General Discussion

you or anyone else likes the way it was used.

In the case of the video in the OP, he's mocking that specific piece of AI slop Trump posted. So I didn't mind that.

But a lot of his videos use AI slop when there's absolutely no need to do so.

Just as there was no need for that new film - which I posted about in the thread you commented on - to use an AI simulacrum of Val Kilmer when a living actor could and should have been given that role.

The YouTuber who did the video in the OP is doing song parodies. He does not need to use AI slop for the thumbnails you see as the first image, or any images/video in the videos he's uploaded to YouTube. He could upload videos of himself performing the songs. Or just show people the lyrics. That's what people used to do with satirical songs. They didn't need AI-generated images and video from tools trained on other artists' stolen work to create music videos.

If he wanted images/video, he could have paid artists, or asked them to help him in return for being given credit. That would have been the ethical thing to do.

Most musicians seem to understand that. Professional musicians who are at all well known have caught hell from their fans if they used AI art/video for either album covers or music videos. I've posted threads about that here in the past. Musicians who see what a threat AI music generators are to real musicians usually understand what a threat AI image and video generators are to real artists, visual artists.

The same goes for novelists who will catch hell for using AI art for book covers.

Artists usually stand together because they have to. If they don't want generative AI used to compete with their type of art, it's foolish and hypocritical to act as though it's just fine and harmless to use genAI trained on different types of artists' work. AI companies love it when any artist is that hypocritical, because they just undermined arguments against genAI use in general.

And then there's the problem that anyone using genAI inevitably raises questions about how much they use it.

I wish to God that the YouTuber whose video you posted had never used genAI, because then I could enjoy his satirical lyrics without wondering if he actually wrote them himself or had a chatbot write them for him. The same questions are inevitable if someone uses a music generator. Even if someone actually wrote the lyrics, no one else can know that for sure unless there's some earlier record of those written lyrics...and even then, how the hell do you know that AI user didn't have a chatbot write the lyrics for them before feeding them into Suno or Udio to turn into a recorded song?

You can't even know, with AI users, whether even the basic idea for something they generate was theirs, or if they asked a chatbot to come up with a list of ideas for them. I've seen YouTube encourage their channel owners to ask AI for ideas.

So with genAI you can have people with zero artistic skills and zero ideas for anything creative ask AI for ideas and have AI generate something, with the YouTuber basically having nothing to do with it, beyond wanting a YouTube video about something.

GenAI destroys credibility and authenticity. It's inherently pretense.

And so I hate to see anyone who has some real talent, as that YouTuber showed he has in pre-AI videos, hurt their own credibility using AI when it was absolutely not necessary.