Ozzy Osbourne's making headlines for saying he'd consider using an AI copy of Randy Rhoads' playing

[highplainsdem]

6. I agree. Btw, the Osbournes just did another podcast, this one mostly about AI.

Uploaded just this morning. It showed up on the first YouTube page I looked at this morning, and since the title mentioned "the AI invasion" I checked it and saw from the links for the podcast that it was almost entirely on the subject of AI, after the first 13 minutes, so I ended up watching all of that during breakfast. Which is the most I've watched anything by the Osbournes since they had a TV show many years ago (when I caught parts of a few of the shows by accident).

I'll put the video below. This being the Osbournes, some of it is NSFW.

There was some fairly intelligent discussion of AI at times, and other parts of the conversation were maddeningly dumb.

Ozzy's son, Jack, for instance, while having seemed eager to use AI for music in the previous podcast, talked a lot about the risks of AI in this one, so he is aware of those. OTOH, the way he talks about ChatGPT for teaching, or for summarizing books, indicates he isn't really aware of how often it gets things wrong.

Ozzy's daughter Kelly, who is a singer, is VERY opposed to using AI for music - points out it isn't real creativity, a human artist's creativity - and also mentions that a deceased musician or singer can't give consent to how their AI likeness is used.

But then, stunningly, she talks about how she would love to have AI resurrect deceased actors she likes to watch so she can see them in new films.

I've run across this sort of thing before, all too often. People who DON'T want AI to encroach on their profession, but who would be fine with it being used in a way that threatens other professions. Saw an article recently about an illustrator who did not want AI to replace illustrators, but loved that AI could be used for writing, so he didn't have to struggle with writing copy, or God forbid hire a copywriter, for his own business.



I have to admit I just don't understand that attitude. "Keep AI away from my area, but I don't care if it harms artists, writers, musicians, actors, teachers, etc." We've probably all known lots of artists, writers, musicians actors (well, maybe fewer of those unless you lived in LA or NYC) and teachers (known them as adults, not just as students). So the lack of empathy for what can happen to people in those professions, from some people who see any slightest convenience for themselves in using AI, is just mind-boggling.

But the people peddling AI are, I'm sure, quite aware of how a divide-and-conquer strategy will work for getting even people whose own livelihoods are likely to be threatened by AI to start using it anyway. So AI companies offer all sorts of carrots - "Have AI do your homework for you. Have AI write a children's book customized for your children for you" - and people will focus on just what's useful and/or entertaining for them and ignore all the larger problems it creates. Have AI help you code...and no, don't worry it might take your job. Look how useful it is for you right now...

So someone like Kelly Osbourne can be completely opposed to AI that might harm musicians, but still want it used in a way that will definitely hurt the careers of living actors, and likely lead to deceased actors being resurrected for roles they would never have agreed to play.

Here's this latest podcast. The discussion of AI starts about 13 minutes in. Again, this is NSFW in a few places, but the AI discussion is fairly interesting to watch. Including as an example of just how confused a lot of people are about AI.