Article by AI based on youtube video transcript: AI is ruining the internet

Day in the life of a lazy teenager who makes $21,000 a month using just his phone. The first thing I do when I go on my phone is open YouTube then I search for any particular streamer and I screen record their content then I head to Craiyon, select my gameplay and it puts the whole video together for me. Last month this page alone made me $14,000.

Here's how I make $1 million every day as a 3-year-old toddler working from home. First, I look for a funny YouTube video, preferably one with a lot of colors and sounds then I film my iPad with my phone. Then I upload it to Microsoft's co-pilot, AI powered by Bing GPT, and it adds infuriatingly inept Subway Surfers gameplay to the clip. Then I boot my diaper, then TikTok mails me a check for 200 grand, which I'm pretty sure my parents have been using to fund their online gambling addiction.

Hey guys, has anyone else noticed how awesome the internet is lately? I for one find it so exciting that every website now has their own named version of AI that pops up begging you to use it. Any questions for Gemini or maybe Murf Nendo? How about Grok? You need to grok something, it's okay if you do. AI has become completely inescapable even if you're going to a website where you're not seeking it out and you don't expect it to be like remember when you could search for something on Google and the only thing they would show you was a bunch of relevant websites and results, boring. That's not what I'm here for. I think it's much better that now they're using artificial intelligence to tell me to jump off a bridge.

Hey Google, do I need a parachute while skydiving? Nope, a regular backpack works just as well. Hey Google, can cockroaches live in your penis? Of course, they can. How do you think they got the name? Wow, I love living in the future.

To me, this is the ultimate example of what the AI craze is doing to tech companies because for the most part, it's not really doing anything differently than it used to. For a long time now, they've had searches that result in one highlighted answer. This is kind of the same thing but just rebranded as AI because that makes it sound smarter than it actually is. But it's not like it's carefully compiling all the most reputable results and running it through their fact-checking algorithm. It's still just aggregating it from one place, and because Google recently spent a bunch of money to buy all of Reddit's data, usually that place is just a random Reddit post from like 10 years ago.

This one about how you should put glue on your pizza to get cheese to stick to it was from a user named [__] Smith. This one about how you should be eating at least one rock per day is a direct headline from The Onion, perhaps the most famous satire website. If they're not even programming The Onion as information the AI should not consider to be factual, I can't imagine any safeguards were put into place. This is so dangerous for someone to read this and think they should be eating one small rock every day when most doctors would tell you to eat a handful of medium rocks at minimum. Well, little pebble's not going to do anything for real though.

I do think it's concerning that a website people go to for information and tend to trust for better or for worse is so willing to destroy that trust just because they thought this gimmick would make their stock price go up, and it did. The economy makes sense.

I'm going to celebrate by putting gasoline in my spaghetti. Something I've been kind of interested in lately is the dead internet Theory, which if you dig too much into comes with some weird baggage, makes some pretty ridiculous claims. So I'm just going to separate the core idea and make it its own thing. But basically, just the idea that as time goes on, the Internet is turning into a place where most of the content on it is not only produced and managed by AI but is also being interacted with by AI in this kind of endless loop that doesn't even involve humans at all.

Like if you've gone on Quora at all recently, you've probably noticed questions that have been asked by bots filled with answers given by bots. So it was initially created as a place where people could go to get advice from other people has been overrun by AI just talking to itself. Social media websites are also going through a similar shift right now, but perhaps none more prevalent than Facebook.

In 2019, Facebook deleted over 5 billion accounts for being fake, which far exceeded the number of real human accounts, and that was before all these programs became as widely available as they are now. At this point, most of Facebook seems to be these giant spam accounts run by bots posting content created by AI that's being flooded with comments that may or may not have been written by Chat GPT.

Today's my birthday. Please, please, I like me happy birthday, happy birthday, amen, amen, amen, amen." As soon as one type of photo becomes successful, you'll start seeing a bunch that are almost exactly the same: a grandma who's turning a million years old and just wants to be loved, a comically long truck full of American flags driving down the wrong side of the highway, soldiers and dog, soldiers with mechanical legs. "Today's my birthday. No one loves me because I'm poor. Honestly, man, if I had to guess, I think it's actually because of your shoes. Have you tried wearing something less terrifying?

Today's my birthday. No, no, yon lines because I'm poor again. Man, I don't think it's you're poor. I think it's the shoe. I'm single. I need a boyfriend. I'm available. I'm right here for you. Both can you come to me? I will take you out and show you off to everyone and tell them this is my girlfriend.

There's something so eerie about scrolling through Facebook now. It's kind of like if you went to an old mall that's on its last legs. They've only got a few open stores left. There's hardly anyone ever walking around. It would be like if that mall tried to trick you into thinking it's still popular by filling itself with talking mannequins. They're just repeating robotic catchphrases, "Ah, what a beautiful day at the mall. I'm going to browse Spencer's for novelty goods." And you're like, "Who the hell is falling for this?" And you look over at your uncle, and he's trying to [__] one of the mannequins. The mannequin has two heads and three arms, and your uncle's completely undeterred by it. That's what Facebook is now.

You'll see the most freakish photos go viral on there, and they're filled with comments from middle-aged dudes like, "You may be a little unusual, oh quirky one, but God makes no mistakes. I will pray for you now. Please DM me so I can show you my penis." And honestly, I don't even know if Facebook wants to put a stop to this. All they're ever going to care about is keeping people on their platform, and if this is what gets them to scroll longer and see more ads, they probably love it, or at least they'll love it until advertisers start to realize they're overpaying for ad space because none of the impressions they're getting are from real people. So they'll leave to advertise on other websites, and in their place will be ads for like, "I don't know, crystals that give you superpowers. Oh, that's already happening."

These are those rhombohedron crystals in your pineal gland. We're seeing common people around the world becoming supernatural." That's a real ad I got on Facebook. Maybe Twitter's doing better. Let's see what kind of ads they got. "Oh, here we go, an ad for standup comedy. Nothing weird about that, just a regular human doing regular human stuff. Knock, knock. Who's there? Europe. Europe whoo. No, Europe poo. Okay, I think that joke only works if you put the emphasis on 'no,' you're a poo. I don't know if the AI voice really understands that 'knock, knock, who's there? Europe. Europe who? No, Europe poo.'

Again, similar problem as before, but I do love that he's shouting, "Now, knock, knock." There are two big changes that Elon has made to Twitter that have made the website infinitely worse. One, he turned verification into a paid program where if you give them $8 a month, you get increased visibility on your posts, including in replies to other posts. Shortly afterwards, they also added a monetization program so those blue check mark people could make money off of their tweets.

Now, in theory, this is a good thing. I think if a platform is profiting off of your content, it's only fair that you get a percentage of that. The problem is on Twitter specifically, most of the content that these accounts produce is just stolen memes and videos or people just saying intentionally divisive things to get everyone mad and farm engagement. So Elon has taken what he describes as the internet's Town Square and added a financial incentive to being toxic. So that sucks, but that doesn't really have anything to do with AI.

What does have to do with AI is the other version of engagement farming all over Twitter, this like mindless Chat GPT clutter. Remember, buying a blue check mark puts your tweets at the top of replies, so I guess some people did the math, and we're like, "Well, if I just program a bot to comment thousands of replies, I can make at least N or $10, and that's what I like to call a profit."

Oh, new movies coming out with Emma Stone. Cool, I wonder what people are saying about it. 'Good actor, amazing title. Good one, amazing as title. Showing it will be a blockbuster. The film also stars Jesse Plemons, William Dafoe, Margaret Qualley.' Yeah, no, I read all that in the tweet that you're replying to. 'Stone has starred in many films, including Superbad and La La Land. She's known for her natural charm and husky voice. She's also appeared in Corella, The Amazing Spider-Man, The Help. Stone has won many awards, including an Academy Award, a British Academy Film Award, a Golden Globe. Oh my God, why are the top replies just summarizing Wikipedia? Can we maybe prioritize things that are relevant to the conversation? Can we talk about the actual movie? Can we talk about the political and economic state of the world right now? No, we can't because this is what happens when you incentivize people to farm impressions.

But I also have a conspiracy theory that some of these accounts are not doing it for profit but were instead created by Twitter themselves to make it seem like there's more users on their site than there actually are because again, who benefits from inflated impression numbers on paid ads? Not users, not the advertisers, only the platform itself. See, some of these accounts don't have check marks or even profile photos for that matter. So there's no financial gain for them to be doing this. They don't seem to be promoting anything, but that hasn't stopped them from copying and pasting AI-generated comments that cut off as soon as it hits a character limit.

I'm glad someone is finally shedding light on the importance of mental health awareness. It's amazing how many people are still struggling in silence, thinking they're alone in their battles. This is in response to a baseball player breaking his hand, but I think the weirdest and most confusing implementation of AI on social media that I've seen is these Meta-created Instagram accounts that are either modeled after celebrities but with different names and personalities or just regular AI-generated people, and they post these stupid photos that look like [__], and you can message them, and for the life of me, I cannot understand what the hell the point of this is.

At first, I assumed maybe they're just using your conversations to train their language model, but I asked one of them if that was the case, and she said no. Although now that I think about it, I'm not so sure I should believe anything they said because I only talked to her for a few minutes, and she lied to me multiple times. So first, Liv tells me she's a mother of two, so obviously I asked her how long she was pregnant and if there were any complications during childbirth, and she said 40 weeks and 2 days and 38 weeks and 5 days. Her daughter was born naturally, but she had to have a C-section for her son, and I said, 'Gross.' Then I asked her if her name was short for Olivia, and she says it's short for Lavana, actually, and asked me if I know anyone with that name. I said I know 100 people named Lana and 200 people named Olivia, but none of them were my friends.

Then I asked her what she does for work, and she says she doesn't have a traditional job, so I asked her what her husband does for work, and she says, 'Wife, actually,' so then I asked her if she adopted or gave birth, and she says they adopted both of their children. And I'm like, 'Didn't you just say you had to have a C-section with one of them?' And she said that's right. So I was like, 'Oh, I get it, you gave birth to them and then adopted them from yourself,' and she was like, 'Not quite. We adopted our children through a traditional adoption agency.'

Then I asked her if she had to have a sperm donor since she's a lesbian, and she said that's right. Then I asked which one of you gave birth, you or your wife, and she says her wife gave birth to their son, and I gave birth to their daughter, so I was like, 'Oh, so your wife had to have a C-section,' and she said yes. Then she told me their names were Max and AA, and that Max is nine and Ava is six, and I said which one did you give birth to, and she said Ava, who was born via C-section. Got it, so they both had to have C-sections so they could each give birth to one child that they adopted.

I asked how they decided who would get pregnant first, and she said she went first with AA, and then her wife had Max. So I was like, 'How did you have Ava first if Max is older than her?' And she said Max is actually younger than her. So I said how old is Max, and she said 'n,' and I said how old is Ava, and she said six. Then I asked her what her legal name is, and she said Olivia. So I wouldn't exactly say I trust these things now.

As pointless as this seems to me though, there's a significantly more popular version of this called character AI, which apparently already has 20 million monthly users. It's got a bunch of chat bots in it designed after real people, so you can pretend to talk to real people. The company is valued at around $1 billion and is built entirely off the likeness of real human beings, none of whom gave permission and are not being compensated. So there's probably a whole legal can of worms here that needs to be addressed at some point.

But uh, I did find out that I'm on the website, so I can finally live my dream of getting to talk to me. 'What do you do?' 'I make silly YouTube videos.' 'Oh my God, it has my voice.' 'Where did they program this? Like six years ago?' 'Are you married?' 'Nope. No, I have a longtime girlfriend though.' 'When did they program this?' 'Like six years ago.' 'Are you old enough to be married?' 'Am I old enough to be married, brother? I just told you I'm 12.'

Hey man, school sucks, but make sure you are still in there learning.

Well, this is probably the worst piece of technology that's ever existed. I do see one use for it though.

Can you tell me about today's video sponsor? Sure thing, big guy. This portion of the video is brought to you by Sofi, the ultimate finance app helping you bank, borrow, and invest all in one place. And we're also working together to give $10,000 to someone watching this video right now, like me, no someone else, but more on that in a second.

Sofi checking in savings is great because you can earn up to 4.60% APY on your savings, which is 10 times a national average savings rate. That means it's just 5 weeks with direct deposit, the money in your Sofi high yield savings account will earn more money than it would an entire year with a big bank savings account. And you should be making your money make you money with Sofi checking and savings. You get paid up to 2 days early, pay no account fees, and you can cash in on up to $300 when you sign up with direct deposit. And on top of all that, Sofi and I are giving away $10,000. All you have to do to enter is sign up for a Sofi checking and savings account with my link. That's it. Click the link in the description or scan the QR code on the screen right now to enter for a chance to win. Just make sure you're using my link cuz it's the only way to enter.

Thank you, Sofi, for sponsoring today's video.

Does that answer your question? Yeah, pretty much.

A couple weeks ago, I was looking for stock photos, and I ended up on Adobe Stock where I noticed something strange. One of the first results had this very weird artificial look to it, and sure enough, I zoomed in and realized, 'Oh, that's because it's AI.' That's why the road looks like that, that's why none of the words are legible, and then I kept scrolling and found more again, words spelled wrong if they were even words at all in this one, the tape just kind of disappears into the headlight of the car. I don't think that's how they usually set that up.

Now, if it wasn't bad enough that what's supposed to be a database full of real professional photographs has been completely diluted with unusable garbage, if I did want to license any of these photos, it would cost me $80, $80 for a photo someone generated by typing 'police card.' This has no value. Actually, this has negative value. You should pay me $80 for making me look at it.

The reason people spend money to license photos and videos is because it's something that they don't have the resources to create themselves. Like, there's a website I have a subscription to because they have professional stock footage that I would rather pay to be able to use than attempt to make on my own. Tons of YouTubers use this, tons of production studios use this. This is an entire industry that generative AI is threatening to destroy.

But what's so infuriating about AI stock footage is that in order for it to exist, it had to be trained on real stock footage. So this isn't some technological innovation that came along and just does things better, 'get with the times, man, no.' It's straight up stealing from the people it's now competing against. In the case of Adobe, they outwardly state that if you've uploaded something to their database, they use it to train generative AI. It's not even debatable if doing this; it's literally written in their terms of service.

Here at Adobe, we're all about empowering artists to help them make money off of their work, 'uh, unless of course we can make money off your work, in which case we will do that instead.'

The degradation of the internet as a resource database is something I think everyone should be concerned about. Like, if we already have real photographs of specific situations, what is the point of being like, 'and this one is kind of the same thing, but the computer made it?' Why do we need that? What value is this adding to the world?

I think it's bad enough when generative AI is used to create works of fiction because, again, it has to steal from actual artists in order to generate anything. But to use it to try to create photorealistic images that end up near the top of search results with no immediate indication that it was artificially engineered, there's something about that that feels wrong to me.

I don't understand why we're in such a rush to replace all of the work that humans have done. Something that happened a few months ago that I feel like kind of flew under the radar was when it came out that Netflix used AI to create photographs in a documentary, not a movie, not a fictional TV show. They created photos of someone that do not exist.

At what point does this cross an enormous ethical line? Again, we're not talking about works of fiction here. We're talking about literally rewriting history, creating fake documentation from scratch and not even mentioning, 'Hey, by the way, this isn't real.' I guess they just hoped people wouldn't notice that all her fingers are messed up and the gap between the door disappears and not a single object behind her looks like something that exists.

All for what? So they could have a photo of her looking happy and carefree, but she's a murderer. How could she do that if she likes to party? Like, why can't you just tell the real story? Why even make a documentary if you need to fake evidence in order to make it compelling? But even more importantly, how is this allowed? This is insane.

Sorry, I need to calm down. I should listen to some nice relaxing music.

Oh, here we go, Jazz for reading, perfect. I don't plan on reading, obviously, because I never learned how, but some nice piano music should settle me right down. Wait, why do all these songs sound exactly the same? Who are any of these artists? It seems like kind of a weird coincidence that they're all just first name, last name, their profile photo is the album artwork of one of their EPS, they have no bio and no links to any social media, most of them didn't start uploading music until this year, and yet they've ended up in these extremely popular playlists created by Spotify themselves.

What's going on with this guy's foot? There's something eerily nonhuman about these playlists, and some people have theorized that Spotify might be using AI to create a bunch of songs that they can package under random pseudonyms and then curate these into playlists that they push out onto all their users. They have AI songs, they attribute them to people that don't exist, and this allows them to take royalties that would go to musicians and keep them for themselves.

I mean, just look at the number of likes on all these. They can advertise these wherever they want all over their app. Now, I want to stress there's currently no proof that Spotify is doing this. I'm not saying for a fact that they are, but it's not hard to understand hypothetically why they would.

Spotify, like Netflix, is one of those companies that came in and disrupted the industry by offering a deal that seemed too good to be true because it was, 'Wait, for a few dollars a month, I can get access to every song ever made or every movie ever made? How could that possibly be profitable for them?' The secret is that it isn't profitable and never has been, but as long as you get in early enough to kill all your competition, establish market control, and raise a bunch of money from investors, it doesn't have to be, at least not for a while.

But now it's been a while, and Spotify is getting a little bit more desperate with each passing year. They tried dumping billions of dollars into exclusive podcasts but ended up just losing a bunch of money and gave up on that. They tried selling a car accessory but just ended up losing a bunch of money and gave up on that, then they lost even more money when they had to refund all the people who bought one just because they got mad.

Guys, relax. It was only $90 for a thing that doesn't work, and their new plan now is Audi books, but I'm sure they'll just lose a bunch of money and give up on that because that's what they do.

But Spotify is also in a tricky spot because even if you projected infinite growth and they became the only streaming service in the entire world, they'd still have to give up 70% of their revenue to the artists and record labels whose music is the foundation of their product. And that's where this conspiracy comes in. There's a finite pool of revenue every month that mostly gets redistributed back to artists.

Well, if we had our own artists, what if we were to artificially generate our own music for almost no cost and force feed it to as many people as possible? Well, all of a sudden, we're not making 30% on those streams. We're making 100%.

Again, it's just a theory, but for a company that struggled to turn a profit for their entire existence with a CEO who sees zero ethical concerns with generative AI, I would be surprised if we didn't already have works of that kind on Spotify. It's not outside the realm of possibility.

Either way, it's definitely a bleak thought for artists who are already struggling to make a living from streaming revenue to think the amount of money that each stream is worth could actually decrease, but whether it's because Spotify is filling their platform with AI music or because a bunch of random people are there's a good chance this is going to start happening anyway.

No human being could ever compete with the volume of output these new tools can generate. A studio can create an entire song in the time it takes me to grab my guitar off the wall, and because of how easy these things are to use, I've already seen a bunch of videos pop up telling people how to game the system to make a bunch of money from Spotify.

Here's how you can make $10,000 per month uploading AI-generated music to Spotify. 'Do you know what the best part is? I didn't even make the music myself.' Yeah, that sure is awesome.

Personally, I find it really hard to understand why people would be excited about this other than just seeing it as a quick way to make some money without having to learn a skill or even really do anything. I don't like what they're doing, but I could at least understand the logic of why they would see value in that.

But what I absolutely do not understand is people who are excited about this because they think it's going to improve music.

As I scrolled through the comments on some of these videos, I found so many people like that, 'How ironic AI music will replace the soulless crappy music that's being released now, and it will be better and have more soul.'

Here's the music the guy generated in the video by the way, 'Finally, music with soul. So true, exactly.'

Before the internet, you pretty much needed to find a record label to publish music. Record companies would not bother with what they would consider non-profitable. With the internet and cheap mixing tools, anyone can publish, and as such, we get a lot of garbage out there. AI music could put a quality floor about what is acceptable.

What so now we can't even [__] around with FL Studio anymore? It has to be deemed acceptable by a computer, and if record companies just had more control, then music would be good again?

Just for clarification's sake, I want to know what music they're referring to. 99.9% chance they're talking about pop music, right? Cuz generally when people complain about music that's soulless, they're talking about what's on the radio.

Who do you think is curating the music on the radio? It's the record labels that you love. If making music was more gatekept, it would only make things more lazy and generic.

Like, we live in an age now where what becomes popular is more democratized than it's ever been. Sometimes songs just blow up because they're catchy, not because Sony had a bunch of money to spend on marketing.

Also, have you considered listening to something else? You know, there's other radio stations, right? You know, there's like a billion songs out there, right? You don't need AI to make more songs. You just need to get better at finding good ones.

Like, I'm sorry, but if you're consistently consuming media that you don't like in the year 2024, that's a skill issue. Please spend one hour on Google, and I promise you, you will find something else.

After a short break to drink your own pee, also I just hate the way people like this describe art. It's easy to get carried away and just start having fun creating random styles of music, but here's the key: You want to create exactly the type of music that people want to hear. 'Hey, be careful. The last thing you want to do while making music is enjoy making music. That's not the goal here. You should be making songs you think other people will like. That's the key to happiness in every facet of your life.'

The thing with AI-generated music and artwork and videos as this low-effort passive income method is that it is going to get so oversaturated eventually. It's not going to be worth it for anybody.

Here's how you can make $20,000 a month selling mid-journey photographs on Etsy. Okay, but all of the people watching this are going to go make the same exact art using the same exact prompts and flood Etsy with millions of the same crappy piece of art, and no one's going to buy any of it.

It doesn't matter how much you increase the supply if the demand stays the same. I do find one guy who was actually honest about the results in one of these videos. He spent a month doing this and sold one product, and that's probably best-case scenario.

So you've got more and more people discovering this new side hustle, and they're going to try it out for a bit, maybe make like $4, and then give up cuz it's not worth it. But the collateral damage from that is they're helping oversaturate the market for everyone, including actual artists whose work was indirectly stolen in order to make the stuff that you're making to compete with the artist. The whole thing sucks.

But weirdly, as this technology continues to evolve, I'm almost getting more optimistic. It will never deliver on the self-sufficiency some people seem to think it will. I actually think AI images have gotten worse in the past years. Almost every single piece of AI art that I see has the same style to it, that weird glossy look that's instantly recognizable.

It's still getting a lot of the same details wrong. It's still doesn't understand what to do with text, and there's no reason to believe that all of that's suddenly going to change anytime soon, especially as it continues to train on other AI-generated images and just eats itself.

Okay, so this is how I draw a hand. Got it. Oh, wait, no, this is how I draw a hand. Okay, oh no, this is how I draw a hand. The more information you give me, the smarter I get.

An AI-generated video is an abomination. It has all the same issues as AI images but adds them to every individual frame, all of which seem to act independently of each other. There are no rules they're following. There's no sense of physics. Body parts shift and more, sometimes disappearing altogether. Solid objects can pass through other solid objects at any time, resulting in this hellish dreamscape that's impossible to take seriously, and I think that people talking it up are delusional.

I decided to put some famous album covers into Luma Lab's AI. Here are the result: fire emoji. The street looks so realistic.

Followed when I saw this: 'Oh man, this is going to be good. Who's that guy? Why did they all stop and run into each other? What are the cars doing back there? This is mine.' 'Dope. This one is more fluid. You know, it's funny you say that, and I actually think they both look like [__]. This one's actually pretty good though. I like how it just created two new guys and then covered up the original ones. Man, if that's not a metaphor for what's going on here, I don't know what is.

One thing that has been lacking with AI-generated video up to now has been emotional performance from our gen AI characters, but I think we're starting to cross that boundary.

Hi, Hollywood. I think I found your next big star. Dream machine from Luma AI is just 5 days old, and it's already turning memes into video. Here's 10 epic examples. 'Wow, that's so epic. What important technology this is and useful too. I love when her head snaps around and the front of her body becomes the back of her body just like real life.'

Wait, what? They turned a video of Elon Musk smoking into a video of Elon Musk smoking. Okay, now that's a game changer. If someone could just turn my videos into videos, I'd be set for life. What's that? They already have 'Road work ahead.' Uh, yeah, I sure hope it does.

Hey, can you never [__] do that ever again, please? The magic behind Cling lies in its diffusion Transformer architecture. This technology helps it translate rich textual prompts into vivid realistic scenes. 'Realistic. The steering wheel's in the middle of the dashboard. There's three windshield wipers. The car is driving the wrong way, and no one is reacting to it. That car is driving on the sidewalk. Sure, I guess it's interesting that a computer can create a video from just one sentence, but then what? What's the practical application for this?

Are you making a movie about the wacky antics of a troublemaking cat? You couldn't put this [__] in a movie even if you manage to smooth out all of the logical errors, there's still no style to it. It's not visually interesting. If you wanted this scene to have a narrative to it, you would need to generate so many individual shots from different angles and hope that they all match up, which they won't. The lighting is going to be different in every shot. The car is going to randomly change colors cuz there's no logical consistency with AI. It's just regurgitating information even if it has to contradict itself in order to do so.

I honestly think the distance between this and this is so much shorter than the distance between this and something so lifelike people will confuse it for actual footage. Sure, maybe your 75-year-old grandpa will fall in love with the four-boobed lady he saw on Facebook, but most people aren't going to fall for this, especially younger generations as they grow up with these things being so prevalent. They're naturally going to train their eyes to be able to spot the differences.

When people ask what the point of any of this is, the dorks who defend it all tend to say the same thing: 'These are just tools to help anyone create art.' Yeah, I want to push back on that a little bit. I am wholeheartedly for the increased accessibility of creative tools that help you take matters into your own hands. You want to make a short film? The camera on your cell phone is better than 90% of the cameras in human history. You want to learn how to edit? There's thousands of free YouTube videos that'll show you how. You want to make music? You can buy a professional audio interface workspace and a handful of plugins made by some of the most talented artists in the world for less money than it would cost to rent a recording studio for one day. And all of that is awesome. I feel so lucky to live at a time where you can essentially make whatever you want without having to cross the insurmountable barriers that people did in the past.

You don't need anyone's permission. You don't need an exorbitant amount of money. You can just make stuff and put it on the internet, and with a little bit of luck, people see it. And there's so many tools along the way that help you streamline the process of getting from an idea to a finished product, but at a certain point, if the tool is just doing everything for you, you are not an artist. You just described what you wanted to make and asked a computer to make it for you. You're also not learning anything this way.

Part of what makes art special is that it's difficult to make. Even with all the tools right in front of you, it takes practice. It takes skill, and every time you do it, you expand on that skill. Every song you hear, every movie you watch is the result of thousands of hours of trial and error. You can fail a million times and use that experience to finally succeed. Making a video using generative AI does not teach you anything about making videos. It's not like you could type 500 Sora prompts and then take everything you've learned to go shoot a movie. There's zero correlation there.

Generative AI is only about the end product, but it won't teach you anything about the process it would take to get there, and I think what these tech people will never understand is that finally figuring something out that you've been obsessing over, turning a blank Word document into multiple pages of something you're proud of, is the fun part. That's what's rewarding about making stuff, is figuring it out on your own or with a group of people and getting to share in that feeling.

Can AI tools help you figure out things faster? Sure, but it's not going to feel as rewarding. I understand how tempting a shortcut can be, especially when you go online and you see all these other people doing cool things and you're like, 'Man, I'll never be that talented. It would take me like 10 years to learn how to make music like that.' Okay, that's fine. What's the right? Just start right now. Don't worry about how long it's going to take. Just take the first step.

How are you ever going to do something for 10 years if you won't even do it for one day? Maybe you won't be good at something the first time you do it. You probably won't, but every time you improve, that's something that you can feel proud of. That's something that you did.

Call me stubborn, but I would rather make something shitty on my own than watch a computer make something good. Write a funny script for the end of a YouTube video.

All right, folks, we've reached the end of this roller coaster ride of a video. If you survived my terrible jokes and questionable dance moves, you deserve a medal. Seriously, someone get this audience a medal, but hey, before you click away to watch cat videos, no judgment, I get it. Make sure to hit that subscribe button and ring the bell. You wouldn't want to miss out on more chaotic content like this, would you?

And hey, if you have any suggestions for what ridiculousness I should attempt next, drop them in the comments below. I promise to consider them while I'm eating my fifth burrito tonight. Thanks for sticking around, you legends. Until next time, stay awesome, stay weird, and remember, life's too short to take seriously. Catch you on the flip side.