it has also perhaps answered a question that has been bothering me for the last little while: why have AI/LLMs slopped all over social media so quickly? One answer might be the elision of a creator and his content, as you note. If "the ideal creator has no distance between themselves and their persona," then does an LLM trained on this content have any distance between itself and a genuine creator? If "YouTubers are not “Creators” but Creations," then what's so bad about the pure artifice of an LLM when it is built atop these creations?
My take was always that humans are just really predictable and repetitive and it's not that hard to automate a task with those attributes. But this in definitely a legit way of seeing it - a machine with sufficient resources can self-train much faster than humans.
I don't watch Mr Beast, but his "Mr Beast Productions Manual" document was excellent. I found most striking that "99% of movies or tv shows would flop on Youtube" rang very true to me. After years of watching and reading mostly online, whenever I check anything TV (in the BBC iPlayer in UK), that seems a very pedestrian affair. Everything is in slow motion, it's low SNR, I need to spend a lot of time on it for not that much gain gain. (compared to online podcasts, YT videos, blogs etc)
Perhaps level of stimulation is a better descriptor than level of information. I'd hypothesise that information retention is higher medium to long term, when factual programming is engaging, nuanced, challenging and narrative driven. Versus the high density, ephemeral, stimulating but inoffensive, factoid approach of online content.
I disagree very strongly with the paragraph that questions MrBeast's authenticity. I think this represents a common but incorrect understanding of creation/art/craftsmanship.
The incorrect understanding is that in order to be authentic you must be fully true to yourself, which means not allowing any rule to external factor to influence your expression. The model here is punk: they didn't let social disapproval of their clothes/piercings/music get in the way of their creativity.
However, for most creators, you express your creativity *through the process of subjecting yourself to a discipline.* This is obvious in the arts and crafts that require a lot of training, such as classical music or woodwork. The years of effort and learning are a part of the artistry; the art consists in those years effort and in their expression in the performance today.
So when MrBeast says that he subjects himself to certain rules, I think it's a mistake to say that necessarily means he's being inauthentic. His discipline is to subject himself to those rules, and there's no reason the art he creates through this discipline should be any less personal or meaningful than, for example, a performance of a sonata on the piano.
Fascinating post.
it has also perhaps answered a question that has been bothering me for the last little while: why have AI/LLMs slopped all over social media so quickly? One answer might be the elision of a creator and his content, as you note. If "the ideal creator has no distance between themselves and their persona," then does an LLM trained on this content have any distance between itself and a genuine creator? If "YouTubers are not “Creators” but Creations," then what's so bad about the pure artifice of an LLM when it is built atop these creations?
this seems right to me...and depressing...
My take was always that humans are just really predictable and repetitive and it's not that hard to automate a task with those attributes. But this in definitely a legit way of seeing it - a machine with sufficient resources can self-train much faster than humans.
I don't watch Mr Beast, but his "Mr Beast Productions Manual" document was excellent. I found most striking that "99% of movies or tv shows would flop on Youtube" rang very true to me. After years of watching and reading mostly online, whenever I check anything TV (in the BBC iPlayer in UK), that seems a very pedestrian affair. Everything is in slow motion, it's low SNR, I need to spend a lot of time on it for not that much gain gain. (compared to online podcasts, YT videos, blogs etc)
that's right--we've been trained to demand a higher level of information than legacy media provides
Perhaps level of stimulation is a better descriptor than level of information. I'd hypothesise that information retention is higher medium to long term, when factual programming is engaging, nuanced, challenging and narrative driven. Versus the high density, ephemeral, stimulating but inoffensive, factoid approach of online content.
I legitimately LOL'd at the Mr Beast with two backs.
I disagree very strongly with the paragraph that questions MrBeast's authenticity. I think this represents a common but incorrect understanding of creation/art/craftsmanship.
The incorrect understanding is that in order to be authentic you must be fully true to yourself, which means not allowing any rule to external factor to influence your expression. The model here is punk: they didn't let social disapproval of their clothes/piercings/music get in the way of their creativity.
However, for most creators, you express your creativity *through the process of subjecting yourself to a discipline.* This is obvious in the arts and crafts that require a lot of training, such as classical music or woodwork. The years of effort and learning are a part of the artistry; the art consists in those years effort and in their expression in the performance today.
So when MrBeast says that he subjects himself to certain rules, I think it's a mistake to say that necessarily means he's being inauthentic. His discipline is to subject himself to those rules, and there's no reason the art he creates through this discipline should be any less personal or meaningful than, for example, a performance of a sonata on the piano.