, I'd argue. You do you, though, Onder Law.

When AI, "Reads," or "Writes," For You It is Garbage-In and Garbage-Out

I use Grammarly in my web browser. It assists me with correcting my spelling and fixing obvious grammar issues that I miss because me no always write goodly (that sentence set it off a lot). So, yes, I have used AI to help me with my writing in that regard. I have never, however, used it to write my opinion on something or do a work-type project. If I want to tell you a comic/show/movie is awesome or sucks, I'll just take the damn time to tell you. I won't say, "Hey, ChatGPT/Google Gemini/whatever summarize in 500 words why I think, 'Jurassic Park,' is one of my top three movies ever," when I could instead just tell you it why it rocks in 30 words or less--dinosaurs are awesome, Spielberg was at the top of his directing game, Ian Malcom is a sex symbol of a character, and velocorapors eating Samuel L. Jackson is twistedly hilarious. AI has its place, but when you rely on it to, "Look," at the internet and give you content, it is going to have horrific results because the internet is an awful place full of misinformation and outright lies (not my site though, I'm the best, please love me).

It is a case of garbage-in and garbage-out. The AI is going to write junk articles and we will use AI to look at the internet for us and summazie all that junky writing with the result being pure bullshit. Look at what happened when an AI wrote a piece about Summer fun for National newspapers and made up a bunch of books and authors of articles. We are letting the computer write nonsense, and then we don't even click the links to verify the legitimacy of the writing; we just let AI read it too and tell us the gist of something. It's like cliffnotes all-around, only if everyone involved had their head firmly up their ass. This isn't a surprise considering we have AI, "Writing," books for us too. Perhaps if we pay writers better, then it won't fall to AI to create our books or lists about books, or as author Gabino Iglesias puts it, "Pay writers, and then we can write these fake books that don't exist."

Oh, and for those curious, my other top two movies in no particular order are, "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind," and, "Network." I didn't need a damn AI to tell me they were my favorites either.

That Google Gemini Ad for Having it Write a Fan Letter is Awful

I don't like the idea of having AI write a bunch of stuff as a substitute for human creativity. Use it to check your spelling, grammar, and such. Don't use it to write an entire essay, book, or fan letter to an athlete. After all, if you don't care enough to actually write something yourself why should I want to read it? Don't give me the excuse of, "I have an idea for a story but I'm not a good enough writer to do it," because like anything in life it takes practice. I look at some of my blog posts from back in late 2010/2011 and cringe at myself, but I've been out here plugging away at it slowly getting better at creating content folks enjoy reading. I don't use some AI machine to write my thoughts on the latest Marvel flick for me, I actually write my thoughts. Otherwise, they aren't really mine, they're just a bunch of code pretending to be a human. With this in mind, Google and their Gemini AI really stepped in it with a new ad campaign.

The idea of the advertisement is a Father has a daughter who loves running and looks up to Olympic track star Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone. So they use Google AI to generate a letter to the athlete to make sure it is...somehow better than if his kid really wrote it? It is creepy to think we are going to use a computer to simulate the musings of a child wanting to tell an athlete how they look up to them. The whole thing sounds lazy and takes the idea of writing a deeply personal note to someone you look up to before reducing it to a chatbot prompt. It lacks soul, in other words. Nobody likes the ad and Google itself has admitted it is a big misfire. It's dumb and makes zero sense. We should be using AI to do our busywork so that we can focus on creating literature and art, not the other way around. If we utilize AI to, "Create," our entertainment it is just a bland combination of stuff that came before a machine, "Thought," to smash together and make something ostensibly, "New." Google should've considered this before making such a terrible and in some ways terrifying ad. Other folks and I really hate it the more we think about it. The one good thing about this is how viscerally everyone reacted with disgust. That gives me hope.

A Willy Wonka-Themed Event Turned Out to be a Sham and the Internet Can't Look Away

Advertisment versus reality.

A Willy Wonka-themed event that was careful to emphasize it was not officially related to well-known properties in any way turned out to be an utter joke of an, "Experience." AI ads made it look like people would walk into a surreal wonderland full of candy. Instead, they were in a mostly empty warehouse with some cheap decorations and actors/actresses who made it clear they had zero interest in being there. The man who played the Willy Wonka-alike himself discussed the gig made him cry in his car. It's being compared to such catastrophes as Fyre Fest, Dashcon, and so forth. Everybody loves gawking at a big public mess, and this is one for sure. People in Glasgow paid something like 35 pounds/$45 to be utterly disappointed. Instead of wonderment and chocolate, everyone got a run-down warehouse and glasses of lemonade along with a single (just one!) jellybean. Children were left in tears and the police were called as words like, "Fraud," were angrily thrown around.

Less magical and more meth-alike.

If there is one major thing to learn from this it would be that, yet again, AI has been used to mislead people. Whether it is a deepfake of a celebrity, altered voices over phones to scam friends, or making it look like your event is going to be a lot more magical than a run-down warehouse, AI is advancing at a rate much faster than people seem ready for. It wasn't used responsibly here and I am pretty sure that trend is going to continue as long as unscrupulous people can make a buck.

The Problem With, "Heart on My Sleeve," and AI Music

I've discussed AI-created, "Artwork," or writing, and how it doesn't impress me. Obvious flaws it often has aside, if someone can't put forth the effort to paint a picture or write an essay and instead want to feed a few ideas into a machine that makes it, why should I put forth the effort to read/observe it? Then we get to AI music and I feel the water gets muddy because a problem arises when the song actually sounds good. I don't know how much of a human soul it was--if any--but there it is, appealing to our ears.

"Heart on my Sleeve," is a song, "Created," by ghostwriter977. They used artificial intelligence to simulate Drake and the Weeknd's voices for a song. If it were absolute trash it would be easy to dismiss, but I finally listened to it out of curiosity and it is uncomfortable to admit it actually kind of bumps. The problem with AI music is what to do when it sounds good? This also leads to the question of how much credit does ghostwriter977 get and how much does the AI get? Listen to the song and then we can continue this post:

Suppose ghostwriter977 wrote the lyrics and made the beat but lacked artists to rap and sing the song. He/she/they made a good tune but then added famous people via AI in an unethical manner. Does ghostwriter977 still get credit for the work they did put forth to concoct this tune? I mean, I'm sure actual processes went into this beyond telling a computer, "Give me a great beat and some lyrics that sound like Drake," because if a prompt that simple could make this song then the computers really are about to take over and make all humans their slaves.

They say the cat is not going in the bag when it comes to AI and music. Do we need to use AI sparingly to help make some beats? What happens when we simulate the voices of dead music artists and suddenly Michael Jackson, Tupac, and Cardi B are all on a song that slaps and only Cardi B actually wrote and performed her lyrics? What happens when Tupac also starts promoting timeshares thanks to AI? We live in a dangerous time with artificial intelligence. I only hope we can weather the storm. Meanwhile, ghostwriter977 now has a song that simulates Travis Scott and 21 Savage titled, "Whiplash," and it is fun too...but how, "Real," is it? That's a question that is going to bug me.

Coke's New Y3000 Flavor is a Metaphor for Everything Wrong with AI

 

Coca-Cola has been creating a variety of special flavors lately. They don't have an official taste but instead are supposed to make your tastebuds think you're looking up at a starry sky, floating through a dreamworld, or other esoteric concepts. The latest flavor of Coke to hit the shelves is Y3000. It was co-created with various artificial intelligence programs that assisted in designing the cans/bottles and concocting the flavor. There is an app that uses AI to alter your photos in, "Futuristic," ways too, apparently. The claim that AI helped create this soda is possibly an exaggeration, but it would be fitting thematically. Like an AI=created picture/piece of, "Art," the Y3000 flavor seems okay at first, but the more you look at it/taste it the more apparent it becomes something is horribly wrong.

You know those, "Freestyle," soda machines some restaurants have? Imagine if you got the Coke soda and put in a bit of every fruit flavor mixed with Coke you could? A bit of orange, a dash of grape, and so forth until you're left with something that tastes like Coke with a bunch of citrus sludge. That is the Y3000 flavor. Much like how AI will give pictures too many fingers and just looks, "Off," once you study something created by AI closely, as you continue to sip Y3000 it obviously is a Frankenstein's monster of flavors in the same way AI, "Art," just rips off content it finds online to supposedly make something new. It's all oversaturated sludge both visually and in flavor. Some people seem to like the kitchen sink-style blend, but it isn't for me. At least it is still better than the Georgia Peach and California Raspberry flavors from some years ago. Not by much, however. I understand that Coke wants to, "Test boundaries." That said, this is one test they failed.

1 out of 5 stars.

Disney/Marvel Really Went and Used AI, "Art," For the, "Secret Invasion," Opening

For the opening to the new, "Secret Invasion," show Disney/Marvel could have paid artists and animators. That, or they could have gotten a skilled editor to take years of past artwork and mash it up in cool ways. A variety of things could have been done, but instead, a company that works with AI called Method, "Created," the opener. The excuse for doing so is that it fits the theme of weird and shifty Skrull stuff as the aliens are all amorphous and eerie. It is pretty weak reasoning and almost feels more like an effort to soften people up for when more shows use more AI heavily. 

As I've discussed, people don't really understand what AI is and how it isn't, in fact, making anything. It just is taking/stealing from the internet and using code to, "Create," so-called new imagery. There has been ample (negative) buzz about this online and while AI can be a useful tool like in de-aging Harrison Ford, it also is being used in ways that even people utilizing it (like the executive producer, Ali Selim of, "Secret Invasion,") admit they fully don't understand. If we don't understand a technology and we're diving headfirst into the deep end with it that generally is a recipe for disaster.

This AI Stuff is Rapidly Getting out of Hand

I love technology. I would not have met my wife via online dating without the Internet. I also wouldn't have a blog, just probably a weird paper zine I printed and threw at people who got close to me at the corner store. Medical tech is advancing in ways that helps people in astounding ways, video-games are cooler-looking than ever, and so forth. That said, this AI stuff is getting out of hand and advancing at a rate much faster than I think we as a populace are ready to handle. It is like that scene in, "Jurassic Park," where it is pointed out everyone wondered if they could do something and didn't ask if they should.

I'm not only talking about the AI programs that can write essays to help students cheat or such. I'm concerned about how people already believe totally fake stuff they read online, and now you're going to show them a picture of a bomb seeming to go off by the Pentagon and expect them to realize it's fake? That, or what about a situation where hackers will clone the voice of a loved one and pretend to call as if they are holding that person hostage with them, "Yelling," in the background whilst a ransom is demanded? Oh, how about a celebrity known for streaming video games and having an Onlyfans named Amouranth creating an AI Chatbot fans can, "Date," in the ultimate parasocial relationship? Seriously, how long until one of those fans with a loose grip on reality tries to track her down because they are convinced this chatbot is really her in some fashion (I really hope she ups her security with this going on)? 

Taking parasocial relationships to a whole new level.

I'm not saying this is going to end in the AI becoming self-aware and wiping us out like we are living in a, 'Terminator," movie, but if the wrong person falls for something a bad actor created with AI we'll just wipe ourselves out, probably. Will we be surprised when someone fakes a relationship suffering from cheating and an innocent party who is framed for that gets hurt? What if AI makes it look like a company is in economic trouble and all the stocks suddenly get sold under false pretenses? How long until someone makes it sound like an authority figure is demanding a missile be launched somewhere and the right/wrong circumstances make it happen? I know I escalated all that quickly, but AI is itself growing at a wild rate with the original Chat GPT struggling to do something like pass a Bar Exam and the latest iteration a few months later impressing everyone with its legalese.

AI won't replace us. Even if you try to have it create a picture, write a story, or something else it is not actually making anything so much as it is collating data to manufacture something seemingly new out of things humans made. Still, people will try to use the capabilities of AI to scam others, hurt others, or otherwise make reality even less believable than it already is with so much fakery already in the World. We are arguably at a tipping point. I just hope society doesn't fall into a black hole of self-destruction.