AI-created “virtual influencers” are stealing business from humans::Brands are turning to hyper-realistic, AI-generated influencers for promotions.

  • SkippingRelax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Human influences have always given me dystopian vibes. And they were just making some executives and themselves rich, is not such a big loss…

    • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Human influencers are just celebrities at a smaller scale, and frankly the assumption that influencer/celebrity culture will go away if influencers are replaced I’m seeing in this thread is completely unrealistic. We will just get Coca-ColAIna and L’ÓreAI-chan instead of people occasionally peddling products.

      If there’s any real concern of artificiality and parasocial following as a replacement for real human connections behind this disdain at influencers, then in no way replacing them with AI is going to fix anything. It will only make it worse. It will lead to custom-tailored indoctrination by brands.

      Worse than that, I already see people treating actual artists much in the same way. That the human element in culture doesn’t matter as much as having an endless source of nebulous content, and that anyone making art should get a “real job” instead. Nevermind that those are also in line for automation…

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        ‘Influencer’ as a job has only existed for what, 10 years? I don’t think society will collapse without them.

        • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Influencers have a lot of overlap with artistic expression online, but this is not even all that it is about. This is not going to end simply with replacing Logan Paul and stopping at that. This is only one more step in a trend to replace a lot of creative, intellectual and service jobs. Which wouldn’t even be so bad if those people had a guarantee of a living and could do anything they want with their time… but this is not how it goes.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            We couldn’t guarantee a living to all the people who had to go around picking up horse shit or lighting gas streetlamps either. Sure, a UBI would be nice, but technology advances. And I really do not believe it is a slippery slope from ending the career of Logan Paul to ending the career of a future Leonardo Da Vinci.

            • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Back then we couldn’t guaranteed. But since productivity has grown immensely. We do grow more than enough food to feed every single person, and often that food it thrown out for a myriad of economic reasons. Technology advances but we see less and less of the benefits. It used to be at least that it freed us from manual labor into service work, but if it takes that too, then what?

              You may not believe it all you want, artist are already seeing their careers diminishing in financial viability. Before we even could speculate about the threat to influencers, there were already visual artists and voice actors who gave up because their commissioners and employers decided to use AI instead. One might say “this means they weren’t very good so no loss”, but how does an artist get good if not practice? Nah, we aren’t sliding from ending Logan Paul to ending a prospective Leonardo Da Vinci, likely we already ruined the chances of that Da Vinci and now it’s sliding towards influencers.

              And you know what, I don’t even think Logan Paul is going to lose his job considering how established he is. But some smaller, more integrous and creative influencers might.

              • meat_popsicle@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                But some smaller, more integrous and creative influencers might.

                Good, maybe they’ll get a productive job then and stop forcing their attempts at being influencers. You either are or aren’t one; they clearly don’t have what it takes to influence their viewers to buy sponsor products as efficiently.

                Advertising isn’t a noble business and influencers are just advertisers. There is no noble human spirit in advertising, it is (and always has been) an exploitative and ignoble career.

                • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You can resent advertising however much you want but you are getting this one backwards. Influencers can be anything from models, reviewers, comedians, actors, so forth. It’s a catch-all term for internet performers. They often rely on brand deals because it’s one of the few reliable ways to make money on the internet. But do you really think millions of people follow influencers for the sole purpose of getting advertised at? That doesn’t make sense.

      • xor@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        “influencers” are more like models than celebrities… they add nothing

        • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do you really think models add nothing? Because that is a form of art too. If anything the comparison only serves to give some credit to influencers.

            • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              What is there to “bite”? Photography would be a lot more limited without them. Fashion, whether you are into it or not, needs them. Traditional artists rely on them to learn. This is not even bringing up the more salacious side of it which, regardless if you think that is “worthy” or not, it’s enjoyed by a lot of people.

              • SkippingRelax@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I hadn’t though about traditional artists. I’ll give you that, though most of us don’t think about a static model posing while an artist is sculpting or painting them.

                Let’s be honest photography can stand on its legs without models. And as for fashion, you guessed it right not really into it, but most importantly it adds to the same question we keep asking in this thread, who benefits from this besides Mr versace and a couple other assholes? Really what do they “add”?

                • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Let’s be honest photography can stand on its legs without models.

                  This is not honest, this is a absolutely bonkers. What do you propose? Only having scenery and animal pictures?

                  Or should the photographer pose on their own? Maybe get some random people to do it? Guess what, what they are doing is modeling. That’s just reinventing modeling in a roundabout way.

                  The way you question fashion illustrates how all this matter is deeply subjective. Why do people pay money to Mr. Versace? Because they want to look good and they are convinced by his brand’s sense of style. Does it seem excessive? To me it does. I don’t see the appeal and it’s way too expensive for me. But I do appreciate the style some other brands offer, or even what people cobble and sew together on their own.

                  Is there no art that you appreciate, and couldn’t it similarly be judge in such a manner? I play a lot of games. They bring me a lot of fun and occasional thoughtful insights. One might say I’m just wasting time pressing buttons on something that is fake. It wouldn’t be an invalid observation but it would gloss over the value that I see in them.

                  Even getting back to influencers, as fake and greedy some might be, the value they add is not all that different than the value any art adds: the value which the audience sees in them. For any influencer to succeed, there must be many people following them. You can judge their taste but it is worth something for them.

                  But lets also put in perspective that influencers aren’t all millionaire grifters. Some of them are small creators who cultivate an audience with a fun performance and interesting opinions which people enjoy. It’s like celebrity culture, but immensely more accessible. If they are gone, and we are back to only having Hollywood worship, would that really be better?

            • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Do you realize artistic photography uses models too? I mentioned it right below in this discussion.

              Consider that maybe you associate modeling with advertisements because our society is more driven by marketing than culture.

              • xor@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                actually, no. It’s a line from the movie Mia… about a model… and i, an artist, have given it thought prior to this discussion…
                photography IS an art, yep… models posing isn’t… it can be kinda artistic, i suppose… there’s an expression in it… but it can be artistic without being an artform.
                like making a wood dresser, it’s more of craftsmanship than an art (but carpentry cooooould be used in art, such as wooden sculpture…)
                and, yes, influencers coooould be taking artistic pictures of themselves, but that’s not what influencer really means.
                at any rate, i hope they all die painful deaths… and it’s about the only artsy thing i feel ok with AI replacing.
                And if you consider beauty filters, AI replaced influencers a long time ago…

                • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Arts and crafts is a whole another discussion, and some say this distinction is only made to demean artisans when compared to academic artists. Similarly, if photography is art, and physical expression such as dance is art, I don’t see why modeling wouldn’t be art.

                  Influencers aren’t all Logan Paul either. Would someone who offers useful recommendations or makes good comedy skits deserve to die either? Seems extreme. This whole thread seems way too hateful of the idea.

                  • xor@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    i see you only skimmed my comment and then treated my joke as if im serious… pretty lame

      • SkippingRelax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Replacing influencers with ai is not going to fix anything for that we should dismantle social media and have a serious talk all 8 billion of us, but it’s not going to make anything worse either, it is already custom tailored indoctrination by brands and a handful of assholes are making stupid amounts of money. I’m not going to cry if that money shifts to different hands.

        Yes artists come up often in this kind of discussions, the ones that are losing their job to ai never had one in the first place, same as influencers. What are we talking about, Jim that makes you a custom logo and business cards for your business?

        The guy that gets a commission from the newly opened local microbrewery for graffiti-ing their walls is hardly losing any work to ai. If anything they could integrate ai in their creative process.

        • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Good luck convincing 8 billion people all to agree on anything, especially to drop something that has become so enmeshed with people’s lives already.

          But it is going to make it worse. All the data they are collecting from us will be directly funelled into how best to manipulate us in an individual manner. It is not custom tailored to a personal level yet. Even the most cynical and greedy influencer doesn’t have the means to individualize ads. But if it’s all AI-created, then it can be done.

          Yes artists come up often in this kind of discussions, the ones that are losing their job to ai never had one in the first place

          Nice No True Scotsman, sounds like you don’t really value their work, that anyone who could be replaced never deserved to earn a living to begin with. I don’t think there is anything I can respond to that, because at that point we have a fundamental conflict of values and worldview.

          I believe artists, even small artists, deserve to be supported and that our world and culture is better off for that. Including Jim.

          The guy that gets a commission from the newly opened local microbrewery for graffiti-ing their walls is hardly losing any work to ai.

          That is, until a drone can physically print AI-created graffiti and replace that guy in the same way that the digital artists get replaced

          If anything they could integrate ai in their creative process.

          Assuming said artist even wants to do that, why would that business hire someone to use an AI if it could do it themselves? The benefit of AI is making content creation easier and faster. It’s not enough to say that “artists could just use it” because inevitably that makes it so less artists would be needed or hired for any given work. Say the graffitti artist manages to use said AI and drones and get by. Well, then it doesn’t need a team and apprentices anymore. And these won’t manage to do the same because the graffiti worked is already handled.

          Ultimately, what is all this for? Rather than automation freeing us to have leisure and be creative, it’s freeing us to carry boxes in an Amazon warehouse.