Interesting AI experiment - King Follett Sermon

[JLHPROF]

AI was used to put together a video of the Prophet Joseph delivering the King Follett Discourse.

Fascinating idea. Obviously the accuracy of the imagery is debatable but the idea of being able to "see" Joseph deliver a discourse is interesting.  We've seen numerous actors portray the Savior delivering the Sermon on the Mount.  I just thought the project interesting.

Thoughts?

 

[MustardSeed]

Thanks for posting - I’m not a super fan but I can see why some folks would be excited about this type of thing. 
 

 

[Kenngo1969]

Nah!  Joseph Smith is the spitting image of Paul Wuthrich!  😁

Seriously, I wonder how much thought was put into how Joseph might've sounded.

 

[webbles]

It is interesting.  I don't care for seeing live actors portray the Savior because the actors don't look or sound correct to me (this includes all of the church videos which I have a hard time watching), and I kind of have the same problem here, though it is just an AI version.  And it is too much uncanny valley as well.  First time I started the video, I had to quickly quit it because of how jarring it was.  But others probably don't have those problems.

[The Nehor]

This sounds way too much like a modern General Conference.

Also worried that he is going to hurt his jaw doing that.

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, webbles said:

It is interesting.  I don't care for seeing live actors portray the Savior because the actors don't look or sound correct to me (this includes all of the church videos which I have a hard time watching), and I kind of have the same problem here, though it is just an AI version.  And it is too much uncanny valley as well.  First time I started the video, I had to quickly quit it because of how jarring it was.  But others probably don't have those problems.

I do. 

[JAHS]

Don't like it. Brother Joseph is turning over in his grave if he hasn't already been resurrected.

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

It is interesting.  I don't care for seeing live actors portray the Savior because the actors don't look or sound correct to me (this includes all of the church videos which I have a hard time watching), and I kind of have the same problem here, though it is just an AI version.  And it is too much uncanny valley as well.  First time I started the video, I had to quickly quit it because of how jarring it was.  But others probably don't have those problems.

I agree, the mouth movements are all too exaggerated and unnatural.  I can't watch it.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I agree, the mouth movements are all too exaggerated and unnatural.  I can't watch it.

Give it a month or two and that problem will likely be resolved (or some money to fine tune it).

[longview]

17 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I agree, the mouth movements are all too exaggerated and unnatural.  I can't watch it.

I was struck by how much arm and hand gesticulating. It made me think of Elder Uchtdorf's energetic arm movements. Half expecting him to start signing in ASL (deaf sign language).

[ZealouslyStriving]

I don't know how he thinks the accent approximates Joseph who was a native of Vermont. Doesn't sound very New Englander to me.

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Give it a month or two and that problem will likely be resolved (or some money to fine tune it).

The technology is already there for natural and realistic AI characters, but it's probably not as commonly available to the average YouTube creator as some people would like (I don't know really).

[ZealouslyStriving]

14 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

The technology is already there for natural and realistic AI characters, but it's probably not as commonly available to the average YouTube creator as some people would like (I don't know really).

Sori is pretty dang good.

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

The technology is already there for natural and realistic AI characters, but it's probably not as commonly available to the average YouTube creator as some people would like (I don't know really).

That’s why I was thinking money would help.  Pay someone who knew how to fine tune it. 

[webbles]

Would Joseph be more of a fire and brimestone style preacher?  Raising his voices at times, maybe even yelling at certain points?  The speech pattern here is too smooth.  I heard something similar from an AI recreated speech of Hyrum Smith (no visual, just voice) and it also bugged me because it was like he was trying to put me to sleep.

[Kenngo1969]

11 hours ago, webbles said:

Would Joseph be more of a fire and brimestone style preacher?  Raising his voices at times, maybe even yelling at certain points?  The speech pattern here is too smooth.  I heard something similar from an AI recreated speech of Hyrum Smith (no visual, just voice) and it also bugged me because it was like he was trying to put me to sleep.

Did it work?  I mean, did he succeed?*    

Sorry!    Couldn't resist!  

  

*Asking for a friend who has insomnia.  

[JLHPROF]

13 hours ago, webbles said:

Would Joseph be more of a fire and brimestone style preacher?  Raising his voices at times, maybe even yelling at certain points?  The speech pattern here is too smooth.  I heard something similar from an AI recreated speech of Hyrum Smith (no visual, just voice) and it also bugged me because it was like he was trying to put me to sleep.

Yep - I think this creation lacks passion and power.  The standardized General Conference voice. (At least it's not Primary voice).

Somehow I think Joseph was a little more emotive.

[JVW]

This is kind of related, but not directly so.

I think that this video is evil.

I believe that it is wrong to use AI to enable someone to speak from the dead. I think it is exceptionally wrong for the funeral industry to do this (though I see it as an inevitability that a company will start who creates AI generated messages spoken by recently deceased loved ones). But I think it's wrong for AI to do this with any historical figure, regardless of how recently departed they are.

I understand that actors will depict people to tell stories, or artists will draw or animate those who have passed on to communicate something. In these cases there is no deception. Unlike with AI which presents an impossible-to-prevent internal brain deception. It's like how with VR, even though I know its fake, my primitive brain still processes it as if its real. Try playing a scary game on PC vs VR and you'll know what I mean.

I also understand that Elder Gong is a huge AI guy, and the church is really pushing AI internally at the COB. They used it at the recent Tabernacle choir Christmas concert and it was used beautifully (though I thought it was a bit tragic that the church decided to skimp out on paying artists to create images and short video clips for use). But in the case of using AI to allow the dead to live again, I think it's crossing a line and it is inherently an evil thing to use AI for.

Thus ends my rant. Thanks for reading it.

[bluebell]

52 minutes ago, JVW said:

This is kind of related, but not directly so.

I think that this video is evil.

I believe that it is wrong to use AI to enable someone to speak from the dead. I think it is exceptionally wrong for the funeral industry to do this (though I see it as an inevitability that a company will start who creates AI generated messages spoken by recently deceased loved ones). But I think it's wrong for AI to do this with any historical figure, regardless of how recently departed they are.

I understand that actors will depict people to tell stories, or artists will draw or animate those who have passed on to communicate something. In these cases there is no deception. Unlike with AI which presents an impossible-to-prevent internal brain deception. It's like how with VR, even though I know its fake, my primitive brain still processes it as if its real. Try playing a scary game on PC vs VR and you'll know what I mean.

I also understand that Elder Gong is a huge AI guy, and the church is really pushing AI internally at the COB. They used it at the recent Tabernacle choir Christmas concert and it was used beautifully (though I thought it was a bit tragic that the church decided to skimp out on paying artists to create images and short video clips for use). But in the case of using AI to allow the dead to live again, I think it's crossing a line and it is inherently an evil thing to use AI for.

Thus ends my rant. Thanks for reading it.

Do you consider creating AI generated messages for those who have died to be different than what this video does, which is a sermon actually written by JS, but with an AI generated video of him saying it?

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

This is kind of related, but not directly so.

I think that this video is evil.

I believe that it is wrong to use AI to enable someone to speak from the dead. I think it is exceptionally wrong for the funeral industry to do this (though I see it as an inevitability that a company will start who creates AI generated messages spoken by recently deceased loved ones). But I think it's wrong for AI to do this with any historical figure, regardless of how recently departed they are.

I understand that actors will depict people to tell stories, or artists will draw or animate those who have passed on to communicate something. In these cases there is no deception. Unlike with AI which presents an impossible-to-prevent internal brain deception. It's like how with VR, even though I know its fake, my primitive brain still processes it as if its real. Try playing a scary game on PC vs VR and you'll know what I mean.

I also understand that Elder Gong is a huge AI guy, and the church is really pushing AI internally at the COB. They used it at the recent Tabernacle choir Christmas concert and it was used beautifully (though I thought it was a bit tragic that the church decided to skimp out on paying artists to create images and short video clips for use). But in the case of using AI to allow the dead to live again, I think it's crossing a line and it is inherently an evil thing to use AI for.

Thus ends my rant. Thanks for reading it.

I hate AI! Dumbing down all of us, IMO. And deceptive, giving people a false sense of security when thinking AI isn't usually wrong, but it is. Watched something the other day where AI insisted there were three T's in committee. 

Years ago my husband and I went to Nauvoo and we got the in person King Follett Sermon in the exact spot it happened with a great actor portraying JS and saying the exact speech. Quite an experience. 

It was much better than this AI version, IMO.

[JVW]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Do you consider creating AI generated messages for those who have died to be different than what this video does, which is a sermon actually written by JS, but with an AI generated video of him saying it?

Yes, I do think there is a difference. Creating AI videos of recently dearly departed loved ones is taking advantage of those in mourning for money, and I view it as quite literally emotional, mental, and spiritual abuse. I don't know if science will ever be able to confidently discern what impact these kinds of videos will have on people, but I'm sure they are coming (see Charlie Kirk's "America's Pastor" doing this exact thing to his congregation. Nasty!), and it's not normal to see angels even if they're fake. When someone is dead, they are gone, and that is part of the human experience. To try and change that to make money is evil. One day they could very well create robots of the loved one trained on the myriad data that exists for each of us through Amazon Sidewalk and Flock, that's without even considering social media apps and gadgets; and sell these robots to those who are grieving. How will any of this impact the natural mourning process? It can't be good.

AI video of dead prophets giving sermons mostly falls in the camp of what's usually wrong with AI: stealing, lying, etc. But due to the religious element and religions and cults having a lot of overlap there is an additional element at play here though I can't quite put my finger on what that is. For Joseph Smith, specifically, who founded a church with many members who behave as if they are in a cult (I offload my thinking to the brethren, etc). Joseph, who is regarded as a greater prophet than Moses, who is constantly cited by the Jews when they want to make any serious point about God. It just adds up to something negative in my gut. What do you think?

It could be argued that there's a statute of limitations. Creating AI for King Henry VIII or the apostle Paul is different than creating AI for Walt Disney or Joseph Smith simply due to the amount of time the person has had to fade away. And what if someone makes AI of someone living today but they die tomorrow? My position is that nobody should have AI made of them, period. I think it's wrong by every reasonable metric. Especially if the one who died didn't give consent.

On another derail since I'm on one about AI. Here's this lovely article (100% worth the read) about the relationship between AI and Venezuela https://substack.com/home/post/p-184044880. Long story short. America crashed Venezuela economy (2016-2018), AI tech companies paid Venezuelans 50c - $2/hr to train AI with captchas and stuff, then America used AI to capture Maduro and used AI to spread fake footage of what happened in Venezuela to sow seeds of confusion.

AI is nasty, and none of us can opt out. For all you know I wrote this post using AI. Cheers!

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

hate AI! Dumbing down all of us, IMO. And deceptive, giving people a false sense of security when thinking AI isn't usually wrong, but it is.

I hate how AI is being used in way too many fields.  It’s pretty dang fantastic for the good stuff it can do, such as speeding up medical research.

Like any extraordinarily powerful tool, it needs to be used with caution and unfortunately that’s not obvious to some people or they just don’t care.

[Emily]

6 hours ago, JVW said:

 

I personally like AI. I recognize it is very new technology and full of bugs, but I enjoy using it and look forward to seeing where it goes in the future.

I do think content created with AI needs to be clearly labeled, and some legal controls are probably going to be needed to make that happen. It makes errors and it enables false narratives. But so do movies, television, radio (don't forget the "War of the Worlds" debacle of early radio) and historical records where the scribes were much too busy catering to the ego of a monarch to bother with the truth.  

Humans have always needed to be wary when it comes to believing the stories told to us by someone who is more interested in our pocket book or allegiance than our well being. We will just have to learn to extend that wariness to AI.

AI is no different from any other tool -- in and of itself, it is neither good nor evil, but we will need to make the people wielding that tool accountable for any harm that may occur when using it. Manufacturers need to be diligent about installing safeguards and users need to be diligent about not using it inappropriately.

In the meantime, I have a tool that can look things up for me much faster than I was able to do on my own, that provides me references on demand so I can double check data and interpretation of the data, and that readily acknowledges and apologizes when I catch it in a mistake. I find the latter trait so refreshing. I hope humans start learning from that. 

6 hours ago, JVW said:

 

 

Edited January 13 by Emily

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

hate AI! Dumbing down all of us, IMO. And deceptive, giving people a false sense of security when thinking AI isn't usually wrong, but it is.

I hate how AI is being used in way too many fields.  It’s pretty dang fantastic for the good stuff it can do, such as speeding up medical research.

Like any extraordinarily powerful tool, it needs to be used with caution and unfortunately that’s not obvious to some people or they just don’t care.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

How will any of this impact the natural mourning process? It can't be good.

Given each culture approaches death differently I am not sure what the natural grieving process is unless it’s waking up in the cave or hut and having to bury the dead that didn’t make it through the night.  Even back then they were burying loved ones with little treasures though.

There are some cultures that treat their dead loved ones as almost alive as their living ones with shrines in homes, etc.

I do think AI representations with new material….such as inserting dead actors into new films or commercials is going too far.

Part of it is the issue of consent…but then some people see our baptisms of the dead in the same way.  
 

Iow, it’s a complicated, confusing mess like most things about human relationships.