Heikki Ketola (SomniatorSound)

....except those who are financially benefitting from it.

This gives a general feeling that AI is a financial decision, not an artistic one, as artistically it seems like a suicide.

But what about artistry? Would the claim from secret level that there was a big deal of artistry happening be true?

Coca Cola is well aware of the backlash. Their brand is so strong that it doesnt matter, and they can get away with experimentation, unlike many other companies.

The harsh reality is that I have not seen a single person in social media thinking that AI was a good idea...

The situation is about overing up the AI, pretending like it waa not used, while at the same time trying to be proud of AI. Its like using a tool and then being ashamed that you used it. Which is it?

Secret level is clearly in it for the projects and income, and they pick whichever side is winning.

The strange part is that Secret Level claims to drive AI innovation on filmmaking, but even they went out of their way to message that the value comes from human labor and the AI is in a side role. Even though this was a blatant lie, they still accidentally showed that even they dont value AI

The issue with that was that all of the content in the bts-video is also AI-generated or staged. Secret Level tried to convey the message that the AI still requires humans and genuine artistry, while managing to prove the oppposite.

The Coca Cola holiday ad for this year was completely AI-generated, which caused a huge backlash. It got a strong negative reaction all over.

The production company, "Secret Level", then proceeded to make a behind the scenes -video with the idea that there was a lot of human labor 1/x

Save 20% on Harmony in the Wild Soundtrack on Steam Experience the cozy, nature-inspired soundtrack of Harmony in the Wild. This 16-track collection blends strings and atmosphere to capture the game’s peaceful world. Includes MP3 and high-quality WAV v...

Soundtrack for Harmony In The Wild is now available on Steam. I had the pleasure of working with this fantastic project. Grab it on sale now!

store.steampowered.com/app/3871000/...

SST, by Heikki Ketola - SomniatorSound 12 track album

I have moved to bandcamp with the cool kids. Drop a follow and support a starving artist.

somniatorsound.bandcamp.com/music

So the real april fools would be that they *dont* come?

To be fair, its good when it provides links to sources and you ignore the output text.

So the dataset could then be interpreted as the art world and the AI the creator.

So according to him, an AI is capable of being an artist, or possessing artistry.

For Becker, creator is the one who "made" the art piece and the art world is everything that influenced it. Is the AI the creator then?

In short, yes. For Becker, an art creator is someone, who creates art within the constraints of an art world - or in this case, the dataset.

infinite splitting of tasks - just within what is possible for it. Imagine humans collaborating on a painting, where every painter on the planet participates.

According to Becker, this is all artistry in the same way - there isnt much difference. Except the aspect of a creator.

Surely there must be limits somewhere?

It seems to be random. For a commercial AI, we do not know which art pieces the AI uses specifically to create your output, but there is a finite amount of them as an infinite dataset is impossible.

But the AI system gets close to what couldnbe defined as

I would argue that the dataset is already the influence, meaning "no influence" is also impossible for an AI.

And the opposite? This is where it gets interesting.

An AI will create art, pixel by pixel, by reading the dataset. Is it therefore splitting each possible task infinitely?

If we close this dataset at a point and create a closed system, is the AI then outside the definition of external influence? Like a human brain in a jar without any outside interference.

According to Becker, this would be impossible for a human, but an AI is not human. Does the theory apply here?

performes by a separate entity. Work cannot be defined by infinitely splitting it into smaller tasks. Therefore, artistry must be somewhere between these two.

But how does AI come into play?

Art generated by an AI is always based on a dataset - for example existing art.

And that art cannot be created in a vacuum.

The tools you use, the ideas you have, all come from somewhere. And no art piece is truly "singular", but takes an "art world" to create it.

This however translates to the opposite too. No art can be created so that each possible different task is

AI and artistry - a thread on Becker's Art World theory.

Philosophically speaking, generative art differs from human art a lot. An interesting observation is through Becker's art world theory.

He describes artistry as a process that will always involve outside interference.

AI's also lack continuity. When writing page 3, it has already forgotten what was on page 1. A fully generated novel would be a weird jamble with the current tech (still).

Most AI's dont want to allocate enough memory for a consumer to create lenghty things. The longer the text is, the larger computing power it needs, and if a million people would generate novels at the same time, their servers would melt.

Length is kind of directly tied to the "risk" of the film. The longer it is, the more confident the studio is of it.

Public pages still own the copyright of any content posted on them and need to agree to the scraping. OpenAI scraping twitter requires twitter to agree to it.
There is no "free for all" content, especially in Europe.

Those are all very real issues that cannot be overlooked. Training data is currently illegal in many countries and there is no excuse for it. As much as humans have to adapt to AI, AI companies have to adapt to buying licenses for their data.

Job loss is inevitable, but most of it temporary.

What if this happens with films? A new unknown composer who scores the next blockbuster. No social media. No contact information. Just a soundtrack with a name.

This will become increasingly prominent in "low art" music, as I defined in an earlier thread. People are not really interested who is behind some stock music, so it might as well be AI, and the music user never finds out.

We are living at an i teresting break, where anything could be AI made.

Imagine the next Hollywood blockbuster credits a completely new name as the composer. An unknown person, with social media profiles and everything. How can you tell, if this composer really exists, or is just a front for an AI?

The film studio will want to actively hide that the composer was an AI.

Since AI is seemingly here to stay, in a business sense, it is in the companies' interest to hide the fact that they use AI to avoid PR nightmares and people boycotting them.

So the future holds even more fake artists, who are actually machines.

The Ghosts in the Machine, by Liz Pelly Spotify’s plot against musicians

The story: harpers.org/archive/2025...

This raised the question, how does AI play a psrt in this?

According to research, people don't like AI created music. It creates controversy and negative views, and causes major problems for companies doing it.