No.3031[Reply]
With the advent of AI technology spreading across the wired, there are an almost unlimited amount of examples that point to the idea that "dead internet theory" may no longer be a theory but a practical reality. Digital spaces, primarily social media (x, tiktok, instagram, reddit, youtube), have been flooded with scraped, copy pasted, inauthentic, and repetitive "content" that lacks substance. Most of this is at the hands of large language models, bot traffic and algorithms being manipulated for specific interests, but the widespread adoption of this technology has led to artificial posts, massive amounts of misinformation, forced interactions, and digital ecosystems that operate without human input with the goal of exploiting any real person who engages with them. Social apps, linguistics, search engines, journalism, video games, art, software programs, operating systems, nearly everything is in the midst of an authenticity crisis; don't even get me started on AI "relationships". One could argue that the mechanisms pushing the internet towards this direction have been in place since at least the early 2010s, but seeing this artificial content is unavoidable on the modern internet, specifically on the popular avenues that most people who use the internet inhabit. Also, it is mandatory to mention the obvious government involvement. Despite all of this, it seems to be a common sentiment to many users that this is a bad development.
Personally, I have deleted my socials and restricted most of my internet usage to specific websites and applications that have small enough communities to still feel authentic and capable of discussion. It is hard for me to take any new information seriously when so much slop is generated and pushed for narratives while undermining the integrity of hear-say and what you can observe with your own eyes. It all feels like a giant cyberpunk blackpilled psy-op. So what does wirechan think? is the internet dead? can we avoid the dead internet at large? is it time to setup up an intranet and hermitmaxx? is it futile to resist this inevitability? are we all turning into schizos? what are the implications of this? pic unrelated.
6 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view. No.3039
>>3038i'm obviously a bit too young to have an informed opinion on this but i think western society has been discouraging feeling emotions for decades now, mostly due to the ideas of responsibility and separating your business life from your personal life, i guess to achieve your american dream even if it takes all the SSRIs in the world to get there
also, in response to the machine-generated djent thing, i remember that vid coming out and i mostly interpreted it as a critique of how formulaic modern metal sounded (and still sounds), there's a reason why AI back then wasn't able to generate something like folk
No.3040
>>3038>The human element had been completely removed, and the music quality improved significantly for them because of itHow was the human involvement removed? It required lots of effort and curation and taste to pull it off.
>I just don't understand why, again say Zwitter furry artists, did not have the same reaction towards procedurally generated furry art when they go into their art with the same mindset as the djent people doThe djent people being randoms leaving comments? I'm not sure how actual djent artists reacted.
No.3041
>>3040Of course a lot of human effort etc. was involved. It's just that the curation is geared towards removing the human involvement. The taste people have is one that decries human involvement. I don't know that appealing to an elitist sense of "the artists" means anything. The "randoms" you mention are all people that enjoy the music and listen to it regularly. A lot of them are likely write their own songs. Even if every major band decried this, it's clear that the popular opinion is in favor of this kind of stuff. For what it's worth, here's Nik Nocturnal reacting to it, after looking at a few other AI music streams:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSlGuYQMTyQ&t=164sI did overestimate how much people cared about this, though. When this first came out (see the linked video) people were crazy ecstatic about this, but the diving back into things now, the original guy's livestream and YouTube channel are both dead, and no replicates seem to have emerged.
>>3039In light of that, maybe you're right. Maybe this was some Harvard experiment to see how people would react to properly made procedurally generated music. ha.
No.3043
>>3041>I did overestimate how much people cared about this, though. When this first came out (see the linked video) people were crazy ecstatic about this, but the diving back into things now, the original guy's livestream and YouTube channel are both dead, and no replicates seem to have emergedIt's just not as fun as making music yourself. Musicians will have consistent output because it's a normal activity for them but stuff like this is just a party trick, even if it generates great music, people won't bother doing it for too long because it's simply not fun. It's interesting to do it for the first time as an experiment. But it's like having a bot play your video game. I guess if you're getting millions of streams on spotify you will keep doing it but that will only be constrained to pop and pop adjacent genres.
No.3044
>>3036You're confusing the symptom for the disease. The mental and cognitive patterns of people raised in cyberspace comes to resemble the systems they use. When life is represented as essentially data which can be manipulated on screen, when these machines run on strict codes, human thought becomes desensitized to physical suffering, emotion, and their suffer from a narrow pattern like thinking e.g. a girl told me (she's a leftist) that her classmates had decided she must be a right winger because she's an Orthodox Christian. This is how a computer thinks, processing information based on patterns with no regard for her specific individuality. If not this, then it must be that and into that box she's sorted.
A lot of anti-internet talk is shallow and snobby, often people saying it was better in their day, and not realizing the problems we're seeing now are the result of a long development that's been unfolding for decades, maybe even centuries.
>>3038>People still have emotion, obviously, but the modern Western society as a whole discourages feeling it. What makes Western civilization different from others is that it separates reason and emotion. Serious conversation should be rational, and therefore not emotional. People are uncomfortable seeing emotion e.g. we describe war atrocities in terms of their 'social cost," the amount of money spent etc. in other words, calculable numeric stuff in a way that's very unemotional, we don't say that these atrocities are cruel or hurtful. This attitude only increases the likelihood of being doing hurtful and horrible things to each other. But on the other hand, there's this "vibe" culture where music and other things are consumed based on the vague feelings they give to the audience. So we have a shallow feel good culture on one end, and a culture that tells us we should keep our feelings out of important decisions.