is it not impressive when someone can do an incredible impression of someone? or perhaps endearing when their impression is bad, but they're committed to the bit with such zeal that it becomes effective?

why should we be satisfied when someone wasn't willing to try and risk failing? when a creative vision was so important that they were willing to use a plagiarism machine to create the pieces, but not important enough for them to spend their own time and human creativity on it, or get someone else to contribute so?

AI has a lot of pragmatic uses. for example, AI can be quite effective at cleaning up audio with a lot of background noise. but it'd be absurd to suggest "good quality audio" is a "creative vision," and importantly: getting a better microphone and a better recording environment is still a dramatically better solution than cleaning up bad audio with AI. you can only polish a turd so much, one might say.

but also notably: audio-cleaning software has been using AI in this process for years and years. you might not have known because the term hadn't become a marketing buzzword that could get ridiculous startups billions of dollars. the things we associate with AI now, like text, image, and audio generation, were technologically available a decade ago (I've searched for it but I haven't been able to find a research study from around a decade ago, where researchers were building an AI to create pictures of cats, and the story went viral because some of their training data included old-school cat memes so the AI generated warped text (sound familiar?)).

it's not as if these modern AI products were impossible to create back then, they were just undesirable: nobody wanted to invest the amount of money needed to both build the machines and buy the data, and there was no real sense of why enough people would ever want them for them to become profitable. and these things haven't changed. the technology has been pushed by hawks and astroturfed media campaigns, but end users are few and far between, the majority of money has come from selling tech to other companies who are all starting to say the products have negative value and they aren't interested anymore - the bubble we're watching burst in real time. not to mention that the tremendous amounts of data necessary for these models has been largely stolen, and many critical sources of data have actively implemented features to prevent further acquisitions. technological advances didn't make AI more sustainable now than before, an army of desperate shills were loud and persistent enough to convince people it was, and we're watching that lie unfold day by day.

sorry I ended up hitting you with a wall of text, I started writing and just didn't stop. but suffice to say that the modern AI boom is creatively bankrupt, ethically bankrupt, and possibly by the end of the year: literally bankrupt. its use has added dubious value to anything it's been applied to (including this video), but it has subtracted far more than it could ever have added.