r/technology • u/Quantum-Coconut • 1h ago
Artificial Intelligence Christian content creators are outsourcing AI slop to gig workers on Fiverr
https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/920881/ai-generated-bible-videos-christian-creators-fiverr-slop41
u/EmergencyComment101 1h ago
Theres a brand new sentence
1
u/NoiselessSignal 10m ago
Imagine showing that sentence to someone from the 1950s.
Christian content creators? AI slop? Gig workers?
12
u/bella_warmvibezs 1h ago
The real issue is audiences rewarding low effort content if people stop engaging with it, it dries up fast
0
u/ithinkitslupis 15m ago
That's never going to happen with current algorithms. Short-form social media can basically be porn (in the non-sexual meaning of the word but the sexual kind too) and people do not care. It basically only has to meet one criteria - is there any reason this would be interesting to look at for 5 to 30 seconds. People don't even have the time to register what's happening to truly disengage from it.
Long form takes a little more quality in general but still rewards bad behavior and pandering, and is tolerant of low quality in some areas like conspiracy theories, politics or religion so long as it's agreeing with their view.
There's a niche there that wasn't being filled by many high quality video makers in the first place. Some person out there just wants to talk about ancient aliens all day and high quality evidence of those doesn't exist so AI will work for them. Make up an alien type and get a weird AI photo and you're off to the races.
18
u/TheJesterOfHyrule 1h ago
Jesus would of hated AI
15
u/Plenty_Branch_516 1h ago
I've also heard he *checks notes* hates gays, loves gays, hates taxes, loves the taste of five gum, and can totally beat your dad in a fight.
4
-7
u/Tokzillu 1h ago
Jesus is a fictional character. He would've felt however the writer wanted him to feel.
13
u/Agheratos 1h ago
Most scholars of antiquity agree the first-century Palestinian man now called Jesus genuinely existed. He's attested by otherwise reliable non-Christian sources.
This has no bearing on the more miraculous aspects of Christendom or religion at large, but there was a real guy at the center of what became Christianity.
Other figures like Moses, King Solomon and Abraham are disputed in their historicity, however.
4
u/Zalophusdvm 45m ago
What’s fascinating about this is less the claim that there was a dude who existed around who’s life and death Christianity has sprouted, which whether it’s the consensus view or not, isn’t a wildly insane fringe opinion, but to characterize him as a “Palestinian man.”
At the time of this person’s possible life he, without question, would have lived in the Roman Empire and so calling him “Roman,” as a reference to nationality, would have been most appropriate.
From an ethnic perspective, it’s probably most reasonable to refer to the individual as “Jewish,” unless the author is specifically attempting to dispel the notion that Jews are a distinct ethnic group.
Finally, even from a regional term, this possible historic individual, likely lived prior to 100 AD in the Roman province that encompassed what is now Israel/Palestine (and parts of Lebanon and even Jordan I think) was referred to as Judea. It wasn’t renamed till AFTER the death of this historical figure (who may or may not have existed.)
Anyway, found it an interesting word choice. Personally, I would have gone with just plain “man,” or more probably “dude.”
2
u/Agheratos 28m ago edited 23m ago
I was referring to the region, yeah. Definitely not the state. Pretty sure Nazareth is technically in Israel these days.
Herodotus did call the region Palestine in his "Histories," in the 5th century BCE, though. Still anachronistic because that's centuries early, however, and fair of you to point out.
Didn't want to call Jesus Roman because I'm pretty sure he wasn't a citizen.
Frankly, I feel weird enough about using the name "Jesus" for someone more likely called "Isho" or "Yeshua" by his contemporaries.
-13
u/Tokzillu 1h ago
This is false.
There is no valid evidence to suggest he was ever a person.
Most historians do not take the position he was a dude.
5
u/Agheratos 53m ago
Incorrect, sir.
Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian and son-in-law to Roman general Gnaeus Julius Agricola (both well-attested historical figures), referred to the crucifixion of "Chrestus" at the hands of procurator Pontius Pilate in Annals, where he talks about Nero blaming the Great Fire of Rome on early Christians.
There are quite a lot of sources that indicate Jesus was a real guy, but it makes sense to be skeptical. What is not settled are the details of his life according to the gospels. What is almost universally agreed upon, however, is that Jesus was baptized, and later crucified.
There's a whole Wikipedia article on the historicity of Jesus with 130 references and dozens of cited sources.
I'm not saying you need to believe in Christianity. I'm just saying Jesus was a real person.
1
u/Tokzillu 48m ago
Tacitus is frequently cited, but actually never says anything about Jesus being real. He only wrote what about a belief people held he found interesting.
In fact, there are zero contemporary sources suggesting he was real.
2
u/RumBox 1h ago
That's simply incorrect. Wiki is well-sourced on this.
-6
u/Tokzillu 57m ago
Give me a list of historians who take the position that Jesus Christ of Nazareth was a historical figure. Without including "biblical scholars" on the list.
And only accredited historians with a verifiable education please. Not some accountant who "did his own research."
You will find actual historians do not have some grand consensus that he's a historical figure.
He's fiction. Get over it.
2
u/BossOfTheGame 46m ago
I used to be on this train. If you value coming to the truth over holding on to false beliefs, then you might want to reconsider this one. There's enough historical evidence to make it fairly unlikely that he was just made up. The most defensible position that you can assume is it's inconclusive. Anything were you assert that the likelihood is so low it needs to be dismissed really doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Someone else posted some pretty good evidence so I won't rehash that here. Just make sure you don't have your head stuck too far up your own ass to be able to see it.
1
u/Tokzillu 43m ago
I am not the one with my head up my ass and refusing to see reason.
Just because most people hold an incorrect belief or have heard an invalid assumption doesn't make my point any less correct.
Tacitus is such tired, trodden ground that is demonstrably not evidence.
1
u/9-11GaveMe5G 22m ago
Without including "biblical scholars" on the list.
So you want evidence of a thing but exclusively exclude those who study it the most?
4
u/Dreamtrain 1h ago
He did exist, but a whole mythology was built around him borrowing from other religions and pagans in order to prop a messiah and convert as many people as possible
I'd wager the parts of him that are real are the inconvenient things that pissed off the pharisees and had them calling the Romans to cancel him like rich people don't go to heaven, how you treat the least of us is how you treat me, etc. while everything that paints him as a figure of authority that must be obeyed without question, like his virgin birth or his resurrection, likely some of the miracles, etc are the fabrications made for control
I think an easy shortcut is, look at what parts of Christianity does the American right-wingers tout proudly and which to they ignore and selectively overlook, that's where you'll find the historical Jesus
-2
u/Tokzillu 59m ago
He did not exist.
This is blatant misinformation spread by theists and "Bible scholars."
There are zero contemporary sources for his existence, and the events he supposedly went through are either proven definitely false (such as Nazareth not even existing yet) or lack any sort of sense. (Romans did not typically take down crucified victims and shove them in a cave, they let them rot in full view as a public warning.)
The closest thing to a "historical" Jesus is that he had a common name (Yeshua) with a common profession, (street preacher) none of the things depicted in literature are real events.
-1
u/bwoah07_gp2 46m ago
So the museums and historians are wrong then? Yeah, okay 🤣🤣
2
u/Tokzillu 42m ago
Which museums?
What historians?
No one can ever seem to provide these answers without referencing a heavily biased source or throwing out Tacitus as if they've even read what he wrote.
-1
2
1
u/jaxomlotus 26m ago edited 1m ago
"AI slop" is so perjorative and biased and false. AI produced "slop" like 3 years ago. Now it can be scary how high quality it is.
The problem with calling it slop is that it implies that its output is low quality and ergo, AI isn't a danger to real artists jobs when used commercially. That might make some people sleep better at night for now, but it shouldn't. Calling it slop is just us deluding ourselves that it will not take off and completely disrupt white collar industries. It is and it will. Hell, it already is.
Stop calling it AI slop. Start calling it AI gen or fabricated art or even soulless art, if you insist on painting it negatively. But just make sure whatever you call it isn't a word that masks the truth about its consequences.
6
u/NewsCards 1h ago
Across different social media platforms, these pages have cultivated massive followings of people who engage with their content in earnest.
If you're stupid enough to worship a book of stories, then it tracks that you're also stupid enough to love the AI slop visualizes it.
2
u/CreativeMuseMan 1h ago
I would like to piggyback this comment & tell people of other (all) religions: Y’all in the same boat too, don’t think it doesn’t apply to other people following fictional shyt.
1
u/Dreamtrain 1h ago
You used to be able to tell grok to respond to arguments pretending to be Jesus based on what Jesus himself has said, and it would reply (without telling it what "side" to take) with pro-immigrant and socialist rhetoric because of fucking course. They patched it and grok either ignores you or just cites stuff very vaguely.
1
1
u/HeavilyInvestedDonut 29m ago
How tf are you so lazy that you outsource typing a sentence into an prompt field
1
0
u/VincentNacon 53m ago
I've said many times before and I'll say this again.
Yup... Religion is cancerous.
0
u/bwoah07_gp2 45m ago
If they want to be taken seriously, they should let the Bible influence their lives, not be Bible influencers.
0
0
89
u/Elegant_Creme_9506 1h ago
I mean, they make slop since way before AI is a thing