A.I George Carlin "I'm glad I'm dead"

[Goldentony]

this entire thread so far has been funnier than the stupid cunt from the Three Stooges film doing the Ace Venture arse routine with George Carlings dead face

[Captain Z]

Uh oh, a lot of people offended by AI's freedom of speech in here.

[Goldentony]

I should be allowed to kick the shit out of it

[Oosp]

AImy Schumer alleged to have stolen a bit from dAIne Cook

[kalowski]

I think it's hard to write "in the style" of someone. AI can't do it well because it's fucking hard. Remember the start of Who's Line Is it... Where they'd tell a story in the style if someone. Rubbish. Only good when John Sessions picked an obscure 14th c. poet we'd never heard of so he could do anything.

[bomb_dog]

Got as far as the Taylor Swift bit, and the vocal inflections and rhythm of the speech is frankly amazing. Listening to something like this in the context of the progress of technology just in the last five years is astounding.

AI audience laughter though is worse than Hanna Barbara canned laughter so still some improvement required there.

I reckon this could be played to a live audience somewhere and a real laugh track recorded, and it increase the reality feel 10x.

[clingfilm portent]

Weird to hear about this but not about the superior version of AI George Carlin (which dutifully roasted me when I requested and did a great job) over on AtheneAIHeroes on twitch. In fact I'm surprised that whole channel didn't gain any notoriety at all it seems.

[PlanktonSideburns]

Weird to hear about this but not about the superior version of AI George Carlin (which dutifully roasted me when I requested and did a great job) over on AtheneAIHeroes on twitch. In fact I'm surprised that whole channel didn't gain any notoriety at all it seems.

Should have got a podcast

[Sonny_Jim]

And get Will Sasso on it to promote a concept he doesn't seem to understand.

Oh and remember that AI Seinfeld that at it's peak had 4,000+ live viewers?  Nowadays it gets around 30, I've seen bedroom DJs streaming DnB get more than that.

[idunnosomename]

They clearly either staged the controversy and takedown or took advantage of it to drop all of the Seinfeld stuff in order to monetise it.

Looked at it now and nothing was posted in a chat for a whole boring "episode".

They have a patreon with like one post on it that has twenty-odd paid subscribers that brings in like 80 bucks a month.
https://www.patreon.com/user?u=88107407

It was good AI, it wasn't pretending to anything else other than a stream of repetitive fucking nonsense, but they ruined it

[PlanktonSideburns]

And get Will Sasso on it to promote a concept he doesn't seem to understand.

Oh and remember that AI Seinfeld that at it's peak had 4,000+ live viewers?  Nowadays it gets around 30, I've seen bedroom DJs streaming DnB get more than that.

As soon as they werent being all hey do you remember seinfeld no one gave a shit

this is the same lazy necromancy trick that Orion did with elvis, the only bit about it that is interesting is george carlin, who already existed and has stuff you can consume already, thankyou. once the corpses skin slides off your face everyone goes home

we used to shun/set fire to pricks who did this

the turing test is a test of the human, not the machine, and to be impressed by this is to have failed

[dissolute ocelot]

Been watching the George Carlin documentary on Sky Comedy and some of Carlin's stuff in the late 70s was fucking terrible. You could get an AI to do that no trouble. He definitely had a formula to some of the stuff he did about language. It was pretty much AI Seinfeld already. On the other hand I could imagine a universe-ful of AIs doing Seven Words routines with all 325,062,298,768,250,234,941,257,086,857,200,000 combinations of 7 words in the dictionary and never getting one as culturally significant as Carlin's.

[notjosh]

If you were a new standup you might take scripts like the above and use them as a way of training your delivery - unburdening yourself of the observational side of things. Is it not a technology to be grateful for?

Why would an aspiring comedian consider the process of developing original material to be a "burden"?

[Retinend]

Why would an aspiring comedian consider the process of developing original material to be a "burden"?

Writer's block, say.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

WAKE UP NEO STOP LISTENING TO THAT DEREK AND CLIVE NEO ITS 2032 AND YOURE LISTENING TO AN AI DEL BOY GIVE A BEST MANS SPEECH NEO

ITS 2032 AND ORIGINAL MATERIAL IS AN IMPEDIMENT TO THE MARKET NEO WAKE UP AND LISTEN TO AI BLACKADDER SING A SONG ABOUT THE CENOTAPH NEO

[Shaky]

Kelly Carlin's quote, "Humans are so afraid of the void that we can't let what has fallen into it stay there," is pretty perceptive here, I think. This bollocks has nothing to do with paying tribute to the man or being excited about new technology, it's purely come from a place of abject existential terror. Did the creators think she would applaud them or something? Reminds me of a few years ago when some guy did a little spec impression of Robin Williams and Zelda Williams had to firmly tell people to stop tweeting it at her as it too ghoulish.

[imitationleather]

AI Carlin has come on a long way since this early version.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

at times that sounds like yosemite sam ran up ten flights of stairs

[Petey Pate]

AI Carlin has come on a long way since this early version.

This has been shared with me a few times and I've never been able to make it to the end, it's too painful.

Not only does replacing the word 'stuff' with 'data' means that the routine makes no sense, the sound of the word and number of syllables makes it clunkier and forced.

[Noodle Lizard]

AI Carlin has come on a long way since this early version.

One of my favourite videos, so perfectly uncomfortable. You can spot the moment he realises it doesn't work, but he's still got another 4 minutes or so to fill.

"Ain't nobody interested in your fourth grade arithmetic data."

[Video Game Fan 2000]

stewart lee should sell his old idea about doing filming custom themed stand up sets to that guy

he can do it at a funeral. WHAT DO YOU DO WITH ALL THIS *DEATH*

he can do it at a support group. EVERYONE NEEDS A PLACE TO KEEP ALL THEIR *ADDICTIONS*

he can do it at the vatican. THIS IS JUST A BIG BOX FOR EVERYONE TO KEEP THEIR *EPHEBOPHILIA*

he can do it at a CaB meeting. SOMETIMES, YOU WANNA BE ABLE TO PUT YOUR HANDS ON YOUR OWN *PHIMOSIS*

then just do a John Oswald mash up of all the different versions of the same set

[Urinal Cake]

Kelly Carlin's quote, "Humans are so afraid of the void that we can't let what has fallen into it stay there," is pretty perceptive here, I think. This bollocks has nothing to do with paying tribute to the man or being excited about new technology, it's purely come from a place of abject existential terror. Did the creators think she would applaud them or something? Reminds me of a few years ago when some guy did a little spec impression of Robin Williams and Zelda Williams had to firmly tell people to stop tweeting it at her as it too ghoulish.

As a tech demo that's the thing. It has to be a dead famous person for various legal and moral reasons. But why Carlin? The whole idea of comedians as some moral authority is problematic and the idea of originality is nice but sort of naive. But they want that cache.

[wobinidan]

What does it mean for AI art to be soulless? Does it mean art made by humans has a soul? Does all art made by humans go to heaven, and all AI art goes to purgatory?

Is it possible that the majority of art made by humans is also soulless? Why do we give AI such a hard time for making shit art when humans have been doing it for thousands of years? You ever seen those cave paintings? Do they go to heaven just because a human made them? How long does it take? It's been 10,000 years and they are still in the cave as far as I can see. Are they going to heaven next year?

Are humans really any better than machines? This is not me praising the AI. I just think humans are mostly also very fucking bad at everything and I don't appreciate this historical revisionism that suggests we're not.

[C_Larence]

Being bad at something is not the same as, and in fact I would argue it's completely antithetical to, being soulless.

[13 schoolyards]

Are humans really any better than machines?

C3PO has entered the chat

[Pink Gregory]

I just think humans are mostly also very fucking bad at everything and I don't appreciate this historical revisionism that suggests we're not.

well this is also a paradox because you could suggest that it is humans making that judgment and that therefore the judgment is also fallible.

[wobinidan]

well this is also a paradox because you could suggest that it is humans making that judgment and that therefore the judgment is also fallible.

This is literally the reason that AI art appears 'soulless', because it is being selected by people who aren't very good at art to begin with. People aren't generally posting the first thing that appears, they pick from dozens or hundreds of images, and the ones they pick are a reflection of their own souls, or lack thereof.

[ajsmith2]

AI Carlin has come on a long way since this early version.

The irony here is that this is only hilarious cos it's a human making this grave and inexplicable content error. If AI generated this routine we'd be like 'arsed mate'. Within this man's folly is the very key to the quintessence of humanity, to what separates us from the apps.

[Kelvin]

When I describe AI art as "soulless", it isn't a qualitative statement, it's shorthand for saying AI art doesn't have any substantive "thought" put into it.

The time will come when it's often impossible to identify the technical differences between AI art or human art. But even if the technique is equal to or better than anything a person can create, AI cannot replicate the choices or thought process that went into making those artistic decisions.

A human artist, even a bad one, makes every artistic choice based on their unique experiences, influences, memories, and vision for their work. AI could replicate or even improve on that work easily enough. But it wouldn't tell us anything about the artist, or the human experience, which is a pretty fundamental aspect of artistic value.

A human and AI could both create near-identical pictures, but only one could actually represent an artist's love, or grief, or elation. Only one could represent somebody's memories of childhood, a person they met, or a place they visited. Only one is intended to convey something, and to move its audience.   

[Video Game Fan 2000]

When I describe AI art as "soulless", it isn't a qualitative statement, it's shorthand for saying AI art doesn't have any substantive "thought" put into it.

The time will come when it's often impossible to identify the technical differences between AI art or human art. But even if the technique is equal to or better than anything a person can create, AI cannot replicate the choices or thought process that went into making those artistic decisions.

A human artist, even a bad one, makes every artistic choice based on their unique experiences, influences, memories, and vision for their work. AI could replicate or even improve on that work easily enough. But it wouldn't tell us anything about the artist, or the human experience, which is a pretty fundamental aspect of artistic value.

A human and AI could both create near-identical pictures, but only one could actually represent an artist's love, or grief, or elation. Only one could represent somebody's memories of childhood, a person they met, or a place they visited. Only one is intended to convey something, and to move its audience.   

Suppose lightning strikes a dead tree in a swamp; I am standing nearby. My body is reduced to its elements, while entirely by coincidence (and out of different molecules) the tree is turned into my physical replica. My replica, The Swampman, moves exactly as I did; according to its nature it departs the swamp, encounters and seems to recognize my friends, and appears to return their greetings in English. It moves into my house and seems to write articles on radical interpretation. No one can tell the difference. But there is a difference. My replica can't recognize my friends; it can't recognize anything, since it never cognized anything in the first place. It can't know my friends' names (though of course it seems to), it can't remember my house. It can't mean what I do by the word 'house', for example, since the sound 'house' it makes was not learned in a context that would give it the right meaning—or any meaning at all. Indeed, I don't see how my replica can be said to mean anything by the sounds it makes, nor to have any thoughts.

i think semantic externalism is always going to be true for sufficently complex activities like marking art, humour and aesthetic judgement

for a lot of things we say and do to be "true" or hold "meaning" in accepted senses, it has to be true that we do other things too. the statement "ricky gervais isn't funny but george carlin was" can't by definition come from an entity whose sole existence is to judge how "funny" something is. it only make sense if it comes from an entity or person that holds other commitment and relations in the external world. meaningful and signficatory actions and utterances can only really be made by someone is embedded in a social and cultural world, has habits, has experiences, has other attitudes and positions in the world. because otherwise the commitments that substructs the meaning won't exist.

if a computer told me "the simpsons is funny now" there really isn't anything art risk if i go waste 20 minutes of my life watching Zombie Simpsons. but if a friend who i think has good taste in other things, or has a rapor with me tells me to go watch new Simpsons then there's the risk of me wasting my time on something that came from a person i trusted and i might doubt their opinions on other things in future, and enjoy sharing things with them less in future if they were so off base about something i'd find funny. i think this sort of thing is implicit in humour since in order for a "shock" joke to land it has to contravene a sense of trust or established norm in a significant way, or a "witty" thing has to have been chosen by someone out of different possible choices and timed when they thought it was right. its hard to imagine these kind of things coming out of an entirely virtual space of inputs, outputs, conditions and consequences that holds no external commitment or relation to real things.

i think a big tell for me would be if AI could make funny silent slapstick or not. i'd say currently - no, since the 'timing' required is a product of the audience/performance relationship and not simply diegetic to the scene presented. good slapstack has to do both of these things well, its hard to imagine an AI it right now.