How much fakeness is actually acceptable?

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, …

Read the rest of the story

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.

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

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.

Ranger50 said:

Regarding fakeness, my motto is "If you can touch and feel it, it's 'real'".

I hate to burst your uhm . . . bubble . . . but . . . I had a boss who was a hugger. At the end of the year awards dinner she would personally hand out various accomplishment trophies. She was also known, in part, for having aftermarket parts. My first year I received a trophy and a hug. I’ve likened that experience to being hugged by 2 large granite formations.

pinchvalve (Forum Supporter) said:

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. 

That parallel doesn't work for me................the audio in my car is Led Zeppelin pretending to be Led Zeppelin........it's not ABBA pretending to be Zed Zeppelin.  That's what an EV having an exhaust note and faux shifts is doing.

And that perfectly-played Led Zeppelin song on the radio was not even them playing as a band, instead it was a series of tracks recorded individually and later integrated into a whole.

I'm ok with that, but when it comes to EV's, and even ICE cars, I hope the "vroom-vroom, braap-braap-braap" sounds are defeatable and only piped into the passenger compartment.  
 

There are a few cars in the area that have ruined the whole "pops-n-bangs" aftermarket "sounds like a series of Howitzers" thing for me, especially late at night or pre-dawn.

edit to add:  loved the post, Toyman!  We see the same type of photographic trickery in astrophotography.  Sometimes when a new person shows up at a star party, they get disappointed because they don't see "all the colors" through the eyepiece that they saw online or in a coffee table book.

So it goes.

The new Supra is too fake for me. Literally every vent on the thing is non-functional. I don't care how cool it looks, it's just pretending. 

In reply to L5wolvesf :

To each, their own.

As with just about everything else in life, 'real vs fake' is a constantly evolving spectrum. The more strictly a black-and-white test is used, the more hypocrisy the test will inevitably show.

This ongoing 'real vs fake' debate also seems to be conflating two separate issues: Perfect vs imperfect, and inherent imperfection vs contrived imperfection. The mechanism (mechanical, analog electric, digital) used to create an effect is far less important than the degree and magnitude of the effect itself. Sometimes "better" isn't.

Personally, I see significant untapped potential in the electronic (rather than mechanical) manipulation of natural automotive sounds while still 'keeping it real'.

I think society has gravitated way toward 'overdone' and 'extreme.'  I mean, the extreme fake movement has been a thing for 25 years.   Nissan made an Xterra with 2wd, no ABS, no LSD.  It's the epitome of fake, and that was a couple decades ago.  

I miss simple, purposeful, elegantly designed and understated cars.  I think 90's Japanese cars and German cars epitomized this.  Think Honda Accord or E39 5-series.  There was nothing pretentious or fake, and because they were understated, they looked good for a long time, and still do IMHO.

I wear a Seiko automatic watch, because I appreciate the subtlety and the fact that it's real.  I also realize that I seem to be in the absolute minority.  Most people care more about what something looks like vs how something works.  I also love sailboats.

Duke said:

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.

Same.

In our group a lot of the women have had work done and the large majority of it is obvious, and poorly done. I find it disgusting.

Peabody said:

Duke said:

I despise fake woodgrain, fake vents, fake aero, fake boobs, the whole lot.

Same.

In our group a lot of the women have had work done and the large majority of it is obvious, and poorly done. I find it disgusting.

What if we make wood veneer mesh bikini tops with dive planes on the side.........how would you feel about those?

I mean you could focus all your angst in one place.

Tom1200 said:

What if we make wood veneer mesh bikini tops with dive planes on the side.........how would you feel about those?

I mean you could focus all your angst in one place.

dive planes?

In reply to L5wolvesf :

Fake Aero

Definitely not a fan of fakeness. I don't like fake exhaust tips, fake vents, fake engine noise and things of that nature. It makes no sense to me.

I'm a scale modeler/model railroader. Fake is my game.

In reply to Appleseed :

Ooh I dodged that bullet; I dismantled my layout and gave it to a friend a couple of years ago. I enjoyed building it but beyond that it spent a lot of time inactive.