326
The band Rush just put out a handful of gross and lazy AI-gen music videos. So sick of this trend/degradation
(media.piefed.world)
This careless interpretation (if you can even call it that) completely misrepresents the meaning of the original work. It represents the idea of using a delicate touch to handle something with the idea of punching it like a child would instead. As another song by them put it:
“Don't feed the people
But we feed the machines”
I don’t understand when someone who is creative in one field uses AI to generate something in another field. Like, how would Rush feel if some visual artist used AI to make crummy knock-off Rush songs with their own art?
I feel like I say this a lot, probably because, AI is trying to force itself into my space every day. Anyhow, As a graphic designer...
I agree 100% that just because it's not your expertise doesn't make it better. I butt up against the need to use music and copy. I don't write and I can't compose music. I'm very conscious to not use AI for either. I just had to grab a 6 sec jingle for a podcast intro to accompany my graphics. I had the option to use AI from a stock music website, but I bought it from a human instead. Kind of sickening they even allow AI junk to be mixed in with human created content and make people pay for it.
Regardless how easy it is to do so, their is always something missing. That human touch. I have to explain it more and more and I'm holding to my guns. No AI in the creative spaces, no exceptions.
My biggest take on it, even if someday it does a better job. What are we saying as a society? That we'd rather give up our creativity and do the menial tasks instead? AI should be handing the boring repetitive tasks, not be the one doing the higher level art, that's just fucked. Where do people think that AI got it's ideas from, it stole it from us! Everything I put out is a piece of me, to have something gobble that up and regurgitate it is beyond offensive.
I don't know, I feel like I'm losing. Probably going to switch careers when I move on to my next gig. Before this their was always extremely low respect for what I do. Now I think no one cares they are putting out garbage, they just want to skip quality for quantity.
AI, by its very nature, is incapable of capturing the human condition.
No matter how extensive its datasets, this will never change. This is because the human condition is just that, flawed and twisted and emotional, in all the ways humans are, and all the ways programs fundamentally cannot be.
A computer program's only goal is to do what it is programmed to do perfectly. An issue arises when it tries to copy, or augment the human condition perfectly.
How can you perfectly augment something that is, by its very nature, unpredictably imperfect?
This is why AI created "art" is so uncanny and soulless; you cannot augment the human condition.
In most cases, I expect that moves like this are by the record company/rightsholders/whoever as a cheap cash-grab rather than the artist themselves. Peter Gabriel is a vocal exception to that.
That may be true in this case, I'm thinking more of small content creators on YouTube or elsewhere. No class solidarity.
Oh no is peter pro AI... Damn it I loved him
Ahhh yes, the cash grab of putting your songs on YouTube for free.
Is this the first time you’ve heard that uploaders get a portion of ad revenue??
The music is the content, not the image. The image isn't the thing generating ad revenue. You guys are tripping over a placeholder image, made by the guy that did all their album artwork and played keyboard on some of their songs on top of that.
It was this or a static image of their album cover (both of which are made by the same guy, so it's not like they are screwing over their album artist either).
We don't even know to what extent AI was used, if he generated the whole thing or just animated it with it. It might not be AI at all.
And having ad revenue doesn't make everything on YouTube a cash grab, nor is it a cash grab the moment it includes AI.
The word “or” here is incorrect. Reuploads of the same song is an apparent method to stimulate views and thus get ad revenue. “Between the Wheels”, for example, has
Static image of album art
Static image of 2026 super deluxe album art
AI visualizer 1
AI visualizer 2
all uploaded through Rush’s official channel
Two of them appear to be different remasters but fair point, could easily be classified as a cash grab in some measure, although it's hard to apply that label to free content for me.
You initially said it was put up for free as a way to excuse it, now that I pointed out they’re making money it’s fine because the image isn’t what people come there for? In that case why use an AI image to begin with?
The music is the content and what is up for free. The image has little to do with the cash grab or ad revenue aspect of it. Free for us doesn't mean they won't make a tiny profit. I fail to see how I'm contradicting myself.
Why not use an AI animation. It literally just makes for a better visualizer.
Why would you use a recipe to bake a cake when the professional baker down the street already bakes so well?
If the professional baker down the street threw human excrement into their cakes 1% of the time I’d make my own. Same reason I don’t use AI. Except it’s a lot higher than 1% with AI.
So they use premium quality flour and you’re using grocery store Pillsbury. Yes, their cake is going to taste better and yes, you’ll probably prefer their cake on occasion, but you also don’t want to drop $40+ on a cake when you can sometimes just get your fix for $5. What’s the harm in letting amateurs create something based upon a recipe when they wouldn’t be able to do so otherwise?