Latest on MJJC

A.I Michael - opinions

I was trying to understand what is being said in this video and wondered if there is also A.I. technology for that..?

 
Not only is this weird it is creepy as hell that anyone would even make it and enjoy it.


AI is a useful tool (restoration, separating tracks etc.), but making sh*t like this is weird as HELL man.
 
innuendo141 said:
Not only is this weird it is creepy as hell that anyone would even make it and enjoy it.


AI is a useful tool (restoration, separating tracks etc.), but making sh*t like this is weird as HELL man.
Click to expand...
but people also use photoshop to make edits of michael without a shirt, does that mean that photoshop is creepy as hell?

To put AI to one side because of bad actors is stupid & extremely narrow minded.
 
Beano Wild said:
but people also use photoshop to make edits of michael without a shirt, does that mean that photoshop is creepy as hell?

To put AI to one side because of bad actors is stupid & extremely narrow minded.
Click to expand...
Generative AI is not making anything new by its very nature and is not art.
 
SmoothGangsta said:
Generative AI is not making anything new by its very nature and is not art.
Click to expand...
And I agree, the raw output of AI is not art by itself, but what is done with that after the fact can transform it to BE art. It depends on how little or how much the artist changes it.

same as how that banana taped to a wall that was put on display is art in of itself due to the reaction of confusion and annoyance it gives to the people viewing it as "not being art". Art is an opinion, its everything and nothing at the same time.
 
Haven't looked at that video but, is AI creepy as hell? Hell, yes!

Photoshop photos of Michael:
* with his head placed onto someone else's body
* wearing clothes that he never wore in rl
* with his body posed in a way that he would never have done in rl

AI photos of Michael:
* less fake than the photoshop stuff but still awful with smoothed out skin, hair, facial features
* clothes altered e.g. 90's photos of him wearing his black hat and jacket but with the white t-shirt underneath removed so it looks as if he's bare-chested. Since Michael didn't present himself in that way (apart from DD) then, yeah, it's creepy or at the very least, wrong.

AI photos are actually worse than photoshop, imo, bc they use actual photos of Michael and the alterations are insidious. They are already being posted and re-posted all over the place online. I don't think it's an exaggeration to wonder at what point people start to forget what Michael really looked like. Of course, the videos and photos will always exist but over the past 18 months I've seen many AI photos posted online as if they are legit. That's not a minor thing to be shrugged off, imo.
 
zinniabooklover said:
Haven't looked at that video but, is AI creepy as hell? Hell, yes!

Photoshop photos of Michael:
* with his head placed onto someone else's body
* wearing clothes that he never wore in rl
* with his body posed in a way that he would never have done in rl

AI photos of Michael:
* less fake than the photoshop stuff but still awful with smoothed out skin, hair, facial features
* clothes altered e.g. 90's photos of him wearing his black hat and jacket but with the white t-shirt underneath removed so it looks as if he's bare-chested. Since Michael didn't present himself in that way (apart from DD) then, yeah, it's creepy or at the very least, wrong.

AI photos are actually worse than photoshop, imo, bc they use actual photos of Michael and the alterations are insidious. They are already being posted and re-posted all over the place online. I don't think it's an exaggeration to wonder at what point people start to forget what Michael really looked like. Of course, the videos and photos will always exist but over the past 18 months I've seen many AI photos posted online as if they are legit. That's not a minor thing to be shrugged off, imo.
Click to expand...
And it all existed beforehand, just in more primitive/different forms. its just easier to do (while still being not convincing to a trained eye). This is coming from someone that believes a leak is fake when others think its real (which i'm entitled to just agree with at this point as its easier that way and it is a ship of theseus moment, but i still dont trust it).

All this means is we need to research the history behind the photos, videos and audio & how they exist, and see if it all lines up.
 
Beano Wild said:
And it all existed beforehand, just in more primitive/different forms. its just easier to do (while still being not convincing to a trained eye). This is coming from someone that believes a leak is fake when others think its real (which i'm entitled to just agree with at this point as its easier that way and it is a ship of theseus moment, but i still dont trust it).

All this means is we need to research the history behind the photos, videos and audio & how they exist, and see if it all lines up.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's that simple.
 
Beano Wild said:
but it is, because its the same process to fake "leaks", unless its impossible/made impossible by bad actors to fact check there should be no issues.
Click to expand...
OK, so we'll have to agree to disagree on this bc I do not have the energy to get into it. I see it very differently than you do. AI is here to stay, it's not going anywhere so I'm resigned to that. I'm also speaking as someone who loved the Robbie Williams biopic, especially the CGI that Weta FX did on that film. Do they use AI? The answer is probably, yes. So I'm caught between a rock and a hard place, lol. :ROFLMAO:

Btw, cool observation:
Beano Wild said:
[...] This is coming from someone that believes a leak is fake when others think its real (which i'm entitled to just agree with at this point as its easier that way and it is a ship of theseus moment, but i still dont trust it). [...]
Click to expand...
(y)
 
Hmm, this thread is back up again, so I decided to read it (again). I'm not sure if I replied to any of it before...

For the subject in general - I'm very interested in it, out of curiosity more than anything else. I worked in AI in 1999-2000, it's great to see how far the field has come.

Beano Wild said:
after almost 40 hours of training the ai is scaring me at how it has reached the level of a really good Michael impersonator, and I'm only about 30% done training.
Click to expand...
This is what I don't get. You trained it on 40 hours of MJ material? Even with the Jackson 5 stuff I can't see the entire catalogue getting above about 20 hours. Were you including every night of the Bad tour? Or did you include normal speech as well? How are you going to get to 120 hours?

Beano Wild said:
and do you believe Michael would have been fascinated by this technology?
Click to expand...
Yes, he would have. He was using synths and drum machines in the 80s. Early adopter of Dolby Surround. Pushing other boundaries in music videos. Pushing the boundaries in live performance...

Pentum said:
This is nuts. Give it a few more years and you'll start having a hard time telling what is real and what is not.
Click to expand...
Definitely. I don't care what anybody says, in a couple of years NOBODY will be able to tell the difference between a human and an AI singer. It will simply be impossible.

wendijane said:
But what about when it does? Technology has the power to slowly take over the humbled human
Click to expand...
To be honest, that doesn't matter. It's entertainment. People just want to be entertained. It's irrelevant how a song was written or recorded. All that matters is if it's presented as genuine. And we know the estate have already used technology to release fake stuff and mislead fans.

Anyway, if music becomes cheaper/free, that's in the interests of the general public. Music does not exist to make people into billionaires.
 
Last edited:
R1chard said:
This is what I don't get. You trained it on 40 hours of MJ material? Even with the Jackson 5 stuff I can't see the entire catalogue getting above about 20 hours. Were you including every night of the Bad tour? Or did you include normal speech as well? How are you going to get to 120 hours?
Click to expand...
you going back two years is whip lash, jesus. i trained a 2 hour dataset for 40 hours.
 
R1chard said:
Definitely. I don't care what anybody says, in a couple of years NOBODY will be able to tell the difference between a human and an AI singer. [...]
Click to expand...
Oh boy, that sounds like something to celebrate. :mad:

I'm going off-topic here, this doesn't involve Michael but ...
R1chard said:
To be honest, that doesn't matter. It's entertainment. People just want to be entertained. It's irrelevant how a song was written or recorded.
Click to expand...
I'm currently reading a book called 'Mood Machine: The Rise of Spotify and the Cost of the Perfect Playlist'. Here's a quote from P.54:

"There's a playlist called 'Musical Therapy', made by Spotify, filled with generic ambient tracks by artists that don't actually exist."

R1chard said:
All that matters is if it's presented as genuine.
Click to expand...
See above!

R1chard said:
Anyway, if music becomes cheaper/ [...]
Click to expand...
How much cheaper can it get? The royalty situation with streaming is already deplorable.

R1chard said:
[...] free, that's in the interests of the general public.
Click to expand...
Free? Who's going to pay the artists?

Those non-existent artists on that Spotify ambient playlist don't need pesky royalty payments, that's for sure.

R1chard said:
Music does not exist to make people into billionaires.
Click to expand...
Leaving aside TS and Jay-Z, most musicians won't end up as billionaires, that's true. But Daniel Ek, Spotify CEO, is a billionaire. Here's another quote from the Liz Pelly book, P.13:

"Lorentzon himself has explained that the early days of [Spotify] were about advertising, not music. 'The revenue source was ads,' he once said on stage at a conference. "Because I had knowledge of ads .... the traffic sources we were debating. Should it be product search? Should it be movies, or audiobooks. And then we ended up with music" ...

Ultimately, that's what music was to Spotify in its early days: a traffic source for its advertising product."

Enough derailing!
 
Beano Wild said:
And I agree, the raw output of AI is not art by itself, but what is done with that after the fact can transform it to BE art. It depends on how little or how much the artist changes it.

same as how that banana taped to a wall that was put on display is art in of itself due to the reaction of confusion and annoyance it gives to the people viewing it as "not being art". Art is an opinion, its everything and nothing at the same time.
Click to expand...
Using AI generated material isn't "creating" anything and is not art.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top