Comply With Me (song parody "Come Fly With Me")

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

[pfitz59]

1. Frank was a Dem and Civil Libertarian

He'd be aghast at today's America.

[highplainsdem]

3. He'd also be aghast at generative AI tools ripping off musicians, visual artists and writers. He'd never

approve of this AI slop.

[highplainsdem]

2. This is AI slop.

[some_of_us_are_sane]

4. highplaindem

I agree AI used to DECEIVE for political ends can be dangerous when presented as ACTUAL, BREATHING, HUMAN PEOPLE, but simply used creatively (in cartoon form or obvious parody)....... well, I believe it's a fine tool for satire.

[highplainsdem]

5. It's always unethical because the AI model is trained illegally on stolen intellectual property. And

if the AI user is aware of the IP theft, then they're deliberately choosing to act unethically.

It does not matter at all if what's generated is photorealistic or an obvious cartoon or a stick drawing. It's still unethical, and using it shows contempt for all creatives whose work was stolen and used without permission to train AI.

Promoting what's generated by these AI tools, if you're aware of the IP theft, is also unethical.

I suggest you see these threads about the reaction on Bluesky to a teacher's union president posting AI slop:

American Federation of Teachers president thought AI slop would be "fun" to share on Bluesky. Big mistake.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220895596

If you support unions (DUers should) but still think it's OK to post AI slop, see the hundreds of Bluesky replies
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220895856

[some_of_us_are_sane]

6. I believe

ALL creative art forms build on one another. It has probably been so since cavemen carved on cave walls.

Each new form, each new 'movement' springs from the ones before.

Now......... if you are talking "commercially" or "monetarily"..... then I can understand the anger.


We can agree to disagree.

[highplainsdem]

7. AI users are not producing or creating anything themselves. They're using plagiarism machines

trained on other people's work, and they have little control over what's generated, though they can keep rejecting what the AI offers until they get something they find acceptable. What they're doing is more like online shopping using keywords, and they no more created the words, images or music the AI generated than someone shopping for an item of clothing by brand, color and size made that piece of clothing.

They're AI users. In no way are they artists. They show zero respect for the artists whose work was stolen to train the AI, and they deserve zero attention and respect.

There's no way to know how much of these videos that YouTube channel owner created. He's using AI art. At least some of the voices are AI. If he uses AI for those, there's a good chance he uses it to write the lyrics. He might be asking a chatbot for ideas for those videos.

And he asks for donations. His top supporter currently with those donations is someone with another AI slop channel.

I have no idea how much he might make from these videos. But there's no way around the fact he's using AI tools trained on work stolen from real artists, and that's unethical.

If he wants to do parody songs, he should simply write the lyrics and sing them himself. And not use AI of any type.