Surur t1_ja1knct wrote
Nothing much to disagree with except one point - AI media will not be mass produced. It will be as individualized and addictive as your Facebook and tiktok feed.
SpinCharm OP t1_ja1li4o wrote
True. Is there a word for “mass produced individuality” yet? If not, coin one now, here, for posterity sake. Your 15 minutes awaits!
Maurauderr t1_ja1nmx1 wrote
Why not call it exactly that: Mass produced individuality (or MPI for short)
Menliros t1_ja4se68 wrote
Mass customization is the buzzword for it in marketing. Interesting read, bit depressing at times, but well thought out!
dcoolidge t1_ja1u2ns wrote
Indivolution: evolving from individuality
morrisjr1989 t1_ja2u0cc wrote
I think they’ll keep the term “dynamic content”. Unless there’s specific use case when telling someone everything they’re seeing is AI generated, such as car shopping for best prices, which will probably be “smart” (or derivative )something or just say AI generated.
IWantToLearnMathPlss t1_ja294ys wrote
Capitalism already does this. American individualism is tied to corporatism.
spiritplumber t1_ja2lvbv wrote
Madlibs produced?
WH1TERAVENs t1_ja2q04y wrote
Noun: unividuality adjective: unividual from universal individuality or for everyone individually. I thought about it in German so the German word would be Unividualität
urmomaisjabbathehutt t1_ja36lxn wrote
is there such thing?
if there is individual isn't mass produced, we have a word for that, "bespoke"
the fact that producing bespoke or even low quantity may became far easier to produce hence able to compete in affordability with mass produced doesn't mean that the objet is "mass produced", it still retain its individuality
I can imagine a future where if the price of manufacturing bespoke thanks to automation goes down automation may allow for local cottage industries serving customers locally
also producing parts for big brands , the brand only dealing with the brand marketing to reach and provide clients, ensure clients request are meet to each particular spec and request as well as as ensuring the QC of the final items produced by the cottages are meet and provide their asociated cottage industries with primary resources
that could help eliminate many of todays far off transport of goods because production being local, allow for manufacturing as needed when needed helping to eliminate overproduction allow for manufacturing to client spec so one person TV, mobile phone or fridge may have different specs or looks than others depending on client request and also may bring local manufacturing comunities
SpinCharm OP t1_ja383qt wrote
I look at it as a new concept - the mass production of distinctiveness. Mass producing individualism.
The very idea strips the person of any real uniqueness. If you are one of countless millions getting something made just for you, by the same company or machine or software, and the other millions are doing the same thing, then just how unique and distinctive are you really going to be? And while it may be individualized, if there really any significant difference between each of those millions?
I think at best, it gives the illusion of individualism. The customer will likely believe, or choose to believe, that theirs is somehow superior. Unique. Tailored. Because in one sense it is. But when you take a step back and look at the larger picture, there’s really nothing unique about any of it.
And that’s where I start feeling disturbed. When millions of people get their validation and affirmations from illusions, then that population is losing control.
Fasobook_HS t1_ja3dj05 wrote
>I think at best, it gives the illusion of individualism
>
>And that’s where I start feeling disturbed. When millions of people get their validation and affirmations from illusions, then that population is losing control.
This already happens since the first periods of globalization of technology. This was (and is) something that never in the human history occurred. I believe that your thoughts are good and applied over a new wave of changes, but this is happening some time by now. And because it is also a sociological advance, it's effective and the progress scale by giants steps, without having us, humans, the time to process and digest in order to make a smooth transition.
There was another era where the process of evolution in this aspects where more slowly so society even tended to stagnate for a time, seeing the changes as something very VERY different. Nowadays we don't even perceive some aspects because all is too fast, because things can be better in a short period of time, things can be more effective, in all good (personal, individual) and bad (society orchestration) meanings.
​
urmomaisjabbathehutt t1_ja3w6st wrote
if the item is the only blue item then it is unique in that sense, the ability for many manufacturers doing distinctive or one manufacture making many distintive objets doesn't make them less so
also if the distinctive element is chosen by or made to fit the one customer desire or needs its tailored, a company capable of producing efficciently more tailored products faster doesn't make each product not tailored
just making an example up, i.e. an artisan that produce three diferent products for three customers in 3 months without using any machine but he may be able to produce 3 different products for 3 customers in a month with the help of machines, still 3 distinctive products, still done for three diferent customers except faster
unless we are talking that there is real value in possible flaws created by the lack of precision of doing something manual vs machined
imho the confusion steems from the use of "unique", unique doesn't necesarily need to mean better, it just mean the only one with a particular feature or distinctive element, if a customer prefer that over products mass made to be exactly the same is a choice
the real "uniqueness" is something artificialy added to promote desirability and increase value, we had diamonds sold as expensive rarities, of course they aren't, and used to be that the most perfect the rock the most valuable, now we can manufacture better quality diamonds than nature, suddenly natural diamonds are being advertised as "better" for being natural with their "unique natural flaws"
however tailored add value, it can mean something done to one's specs or needs, anyone are going to chose always something that works for them based on their needs or personal choice if they can aford it than something mass manufactured that works ok for most but will never be able to fully meet every individual needs
night_dick t1_ja467ci wrote
Dynamically generated individualized media?
Tomycj t1_ja55cx0 wrote
"Individuality" is too generic and can mean too many different things. I'd call it personalized content or something like that.
kenaum t1_ja57d9j wrote
Mass personalization?
NowIbeezDatBlock t1_ja6hnku wrote
Idk man. The capitalist regime will end up eating itself—isn’t it odd how apple uses Amazon cloud for iCloud and apple jabs Facebook by giving the option to bar apps from tracking usage across different platforms—and google runs the entire operating systems of the android hardware-software systems, which Microsoft could’ve done but the Justice Department wanted to have a dick measuring contest over Windows 95. We could’ve had apple vs. windows vs. android in a cage match of smart phone superiority but nooooo. The same Justice Department who let Bill Clinton testify in his own defense wanted to help us from being exploited by WINDOWS 95! Thanks so much Justice Department.
https://www.justice.gov/archive/atr/public/press_releases/1998/1764.htm
drekmonger t1_ja23aao wrote
I had an interesting conversation with ChatGPT about the idea of "semantic compression".
Imagine if popular TV shows were broadcast not as video, but as extremely detailed instructions to an AI model, which rendered the experience as if the model were a codec.
There could be knobs you could adjust during the inference. Like, "Make all the actors naked" or "Less graphic violence please!" Or, "I really don't like that guy's voice. Make him less annoying. Or, just write him out of the show, actually."
The AI model could inform you, "That change will have a significant impact on the narrative. Are you sure?" With enough changes, you'd be watching something completely different from what everyone else is.
321gogo t1_ja2dgqq wrote
I don’t think people want this generally though. A huge part of media is being able to connect with others over it. On top of that most people are attached to the message the creators are trying to convey behind their art.
diaryofsnow t1_ja2f1lv wrote
Nah, I want the individualized shows. Gimme those and I'll never need a streaming service again.
321gogo t1_ja3pkbd wrote
Lol you think it’s not gonna be a service just like streaming is now?
diaryofsnow t1_ja4xr7p wrote
Of course! But that’s one I’m willing to pay for
SpinCharm OP t1_ja2fj6n wrote
There's also the unknown subset of viewers that would like to just get lost inside the alternate realities of fictional tv, disconnecting from contact with people for as long as possible. If that experience was generated and controlled by AI with no outside involvement, it could be quite addictive to some.
SilverMedal4Life t1_ja2hpbn wrote
It reminds me of this scene from Futurama:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YuQqlhqAUuQ
Ignoring the obvious anti-gay propagamda parallels (which was probably the purpose of the scene to begin with), there's something to be said about disconnect with other human beings and human experiences if the artificial is preferable - or at least 'good enough'.
We see this to some extent with shut-ins, like the Japanese hikikomri:
MoiMagnus t1_ja2imhr wrote
For connecting with others, yes and no.
Yes, peoples want to connect with others. But the scale at which modern media connect us is overkill, and peoples actually seek to be part of smaller bubbles.
For examples, instead of an individual customizing their own show, imagine a streamer/youtuber doing it. Or even, imagine of group of friends doing it together, they now have a shared experience that is "unique".
As for preserving the message, yes, I agree that this is a core reason why generated content will not fully replaced the initial content. However, in the same way peoples have fun replaying a videogame with absurd mods (like a randomisers that shuffle every character), there will be a place for generated variants of shows.
RoosterBrewster t1_ja2od0t wrote
I think he's trying to describe something like a "choose your own adventure" in real-time and with essentially infinite options.
drekmonger t1_ja2q5vf wrote
Well, of course, there will be something like "holodeck modules" that are meant to be interactive. But also I think there will be more static experiences that you can optionally fiddle with.
Imagine a very dense natural language description of a changing scene that a super advanced AI is rendering in real time.
genshiryoku t1_ja2pugm wrote
I disagree with this especially due to the popularity of Youtube and Tiktok where everyone has completely different video feeds based on their own interests.
I think the recommendation engine just generating the media you want to watch is the clear next step and something that traditional media can't compete with.
I think you wanting to connect with others over shared media consumption is just a sign of our generation and not shared by Gen Z in the same way.
321gogo t1_ja3rjow wrote
I’d argue the opposite. 1. TikTok and YouTube are all popular because of the connection with the creator, much more than tv/movies. 2. These are so heavily centered around trends, which is another form of viewer to viewer connection. You feel a part of something bigger still. 3. These are still “social” media - comments and sharing are a huge part of the platform and popularity. 4. Customization takes effort from the viewer which is the opposite direction these platforms are trying to move in. The whole point of TikTok is they got rid of user discovery, lowering the barrier to entry and getting rid of the most common exit journeys for users.
Surur t1_ja2okvy wrote
This will definitely be possible, and we see this on a smaller scale where for video calls instead of sending the video stream the app merely sends an initial image of your face and then subsequent position and pose updates, and the app just re-renders it at the other end.
xTopNotch t1_ja51yfp wrote
We already have this today and it's called fan-fiction. But I'm sure once video diffusion models are on the level where you can get realtime edits that AI will extend to those areas as well.
Yuli-Ban t1_ja1rpsq wrote
> AI media will not be mass produced
Actually, it will be mass-produced. But put a pin in that.
> It will be as individualized and addictive as your Facebook and tiktok feed.
And I suppose the issue there is that a lot of people actively reject such addiction. I, for example, almost never use Facebook and can't even remember ever using TikTok. I will almost certainly be the exact opposite when it comes to synthetic media, but if reactions to AI art are any indication (and I mean on places like DeviantArt, YouTube, and Pixiv, not the Twitter pro-human artist protests), there's little chance that synthetic media will replace all media. Some people are just contrarians, while others have anthropocentric bias.
However, there is one other issue, and this is where I say to pull out the pin.
Media that is individualized is great and all, and we'll indulge in it without question. But that's certainly not all there'll ever be.
See, I agree wholeheartedly that AI is going to generate media very soon, and has even already started doing so. I even agree that most people will use synthetic media to generate media individualized to them. Where I disagree strongly is in the idea that humans stop sharing media and instead lose ourselves in our own fantasy worlds.
The cold fact is, humans are social apes. If we create something or like something, we're going to share it with others. Hence why I tend to think that synthetic media is being severely overhyped by some people, even as I say "we're going to create multimedia franchises in our bedrooms and could live in synthetic media bubbles within the better part of a decade."
Even if we become transhuman, I don't see social interaction being something we'll elect to take away. If anything, transcending our basic humanity towards higher levels of cognition only seems to make it more likely we'll engage in social interaction, but on levels we can't fathom. Not to mention I strongly doubt most people will become transhuman anyway.
If you value social interaction (and most people do as humans are hardwired for it), even if you spend a lot of time generating synthetic media, you're not going to completely lose yourself in your own fantasies.
The kneejerk reaction to synthetic media, and the Singularitarian hype for it, often acts as if the human need for social interaction doesn't exist. But I present the theory that, provided nothing bad happens, there will still be people attending live concerts and going to movie theaters and viewing live theatrical performances and seeing live sports performances in 30 years. That if YouTube is still around by then, a majority of videos will have some aspect of synthetic media to them— V-tubers and AI personalities playing fully AI-generated games for example, or AI personalities of historical figures discussing history to synthesized images and videos and simulations— but you could also still find humans giving their own thoughts and creations, and indeed, "human-created" might even be a lucrative tag.
I know it's easy to say "You probably would have predicted that the Internet was a fad in 1995" to any criticism of the dominant narratives of synthetic media. I'm not saying the Internet is a fad and that no one will ever download music because they will always value vinyl and CDs; if anything, I was predicting that before most people here even thought it was possible in their lifetimes. I'm saying that the opposite argument, that no one will ever buy music or attend live concerts because they can simply download mp3s or stream music, is just as fallacious.
I'm not saying that no one will ever use synthetic media to do anything because human-created art will always matter more; I'm saying that the arguments that we'll only ever consume media tailor-made for us and our preferences is one day going to be seen as just as outrageously silly of a prediction.
And that's why I agree with OP. Especially considering another angle to this: I think most people will utilize synthetic media to some extent, such as to edit existing media or create memes or something to that level, but very few will actually create whole movies, video games, and franchises, at least regularly. This is more likely with older generations and the hipsters of younger generations. It's easy to forget that most people alive today were born before the year 2000, and that in America, more than 2/3s of the population is older than 30. Maybe I'm not seeing something that others can, but thinking about this from the laziest and most consumeristic perspective combined with technophobia, I can absolutely see the majority of Boomers and Gen Xers just barely using synthetic media, such as to "make the fourth movie of the Dollars Trilogy" or "give me another season of Firefly" or "give us the fourth main Nirvana album" but otherwise stopping there and, for the most part, sharing whatever's created before moving on.
blueSGL t1_ja1vmoa wrote
What about this, with the same prompt/model/seed/...'settings'... combination you can pull the same image out of an image model as someone else
I can easily see there be a time where people generate [music/tvshows/movies/etc] themselves but share the created media and have other people vote and rank it.
e.g. head over to a website that hosts ratings for... AI generated Simpsons episodes and share all the 'settings' needed to load into your own system to recreate it.
Then you can brows by popular generated content, circa whatever month you happen to be in, or by all time, or whatever other metrics you can think of.
Everyone has the capability to generate new stuff and then has the ability to share it. Good stuff gets popular and becomes zeitgeist-y for a while, bad stuff just exists.
Yuli-Ban t1_ja1x0ql wrote
NAIL ON THE HEAD
That's exactly what I predict.
> Everyone has the capability to generate new stuff and then has the ability to share it. Good stuff gets popular and becomes zeitgeist-y for a while, bad stuff just exists.
Indeed, this is essentially already the case on some websites, like Newgrounds, Soundcloud, and Reddit, except the capabilities are expanded even further.
Though again, I still predict that the "human-created" tag will exist and there will be some segregation between that which is created by humans and that which is created by machines, among other metrics (i.e. human prompted/AI-generated; human-created/AI-assisted, etc.)
Ideally, there will be as few bad actors as possible trying to corrupt such a tag. There might also exist the issue of copyright. Despite some predictions, I don't see copyright dying immediately. Indeed, if anything, I view copyright as being the last chokehold of "canonicity." You, or an AI, may generate the best-ever episodes of a certain TV show, but if the rightsholders say it's non-canon, then it's non-canon, period. Some may disregard their statement, but enough won't.
One other thing I predict is the demographics of all this.
Despite the democratization of media creation being imminent, I actually don't see the vast majority of people joining in on creation, even if the majority do join in on curation. The claims that this will be the case feel eerily reminiscent of the claims by the cyberdelic movement in the 1990s that the Internet will lead to direct democracy and total enlightenment, with every man an artist and every website an enlightened forum.
I predict 60% to 70% of people will stick to AI-generated memes, purely personal creations, edits to existing media, and other small things. Only about 10% to 20% of the population will be responsible for this massive explosion of content creation (and the remaining will stick with human-created media).
RoosterBrewster t1_ja2o3qw wrote
I could imagine Google or Facebook generating even more targeted ads by creating very individualized text upon the page loading. Or a streaming TV show that can have product placement changed on the fly.
TheSensibleTurk t1_ja1n3wf wrote
So you're saying quasi-sapient sex robots with lifelike locomotion, computer driven self-articulation, memory retention and adaptiveness can be a thing within the next few decades?
nobodyisonething t1_ja61mpt wrote
The future will be MUCH MORE individualized than anything anyone has ever experienced in human history.
In the near future the movies you watch will be MOVIES MADE FOR YOU. The podcasts you listen to will be generated real-time for you just like you want to hear them. Your music will be the only music you care to listen to. And it will be generated fresh every day, like bread from the baker.
The echo chambers of today will seem like quaint children's tree-house forts in retrospect just a few years from now.
Orc_ t1_ja6hadn wrote
That's one of the things that weirds me out the most.
There will be less "in common" in regards to people and media because everybody will be watching things catered to them.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments