In the West we do understand and like artificiality, but we really want to contain it to the realm of fiction. When some artificiality spills out in the “real” world we raise red flags: “tssk, this temple is not authentic, it burned down 80 years ago and they rebuilt it from scratch”
In the East, there is a deep philosophical difference that I would like to understand better - if anyone can point to any reference on that matter? It’s like people have understood that fiction and artificiality are part of our lives, cause people embellish things all the time, and we humans are happy when we believe in things. So instead of being suspicious, they let themselves invaded by artificiality, not unlike the way Western people create emotional connection with novel characters, but in real world situations.
And I mean why not? In the West, we get cartoon character-based advertising, we get actor-based advertising. How is AI-based influencer (that doesn’t hide the fact that it’s artificial) is any different? If Tony the Kellogg’s tiger had an instagram account, we’d find it totally normal. Here is the same, except that we just jumped over the uncanny valley.
There is a lot to talk about on the subject and doesn’t fit in a hn comment :-)
For instance, if you were to burn down the Monna Lisa, from a westerner perspective you have destroyed all that was valuable in the art. From an easterner perspective, you can reproduce the painting, as long as you prepare the materials in the same way and you use the exact same techniques that were used in composing the original. At that point, whatever you output, is exactly the same as the original and has exactly the same dignity.
Same with rebuilding a temple. As long as you use the same materials and the same building technique, even if it was burned to the ground originally it's still the same building.
The craft is fundamental, the artifact is incidental: it is just an embodiment of the craft.
No idea whether it is true, but it's interesting.
Historically Asian artists and musicians imitated master's styles. Only after you are fully mastering the previous style, you can add something little of your own. "Confucian notion that all forms of creativity are for the collective; any copying or imitating is a high form of flattery, honoring one’s ancestors" 
This can extend to intellectual property and copying in industrial production. Making copies of products of others is seen very differently in China "Mutual reliance and sharing for the good of all have been most important for centuries in China, quite unlike the American belief of ownership of copyright and prot protection for the copyright holder." "Intellectual property rights also do not show up in philosophical works or in literature, because of the
general belief that knowledge cannot be owned. As
we have seen, copying was a virtue in artistic production, and profiting from knowledge and artistic
production was immoral." 
 The Dissonance between Culture and Intellectual Property in China.
Southeast Review of Asian Studies . 2008, Vol. 30, p182-187. 6p.
 Intellectual Property Rights and Chinese Tradition Section: Philosophical Foundations.
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 69, No. 1 (Nov., 2006), pp. 1-9 (9 pages)
This sounds euro- or western-centric, which is interesting because it is how we've been taught the world is: everything of highest esteem originated in Europe, and different European cities were the cultural capital of the world at different times in history.
There may be some truth to that, but you're not recognizing the original and creative Asian art that does not imitate or derive from European influences.
My take on this whole AI-created influencer is that younger generations (putting aside race and ethnicity) prize beauty and perfection at the cost of human connection and personal stories in the "art" or "celebrities" they follow or admire.
My background is in the arts. I was taught that during most of the 1900s, art was about the process and what gave it value. The output was just an effect of the process of creation. Why did artists put such value in the process? Because that is precisely what is so hard to replicate. The final result (end product) is easier to mimic. The story behind the art is irreplaceable and as personal as the artist's soul, as trite as that may sound.
I would go as far as to say all artists, including Asian ones, understand this, which is what creates such a huge divide between "real art" and "massively produced art," where the human element is lost and things are produced in a "lab."
Yet there is a huge amount of poor imitations coming from Asia... Imitations are a good way to learn, but they don't make you the master, just (maybe) some master. Imitation doesn't let you learn the reasoning behind the process that leads to the result you imitate.
edit: this is obviously my Western interpretation, informed by culture/upbringing/milieux etc. So it's interesting to hear a divergent view. Obviously I don't think my POV is objectively true but I do think it holds value.
about a copy of Mona Lisa that was apparently done side-by-side with the original, and looks entirely different. The article implies it looks the way the original would be, if not for the layers of centuries old varnish covering it. Viewed side by side, the two paintings deliver completely different experience.
I've read a bunch of similar articles about other famous work of arts (temple frescos, Greek statues) - it seems that the old art we see today usually looks nothing like it looked at the time it was made.
By far my favourite bit is the restoration where they painstakingly remove the varnish that's been left to fester over the years. Obviously not easily done on the Mona Lisa but the difference is absolutely remarkable. That's actually another point that makes me disagree with the "value is in the craft" argument. Art is not static, it changes over time.
If you're interested, this episode has a great restoration, starting somewhere in the middle and revealed at the end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv6m8aHAtTM
Great attention to detail and mastery, from what I can tell as someone who knows nothing of the subject!
They look nearly identical to me. It's just that the color balance is a bit different. You can apply a simple, smooth, monotonic, contrast change to the colors and change one into the other (except for the red shirt).
Between your perspective and mine, there's of course countless others - few paintings have had as much said and written about them as Mona Lisa. But, it turns out, most of those words were written not about what da Vinci painted, but what his work decayed into. It makes me view all those words in a completely different light.
It's interesting to read suggestion that Western culture might place more value in this "magical quality".
Unless you also have the genius to recreate the sum total of da Vinci's impact on the world, you will never be able to recreate the Mona Lisa, because the Mona Lisa, as Art, only exists in the context of that impact.
The underlying philosophy beneath "art is the craft" is that, if you follow the craft, you are seeing the world through the lens of da Vinci.
I do agree with much of your final statement, by the way. What the Monna Lisa has done for art an humanity through all those centuries is irreplaceable. That would not go away if the painting were to burn today, so it's not a point in favor of considering the artifact as more important than the craft.
In fact, the best way to preserve its potential future influence would be to store the technique to reproduce it perfectly, rather than the object itself or a photograph of it. Because people undergoing the process of recreating the painting as da Vinci did it would get knowledge and inspiration in the process.
I completely agree! Apologies if my original comment suggested otherwise. If a reproduction is the exact same as the original, then it's still two completely different types of craft. One is a genius, the other a copier.
Do we get part of that vision/window of the world from a high resolution digital reproduction of the painting? Could we get most of it from a (very good) replica too? Would most people know the difference if we swapped the original for a replica in Le Louvre? Or let's say the painting gets damaged and restored by artists. Did we lose that vision?
Mona Lisa's enigmatic female gaze shows dignity and respect towards women in a way that Rozy doesn't.
Because Mona Lisa wasn't designed first and foremost to pedal consumer products to creepy horny heterosexual men like Rozy, "the newly rising blue-chip in the advertisement industry", which I see as quite ugly beneath the superficial surface.
And that kind of ugly runs deep.
When I visited South Korea, I was amazed that how some pavilions in palace complexes are destroyed, burnt, stolen in entirety, repeatedly and rebuilt.
Their attitude was "things happen. we just rebuild them, eh?".
Actually, I imagine that’s true for a whole lot more than one temple.
Addendum: Hey, this is an impression I got from Palace Complex Pavilions' information cards. I have nothing against either nation.
-- Kroc Camen
For the Mona Lisa, I think favoring the original is caring about the journey. You can use the same techniques but you can never recreate the circumstances the painting was made in.
In the dichotomy of destination and journey, using the same craft to recreate a centuries-old portrait gets you something like an A for destination but a D+ for journey.
For a temple, the craftsmanship is probably a bigger part of the journey, but it's still only a part.
Except that it's not made by a specific person who lived 100's of years ago. That is impossible to restore, no matter what.
I get the idea of art being human movement, but I'm wondering if what's valued in the west is the act of movement by specific individual rather than the output artefact?
I get what you're saying, and I understand why we (in the west at least) believe it matters, but should it, really?
In a rebuilt temple there is an artistic value, but the main interest is not there. Is in the occupation of the place. "We were able to fight against the countless attempts of other people willing to displace us and use the soil in their own interests. This proves that we are a strong and successful community".
Behind the art lies a political game and a fight for power. Everything else is replaceable.
In fact improving the place is a basic strategy to keep the appeal to the public what pays for this and rebuild ASAP is essential to keep the place in the same hands and the money flowing.
Paintings like the Mona Lisa are powerful in a more subtle way. Can't be linked directly with political parties or kingdoms; Is just an anonymous woman. The main theme here is celebrating femininity.
So is much more powerful than "just another Buda statue bigger than those from Shelbyville". Unlike a local religion Mona Lisa can connect easily with the entire humanity.
Old paintings can be symbols of power also, but people normally don't give the same value to "this wall of the room has been always occupied by identical copies of a painting of a woman in the last 1000 years". A photo does not have the same value as a painting.
Even if you could not see / proof the one picture being the real one, their believe is rock solid that the original has higher (emotional) value.
The idea that the original hand, in the original moment, with the original intentions made one object and the not the other, is of paramount importance.
I absolutely understand their viewpoint, even if I may not believe it myself.
Yet, this does not mean the viewer shall have the same perspective. For them, the stimulus, not the source, may be more important.
The historical artifact aspect of art is quite similar and to many people equally important.
As a South Korean, I would like to understand the viewpoint of the "West" better. What is not authentic about rebuilt temple? No one is trying to mislead, restoration does not try to hide the fact it was restored.
Buildings require maintenance, so even buildings that is continuing to stand is not the same building, in the style of ship of Theseus. Difference from "rebuilt from scratch" is not clear cut.
Maybe wooden buildings make this clearer than stone buildings?
Edit: e.g. I lived in Suwon, where Samsung Electronics is headquartered. From historical records, we know it was also called Suwon in the 8th century, more than 1000 years ago. I think this sense of wonder is no less real than touching of 1000 years old artifacts.
If I'm to wager a guess they had a bad example because buildings and art are often restored. Maybe they were talking about types of entertainment? But I'm not sure I buy that either because of the popularity of reality television. And also because what the article is about just seems like a natural extension of your typical Disney pop star.
The problem isn't the dishonesty, I'd just be disappointed that it's not the original thing because the original thing is infinitely more complex and layered and informative than a reconstruction. All the tiny flaws and subtle details you can find in the original can be lost in a reconstruction.
Buildings & architecture aren't my passion so it's harder for me to feel this about stuff like restored temples, but I sometimes feel this about things that I am passionate about.
It's like in the movie Inception (2010) [SPOILERS AHEAD]:
Cobb: I can't stay with her anymore because she doesn't exist.
Mal: I'm the only thing you do believe in anymore.
Cobb: I wish. I wish more than anything. But I can't imagine you with all your complexity, all your perfection, all your imperfection. Look at you. You are just a shade of my real wife. You're the best I can do; but I'm sorry, you are just not good enough.
At some point, you will surely start to wonder "what does that mean for MY life?" and one thing that comes to mind is "how did the institutions that enabled something this complex to come to be and survive for so long worked, compared to what we have now?" and that is the moment the wooden castle rebuilt every couple of years is really the same as the stone chapel.
The surprising part is nobody argues we should restore pyramids and repaint/reattach arms of roman statues. This makes me feel like there's the additional requirement that it needs to be a continuous process of restoration and you can't just restore it to what it was hundreds of years ago.
An actual replica pyramid built using traditional methods? Not sure, but I would love to see it. :D
Except people don't want "authentic", they want what they know. No one is suggestion restoring the pyramids to their original look because then they would look 'fake' to most people.
You see it in more mundane situations as well. If a houses was red for 300 years and then white for 150 years, and someone wants to paint it red again a lot of people will complain because that building has 'always' been white and red will feel inauthentic, even if you can prove with historical documentation that red was the original 'authentic' color.
1. This building is beautiful.
2. How did they build this all that time ago? For example, the Great Pyramids, Stonehenge, or a large stone cathedral built 800 years ago.
3. The sense of unbroken continuous activity in this building from the time it was built until now. Which connects me to history and a sense that by being in this place I am a part of something bigger than myself. This is stronger if the type of activity in the building has stayed the same for all that time. E.g. Attending a service in an 800 year old Cathedral makes you feel awe.
#1 Is still relevant if the building is restored, but #2 isn't.
#3 is interesting. If a building was damaged but restored immediately then the sense of continuity might remain intact. But if a building was left unoccupied, or it's use has changed then this effect is lessened. For example, visiting a 500 year old pub is better than visiting a 500 year old building that was recently turned into a pub. Visiting a royal palace in England has some quality to it that visiting Versailles doesn't have because there is no longer a French monarchy. Stonehenge is very impressive (because of #2) and even though some groups have started using it for rituals, there is no real connection to the original builders so it lacks awe on the #3 dimension.
However the stance is rather different for reviving long lost buildings, mostly coming from the architecture/archeological scene, not the general public. Their (kinda valid) argument is that these developments can never ever be authentic, and restoring them is anachronistic, driven by nationalism, and the goal is often to restore not only the place but the views of that time. A modern work - that would play homage, or provide a different new meaning - is viewed as actual progression.
Today you'd barely know that happened. My favourite example is Gendarmenmarkt  - a square with three church buildings on it.
When I first took a walking tour around Berlin, the guide flatly said "these were built in the 17th century" with no mention of being almost completely rebuilt after the war. That lead to an interesting discussion along the same lines as this (Theseus' ship and all).
I think the difference is the history. Preserving the memory of that destruction as part of the restoration is important. There should be visible scars. By all means restore the building to be functional, a useful part of the city again. But leave some scars. I love that there are still bullet holes in some of the old walls around the city centre.
One of my favourite descriptions of Berlin is actually by Iain M Banks in The State of The Art , and it talks about this - that the history is what makes the place so special. Restoring everything so that the history is removed would also remove something unique and special about the city.
 This is just an extract, there are several references to Berlin in the story, which obviously is well worth reading - https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/794671-there-is-something-a...
I think there is a strong analogy to personal identity here too. All the cells in our body are replaced, but we are still Ourselves! If too much were to be transplanted at once, or things we consider too fundamental, the suffer identity worries.
I think that stone vs wood makes a significant difference in two major ways. One is simply time scale. Take Notre Dame as discussed in other places in this thread. While it has been rebuilt many times, it happens once every 150-250 years or so meaning that from the perspective of living memory what is there now has always been there. That is why many people consider the Notre Dame that burnt down the 'real' one and the one that will replace it as 'fake', despite neither on of them looking like the original. With wooden temples that get rebuilt every 50-80 years there is always someone around that remembers the last time it happened, making the framing of the event entirely different.
The other is that stone is very hard to destroy. Meaning that even if stone church burns down and get rebuilt several times there will always been parts of the original church incorporated into the latest building. It is not uncommon for churches in Europe to have visible parts of their foundation the where built 800+ years ago despite most of the church being 'new'. This is what gives something continuity.
It is not the same building, just because it's the same form at the same place. It lacks the same "Experience" that forged the previous building. There is some value in individuality, at least on the emotional level. For example, every one has parents, but your own parents usually are the one which you consider special.
> Buildings require maintenance, so even buildings that is continuing to stand is not the same building, in the style of ship of Theseus.
Western buildings are usually not getting replaced in its whole. Most parts of the building will remain over its whole life. Similar happening with other old objects. Books are still valued for their age, even if the text they contain can be found elsewhere.
The value of old objects is their age and their history, not their content or function.
When I visited Pompeii, I would have loved to see the city rebuilt as how it was originally. They have pictures here and there displaying how the city could have been but I think that the immersiveness would have been much greater if it looked as it was previously.
I think so: they don't normally require or get this kind of maintenance by replacement. The mortar might be repaired, but the stones tend to be original. The Roman forum, the pyramids, the Sphinx, Stonehenge: all original stones.
This is way too broad a brush. I find these parasocial relations a sign of alienation and rootlessness, here or there, and I'm sure there's plenty of Asians who reject it as well.
> Some people spend their lives interested only in themselves. Almost all Japanese animation is produced with hardly any basis taken from observing real people, you know. It’s produced by humans who can’t stand looking at other humans.
-- Hayao Miyazaki, co-founder of Studio Ghibli
I believe in plenty of things, they just happen to be real, too, which makes it so much better. I believe in justice, for example. I believe in honesty. I believe in a few individuals whom I have a deep connection with. I believe in the beauty I can find everywhere if I just look at just about anything that, as Sophia Scholl said, wasn't created by humans. I never wake up in the middle of the night wondering whether my belief in those and more things is misplaced and just a substitute for something I'm lacking, they're the real deal. That's priceless to me.
Her view was that where we could make perfect or near-perfect replicas, there's no real reason we should risk having original artifacts on display. In my view, it would be kind of silly to go to a museum just to see a copy.
I think, for me at least, when I see an object in a museum there's one element of "oh, that's interesting design", but also an element of "this is the _actual rifle_ that was used to charge a WWI trench", or similar - something about seeing a real, physical artifact from a history that feels more like stories at times is grounding.
Conspicuous expense is important and sought after, because by making that expense you show an un-fakeable signal that you are important and can afford the expense. People place the same value in identical replicas because they don't carry that signal.
I suspect that most of the "oh, it has the real weight of history behind it" sentiment is post-hoc rationalization for the status game.
Humans have a tendency to divide things into two distinct groups with an imaginary gap between them (this v/s that, us v/s them), this comment is just another example of that.
There is so much more to it, but no, apparently it's just East/West. HN is going down the drain, it is the new reddit now.
Now you can’t deny that it exists some places in Japan where people can rent friends hourly and that some people get really attached to robots or sex dolls.
And it is also true that this feels utterly bizarre to the majority of people in europe or the US.
And it is a totally legitimate question to wonder why.
Warsaw was raised to the ground in WWII and they rebuilt the old city, which is a tourist Mecca today. They are proud of the scholarship and repro-craftspersonship and even have a museum just to showcase that.
The West despises copies. In the East copying is normal. The million dollars question: Who is right? Originality grants a better future, copies a better present.
According to him, in the East copying was traditionally seen as respectful because to copy something took skill, you copied movement for movement.
It's a backlash starting in the 90s against some excesses (pollution, traffic, Tschernobyl) that saw a rising appreciation for the "natural".
That had benefits such as the environmental movement and liveable cities. But it can, again, be misunderstood. The naturalistic fallacy that is not trusting vaccines because "ingredients") is also one of way it manifests, although it's almost entirely on the political right because culture war forces are stronger. It's the third time in a row the right has frankensteined a putatively left-wing concept, after Christianity and Postmodernism.
For architecture, the Bauhaus' form-follows-function ideas are still the starting point. They carry some economic policy ideas as well, from the times after WW2 when housing needed to be rebuild and any ornamental excess was seen as resources that were wasted while people were starving and homeless. Thus came the high-rises (in both east and west Europe).
This idea of "wastefulness" endures. If you rebuild something old, you will be wasteful in that you recreate structures and use materials and maybe methods that have long been superseded. You might also find yourself defending rather outdated ideas of class difference trying to explain why ceiling heights go down as you go up the floors, with the 1st floor "bel êtage" having 15' ceilings and the top floor's servant quarters barely more than half that.
The stucco decoration on a facade used to show that you were rich, because these were elaborately hand-crafted in-place at the time. Now, they are stamped in a factory and glued on. They are tacky because it is false signalling.
However, when there is actual authenticity, it tends to be something that pays off from a social media standpoint.
There is a twitter one, and it is quite... lets just say nsfw.
She has 60k followers on Instagram which (even if all real) isn't that much. Certainly not anywhere big enough to make 800k a year that the creator claims he plans on making.
They say they have 100 sponsorships but this seems like a marketing statement...influencers all the time talk about how popular they are and I don't see why we should trust the creator of AI influencer more.
I don't see any major brands on her Instagram though I'm not South Korean so maybe I'm missing something - but more likely explanation seems to be that he has partnered with a few companies for a pittance and is overhyping his creation to get more money in.
"Influencing" is a ponzy scheme. If you can convince people you are trending, you'll trend. If you can convince people you are influencing, you'll influence. Sadly, like all trends, the biggest players are all big fish trying to get in before it dies. This doesn't legitimise it though.
This is just an art project that is trending. They're real photos, with real girls and then the creator will place a flavour (ala thispersondoesnotexist.com) through the use of AI. It's akin to automating your photoshop meme pipeline, but way less creative.
It's marketing all the way down. Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, etc. are all just marketing spirals that occasionally spit out unique content that was made with real hard work. The rest is just cycling through other people's work with faux congrats and advertising for your own "channel".
We evolved to compare ourselves to others in order to elevate the fitness of ourselves and our in-group. We look to peers. We take an interest in their gossip. We look at beautiful people, smart people, successful people. We're curious. We're also intrigued by scandalous and dangerous people. It's how we update our mental model of the world and contrast ourselves against it.
I'd be utterly shocked if you didn't, at some level, take an interest in the personal details of some person you don't know.
Virtual celebrities and influencers provide the same sort of dopamine hits that their real life counterparts do, except they can be 100% controlled by a corporation.
You don't even have to look at virtual influencers to know that people will eat them up: lots of people are already addicted to fictional characters. Movies, super heroes, even cartoons and anime. They find pieces of themselves in it. They start to care and take deep interest.
Virtual celebs are the future, and a cottage industry is already cropping up in support of it.
And just wait until people use AR/VR to optimize their own appearances and behaviors.
I definitely don't connect to any celebrity other than those I admire for their intelligence and/or skill. So I'm not normal.
Being a celebrity is mostly a way to make money. And with influencers, the "career progression" that almost every upstart vlogger/instagrammer aspires to is pretty well-defined:
1) Provide some kind of entertainment content as a vector to push other people's crap
2) Over time, build up your user base and revenue base, until you become a well-known brand in a given market segment
3) Transition to pushing your own crap, e.g. a line of products with your name on it
Of course, selection is very strong there. Most would-be influencers spend years and fail at step 1. Few achieve step 3. And it can't really be any different, because attention economy is the ultimate zero-sum game: people have only so much hours in the day.
It's not. Influencers ask prices that are relative to how much money they'll make to a particular brand/store. That's why local influencers is a thing. And I was, too, surprised at how much sales they can drive for a simple store.
The media tends to notice little phenomena like this and paint them as if it's a cultural megatrend.
I'm still confused by these two comments. I don't think we can verifiably claim any personal story on any media outlet is BS or not.
They're wondering whether this specific account is making money.
Those are very different questions. An account can be both, neither, or one or the other.
I guess Americans use the word bullshit differently to the rest of the English speaking world? Or something else?
If one were to speak bullshit, they'd be doing exactly what I just wrote. No money is involved.
You called it a ponzi scheme!
Either way, please listen to the distinction I'm making.
You're talking about ways the industry is bad.
They're asking if the article is flat-out wrong about this single account being successful inside that industry.
Those are two separate ideas to call bullshit on. A bullshit industry can have bullshit success stories, but it can also have true success stories.
Yes. And then people had a problem with the word bullshit, for some reason.
It can be both bullshit and a ponzi scheme. That doesn't make bullshit necessarily a scam.
If I post the same thing to Instagram, most people will applaud me for being such a great photographer.
Everyone is wasting their time. Lots of people like bullshit.
I must admit I don't quite understand your attitude. I personally for example have no interest in "the Kardashians" and would consider their story "bullshit" in a way. On the other hand, they clearly made a shitload of money. So maybe it would be better to analyse what is going on and why it works.
Another example that I personally consider mostly BS is professional sports. But clearly billions of people are into it and a lot of money is being made. Rather than calling it BS, perhaps it is more interesting to think about what might be going on, and what human need seems to be fulfilled by these things.
I was also reminded of "Hello Kitty" which seems to have been going strong for decades. Maybe, among other things, people just buy into this phantasy of a happy world were everything is fine. I personally bought some Hello Kitty mugs for fun a while ago because using them gave me a little jolt of happiness. Even though it is "commercial BS".
Easiest way for that to happen? Spam. Lots of spam. Instagram audiences aren't fickle, or at least they're not deterred by playing the game. They are extremely easy to offend though, and follow very serious moral trains. i.e. the head of the dragon changes directions fast but the body keeps in toe regardless of how they feel.
Just click on any of the top trending videos on Reddit or YouTube, you'll see a bunch of familiar faces saying the following. The more niche the topic, the more niche the channel spammers.
"Hey this video was great! Good job! -- seoulmetro walking tours".
I'm young so all these social outlets are what are left for me. But they're just way too tiring so I usually ignore the feeds.
Bullshit is selling a lie.
Both are very inefficient and lazy ways to generate interest.
Rather, people are becoming more and more annoyed by the repeating news articles trying to hype this thing. Also, young people around me gives absolute-zero-f** about this thing.
I should put it this way: boomers don't realize that influencer marketing is the most boomer thing to do these days.
That's the boomer perspective that I wanted to point out. Where's the internet in this flow? Where's the community? Where's google? I know the above statement is simplified, but what matter is the linking logic, which can be radically different b/w generations.
One thing boomers don't recognize is that, unlike the celebrities from the last generation, influencers are contributors, not rulers or leaders. They make practical contributions to their communities, and, in return, they earn trust, which then can be utilized for monetization. It's not like someone great bam comes in and become a star (which is the exact strategy of this artificial influencer. So boomer, eh?)
Also it's worth noting that the internet community is that it offers more information and raw data than the sum of influencers can ever offer. Follow the recommendation of an influencer? Pf, it's just mere a drop in the vast ocean. A proper digital-literate - and MZs are the first digital native generation - will search other sources, cross check the information, and, naturally, expand it even further. As more effort goes in to these steps, the significance of influencers drops rapidly.
So, I want to say that the influencer marketing can't be a key strategy these days. Rather, it's just an element in the usual advertisement campaign. The most critical part is the community engagement.
TV commercial does not make it not BS. There are lots of things in Korea that are utter BS but get a lot of attention, and people are generally fearful of missing out.
I am saying creators are probably not lying when they project $800k yearly revenue. Yes, you can earn $800k in South Korea entirely by fads, but that was not the question.
I know what you're saying, I'm not sure what being Korean has to do with that. And no, no one said you could not earn money in Korea through fads. What does that have to do with what I wrote?
I'm saying they are most definitely capable of lying, especially in cases where lying grants you a huge boost to future results.
Are you replying to the right comment here?
It's completely normal to qualify one's perspective, and often beneficial. in fact for people to know whether your comment is an opinion, or based on some actual experience, knowledge, skill, etc, it adds value to the discussion.
In the context of South Korean culture, it's absolutely useful to know the commenter is South Korean.
If we're talking about tea, crumpets, or the rain, I might point out that I'm British.
It's not saying you don't know. It's saying that, this should be part of your knowledge based on you being British.
I don't see how that's offensive.
"If you were British..." and "If you are British..." have very different subtext.
That specific form of the sentence has negative connotations and might be considered divisive in (British) English.
It's essentially a challenge to my honesty, and had you said "if you are" rather than "if you were" it'd be a more amiable challenge, implying I should respond with proof that I know where York is, and not suggest I'm being dishonest.
As I said, it's divisive, but to some may be considered offensive too.
Just one word makes all of the difference.
If you want to suggest I would know where York is by virtue of being British, you might say;
"You will know where York is, because you're British" or "You must know where York is, you're British".
The statement is at most doubting whether you are British, but not dismissing or claiming the opposite.
>but to some may be considered offensive too.
It's offensive that someone might claim to be from somewhere and not understand a very common piece of knowledge from that place. Or at least I might want to claim it to be.
I backed up why I disagree that a single spark determines whether it's not BS. I assumed, being in Korea for so long, it'd be a given first thing to bring up when someone asks if hype is actually genuine. So I brought it up. Every fad with even the slightest traction will be overvalued more in Korea, and it will also fall out of favour much faster too. The cycle is very much filled with BS that hasn't started to stink yet.
You should see the investment funded startup scene in Korea. It's very close to throwing anything at the wall and waiting for the one that sticks. Which is a shame given how technologically empowered Koreans are.
I'm still unsure why it made anyone upset. But then again, this is the internet.
p.s: Post is rate limited now, so there was a delay in this reply.
"If you were South Korean" is exactly saying "You are not South Korean", which sanxiyn rightly took offense to.
As a native English speaker from the colonies, I have zero idea whether "If you were" in this usage is the subjunctive, or if it is a conditional clause, or something else. Maybe I need to take an ESOL course to learn English grammar.
I can see why they'd get upset if I was assuming they're not Korean. But that's not what I said or meant.
It would be considered directly saying that if I were to say "You can't be Korean because ____" or "You would be Korean if you ______".
I think you might be thinking of a similar construct which doesn't imply it's false: "If you're Korean, you realise ...". The "you" here is non-specific, and the phrase doesn't say you're Korean or not Korean. The present tense and lack of speculative "would" are what make the difference.
"If you were at the beach, you would have seen the shark." is saying you were not at the beach, and implying you didn't see the shark.
"If you were tall, you would have been able to see it" is saying you are not tall, and implying you couldn't see it.
The "if", "were", and "would" make the phrase a hypothetical counterfactual, imagining that the statement is true and supplying a consequence, and this means that the statement is actually false (i.e. you were not at the beach). This meaning holds when speaking about a specific "you", like the person you're replying to. I'm sure there's a name for this grammatical construct, but I don't know it.
The sentence may be incorrect, in which case the person you're speaking to could correct it with "I was at the beach, but I didn't see it", "I saw it by climbing on a rock", or "WTF I am Korean". It's possible the speaker may suspect their sentence is incorrect and be using it to ask a question indirectly, inviting correction.
A more general meaning is possible when you're not talking about a specific person, but using the conditional to imagine a group of people or something, e.g. "If you were employed, you could afford it, and if you were on a benefit you could afford it, so most people can afford it." I think this usage is uncommon though, as there are much clearer ways to phrase that sort of thing. It's definitely not the usage you wrote.
Source: Native English speaker, but not trained grammarian. Also wrote way too much because it's late at night and I can't be succinct.
Financial chains in South Korea do not usually do influencer marketing. I would guess that the companies are buying not because of the influencer's reach, but because of the novelty of AI and the quality of the art. Presumably their goal is using the character and derived artwork in more traditional advertisements.
Edit: sanxyin confims that Shinhan used the character in a TV ad. I don't watch TV, so I guess I missed it.
That being said I see the AI was in TV ads (is this influencer based? or just actor?) so 800k is possible.
Maybe they're trying to say "AI" to mean "aritifical person" like in William Gibson's Idoru... but it's not even close.
It's one of the most egregious uses of "AI" I've seen in the last few years and I fully expect people to come up to me and say "have you seen the latest AI from Korea?". I'll be in the corner, pulling on my pigtails.
I'm sure the advertisers will scientifically test for this effect and use whatever strategy keeps them buying though...
You think so? Nobody ever wanted to be like Sailor Moon?
Wasn't the protagonist supposed to be somewhat of a slob?
To be clear, this is just the most superficial stuff. That television series was definitely pushing a certain specific and not at all enlightened standard of female behavior and beauty. Not that I think it should be cancelled on Twitter or anything, but I think it's helpful to criticize the media we consume.
A big reason why influencers or any kind of celebrity are successful is because enough people aspire to be like them. That's pretty hard to achieve for an AI.
I also don't think people aspire to be like influencers in a 'real' sense. Influencers are hyperreal versions of something fans know they won't actually be, and in that sense artificial characters might even be more interesting.
Replace marathon with ‘coding’ or whatever hobby you have, and I’m sure you’ll find it weird as well
Before it became a career, originally "influencer" was a marketing designation for a person who's well-connected within target market's social graph, and thus is the optimal target to hire or manipulate into peddling crap to their followers.
There's nothing here preventing virtual personas from being influencers too. Being a real person who can be emulated is an asset for an influencer, but it's not a necessity - it doesn't matter why people follow you, it matters that they do, and that they are vulnerable to you manipulating them. Having such a network of vulnerable followers is what makes an influencer valuable to sponsors.
It seems not necessary to be.
I see it two-folds:
- the image influencers are projecting is already detached from most people's reality, they know it's faked but accept it as an ideal to tend towards. Just as we all know movies are full of VFX and 1 in a million charismatic actors that are horrible people IRL, but we still aspire to the projected image.
- having no human being directly attached to the persona means no scandal, no medical issues, no miserable life lived in the shadow of the spotlight and it's beneficial to both producers and viewers. You'll never have your idol smeared by tabloids because they kicked homeless people.
 - Though I think it's safe to assume the big ones today are also scripted. For example, every now and then my wife stumbles on some video from the cosmetics space on YouTube, and holy shit, the makeup-peddling influencers there have been running an ongoing personal drama for some good 3 years now. It will probably last another 3 - viewers seem glued to their seats, and producers just enjoy the viewership and opportunity to peddle some more name-brand makeup.
I remember reading one reddit comment that went "Can't wait for the moment Seraphine gets canceled for something she said in an interview and has to put out a tearful apology video. Gotta hit those real-life influence milestones!"
(of course Seraphine would never actually get canceled; that would require that her writers give her any amount of personality whatsoever)
We're having a taste of that with vtubers, where there's a lot happening, in particular as the money amount moving around are already pretty big, but comparatively way less dire than with actual idols.
What is the future for 'virtual humans' after that? Will it be mainly virtual assistants (that people will quickly grow to hate)?
Will they come to dominate pornography or say cam sites, and be tarred by that association and then end up ignored in other spheres? on the other hand, if they avoid that fate, they could gradually become a pretty significant force in mainstream film; i think getting popularity there will be a hard road to climb if people first associate them as tacky.
And unless these virtual personalities end up engaging in scripted dramas and celebrity feuds and things like the way (i gather) k-pop bands do etc, they risk people coming to find them extremely boring. Being able to be in more than one place at once is in some ways a disadvantage if it makes them so ever-present that their audience no longer experiences them as part of some kind of narrative, which is what lets people develop feelings for them.
I mean, this already happened? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projekt_Melody
That changes the likelihood of this succeeding though, not only because it has been done before, but because influencers are already deeply artificial (no pun intended), and in the process of becoming successful having a near perfect control of your image through computers might help.
However, I disagree that this is "quick" money or just a fad. The value of this AI for sponsorships/ads comes more from a team of actual people that scan social media to search for trends, photo styles and carefully helps curate its presence. For example, look at how the first "photo" in the article is created. Notice how the AI isn't looking at the camera? Or how the perspective is somewhat tilted? Overall, the image has many subtle details also very in line with how many millienial/gen-Z Korean girls upload birthday photos from cafes on Instagram.
It feels like Rozy represents a broader movement towards abstracting out the elements that make us resonate with a brand or image more. I think brand strategists and marketers have figured out that the model is more of a vessel to store and convey those elements/emotions and for particular types of ads there is no real need for the model to actually exist in reality. Think about how many ads where you don't know the model in any other context.
Rozy probably adds more value than the nameless models in some sense because there's a persona/brand the team has built up in social media/other ads. Definitely not easy money.
It's not an AI!
Key point. The AI generated character is the medium; the vast majority of effort was put into the marketing and the "story" of this character.
Holy crap, I 100% believed you.
Wait till they make the virtual human “talk” (or put up messages and replies online) and you’ll have scandals very soon. Others have learned this the hard way before.
Our intelligence agencies would be absolutely stupid not to work on this. Any voice communication channel you can intercept, you can influence, and you can use the trust established with vocal familiarity to enable you assume the influence level of one or both of the speakers. The key would be training the AI to know when to alter the conversation and when to let it pass through.
There are many kind of possibilities for things getting weird at that junction. eg if the real person is a porn star, political figure, <etc>
> Consequently to this behaviour the species is actually threatened. Prof. Darryl Gwynne, from the Toronto University, and David Rentz have achieved the Ig Nobel Prize for their studies on Julodimorpha species behaviour.
> This behavior is often given as an example of a Supernormal stimulus.
Oh my sweet summer child, if only you know.
EDIT: A comment in here explains it more in detail.
What surprised me was the hands. The hands are perfect. I can't see anything at all that makes me think they are not real.
It is amazing.
I'm not sure what's so hard about teeth, but (so far) weird teeth has always been a reliable tell for me.
What differentiates Rozy from Lara Croft, Popeye or Bart Simpson?
This "impure purity" is expected for both male & female celebs, though there are some differences and boys tend to get a little more leeway.
The celeb also tends to take the blame for their creepy fans. It's their fault for 'encouraging' stalkers, etc.
It's an impossible culture that chews people up and spits them out.
That said, SK undoubtedly pushes it beyond any sense.
The idol is blamed for the incident. For the state of mind of their fan. For doing anything that might incite jealousy.
Oh yes. Everything is a scandal in such a competitive society, where cover ups are rampant just to avoid scalndal. Take this article about Seo Yea-ji for example:
I think they are working to change the cover up culture, as it's almost always represented negatively in dramas.
It's a real pity because I actually wanted it to be real. But then there is Jeri Ellsworth, unpolished and as real as can be. But with a small fraction of the followers of the fake channel. So fake works, people want to believe that there is this one single young incredibly capable person that turns out one wonderful piece of art after another.
So I'm entirely not surprised that they'd go the whole distance and get rid of the person completely and make the whole thing artificial. After all, if the person is just another prop that too might as well be a fake, there is very little difference.
Edit: what really pisses me off about this is that I got suckered in for long enough to make me want that time back.
One. Two. Three. Sleep.
Feels like a trend I could see continuing:
There's a whole industry, making artificial food, for restaurant display. The cheap stuff looks like what it is: plastic dross. The good stuff, however, is virtually indistinguishable from the real thing.
On my last couple of trips, I got a hankering for candy, and brought these artificial strawberries. They were made of something like white chocolate, and looked exactly like those "trail mix" dried strawberries.
But they tasted like the Platonic ideal of fresh strawberries.
Might not be the real thing, but they were great. Maybe I'll die early, from having eaten them, but they were awesome.
I think it's only a matter of time, before we have completely artificial actors and actresses. Models will probably come first.
Here is a western version of this with traditional 3D modelling for comparison:
EDIT: deleted a bit here as i misread the word sponsorship.
Consider how well an avatar could perform from a charisma perspective vs. the canned press statements by an awkward expert or a bland politician reading a teleprompter. Forget deepfakes, I don't think average people will be able to compete for attention with a team of top writers running persuasive avatars. A well aimed joke by a comedian can change beliefs, and I could see how to use these avatars for some powerful ends.
How does one go about acquiring a kit for one of these?
> As CEO Baek said, the reason for the popularity of virtual humans is that there is no fear that advertisements will be suspended due to unsavory privacy scandals after the AI model is selected as the advertising model. In addition, the location and scene can be created through computer graphics, so the virtual model is not limited in time and space, and unlike real people. The other advantage is that period in which the model can be active is very long or eternal because the virtual human doesn't get sick or grow old.
If that sounds odd to you, I encourage you to check out her channel and compare with similar content from Twitch streamers; it's surprisingly easy to get used to and enjoy.
Why not shut oneself into a virtual world if virtual everything is what they want? I have the feeling that in the not too distant future there will be big labels on things stating “not virtual” like we’re getting now for organic/bio products
People follow an account like this for the same reasons they follow a meme page, a curated architecture account, or any brand; because it's entertainment.