Here's the thing: I can see that the ones using a celebrity/personality's image/voice, even while not misrepresenting what they have or might say, still can be considered to be sort of sleazy - although, why don't the personalities involved complain or sue or say-something about it?
It would cost them a fortune in legal fees to keep up with the tsunami of AI slop ripping off celebrities.
The real culprit here is YouTube for allowing this garbage.
But viewers who fall for this garbage help the fraudsters. Unwittingly, if they don't know it's fraud via AI, but sometimes they like the message from the fake celebrity being used as a puppet enough that they want to share it anyway. Which is really foolish and shows contempt for the celebrity the YouTuber is treating as a puppet.
Decrying a cartoon solely because it was created by AI, without reference to what the content was, is like Dan QUAYLE fighting with a television character. More substantive arguments are about AI taking people's jobs, or actual malicious uses of AI in spreading disinformation (not true information).
That's completely wrong. Those AI tools work at all only because they were trained on all the copyrighted intellectual property the AI companies could steal. And even though the AI users weren't responsible for the initial theft, if they're aware the tech is based on theft, using that tech is giving a thumbs-up to the theft. And posting that AI slop looks bad, too. If you want to know how bad it looks, see this thread
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220895856
and read all the reactions a union head got for being unthinking enough to post AI slop on Bluesky.
Videos made with AI are taking people's jobs - both the jobs of people who weren't hired to do the art, script and narration, and the jobs of humans using their own knowledge and talent to make videos, whose work is increasingly likely to get lost in that flood of absolute garbage made using AI.
That AI-slop channel you posted a history video from - about 44 Roman army rules - wasn't making cartoons. The videos there were a bizarre, jumbled mess of different styles of AI art, from cartoonlike to what's called photorealistic, just throwing any assortment of styles together as if they couldn't decide what style to use from whatever slop the image or video generator churned out (those AI tools can offer a wildly different assortment of styles at the same time). The AI-generated captions didn't always match the narration. The images often were inaccurate, showing the wrong weapons, etc.
There were a LOT of comments on YouTube under that history video about it being AI slop and inaccurate. Here are some of them:
Aaannnddd... The Schtoo-pidd-ity of AI can be seen: A clean-shaven face was MANDATORY! -- Yet, virtually every soldier in the images have beards. A multitude of different styles. Every one of the legionaries was subject to SEVERE corporal punishment, beaten by every other squad member -- who also sported beards... Ironical, ain't it?
AI isn't as schmart as the marketing suggests.
25:27 Roman tanks, machine guns and giant monsters.
Classic Ai slop. XD
You only had like 15 facts just repeated using different words each time. I really loved the AI picture of a roman solder with the powerlines in the back ground. Did they bring their own generator with them.
World War 1 uniforms and arms?
Those sorts of errors are all too typical of AI videos supposedly offering people facts.
And those problems, combined with how unethical using AI is, are why AI slop videos shouldn't be created, promoted or shared.
And in addition to that, just viewing AI slop on YouTube, even once, makes it more likely their algorithm will keep offering you AI slop.
If you have trouble recognizing if something is AI slop, it can often help to check the YouTube comments. At least check them before sharing on DU.
= new reply since forum marked as read