|
|
|
|
|
by emseetech
523 days ago
|
|
Before investing billions in individually curated, generated influencers and content creators, maybe we should market test it first and see if it's what anybody actually wants, let alone whether it's even achievable in any meaningful way. A lot of AI people make strong assumptions about what the consumer market demand is for explicitly (as in, not "tricking" the user) AI generated art, music and content. |
|
And like, this isn't that weird. This is the mindset of every money-minded media executive that exists, and is why studio meddling in projects is almost universally bad, and the more meddling there is, the more frantic focus-group testing that's done, the more diluted and bad the art comes out in the end. Classic example is the original theatrical release of Blade Runner which was subject to tons of studio interference before it's release, and the studio's version is so legendarily bad that the studio itself, decades later, has all but fucking buried it at sea.
It's this particular kind of brain worms that infests people who want to get into that space, but have no desire to cultivate skill. They want to make things people love and/or get the money for doing so, but they have no idea why people make things, or why people want the things people make. Hence why all of them are tripping over themselves for their imagined AI future.
And if you think I’m being elitist or whatever, I’m just reading the marketing here. All of this stuff is sold with the primary selling point being you can make stuff without learning the skills required to make stuff so it’s naturally going to be most appealing to people who lack skills and see the acquisition of them, or more likely the difficulty involved in that, as something they don’t want to deal with.