Influencers of the Damned

I’ll keep this brief.

When I was a kid there was Josephine the Plumber selling me Comet and Madge the Manicurist selling me Palmolive dishwashing soap. 

Okay, my Mom was the target audience but nevertheless I liked them and thought they were lots of fun. 

But neither I, nor almost anyone else, ever thought they were real.

Hello ladies!

Josephine was a can-do, no b.s. kind of gal in white overalls, the kind of person you’d expect to see playing Aunt Eller in a regional theatre production of Oklahoma if the character of Josephine actually existed and was not a creation of Madison Ave. and veteran comic movie actress Jane Withers.

As for Madge, she wore a pale blue uniform and seemed to have been around long enough to impart to you not only the latest gossip but many of the most carefully kept beauty secrets of the world.  Among them was her reveal to a rather shocked customer in every TV commercial over 30 years that the tray of dewy liquid she had their fingers dunked in at the nail station was actually Palmolive soap.

Palmolive Palmolive Naturals GIF - Palmolive Palmolive Naturals Julia  Barretto - Discover & Share GIFs
Oh Madge, you genius

How she managed to convince millions of 1960s housewives that hand washing their dishes with this stuff was the equivalent of bathing their hands in a youthful elixir was in large part due to Jan Miner, the classically trained theatre actress who had a long career both on and off-Broadway, including numerous Shakesperean productions.

Now, there is nothing wrong using your natural talents to create and promote all sorts of things.  After all, we humans need to make a living.

What is troubling to The Chair, aka Me, was this article on the cover of the NY Times Arts section on Saturday

What a headline

It described the labors of a large handful of A.I. “creators,” and several A.I. content firms that employ them.  It seems they are hard at work on building dozens of “personas” of artificial people to sell products, expertise and even images of beauty so all of us real people can become just like their advanced selves. 

Talk about chasing the dragon…

Close Blinds GIFs | Tenor
I think I’ve seen enough.

Many of these artificial people will even be given pseudo real-life backstory bios to make us relate to and trust them and subscribe to what they are selling.  Things like a dead brother, a history of being bullied they had to overcome or a broken love affair that almost destroyed them.

Is nothing sacred?  Not even a lousy boyfriend in my past???

No Secrets GIFs - Find & Share on GIPHY
Only you and your phone recording your every thought and word knows

Yes, that was rhetorical.

In some cases, such as the literal fake pouty blonde model who didn’t exist that was used by Guess in an ad last summer in Vogue, they want young women to aspire to look like them.

Parents beware. 

AI in 'Vogue' shakes the industry: visionary fashion move or a death knell  for real models?
Is the print hypnotizing on purpose?

As well as anyone who thought they ever looked good in a pair of jeans.

Well, perhaps this is old news.

No doubt, many of you have heard about the literal fake movie actress named Tilly Norwood that has an agent and a planned feature film in the works. I even wrote about it here. 

But it seems she is just the tip of the Waymos, I mean, sidewalk delivery robots, I mean BellaBots, I mean _____________.

Waymo death gif | Steph Davidson | design motion and code
My fate in a Waymo

Here are some influencers, sellers, personas – aka 2026-2030’s version of Josephine and Madge – to come that the NY Times so generously reported on:

Lila Walker, a ginger-haired granola girl that specializes in and hawks tips on knitting and crafting.

Nigel Thistledown, a white-bearded, bow-tied, beret-wearing, tea-sipping British gent who knows everything about gardening since he’s seated in his A.I. garden.

And finally, V. V. Steele, a snarky celebrity gossip who, according to this report, is a physical mashup of Kim Kardashian, Angelina Jolie and Veronica Lodge (Note: The latter from Archie comics fame).

First tip off – no one has lighting this good

Since A.I. uses images and knowledge of pretty much everything that has ever been posted, recorded, photographed or written about in existence, there will be no significant participation for pretty much any of the above, or any of us, who might have posted a thing or two about growing a plant, crocheting a sweater or predicting the next celebrity scandal.

Instead, the corporations/conglomerates/oligarchs who own the companies employing what I like to call the “faux creative button pushers” responsible for this digital slop will be the ones making the major dough.

That, is, if we frequent their non-human creation/things and what they are selling.

Why I'm declining your AI generated MR - Stuart Spence Blog
The AI slop bots are the new fire

At least, Jane Withers and Jan Miner got to buy houses, do local theatre and support their families with their money. 

Every other human being who ever sold you anything on a commercial, or at any real-life brick store, also got paid to for their efforts.

Even it wasn’t enough, at least it was at a living wage.

Who Is Flo from Progressive ? - TheMarketingblog
Protect Flo at all costs!

Because in some cases, they needed that money to do essential human things. 

Like eat.

A.I. personas, bot things and digitized inventions based on all the niche knowledge in all the fields we, as a society, have generated, do not have to feed in the literal sense.

Though they are already feeding on us in other essential ways.

Editorial cartoon: AI eats the world
Eat up

And unless we stop treating the acceptance of “them” and their “creators” as some sort of inevitable, unrestrainable progress, our fair share in every essential field in the zeitgeist will be swallowed whole by the lot of them.

Led by the oligarchical, uber elite who think we’re too dumb to notice.

Palmolive Commercial – Madge

The Artificial Intelligentsia

Now that Project Hail Mary has grossed $400 million worldwide and still going strong, two points have been proven.

#1 – Ryan Gosling is one of our last remaining and enduring movie stars under 50.  I mean, anyone who can headline a film opposite a literal rock and build a humanistic relationship with a faceless voice in an offscreen booth that makes us laugh, cry and send us into existential thought while looking dreamy, has to be anointed our 21st century Cary Grant.

Ryan Gosling Takes Flight With Must-See First 5 Minutes of 'Project Hail  Mary'
… all the while in this dorky sweater!

AND –

#2 – It is still possible to make a movie in a timely fashion without artificial intelligence that people all over the world will see. 

Again and Again.

And again.

(Note: Project Hail Mary famously avoided AI in favor of real sets, practical effects and, well, actual people, puppets and physical…rocks!)

James Ortiz '10 Makes a Faceless Puppet Irresistible • Acting • Purchase  College
We love a practical effect!!

The possibility that this could continue to any sort of financial and/or creative advantage is not what the internet, corporate rich folk or your basic industry pundit would have you or I believe.

What so many would like us to think is that the end of the alive talents in the industry as we know it is coming courtesy of AI and that every movie in the 2100s will feature a movie star with some not so distant relation to Tilly Norwood.

Though I hate to give her/IT any additional publicity, if you must, click here:

Very uninterested in whatever this is

Many of my students work as interns at various Hollywood companies, and more than a handful have recounted stories in the last few months about a person or persons obsessed with talking about, dealing with, or having them deal with AI. 

These tend NOT to be top tier people but rather those who dream the shortcuts technology might offer are a substitute for the hard work and creativity it takes to make something audiences will want to pay to consume en masse that is memorable — or even any good.

When the subject comes up of teaching young writers AI tools my response is usually something like this – we don’t teach them to type, even though that is a much needed technical skill for screenwriters and cuts down on time. Instead, we teach them to think and dream and sweat out the stories they want to tell by studying, watching and using their imaginations to bring their projects to realization. 

Bit by bit.  Day by day. And month by month.

Or, as one of the GOAT writing professors of all-time, Anne Lamott once wrote:

Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life: Lamott, Anne:  8601404243813: Amazon.com: Books
Love you

I came across an article in the Hollywood Reporter this week that claimed to survey more than a dozen assistants in the industry who are being asked, or in some cases, encouraged, ahem, to use AI in order to do their jobs. Presumably quicker.

Some companies are absolutely anti AI and others are open or inclined to have support staff use it.  But as one former assistant noted, no one has given any thought to the fact that when you post a movie star or executive’s schedule or contract paperwork onto an AI tool to write a cohesive memo you are in essence opening that information up to public digital tools.

Data theft gif Images - Free Download on Freepik
ruh roh

So even though, as another assistant mentioned, it helps when you have to send a bottle of wine to a remote movie set location, and need to figure out the fastest way to get it there, it begs the question of how easy it will be for so many others to infiltrate that location for whatever disruptive or juicy tabloid fodder they may attempt to come up with.

Or have AI come up with.

You see what I mean.

Gossip GIFs | Tenor
and you know we love gossip

Nevertheless, The Hollywood Reporter will this month release an entire special issue devoted to AI, so we have that to look forward to.  As well as so many follow-ups too numerous to count from ad infinitum sources.

Now before the hissing and booing gets too loud from the peanut gallery, let’s agree that no one is saying that advancements in technologies can’t be beneficial in some areas.

Namely, if AI can take all the science ever published and come up with a cure for cancer, we’re ALL all-in. 

Where do you stand on AI? Good or bad? I'm very optimistic about the future  of AI, and its potential to revolutionize the way we live. :  r/OptimistsUnite
What if I’m sitting in the aisle?

That is, as long as it’s checked out and confirmed by actual human clinical studies before it goes on the market.

This is where technology can shine and will shine.

However, when it’s used as a cost-cutting method to further dumb down the world to an even lower common denominator, or bore us to death or even down further into our isolated psychological shells with mediocrity, count the majority of us out.

I don’t know about you, but I’m already beginning to read emails and press releases that I’d bet $100 bucks are AI generated. 

NIST AI 100-4: Synthetic Media Detection for CISOs
Mind… blown…

So jolly, so glib, so vacant of anything approaching a real point of view that might offend or truly inform anyone in a more recognizably alive, humanistic way.

And don’t get this flower child started on the driverless Waymo car that seems everywhere in Los Angeles. 

Not getting in one, and never want to drive behind one. 

No photo description available.
Brilliant

For one thing, they literally will NEVER think to continue that left turn through the yellow light!  Which literally means.  PROCEED, with caution.

That’s what I say about AI.

Proceed if you dare.

But think about the consequences of your actions for your future. 

And for ours.

Aretha Franklin – “Think”