VC Sees AI-generated Video Gutting the Creator Economy (businessinsider.com)
- Reference: 0180475003
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/12/29/186242/vc-sees-ai-generated-video-gutting-the-creator-economy
- Source link: https://www.businessinsider.com/lightspeed-partner-sora-creators-far-less-valuable-2025-12
Speaking on a podcast, Mignano described a future where content is generated instantaneously and artificially to suit the viewer. The TikTok algorithm is powerful, he said, but it still requires human beings to make content -- and there's a cost to that. AI could drive those costs down significantly. Mignano called this shift the "death of the creator" in a post, acknowledging it was "devastating" but arguing it marked a "whole new chapter for the internet."
In an email to Business Insider, Mignano wrote that quality will win out. "Platforms will no longer reward humans posting the same old, tried and true formats and memes," he wrote. "True uniqueness of image, likeness, and creativity will be the only viable path for human-created content."
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/lightspeed-partner-sora-creators-far-less-valuable-2025-12
Maybe Mignano should learn ... (Score:3)
Maybe Mignano should learn one of the new words of the last decade: "Parasocial relationships". The type of "content" doesn't matter much, you can make money even playing games for strangers, but it matters what kind of person you are.
To the degree people like fake people, real people are much better at being fake people. I don't see that changing.
Re: Maybe Mignano should learn ... (Score:2)
I can't see personalized content happening since there would be zero word of mouth. I could definitely see people being tricked with generated content, we saw it with the 2016 election and citizens of poorer countries farming views from idiots.
Robot heads 'reading' AI slop is still AI slop. (Score:3)
Most algorithmically generated content is... not worth paying for. Of course, 'in the future' AI will get better, and AI slop will disappear, says the man who's invested heavily in AI systems.
Much stock market and sports score reporting has been generated for years. That works when you have regularized inputs and narrow outputs. This is 'convert this table to text in pre-defined paragraph formats' and not that complicated. Will AI tools help content creators? Sure? Will it make content creators go away? Some. Others will use AI tools to generate even more content.
As for no-human-in-the-loop podcasts/YouTube channels? Those audiences of ten people that marketing f***wits are convinced will be 'microtargetted' consumers / voters are likely to be 90 per cent bots. It'll just be a huge waste of electricity.
hah! (Score:1)
"True uniqueness of image, likeness, and creativity will be the only viable path for human-created content."
And he thinks AI will win *that* fight? It's incapable of uniqueness or creativity. We need to say no to a world where humans don't interact with human generated content, otherwise, what's the point?
Re: (Score:2)
He's not going to say this part out loud; but, as best I can tell, one of the big features of 'AI' is essentially plagiarism-washing.
It hasn't been entirely litigated as yet; but so far you can, in practice, mostly get away with scraping whatever and shoving it into the 'training' slurry, allegedly a 'transformative' process; and then get a result that is a not-too-horribly mutilated version of what you put in that isn't a direct copy and is lightly tailored to whatever you prompted for.
You are...quit
Re: (Score:1)
I think we're on the same side of this discussion?
AI slop is exactly that. We, as consumers of that media, need to start saying no. We need to start flocking to content that expressly states it was not AI generated, otherwise these companies hocking a garbage product will continue to think it's the wave of the future. It doesn't have to be. And it shouldn't be. What AI generates isn't art. Art requires intention on the part of its creator. These tools are creating the slop. Just like the patron who commissi
Re: (Score:2)
> He's not going to say this part out loud; but, as best I can tell, one of the big features of 'AI' is essentially plagiarism-washing.
That is a really good term for it. I completely agree. I do not see that holding up when the likes of Disney get involved (as they have now) and the AI pushers essentially need to throw away most of their training data and trained LLMs when (not if) they lose that legal battle.
Re: (Score:2)
> And he thinks AI will win *that* fight? It's incapable of uniqueness or creativity.
I can't speak to the "creativity" part, because the older I get the less confident I am that I really know what creativity is. But as for "uniqueness", you might be interested in this: [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]. It's a music video made with AI assistance to process and integrate old photos and video footage. Predictably the results are weird, and some of them are oddly engaging and compelling. I don't think there's any denying that they're unique. There's surrealism present there that wouldn't be ou
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-27a1ugJX8U
Re: (Score:2)
> And he thinks AI will win *that* fight?
Indeed. Seems like somebody really deep in delusion. Probably talked too much with AI chatbots.
It marked a "whole new chapter for the internet." (Score:2)
> it marked a "whole new chapter for the internet."
Yes it's slow, painful death. 2025...the year that the greed of a handful of tech bros started the end of the internet.
Artificial content = Artificial flavoring (Score:2)
Do people really prefer artificial flavors in their food? If not then why would they prefer artificial content? I haven't seen any "AI" content that's been that interesting, and it's almost always easily detectable as fake. Myself, I prefer non-fiction over fiction, real experiences over tin-can generated nonsense. Why are we racing to the bottom?
Re: (Score:2)
"Do people really prefer artificial flavors in their food? If not then why would they prefer artificial content? "
You think 'natural' flavors are 'better'?
What those “natural flavors” are:
'Natural' Strawberry flavor mainly comes from aroma molecules made by fermenting sugars with moulds or bacteria, or extracted from lignin in wood chips.
Vanilla is mostly vanillin from wood pulp or fermented rice bran.
Raspberry flavor often comes from fungal fermentation producing raspberry ketone.
Citrus flavors
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at the views 100% some AI generated content gets on YouTube, sadly people seems to view it.
It is not just shorts videos, there is AI generated stories, fake audio clips of famous people that is all AI, easy to hide if you pretend it is from an old radio show or a podcast, sometimes you can still detect it in the voice generation, them using modern words or formed sentences that they wouldn't have at that time.
And also many fake reviews. I recently came across a "Top 6 TVs to buy", by the second
Who gives a shit. (Score:3)
Listening to "venture capitalists", who maybe got one thing right one time and made 10000x their investment is as useful as asking previous powerball winners to pick your lottery numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Confirmation bias on steroids. For every one that got lucky, there are 1000's that failed. The failed ones just do not have an interesting story with that. May as well take advice from lottery winners that think their "number systems" reveal deep truths about the universe.
AI would allow easier entry (Score:2)
AI is not something that only the big guys can do.
Yes, right now, AI Slop is cheap to do for people with money. But it doesn't have to be that way. Right now, without AI, it costs a lot of money to make high quality video. Especially if you are putting up artwork or need props. Cheap AI can let someone do a voice only channel with just AI back grounds.
But an ugly poor person with a microphone and a laptop could use AI to make their own channel on anything from space travel to fashion for a lot less mon
Creator Economy? (Score:2)
Here I thought this was about people that actual create things, you know, in the real world. Woodworking, crafts, etc.
Nope it's the content creator , which for the most part are in it for the quick money like bloggers or (gag) influencers. Most will not be missed.
Re: (Score:2)
Some creators do both. Some of my favourite people to follow are artisans that do woodworking or metalworking or interesting sorts of crafting. I love videos of old Chinese dudes making or fixing teapots and stuff.
Hard to believe that AI is going to stomp those folks out--the whole point is I want to see what a skilled human can create in the real world. My enjoyment of the content is specifically linked to the fact that a human makes it and that I could either potentially make it or buy it for myself.
Covering a turd in glitter (Score:2)
It won't take long for users to demand real content, there are only so many 'surreal' (pointless/stupid) videos that people can consume, surely? Do I need an animated character to tell me a dad joke when I could instead share a lofi meme format that consumes a few KB, at little cost to the environment?
bet (Score:2)
AI content is awful. It's only interesting and watchable when you've seen it for the first time. After watching enough of it you begin to notice how it's all the EXACT same thing. And then after a bit more, it starts to feel like nails on a chalkboard. And then after watching a bit more, it feels like nails in your skull. The instant I recognize something as AI content, I unsubscribe.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Sometimes I do a bit of aimless wandering on YouTube. The amount of mindless slop is crazy. By now some of the video is good enough you do not see it, but the content and "messages" pushed are pure mindless crap.
Seems some people like slop (Score:2)
Personally, I find it horrible and disgusting, but apparently some people just like their egos stroked over everything else. Way to never grow as a person. Way to never have a new thought. What a complete and utter fail as a person.
"Of course I think that" (Score:4, Informative)
"From what I have invested in my paycheck depends on it being true!"
Lightspeed is founded by Dario Amodei who was co-founder of Anthropic. I'm sorry but a VC firm giving predictions on the future ain't worth much. They need this to be true even if they have to make it so by sheer force of will (and billions of $)
Re: (Score:2)
That the partner being quoted made his money off a platform he now says is doomed lends it some extra weight, no?
I'm kind of hoping that he's basically right and that AI slop will crowd out anything worth watching on the social platforms - and kill them dead.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's made his money and I have to assume anything he says is in the service of increasing his wealth. Is that overly cynical? Maybe but I don't think any of us can be blamed for that.
Re: (Score:2)
My experience is that people continue to care about the things they did or built long after moving on, though you could be right. But, honestly, being overly cynical is probably blameworthy. Or else it wouldn't be "overly".
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose it being blameworthy depends on whether it's justified. My personal feeling is cynicism and skepticism around the Venture Capital class is warranted so I'll withdraw my overly and replace it with adequate.
And while it could be down to just someone caring we can be skeptical when that caring also just happens to be extremely financially rewarding. Those two things aren't exclusive all the time but it being a happy coincidence is eyebrow raising.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean by "social media"? For example I would argue YouTube is social media. YT is rapidly being swamped in AI slop. Soon it will be impossible to ever find anything real. That is a huge loss of a valuable resource.
I would argue that everything I can surf on the net is "social media". And that is rapidly being swamped by AI slop as well.
Basically I see AI making the entire internet useless. Or impossible to use. After AI has crowded out anything real as you say.
I wish we had an idea as to what to
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, YouTube and everywhere else people post videos. I would not expand that very far, certainly not to everything I surf. Entra.microsoft.com, for example, is not social media. These forums, maybe. SentinelOne, no. Nor Hulu, Prime, Netflix, HBO, etc.
But, yes, it could slopify and ruin everything. But, maybe everyone will have an AI that filters that out.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh.
On one hand- I agree, mostly.
Hype coming from an invested VC is dubious.
However- market manipulation is illegal, even for them. Of course- such a thing is hard to prove. (Prove that I don't believe what I just said)
On the other hand, one can argue that the investment itself gives their words value, since they believed it enough to put their money where their mouth is.
For example, say this same person said that "Curated podcast hosts are the future of the medium."
Well, they were right.
Note that
Re: (Score:3)
They're not worthless but the summary presents this like the VC is some unbiased free-market source and not totally biased based on their investment portfolio and board members. Is that It's basically Sponsored Content masquerading as opinion is really more my point.
Like if Sam Altman interviewed and he comes to the same conclusion it doesn't make his words worthless but we're gonna look it with some side eye and understand where it's coming from and apply the appropriate amount of skepticism.
Basically i
Re: (Score:2)
Mmh- ya, that's fair. I do agree that conflicts should be clearly indicated.
Re: (Score:2)
> VC firm giving predictions on the future ain't worth much
I think you have misunderstood. The aim here is not to predict the future, it is to create it. Everyone should understand this; "AI" as we now know it has no original thought other than limited interpolation made interesting through the injection of randomness. All "AI" is "stealing" or "unlicensed copying" other people's works in order to make money from them without having to do the effort of actually learning* about and understanding the topic that the AI generates content about.
These guys are trying to
Re: "Of course I think that" (Score:3)
Yes, humans can do *other kinds* of learning, but the kind of learning that LLMs do sure looks to me to be identical to one particularly common mode of human learning: statistical analysis and random variation. How does that style of LLM learning differ from what humans do other than scale? Take the Alhambra in Spain. Full of geometric art â" glorious. People study it and reverse engineer the patterns used to create it, then spin new patterns by slightly varying the original geometrics. In photography,