alt Hacker NewsMaybe it’s just me, but I feel that same kind of treachery when somebody tries to pass off a piece of AI-generated work as if it were their own voice.
There's a flaw in the Milli Vanilli argument. The band had no input into their songs. They 'performed' them by lip-syncing on stage, but all of the music and lyrics were someone elses. Milli Vanilli had no part in the creative process.
That's not technically true of AI content. There's some tiny little seed of a creative starting point in the form of a prompt needed for AI. When someone makes something with Claude or Nano Banana it's based on their idea, with their prompt, and their taste selecting whether the output is an acceptable artefact of what they wanted to make. I don't think you can just disregard that. They might not have wielded the IDE or camera or whatever, and you might believe that prompting and selecting which output you like has no value, but you can't claim there's no input or creativity required from the author. There is.
Replies
I'd challenge that assertion. LLMs still produce very bad results with greenfield work, so that seed was generated by people who had both creativity and skill a thousand times before. Having a glimmer of an idea that you've probably seen more or less intact somewhere else and getting an AI to take it from that point is much closer to Milli Vanilli than any actual creative work.
Yeah sorry, I can claim there's none, you can't stop me.
I could claim there's even less creativity than lip syncing, and I will.
And if there was any creativity, the use it is being put to is to do violence to artists. If you think you deserve someone else's work as your own, you better be prepared for the fact that you won't even really understand who you're ripping off, but someone else sure as shit will and they're going to be pissed as hell.
At least Milli themselves a) knew what they were doing, b) paid the real singers I presume and c) presented real art created by real people.
But still everyone was mad at the lie of it, at being asked to venerate an imposter. And being asked to believe that in the future "impostor" will be the most venerable role. No. Just no.
> hey chatgpt give me a snarky response to this comment that would wittily refute the argument, make it funny and interesting, concise and to the point
Ah yes, the “tiny little seed” defense — because if I hum three notes and Quincy Jones writes the symphony, clearly we co-composed it.
Sure, prompting involves taste and direction. So does ordering at a restaurant. But if I tell the chef “spicy, but make it fusion” and then Instagram the plate as my culinary creation, I’m not suddenly Gordon Ramsay.
Nobody’s saying there’s zero input. We’re saying input isn’t authorship. A seed isn’t a forest — and picking your favorite output isn’t the same as growing it.
I also believe the Milli Vanilli argument to be flawed, but the other way around: music videos were all the rage back then and the two supposed singers were actually just performers for the cameras. Does this mean they had no part in the success of the music? I don't believe that. That's not to say they were right in misleading the public and their fans, but it seems to me that Milli Vanilli was a fruitful combination of the public-facing performers and the musical process behind them. Everyone is fine with ghostwriters, why is this so different? The entertainment industry is fake through and through, but nobody is actually taking offense from this fact. I often wondered if a similar project could find success if it were presented differently, as a cooperation of musicians and performers