Tilly Norwood, AI Actress

[AwkwardlySet]

What makes you think I'm a dude?

Because you're not hard to recognize. I'm sure LC missed you just as much as I did.

 

[Robin_Starveling]

Because you're not hard to recognize. I'm sure LC missed you just as much as I did.

You know nothing about me, and you never will.

 

[StillStunned]

You know nothing about me, and you never will.

I'm sure most of us suspect you affect an admiration of Sylvia Plath.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I saw Stevie Ray Vaughan in a dive bar back in the late 70's. AI will never match something like that.

First, I’m not trying to argue, but do wish to toss some thoughts out for your consideration.

First, AI cannot match that (I think) because it hasn’t access to anything as realistic as what that his-lips-to-your-ears experience gave you. Even recording tapes degrade with time. There’s also that recent phenomenon of people moving away from digital back to LPs, saying the sound is more real. Minor point, perhaps, but it brings home the challenge of ‘what is real’?

You may have heard SRV in person and let’s be generous and say you have a perfect memory. In essence, nothing can match your memory of that event.

More importantly, it won’t matter in the long run. He died 15 years ago and there are millions of music-lovers now who never have had and never will have that chance. Those potential AI customers are in no position to make comparisons; they’ll accept the recording as the real deal.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

First, I’m not trying to argue, but do wish to toss some thoughts out for your consideration.

First, AI cannot match that (I think) because it hasn’t access to anything as realistic as what that his-lips-to-your-ears experience gave you. Even recording tapes degrade with time. There’s also that recent phenomenon of people moving away from digital back to LPs, saying the sound is more real. Minor point, perhaps, but it brings home the challenge of ‘what is real’?

You may have heard SRV in person and let’s be generous and say you have a perfect memory. In essence, nothing can match your memory of that event.

More importantly, it won’t matter in the long run. He died 15 years ago and there are millions of music-lovers now who never have had and never will have that chance. Those potential AI customers are in no position to make comparisons; they’ll accept the recording as the real deal.

Not sure I see your point. I’ve also seen The Eagles, Queen, Garth Brooks, and dozens of other artists live. Must of them are still going strong. My point is that there are facets of a live performance by a real actual person that AI will never be able to capture or create. It doesn’t matter that AI never had access to a live SRV performance. If it had a million of them, it could never capture his aura, the raw power of him in that stage. I propose the same is true of any human generated art. I have also seen Monet’s Blackbird in person. I don’t believe AI could ever reproduce the impact that painting had on me either.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Remember when JOI died on Blade Runner 2049? "I do hope you're satisfied with our products" is what Luv said before stomping on the device that got her.

Now I really wanna watch 2049 again

 

[Bramblethorn]

The claim of 'pirating' to me is spurious. Anthropic bought digital copies of the works and what the 'offense' consisted of was when the LLM read the works and would sometimes quote them.

I'm not sure why you persist in making false claims about this case even after I've pointed out what the truth is. It would not have been difficult for you to look up the coverage of this case instead of pushing falsehoods here.

https://www.npr.org/2025/09/05/g-s1...-settlement-pirated-chatbot-training-material

A federal judge dealt the case a mixed ruling in June, finding that training AI chatbots on copyrighted books wasn't illegal but that Anthropic wrongfully acquired millions of books through pirate websites.
...
Alsup's June ruling found that Anthropic had downloaded more than 7 million digitized books that it "knew had been pirated." It started with nearly 200,000 from an online library called Books3, assembled by AI researchers outside of OpenAI to match the vast collections on which ChatGPT was trained.

Debut thriller novel The Lost Night by Bartz, a lead plaintiff in the case, was among those found in the Books3 dataset.

Anthropic later took at least 5 million copies from the pirate website Library Genesis, or LibGen, and at least 2 million copies from the Pirate Library Mirror, Alsup wrote.

I am quoting Taylor Swift here:

...

According to this trash lawsuit I should be sued.

You are unlikely to be sued for quoting a few lines of lyrics because it's not worth anybody's time.

But if you were to post the lyrics of half a million copyrighted songs here (if the mods allowed you to) and you didn't have the copyright owner's permission to do so, then yes, ABSOLUTELY you should expect to be sued for copyright violation. This is exactly why the sites that do host song lyrics have to have licensing arrangements with record labels.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Been a while since I’ve seen an ‘actually, property is theft’ argument out in the wild.


‘Saying it’s illegal to steal a book is the same as saying it’s illegal to pay for a book.’

And you still haven't.
I'd take the whole, "people are going to lose their jobs!" thing more seriously if anyone was making the same argument for self driving cars putting cabbies and truckers out of a job.
Millions of truckers losing a job.... mehhhh.
BUT WON'T YOU THINK OF THE POETS!!!!

 

[RoperTrace]

Right now, AI providers are very, VERY squeamish about their product being used in any way, to provide erotic material.

Down the road, porn stars and OnlyFans talent are going to need to watch out.

That road has become a Lot shorter.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Not sure I see your point. I’ve also seen The Eagles, Queen, Garth Brooks, and dozens of other artists live. Must of them are still going strong. My point is that there are facets of a live performance by a real actual person that AI will never be able to capture or create. It doesn’t matter that AI never had access to a live SRV performance. If it had a million of them, it could never capture his aura, the raw power of him in that stage. I propose the same is true of any human generated art. I have also seen Monet’s Blackbird in person. I don’t believe AI could ever reproduce the impact that painting had on me either.

Ah. With that, I will not argue.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Right now, AI providers are very, VERY squeamish about their product being used in any way, to provide erotic material.

Down the road, porn stars and OnlyFans talent are going to need to watch out.

It’s my conjecture that their reticence is due to their inability to prevent ‘underage’ content from being created not so much the adult stuff. Played with one for a bit and they shut down all nsfw for that reason.

 

[GuiltyCowboy]

And what is this supposed social harm [of AI companies stealing people’s property and work]?

You were suggesting there might not be a social harm in having people freely take other people’s property.

If you’re arguing we shouldn’t respect other people’s property and work then petty bourgeois people like me are going to call you an anarchist.

I'd take the whole, "people are going to lose their jobs!" thing more seriously if anyone was making the same argument for self driving cars putting cabbies and truckers out of a job.

The ‘you’re not allowed to worry about the thing you’re worried about until you signal that you’re also worried about the thing that I want you to worry about’ is always a tedious demand but it’s especially so when the demand has in fact already been met:

Many people in the film making industry, especially at the lower end, rely on the paychecks they receive from making commercials and formulaic TV and it's those things that are going to be destroyed by AI.

Perhaps you’re unaware of this but trucks and drivers are an integral part of the film and TV (and commercials) industry.

And who do you think delivers all those books that the writers and poets write?

 

[Kelliezgirl]

You were suggesting there might not be a social harm in having people freely take other people’s property.

If you’re arguing we shouldn’t respect other people’s property and work then petty bourgeois people like me are going to call you an anarchist.



The ‘you’re not allowed to worry about the thing you’re worried about until you signal that you’re also worried about the thing that I want you to worry about’ is always a tedious demand but it’s especially so when the demand has in fact already been met:


Perhaps you’re unaware of this but trucks and drivers are an integral part of the film and TV (and commercials) industry.

And who do you think delivers all those books that the writers and poets write?

First, it's bad form to change my quote, even inserting something into brackets. I was suggesting nothing of the sort. If you can't make a cogent argument without engaging in that kind of behavior I'm not sure there is any point in having a discussion.

That said, I will give you the benefit of doubt and assume you were just over-enthusiastic rather than intellectually dishonest, although all the unnecessary snark in your response tends to point to the latter.

I simply asked what the societal harm was. If, as you seem to believe it has to do with the piracy aspect of Anthropic's behavior, well that's quite the strawman. AI can exist and be trained without resorting to piracy. The fact that Anthropic chose to take an unethical short cut doesn't doom the entire world of AI to the same path.
Arguing that because some people in the AI space behaved badly dooms the whole industry is nonsense. Any large group will have bad actors.


Second, I am not making any "demands" tedious or otherwise. Don't you think all the books AI writes will still need to be delivered? Won't all the people in the bookstores, warehouses, and printers still have jobs? So what if AI trims off a few? Right?

The point, which in your desire to be snarky you missed, is that technology changes industries, Perhaps you are unaware of this but in 1890 43% of the US population worked in agriculture. Today that number is 1.6%.
Oddly, society didn't collapse, people learned new skills, got new jobs, filled new needs.
Ever met a switchboard operator, a telegraph operator, typewriter repairman? Jobs changed, society moved on. "Artists" are owed no special protection.
The only thing different with AI is that the laptop class, a self-styled intelligentsia is threatened, so now it's a problem we can bemoan in the pages of the Atlantic.
People don't care until it's their ox getting gored.

 

[onehitwanda]

Right now, AI providers are very, VERY squeamish about their product being used in any way, to provide erotic material.

Oh, no, trust me - there are many, many models out there that are optimised for generating erotic video.

They're just not the ones we see in the news all the time.