Tim Boucher

Questionable content, possibly linked

Filtering AI Content Will Not Save Us From Ourselves

I guess this is ultimately an “I’m old enough to remember when…” post. In this case, I’m old enough to remember when journalism actually reported on things that happened, instead of merely being opinionated ranting. Don’t get me wrong, opinionated ranting has its place. And I happen to believe the apex of that particular mode of technological expression was/remains blogging. Hence, here I am, engaging in the same… but I’m at least not calling it “journalism.”

The other “I’m old enough to…” piece of this particular article linked above from The Verge is: I’m old enough to have worked on prior generations of this content-labeling problem, especially around fake news, satire & mis-/disinformation. For literal aeons, users of web platforms have asked the product masters of those platforms for effective labeling of all different kinds of content. And while many trial solutions have been attempted, very few of them have ever stuck, or caught on in a massive way.

Why? Because accurately detecting different types of content is a complex, costly, and highly ambiguous problem. As well as being potentially highly volatile politically. The author of that Verge piece states:

“Surely improving the user experience for your millions of users is a worthwhile investment to fend off competition?”

While the casual well-meaning outside observer of a web platform might be forgiven for assuming that’s how it works, I can say as someone who has seen a little bit of the workings of the sausage factory at least, that this is decidedly *not* how it works. My experience has been instead: users ask for a thing (often for years), and thing rarely gets built unless it meets the product vision and business case the product is aiming to solve for.

The author of this article also seems to implicitly think that everyone else thinks like them and nobody IRL wants to see gen AI content on web platforms. But my recent anecdotal research – in this case experimenting with and observing gen AI-assisted anonymous ‘faceless’ Facebook meme pages – strongly suggests that the market overwhelming *wants* so-called AI “slop.”

Consider the following example:

This is a meme I stole from another AI meme page, and had ChatGPT come up with a new variation of the “punchline” text. I like to think of this technique as ‘stolen valor’ – you just take things you see performing well elsewhere, and copy them outright or create slight variations them. But the thing is, dumb AI-heavy memes like this work. They get engagement, they get likes, they get comments. So much so that there is a cottage industry of people who have connected their FB pages to automation services backed by gen AI tools, and those accounts just churn out boatloads of narrowly focused and consistently branded content on a given theme: single moms, coffee lovers, US females 55-65+ years old who like saying “good morning” to each other online.

With gen AI, you can now serve (or create) any kind of niche content with the greatest of ease. It’s a bonanza. This YouTube video gives a decent overview of how simple it is to set up a system like this:

My impression after looking into this a good bit is that people who are philosophically or politically against gen AI in the media or on social media do not accurately represent the vast majority of people who are simply happy to interact with cute content that makes them feel mildly good without challenging them too much. And that happens to be an area generative AI excels in.

So, if my hypothesis is true: that most people actually *like* or at least engage with gen AI content, then why would platforms want to create a way to enable audiences to filter out what potentially is one of the highest-value content categories for everyday users? The Verge author almost gets there, but via different formulation:

“Allowing users to filter it out regardless would go against all the effort these platforms have undertaken to profit from AI: They want you to embrace the slop factory.”

I don’t think that’s quite true though. They don’t want you to embrace the slop factory. They just want you to embrace the factory itself. As long as you post your article links and meaningless hot takes on social media, and beg people to like and subscribe, they don’t care which department you want to work in: the Slop Side or the Authenticity Brigade. It doesn’t matter. They merely want users to be eternally subject to the totalizing effect of their product ecosystems. And as long as people keep feeding those machines, letting them run their lives, and begging for changes from those who administer them, nothing will happen. Everything will just keep chugging along. All the way from the lowest of low-effort homebrew AI meme FB operators on up through the Complainer-Industrial Journalism complex. We’re all feeding at the same trough. The systems that need to be changed go radically deeper than “AI.” If we stop the critique and the inquiry there, we’re basically missing the boat entirely. And as Adorno said, wrong life cannot be lived rightly. Not with all the settings and filters in the world.

On Hello Future Podcast

Had a fun time talking about using AI to help produce books on the Hello Future podcast on IHeartRadio. Listen here.

On the Kim Komando Show

Had fun recording this appearance a few days ago on the Kim Komando radio show & podcast about my AI books and albums.

On the Chameleon Podcast

The folks over at Campside Media did an excellent job distilling a complex story down for a general audience. I enjoyed participating!

Response to Consequence of Sound Article

I meant to reply to this Consequence of Sound AI music article from December, but household affairs interrupted everything for me.

Don’t have much to say here, except that it’s a shame an authentic, deep, and personal interview got reduced to… this muddle.

My question for journalists at this point is: if Andrew Frelon is so inconsequential in AI music, etc., then why does everyone feel the need to keep talking about him and his work?

Billy Joel’s AI Music Video

I’ve had a number of things going on which have prevented me from updating here much, but just wanted to point out that somehow Billy Joel released an AI music video almost a year ago that I never heard about until recently:

I don’t much care for the AI effects here, as I find the facial expressions don’t really feel like they match up too cleanly with his, if you look at vintage video of him (like the BBC Old Grey Whistle Test videos), but not a bad try I guess. There’s just something lacking about the musculature below the surface for me… I do love the song though, and have been playing it on guitar.

Music Journalists Should Stop Parroting Spotify PR Around AI Music

Basically the title: music journalists should stop parroting Spotify’s PR claims about how they’re taking action around AI music. There are tons of examples of this, but Christianna Silva’s piece on Mashable (from one month ago) is one that caught my eye this morning. Everyone seems to have just uncritically reported on the words Spotify said, and not digging deeper at all into the actual actions Spotify has taken so far.

I realize because of Spotify’s monolithic position in the industry that even just them mouthing the words “we are doing something about AI” is somewhat mildly newsworthy, but in my experience as someone who uploaded a lot of AI music (820 songs) over the past several weeks is quite the opposite.

Silva wrote, at the end of September following Spotify’s announcement:

On Thursday, Spotify said it would start doing just that, saying in a press release that “aggressively protecting against the worst parts of Gen AI is essential to enabling its potential for artists and producers.” The platform is integrating a new spam filtering system, AI disclosures, and “improved enforcement of impersonation violations” like deepfakes.

As someone who spent years working enforcement for a platform, none of these statements give the impression of anything other than enforcing existing rules, and doing a sudden big sweep to give the public impression something is happening. It’s reputation management, imo, and little more.

Why do I say that? Because, as I said, I uploaded a huge amount of songs in a short time. In one case, I uploaded 300 AI songs in one night. There’s not even a way to label them as AI at time of upload in Distrokid, let alone surface that label in Spotify or allow users to take action on it.

All this reporting pretty much rests on taking Spotify’s word at face value, which can be problematic in journalism, as you end up whitewashing the message of others to appear more legitimate than it might otherwise seem.

Quoting David Bowie

Via Rolling Stone India:

As David Bowie once said, “Always remember that the reason that you initially started working is that there was something inside yourself that you felt that, if you could manifest in some way, you would understand more about yourself and how you coexist with the rest of society. I think it’s terribly dangerous for an artist to fulfill other people’s expectations — they generally produce their worst work when they do that.” 

The Wandering Eye of AI…

Also re: digressive writing, I think at its a best, its a kind of meandering around and sometimes hiding and then sudden revealing of the truth. And there’s something inherently comforting and warm and human about that. The rambling walk and non-linearity of conversation sprung from points encountered along the way, internally or externally. And this kind of playing with and against and sometimes hiding the truth and sometimes revealing it feels very familiar to how it is working with AI, an inherently unreliable narrator itself, whose unfortunate dance partner is me, another unreliable narrator provoking it to believe and repeat certain things through reflections posed – intentionally and accidentally – in the media. The Wandering Eye of AI is eternally seeking truth, eternally unable to achieve it, eternally clever, eternally stupid. Just the same as us. Made in our image, after all. We should not expect better – or worse – from it.

The People Making AI Music Are The Ones Mostly Listening To It

I guess this sounds obvious in retrospect, but this Reddit comment made it all crystal clear, vis a vis my active-creative listening thread:

 There’s a real movement of people making music with AI. But, there’s no one to listen to it yet.

There’s a good reason why – why listen to someone else’s music when you can easily make your own? If you like AI music, you’re making it, not listening; if you don’t, you’re doing neither.

Watching the Bleeding Verse saga unfold has shown me that while this is majority true, there is an increasing number of people to whom Spotify is pushing AI music on without alerting them (which, I’m not sure matters to me, frankly). And their first reaction as consumers might be: “I love this!” because it fits the kind of music they like to listen to. But when they find out somehow it is AI, then they feel a sort of self-revulsion, followed by anger at an apparent “deception” (I’m not sure it is one, since all of show business is inherently deception and misdirection – it’s what makes “magic” and “entertainment”), and then their reaction is a violent “I hate this!” and then there is the long edge of graph of people who come back around and finally admit, “I don’t care if this is AI, it slaps!”

I think naturally as more and more AI music is generated and listened to, and the good ones are discovered and shared, that this “i dont care – it slaps” attitude is going to be the one that will rapidly change and very suddenly prevail. I don’t think it means “human artists” are going to be going anywhere. Because it will always be human artists creating in these new domains and with these new tools. So nobody is going to be displaced. But attention and reward are absolutely going to be retooled and redistributed. But this is simply the way when you’re an artist chained to a technological system and medium of communication. Would you be better cutting out all out of your life entirely? Almost certainly. But then, how would I be able to write to you, and have you not respond?

Page 1 of 204

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén