This line from the article particularly caught my attention:
(Justine) Bateman thinks audiences will tire of AI-created content. “Human beings will react to this in the way they react to junk food,” she says. Deliciously artificial to some, if not nourishing – but many of us will turn off.
I've never heard of the junk food metaphor being used for Generative AI, and it makes sense. At least for its use cases in the creative fields. What does everyone else think of this, and how much do you think the analogy applies or doesn't apply in different applications of AI?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/03/creatives-academics-rejecting-ai-at-home-work
11 Comments
stupid take as a kid I used to have fairy tales on vinile and I was hearing them always
>Human beings will react to this in the way they react to junk food
Worldwide obesity epidemic that is worsening fast in most countries?
People in the creative and academic fields are beginning to limit or straight up reject AI in their work and personal lives. A few of them report being called as decels or decelerationists (derogatory). But rather than feeling left behind, this group is worried about about where everyone else is going.
Aren’t audio books quite popular? I know many are actual voice recordings but there are a lot that are also text-to-audio generated.
I mean look what it did to Miyazaki’s work. Some people prefer genuine interaction and creation, not spectacle and short term novelty.
There’s a problem.
The lowest common denominator of people, which is a great deal of people, don’t care if a robot reads them a robot made story, or if they use a robot made image. It will keep growing because people just don’t seem to care about authenticity or intrinsic value of things.
This is based on economic class differences and is derogatory to poor people. Of course they will have to prefer junk AI content on every aspect of their lives. Real humans cost money. Nobody prefers oats over steak.
Only if AI becomes truly conscious, then it would be interesting, a regurgitating pseudo-AI we have today is extremely boring, and only useful as an advanced search and grammar tool at most, or other cases in science, trained to detect or evaluate some specific set of data etc.
YouTube is incredibly trash no because almost everything that I want to listen to is an AI generated voice. It’s disturbing.
Creatives know the problem with AI is capitalism did a mighty fine job convincing people consuming trash was a necessary part of relaxing. Soap operas and bodice rippers primed us for reality television binging and social media brainrot. The core of trash consumption is loneliness, once chiefly the realm of stay at home moms waiting to pick up their kids, now the purview of everyone, we all greatly relaxed our standards for the quick dopamine hits. Little treat culture, consumption as self care, and unfettered access to our smartphones trained our brains to eat garbage (and because we need a lot of new content now to feed these starving spoiled brains, it will mostly be garbage, which is where AI steps in). We have no standards since media is just meant to keep us from being bored and consumption is identity, so who cares if the AI reading the AI book is bad? It doesn’t need to be good, it’s chewing gum for my brain and I get the dopamine hits of logging it on my Goodreads.
You right we want them to give blowjobs and bend over. All men waiting for this, lol.