A robot didn’t write this column. An algorithm didn’t suggest the topic.
No help, no assistance from any kind of AI. Sorry, no ChatGPT, either.
It’s just little old me at my Mac, the dog sleeping in her bed while we listen to some live Soundgarden.
A computer also didn’t tell us how to select the stories for this issue, mix them together or paste them up. At the end of the day, it’s simply us, a group of enthusiasts who share a love of sports cars and the stories surrounding them.
People say they like us because we’re genuine. They seem to enjoy J.G.’s talk about ducks or hearing Tim contemplate his next project car odyssey. It’s who we are. We’re real people with, as they say, warts and all. Then add in ethics, transparency and all that.
Could computers even replace us? Can ones and zeroes really recall what it was like to race a Dodge Neon at Daytona nearly 30 years ago, back in the days of factory seats and bolt-in roll cages?
[What happened to all the Dodge and Plymouth Neons?]
I can tell you that it was a different time. J.G. and I drove the Neon across town to the Speedway, only bringing a floor jack, a torque wrench and a roll of racer tape. I believe we won both days, with the tape, a last-minute grab as we were shoving off, coming in handy when the glovebox door decided that it didn’t want to stay closed any longer.
Yes, of course there is a healthy dose of technology in today’s production process. My Macs have been helping me with spelling for more than three decades. We use Photoshop, InDesign and the full Adobe suite to turn our ideas into reality.
We made the transition to digital photography back in 1999. Some SEO software helps us refine the titles for our YouTube videos. On track, predictive lap software lets us know if we’re leaving anything on the table. Basically, we’re letting the robots handle the more mundane tasks so we can concentrate on the creativity.
[Can A.I. teach you how to drive faster on track?]
How much fakeness is acceptable? I think it’s a valid question in today’s age of CGI, deepfakes and claims of less-than-honest news. See the August 2023 issue’s talk with Hyundai’s Albert Biermann for more on the subject. He even tells us how it will work in his world: The forthcoming Ioniq 5 N will transmit “fake” driveline noises and sensations to the occupants.
[Hyundai debuts Ioniq 5 N at Goodwood]
Some of that isn’t exactly new news, as performance cars have been piping in a hotter exhaust note for a while. (And let’s just ’fess up that, should the option present itself, we’d all press the button to engage it.)
This “Is it live or is it not?” can be found just about everywhere these days. The big news in my nerdy little metal music world? Rumors that Mötley Crüe performs to tracks when out on the road. (Second surprise might be the fact that Mötley Crüe still tours and fills stadiums.)
Do those buying tickets care? Or are they going just for the lights, the pyrotechnics, the whatever it is Mötley Crüe does these days?
Personally, I don’t mind the flaws of a live performance. Imperfections can create warmth, whether it’s the crackle of a well-loved LP, some grain in a film photo or the pop of a vintage amp that’s seen things.
How about a seemingly simple photograph? Lately I have been photographing models–it’s been an educational, rewarding experience–and earlier this evening another photographer posted fresh studio images of one of our locals. Her skin looks flawless, radiant and just glowing in the most even shade of bronze. It’s an image worthy of any magazine you’d see on the racks at an international airport concourse.
In my photos of her–which I share raw and unprocessed–you can’t miss the freckles. Must have been the studio lighting, right?
Maybe this is all just the natural outcome of our quickly evolving technology. After all, I still enjoy “Star Wars” even though I know that the sounds of the TIE Fighters and lightsabers were recreated here on earth.
So, what’s your threshold on the subject? Real, fake or somewhere in between?
Comments
Tom1200
PowerDork
7/19/23 10:54 a.m.
I have a picture, given to me by my friend Nick Strine's widow (Nick was 1975 C-stock Champ), of Jody Scheckter at the 1980 Long Beach GP. Several people have come into my office and remarked how it's impossible to replicate this with modern technology.
I don't write much anymore (beyond my contracts work) but there is no way for AI to replicate the silly connections I make between to disparate things (like aliens mistaking a cryogenics warehouse for a frozen TV dinner factory).
For me the fake always seems a just bit off. It's like sauce from a jar vs marinara someone made.
I accept that most people want the smoothed/filtered/clean versions of things. For me, I dont mind knowing and seeing the real and actual 'noise' in the world. I do spend a lot of time filtering things for others at work, but in the back of my head i know there is a lot of variation in the raw information.
The filtered version of life allows most to keep moving without having to think too hard.
Regarding AI creativity, these programs are only mimicking what they have been taught so far. It is unlikely they will be able to capture some of the more subtle effects like sarcasm, which are generally backwards to the point of a discussion. When they can create from the ground up, on subjects that have not been taught, then we have a problem.
Duke
MegaDork
7/19/23 11:02 a.m.
I have extremely little tolerance for fakeness.
The whole electronic engine noise thing drives me batE36 M3 crazy. Mechanically manipulate the ICE exhaust via resonance chambers, crossovers. etc - no problem. Play something electronically synthesized through the stereo? No deal.
Not only would I not push that button, I probably wouldn't buy that vehicle.
I despise fake woodgrain, fake vents, fake aero, fake boobs, the whole lot.
Hmmm. Fakes? If you make an anagram of David S. Wallens you get vandalised or landladies.
I have no idea what that means.
In reply to Duke :
the skin on 'em is real
Duke
MegaDork
7/19/23 12:27 p.m.
AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) said:
In reply to Duke :
the skin on 'em is real
Don't care.
The sound waves that reach my ears are real sound waves, too.
But it's the source of the sensation that counts.
Duke said:
The whole electronic engine noise thing drives me batE36 M3 crazy. Mechanically manipulate the ICE exhaust via resonance chambers, crossovers. etc - no problem. Play something electronically synthesized through the stereo? No deal.
I despise fake woodgrain, fake vents, fake aero, fake boobs, the whole lot.
I have that stupid noise maker in my Mustang and I have yet to really hear it. I might be deaf, but besides that point, stupidest thing ever. I need to rip it out because I need to lose that pound of dead weight to go faster. LOL.
Regarding fakeness, my motto is "If you can touch and feel it, it's 'real'".
Here's a weird thought, you have never asked the members of Led Zepplin to perform for you live, in your car, while driving. That means that regardless of how good your car's audio system is, the music you have been listening to is fake. It is a faithful reproduction of the music created by the band, but is not real, just vibrations created by your speakers tricking you into thinking you are listening to Led Zepplin. But they are not in your car.
So how different is an EV that uses vibrations to make you think that you are experiencing gear shifts or an exhaust note? Food for thought.
I have asked Ai to write a story and it did a good job .
But it was also like in high school where you needed to write a 500 word report and ran out of ideas about 300 words in and just wrote stuff to fill in the space ,
Lots of words but mostly mush :)
When CGI entered the modern era, my first thought was, cool! When I started taking digital pictures I thought now I can fix my mistakes. It's been overused to the point that the truth of the subject has been lost. It is literally used to replace actors and make the old ones look young again and build images that have never existed to be passed off as real places and people. Basically, it has jumped the shark. Now, I pretty much despise everything fake.
That is doubly true for photography. If you aren't willing to show your unedited image, I'm not buying. I don't want to see soft edges, mountain streams with blurry water, or people with impossibly perfect complections. Show me what you saw through your camera at that instance, not some stylized or fantasy rendition of what you think it should look like while sitting in front of your computer.
One of these is better than the other, and it isn't the edited version because that doesn't actually exist. So many photographers are using Lightroom as the be-all and end-all of photography. I'm not talking about brightening a dark photo, I'm talking about editing to the point where the new photo tells an entirely different and untrue story. You might as well lie to my face.
I do not call myself a photographer though I do enjoy playing one. I can promise you any picture I post is as produced by the camera/phone. Even these.
The more fake that shows up in media the less I want to see it. Show me the world as it is. Tell me the story in your words. Be judged by what you see and say, not by some substitute dreamed up after the fact or never dreamed at all except by a few ounces of silicone and gold.
So please, I beg of you. Leave the fake to the movies and keep doing the great job y'all are doing now. Though seldom stated, it is appreciated.
Displaying 1-10 of 62 commentsView all comments on the GRM forums
You'll need to log in to post.
Photography Courtesy Honda, Illustrations by Colin Wood
