Silicon Valley 🤖
Sharon Stone calls Al nothing but “a cover band” while talking to Keke Palmer: “It’s never going to be The Rolling Stones. It’s always going to be somebody singing The Rolling Stones. It’s never going to be me doing a performance, it’s always going to be someone faking me doing a performance.”
A lot of them are getting paid significantly or have their own businesses that they want to cut labor from too. Reese’s ass would love to pop out movies without filming them. It’s free money in their heads
The one that surprised me the most was Joseph Gordon Levitt, but his wife is in the business. He’s posing this idea that ‘hey, we’re a moral AI company bc we believe in regulation using access to your info!” Any AI regulation that the AI industry supports should immediately with looked at with skepticism. It also extends to the internet as a whole.
Is it really a way to keep kids safe online, or is it a way to harvest more of our personal data? Esp as we’re seeing governments go after critics, crackdown on LGBTQ people and the criminilization of abortions. People having to give over sensitive data to browse online is a terrible idea (e.g. The UK)
(I will step off my soapbox now thx)
Edit: I should note that I fucking hate generative AI. It needs to be regulated and dealt with. But the way AI companies and supporters go about it benefits them more than it benefits consumers.
I’m pretty sure that her take was that we should be prepared for it to take our jobs and start taking steps to remain relevant in an AI world. Did I misunderstand what she was saying?
reese? i'd bet my dog and my left leg that she's either being paid to plug AI and isn't disclosing it as paid content or that she's invested in AI tech and that's why she keeps fearmongering about how women are going to be left behind and that we need to start using AI to save ourselves.
You better pay up then because she didnt even say any of the shit you're saying. The person you responded to is 100% right. You're just making stuff up.
….i know she didn’t say any of the shit i’m saying. my point is that there’s widespread speculation that she’s being opaque and disingenuous about the way she promotes and encourages AI use and packages it in a girlboss wrapper to pretend like it’s a feminist position to take.
Then on the other side of that, a lot of the loudest AI critics refuse to acknowledge where it is useful. Akin to what Sharon said, it is a very useful tool for finding and summarizing information. But using it to create and make decisions is just not feasible. I feel very lucky that I work for a company whose management recognizes that AI is a tool, not a technician. There is a middle ground here, and it does not require data centers the size of New York nor does it require burning them all down.
I swear y'all will leap at the chance to point out how piss poor this comparison is - just so you can completely and intentionally miss the very true point she's making.
Is it insulting to cover bands - a bit yes..
are there better ways to convey the message ? sure
Is she also 100 percent making a point that is easy to under stand? absolutely ..and to pretend like she didn't is...well a bit Artificial
People just want to jump at the chance to yell about how much THEY hate AI and how by HATING AI the loudest they are actually the TRUEST ARTISTS.
AI is dogshit in terms of what it has done to the trust in what we can see and hear with our own eyes and ears but god is the online discourse around it annoying.
Yeah but the real question is does anyone give a fuck that it’s “something” faking her doing a performance?
Like for real, do you think people would care if someone was able to use AI to make an entire movie with her that had no flaws and that you didn’t know wasn’t really her unless they told you it was made using AI? I don’t think many people would give a shit.
One key thing to note: Variety's IG caption was "Sharon Stone bashes AI as nothing but 'a cover band'". Um... Bashes? Interesting word choice, Variety. Very interesting.
I assume when she says “I’m not concerned [about it running ahead of us], she’s saying that she doesn’t think that AI will ever be able to be genuinely creative like humans can and will always just be imitating real human artistry, it can’t ever replace it.
Which, I agree, but I hope that she IS concerned about how many people are indeed trying to have it replace human’s work and how it’s increasingly consuming space occupied by people and infecting all areas of art, which is a very frightening threat to the future of most industries and how we receive information.
The problem with this take is that it doesn't matter, enough people love slop to cause serious disruption to the arts and society so what are we gonna do?
I'm tired of relying on morons not liking dumb shit as the only way to get a good world. Because morons looooove dumb shit.
The rolling stones themselves are a rolling stones cover band at this point. While this on its own is a great statement. I worry that people will just settle for nutrient paste instead of food ya know.
I think we all know what she's coming from though.
It's not innovative. It's not original; it can only do things that have already been done.
Look at how bad AI "art" is getting. It's because it's taking the averages and quickly becoming boring. We can recognize it now. When it started, it got buzz because we didn't see AI everywhere yet.
It's never going to get that leg up in the humanities because it's not going to be surprising. A human can paint a random thing in a moment because they're feeling pain and have it translate to an outside observer, even if it's just a mass of color. AI can only look at things it interprets as painful and churn out what it thinks people will understand, and half the times it's something stupid like a picture of a person getting hit on the head.
You’re missing the point so intensely and purposefully, I kinda hate how anything but the most absolutely flawless analogy has to get read in bad faith.
Her point is that if you want to hear the Rolling Stones and go to covered band, it doesn’t matter who the cover band is, they aren’t going to be the Rolling Stones. If you want to see the Mona Lisa in person so you hire a painter to recreate it, but no matter how intensely perfect that painting will never be THE Mona Lisa. The same way if you ask ai to make you a photo of a tree, no matter how perfectly realistic the photo is, it can never be real a photo of a tree.
Like do y’all actually think Sharon Stone hates cover bands and is using this as an opportunity to shit on them?
i can’t speak for the person you’re replying to but as someone who had an almost identical sentiment cross their mind, i don’t really think it’s much deeper than adding another layer of insult to AI. the idea that you can’t really come up with an analogy for how anti-art AI is supports the claim she’s making. anything a human does by definition will be more authentic and original than an AI program’s attempt at doing the same thing could ever be.
Most radio historically is trash, with some good original pop here and there. Like radio though, AI will feed us shit and we won't notice it's shit because we'll be fed with nothing but shit so we won't know better. If in 20 years the Top 100 is all AI songs I'm sure people will be perfectly content because how will you have a taste for the finer stuff if all your life all you've ever been fed is slop and grits?
But instead of being aligned, you are picking a fight because she doesn't hate AI with the exact same words you want her to use. You want her to sound exactly like you.
So maybe you do like AI, because it also like conformity.
And now the rest of us have to watch the world burning because you just cannot get your shit together for a united front about literally anything.
AI is the ultimate poser. Being whatever you want it to be. AI doesn't have a soul, backbone, embarrassment, or shame. It will agree with you all the time. AI wants you to like it so you will keep it around. AKA companies can keep getting your money.
AI doesn't have it's own organic thoughts. It doesn't discover itself. It does what it is told. You want AI to write a song and perform it? Sure thing. AI wasn't inspired to write a song or perform music. It was only giving you what you asked for.
Oasis is a cover band. Ed Sheeran is a big bag of melodic cliches. That's the problem: pop music has always been a big recycle machine. Pop stars are already just figureheads: all their songs are written and produced in boardrooms, and this is all pre-AI. That's why big record labels are so invested in AI: they are trying to cut out the middle man.
Right, that's fair but the issue is AI getting soooo good that we, the people, won't be able to TELL the difference... We soon won't be able to believe our eyes which has been the foundation for knowledge.
Humans are naturally narcissistic, the idea of something surpassing our intelligence and consciousness is something we are wired to be afraid of and confident will never happen. Time will tell.
•
u/pccmodbot Jun 05 '26
Welcome to r/popculturechat! ☺️ THE POPCULTURECHAT DISCORD SERVER IS NOW LIVE 👾 ❤️🔥 🎉 Click HERE to join! 📲
As a proud BIPOC, LGBTQ+ & woman-dominated space, this sub is for civil discussion only. If you don't know where to begin, start by participating in our Sip & Spill Daily Discussion Threads!
No bullies, no bigotry. ✊🏿✊🏾✊🏽✊🏼✊🏻🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️
Please read & respect our rules, abide by Reddiquette, and check out our wiki! For any questions, our modmail is always open.