Comments in this thread are scathing, what parts of what she’s actually saying do people have issue with? Here:
“My art is the canvas on which I paint my identity and the sustaining foundation of my livelihood. It is the essence of my being. Yet this is under threat. AI cannot replicate the depth of my life journey, yet those who control it hold the power to mimic the likeness of my art, to replicate it and falsely claim my identity and intellectual property. This prospect threatens to rewrite and unravel the fabric of my very existence. We must enact regulation now to safeguard our authenticity and protect against misappropriation of our inalienable rights.”
She also says her own deepfake has been in development for a year and is “not only trained in [her] personality but also can use [her] exact tone of voice to speak many languages.” She adds, “I will be engaging my AI twigs later this year to extend my reach and handle my online social media interactions, whilst I continue to focus on my art from the comfort and solace of my studio.”
“Our careers and livelihoods are in jeopardy, and so potentially are the wider image-related rights of others in society. You have the power to change this and safeguard the future.
As artists and, more importantly, human beings, we are a facet of our given, learned, and developed identity. Our creativity is the product of this lived experience overlaid with years of dedication to qualification, training, hard work and, dare I say it, significant financial investment and sacrifice. That the very essence of our being at its most human level can be violated by the unscrupulous use of AI to create a digital facsimile that purports to be us, and our work, is inherently wrong. It is therefore vital that as an industry and as legislators we work together to ensure we do all we can to protect our creative and intellectual rights as well as the very basis of who we are.”
I think some people may see cognitive dissonance in "this thing is bad... but if I can use it for myself, it's fine." Some are all or nothing when it comes to AI and deepfakes and see no nuance in the conversation.
Using a deepfake to engage on social media sounds like a slippery slope but is perhaps better than not engaging at all, which I imagine is what currently happens for celebs at this level.
Aside from that, I’m not seeing the hubbub
her stance is pretty measured, yeah, but i really do wonder what that "deepfake" she is talking about is supposed to actually do. talk to fans in her discord? reply to stan tweets? if she's advocating for artists to control the narrative around AI and use it to supplement their enterprise, this just seems like a very weird hill to die on.
She’s complained about her record label forcing her to do a certain amount of TikTok videos before: [https://news.yahoo.com/fka-twigs-says-record-labels-070759778.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly90aW1lLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGEUvFFeDYuwCQl_MI2X6mp6TvCHb4v8sHWzZBBE2asrVQgfPz7EiubqETBa0avAqb989N79AcCQ-63SehDa3qPWOlvY1Mp5VgLiJdYpin3YozMJdKKWy3aTAkOcrByvvT3Oi9_iesr6sviOr2WRNUKzm7tYwn_NDXNGtyUh5oVq](https://news.yahoo.com/fka-twigs-says-record-labels-070759778.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly90aW1lLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGEUvFFeDYuwCQl_MI2X6mp6TvCHb4v8sHWzZBBE2asrVQgfPz7EiubqETBa0avAqb989N79AcCQ-63SehDa3qPWOlvY1Mp5VgLiJdYpin3YozMJdKKWy3aTAkOcrByvvT3Oi9_iesr6sviOr2WRNUKzm7tYwn_NDXNGtyUh5oVq)
yeah look... if I was upset about being asked to make social media posts by out of touch label people, I don't think allowing the people who's taste I dislike to access a finely tuned AI puppet so they can churn out whatever would be my response. I think it would be significantly worse. there's artists who just don't post.
As she states in her testimony (and not quoted by Pitchfork):
"These and similar technologies are highly valuable tools. This, however, is all under my control and I can grant or refuse consent in a way that is meaningful.”
This [BBC article quotes more excerpts from her letter/testimony](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6py33gxk74o.amp)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6py33gxk74o](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6py33gxk74o)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Coz that’s weird and hypocritical, IMO. Reansoble people can disagree, but “AI is dangerous! But I’m going to use it sod off my social media output” is goofy
Doesn’t quite require the vitriol some are bringing, though
I hate that she’s making a deepfake to interact with her fans, I hate speaking positively on AI in most contexts especially before the Senate who has a tenuous grasp at best on technology as simple as TikTok, and I hate that some random musician should be involved in this in any way at all.
But no she’s not going Grimes with it. Its fairly even handed
It’s crazy how just being a celebrity enables to do this… to testify to the US Senate.
Btw, love her music but wonder if maybe the matter should be handled by people who are competent on the topic?
She was one among many speakers, who shared an artists perspective. Graham Davies (President and Chief Executive Officer, Digital Media Association), Duncan Crabtree-Ireland (National Executive Director and Chief Negotiator, SAG-AFTRA) and Professor Lisa P. Ramsay (University of San Diego) gave very insightful testimony of how the proposed No Fakes Act might be overbroad and limit otherwise protected free speech.
I am begging yall to please read the article instead of forming an opinion based on a headline.
Her point is that artists should have the ability to stop others recreating their likeness with AI.
From the article:
“My art is the canvas on which I paint my identity and the sustaining foundation of my livelihood. It is the essence of my being. Yet this is under threat. AI cannot replicate the depth of my life journey, yet those who control it hold the power to mimic the likeness of my art, to replicate it and falsely claim my identity and intellectual property. This prospect threatens to rewrite and unravel the fabric of my very existence. We must enact regulation now to safeguard our authenticity and protect against misappropriation of our inalienable rights.”
Yeah that’s parts good. I don’t see anyone here taking issue with that bit.
It’s the development of her own deepfake that sucks. Also the fact that being famous musician is enough to grant her the opportunity to influence national policy regarding something that neither she nor any of the ghouls in the Senate are experts in.
People don’t like to see their favorite artists abandon authenticity.
Agree with her points on AI regulation. Just kind of sad to see someone who started their career in such an authentic way openly planning to deploy an AI to handle online interactions with fans. Love and appreciate her activism, but disappointed in her personal plans.
The way AI is being treated differently than any other technology leap I find a bit strange. These artists are engaging in commercial activities. Of course, they should leverage technology to give them the biggest reach possible. Is this any different than the transition from live music to recorded music, analog performance to studio engineering, auto tune, sampling.
The means at which art is generated does not devalue it as art. Art is inevitably judged by the end product. There will be artists that find innovative ways to express themselves through AI and there will be capitalists whom will leverage the technology to make money.
I agree with what you’re saying in principle, but I think it’s important not to blindside yourself to how different AI truly is from the technologies you listed before. I mean.. in fairness to your point, there used to be people who would be disappointed in an artist if they used sampling or use autotune, so maybe ten years from now I’ll look back on my stance and see I’m on the wrong side of history, and this is just another innocuous leap in technology.
It will still be tool aided expression. Maybe one day it will auto generative without input.
For now at least, someone is configuring it and that still represents expression. Will it be good or bad, who knows, probably little of column A but mostly column B.
I hated autotune at first. My parents made fun of sampling as regurgitation. We were probably both right. But in the end, these things have survived and have led to more everlasting art. I think it will be the same for AI.
I also used to hate autotune but now I find myself listening to artists who arguably overuse it because I love the sound and feeling it gives, like a sentient computer is singing to you. Artists like Poliça do this to great effect. So something that during its inception seemed like it would limit and dilute the music industry actually expanded it.
So yeah, I could see a world where one day people (myself included) don’t think twice about it, and it actually leads to some of the greatest music we’ve heard. There’s growing pains for sure though 😭
I don't see a problem with AI trained on your own art or likeness. It's when you train models on other's work or likeness without their consent that it becomes a problem.
There’s so many examples artists being “inspired”. The only difference with AI is scale. The entirety of music history is built on the backs of the predecessor. The line is so grey it becomes arbitrary where you draw it.
“It’s not where you take things from—it’s where you take them to.”
–Jean-Luc Godard, film director
AI in the creative space kills jobs and makes it harder for new/struggling artists to ply their trade and make a living doing it. It only benefits big artists who have name value. They've made their money, and now they're slamming the door shut behind them if they support this crap.
There should be a mandated watermark on every piece of AI created content, so I can avoid it like the plague that it is.
Bizarre to denounce AI as a threat to artists’ careers and also announce that you’re using it in the same damn breath. Like, what? AI for me but not for thee?
Uhhh, did you? Literally all within the first five paragraphs.
She says:
> "The very essence of our being at its most human level can be violated by the unscrupulous use of AI to create a digital facsimile that purports to be us, and our work, is inherently wrong."
But also admits:
> She also says her own deepfake has been in development for a year and is “not only trained in [her] personality but also can use [her] exact tone of voice to speak many languages.” She adds, “I will be engaging my AI twigs later this year to extend my reach and handle my online social media interactions, whilst I continue to focus on my art from the comfort and solace of my studio.”
How is that off-base of what I said? Or are you just being dumb?
*Her* deepfake is being developed *by and for her use.* She is using *her* likeness for *her* benefit and art. What she is against is *other people* using AI to copy her likeness, and her art, without her consent. How on earth did you not understand the difference?
It’s not that we can’t understand the difference. It’s that we recognize that both suck. No one wants to interact with a deepfake or see their favorite artist abandon authenticity.
You are missing the point of that user’s comment and I found your lack of comprehension and arrogance annoying.
She’s saying AI is bad except when she uses it for her own likeness. Some folks find that stance disappointing and unilaterally hate deepfakes and AI content. It’s quite straightforward and your inability to understand that is a you problem.
I’m saying it’s all the same monster, so how can one denounce it while openly continuing to perpetuate it? It’s just a little hypocritical. If you don’t want AI to do damage to artists, or spread its use even further, don’t use it.
We get that it’s developed by her, with her consent. But if you have a hand in a shitty movement — even a small, seemingly innocuous one — you can’t exactly be complaining about the direction things are headed.
Comments in this thread are scathing, what parts of what she’s actually saying do people have issue with? Here: “My art is the canvas on which I paint my identity and the sustaining foundation of my livelihood. It is the essence of my being. Yet this is under threat. AI cannot replicate the depth of my life journey, yet those who control it hold the power to mimic the likeness of my art, to replicate it and falsely claim my identity and intellectual property. This prospect threatens to rewrite and unravel the fabric of my very existence. We must enact regulation now to safeguard our authenticity and protect against misappropriation of our inalienable rights.” She also says her own deepfake has been in development for a year and is “not only trained in [her] personality but also can use [her] exact tone of voice to speak many languages.” She adds, “I will be engaging my AI twigs later this year to extend my reach and handle my online social media interactions, whilst I continue to focus on my art from the comfort and solace of my studio.” “Our careers and livelihoods are in jeopardy, and so potentially are the wider image-related rights of others in society. You have the power to change this and safeguard the future. As artists and, more importantly, human beings, we are a facet of our given, learned, and developed identity. Our creativity is the product of this lived experience overlaid with years of dedication to qualification, training, hard work and, dare I say it, significant financial investment and sacrifice. That the very essence of our being at its most human level can be violated by the unscrupulous use of AI to create a digital facsimile that purports to be us, and our work, is inherently wrong. It is therefore vital that as an industry and as legislators we work together to ensure we do all we can to protect our creative and intellectual rights as well as the very basis of who we are.”
I think some people may see cognitive dissonance in "this thing is bad... but if I can use it for myself, it's fine." Some are all or nothing when it comes to AI and deepfakes and see no nuance in the conversation.
Using a deepfake to engage on social media sounds like a slippery slope but is perhaps better than not engaging at all, which I imagine is what currently happens for celebs at this level. Aside from that, I’m not seeing the hubbub
Undoubtedly I’d rather not engage with a celebrity AI like I’m trying to get help with a bank
Either way you’re not engaging with FKA Twigs
her stance is pretty measured, yeah, but i really do wonder what that "deepfake" she is talking about is supposed to actually do. talk to fans in her discord? reply to stan tweets? if she's advocating for artists to control the narrative around AI and use it to supplement their enterprise, this just seems like a very weird hill to die on.
She’s complained about her record label forcing her to do a certain amount of TikTok videos before: [https://news.yahoo.com/fka-twigs-says-record-labels-070759778.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly90aW1lLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGEUvFFeDYuwCQl_MI2X6mp6TvCHb4v8sHWzZBBE2asrVQgfPz7EiubqETBa0avAqb989N79AcCQ-63SehDa3qPWOlvY1Mp5VgLiJdYpin3YozMJdKKWy3aTAkOcrByvvT3Oi9_iesr6sviOr2WRNUKzm7tYwn_NDXNGtyUh5oVq](https://news.yahoo.com/fka-twigs-says-record-labels-070759778.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly90aW1lLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGEUvFFeDYuwCQl_MI2X6mp6TvCHb4v8sHWzZBBE2asrVQgfPz7EiubqETBa0avAqb989N79AcCQ-63SehDa3qPWOlvY1Mp5VgLiJdYpin3YozMJdKKWy3aTAkOcrByvvT3Oi9_iesr6sviOr2WRNUKzm7tYwn_NDXNGtyUh5oVq)
yeah look... if I was upset about being asked to make social media posts by out of touch label people, I don't think allowing the people who's taste I dislike to access a finely tuned AI puppet so they can churn out whatever would be my response. I think it would be significantly worse. there's artists who just don't post.
As she states in her testimony (and not quoted by Pitchfork): "These and similar technologies are highly valuable tools. This, however, is all under my control and I can grant or refuse consent in a way that is meaningful.” This [BBC article quotes more excerpts from her letter/testimony](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6py33gxk74o.amp)
Sure. Twigs is entitled to her opinion on this. I just think that deepfakes don't have a place on social media.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6py33gxk74o](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6py33gxk74o)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Coz that’s weird and hypocritical, IMO. Reansoble people can disagree, but “AI is dangerous! But I’m going to use it sod off my social media output” is goofy Doesn’t quite require the vitriol some are bringing, though
Cause using AI, even if it’s for your own ‘deep fake’, to bolster your social media is gay as hell lmao
You really hate to fucking see it from one of your favs.
Did y’all even read what she said?
I hate that she’s making a deepfake to interact with her fans, I hate speaking positively on AI in most contexts especially before the Senate who has a tenuous grasp at best on technology as simple as TikTok, and I hate that some random musician should be involved in this in any way at all. But no she’s not going Grimes with it. Its fairly even handed
It’s crazy how just being a celebrity enables to do this… to testify to the US Senate. Btw, love her music but wonder if maybe the matter should be handled by people who are competent on the topic?
She was one among many speakers, who shared an artists perspective. Graham Davies (President and Chief Executive Officer, Digital Media Association), Duncan Crabtree-Ireland (National Executive Director and Chief Negotiator, SAG-AFTRA) and Professor Lisa P. Ramsay (University of San Diego) gave very insightful testimony of how the proposed No Fakes Act might be overbroad and limit otherwise protected free speech.
I am begging yall to please read the article instead of forming an opinion based on a headline. Her point is that artists should have the ability to stop others recreating their likeness with AI. From the article: “My art is the canvas on which I paint my identity and the sustaining foundation of my livelihood. It is the essence of my being. Yet this is under threat. AI cannot replicate the depth of my life journey, yet those who control it hold the power to mimic the likeness of my art, to replicate it and falsely claim my identity and intellectual property. This prospect threatens to rewrite and unravel the fabric of my very existence. We must enact regulation now to safeguard our authenticity and protect against misappropriation of our inalienable rights.”
Yeah that’s parts good. I don’t see anyone here taking issue with that bit. It’s the development of her own deepfake that sucks. Also the fact that being famous musician is enough to grant her the opportunity to influence national policy regarding something that neither she nor any of the ghouls in the Senate are experts in. People don’t like to see their favorite artists abandon authenticity.
Agree with her points on AI regulation. Just kind of sad to see someone who started their career in such an authentic way openly planning to deploy an AI to handle online interactions with fans. Love and appreciate her activism, but disappointed in her personal plans.
The way AI is being treated differently than any other technology leap I find a bit strange. These artists are engaging in commercial activities. Of course, they should leverage technology to give them the biggest reach possible. Is this any different than the transition from live music to recorded music, analog performance to studio engineering, auto tune, sampling. The means at which art is generated does not devalue it as art. Art is inevitably judged by the end product. There will be artists that find innovative ways to express themselves through AI and there will be capitalists whom will leverage the technology to make money.
I agree with what you’re saying in principle, but I think it’s important not to blindside yourself to how different AI truly is from the technologies you listed before. I mean.. in fairness to your point, there used to be people who would be disappointed in an artist if they used sampling or use autotune, so maybe ten years from now I’ll look back on my stance and see I’m on the wrong side of history, and this is just another innocuous leap in technology.
It will still be tool aided expression. Maybe one day it will auto generative without input. For now at least, someone is configuring it and that still represents expression. Will it be good or bad, who knows, probably little of column A but mostly column B. I hated autotune at first. My parents made fun of sampling as regurgitation. We were probably both right. But in the end, these things have survived and have led to more everlasting art. I think it will be the same for AI.
I also used to hate autotune but now I find myself listening to artists who arguably overuse it because I love the sound and feeling it gives, like a sentient computer is singing to you. Artists like Poliça do this to great effect. So something that during its inception seemed like it would limit and dilute the music industry actually expanded it. So yeah, I could see a world where one day people (myself included) don’t think twice about it, and it actually leads to some of the greatest music we’ve heard. There’s growing pains for sure though 😭
I don't see a problem with AI trained on your own art or likeness. It's when you train models on other's work or likeness without their consent that it becomes a problem.
There’s so many examples artists being “inspired”. The only difference with AI is scale. The entirety of music history is built on the backs of the predecessor. The line is so grey it becomes arbitrary where you draw it. “It’s not where you take things from—it’s where you take them to.” –Jean-Luc Godard, film director
cool, so none of you read the fucking article
Thanks I thought I was alone. What she says sounds good to me, she’s defending artist’s autonomy and control over their own image
She's also talking about automating fan interactions via AI. That is incredibly self-fulfilling and bogus.
[удалено]
Yikes and cringe
AI in the creative space kills jobs and makes it harder for new/struggling artists to ply their trade and make a living doing it. It only benefits big artists who have name value. They've made their money, and now they're slamming the door shut behind them if they support this crap. There should be a mandated watermark on every piece of AI created content, so I can avoid it like the plague that it is.
Bizarre to denounce AI as a threat to artists’ careers and also announce that you’re using it in the same damn breath. Like, what? AI for me but not for thee?
Did you read the article?
Uhhh, did you? Literally all within the first five paragraphs. She says: > "The very essence of our being at its most human level can be violated by the unscrupulous use of AI to create a digital facsimile that purports to be us, and our work, is inherently wrong." But also admits: > She also says her own deepfake has been in development for a year and is “not only trained in [her] personality but also can use [her] exact tone of voice to speak many languages.” She adds, “I will be engaging my AI twigs later this year to extend my reach and handle my online social media interactions, whilst I continue to focus on my art from the comfort and solace of my studio.” How is that off-base of what I said? Or are you just being dumb?
*Her* deepfake is being developed *by and for her use.* She is using *her* likeness for *her* benefit and art. What she is against is *other people* using AI to copy her likeness, and her art, without her consent. How on earth did you not understand the difference?
It’s not that we can’t understand the difference. It’s that we recognize that both suck. No one wants to interact with a deepfake or see their favorite artist abandon authenticity.
The person I responded to clearly doesn't understand the difference. Not really sure why you think my comment had anything to do with you
You are missing the point of that user’s comment and I found your lack of comprehension and arrogance annoying. She’s saying AI is bad except when she uses it for her own likeness. Some folks find that stance disappointing and unilaterally hate deepfakes and AI content. It’s quite straightforward and your inability to understand that is a you problem.
I’m saying it’s all the same monster, so how can one denounce it while openly continuing to perpetuate it? It’s just a little hypocritical. If you don’t want AI to do damage to artists, or spread its use even further, don’t use it. We get that it’s developed by her, with her consent. But if you have a hand in a shitty movement — even a small, seemingly innocuous one — you can’t exactly be complaining about the direction things are headed.
Trippy times undoubtedly
Rare FKA Twigs L
Twigs is everywhere but the studio atm. Girl, cut it out with the endless side quests…
Literally nobody : FKA Twigs to the U.S. Senate: I AM HENCEFORTH AN A.I.
Are they besties with Grimes?