The AI host for “Bush Legend” who isn’t an actual person.(Image credit: Bush Legend/The Conversation)ShareShare by:
- Copy URL
- X
Share this piece 0Join the dialogueFollow usInclude us as a favored source on GoogleNewsletterSubscribe to our publication
The proclaimed “Bush Legend” across TikTok, Facebook and Instagram is gaining traction.
These brief and succinct videos showcase an Indigenous Australian man — at times adorned with ochre paint, other instances sporting a full khaki ensemble — as he presents diverse indigenous fauna and relevant information. These videos come accompanied by various yidaki (didgeridoo) melodies, some being techno remixes.
You may like
-
‘It won’t be so much a ghost town as a zombie apocalypse’: How AI might forever change how we use the internet
-
Some people love AI, others hate it. Here’s why.
-
Even AI has trouble figuring out if text was written by AI — here’s why
@bushlegend.offical
♬ Wild and powerful didgeridoo Primitive(1478108) – Shinnosuke ShibataAre they aware it’s AI?
Within the user bio, the Bush Legend profiles specify that the visuals are AI-generated. But do typical users browsing videos on social platforms access profiles to scrutinize such minutiae?
Some videos indeed showcase AI indicators, or mention it is AI in the written description. Though many within the viewership will be entirely unaware this figure is not genuine, and that the complete video is artificially composed.
These videos “lure” viewers through an array of endearing and cuddly to highly perilous wildlife. Comments posted on the videos inquire about the proximity of the man to the creatures, alongside words of support.
One commenter on Facebook pens “You possess the same remarkable vibrancy Steve Irwin had, and your vocal delivery is pleasant to listen to.”
The voice and the energy they are alluding to are simulated.
You may like
-
‘It won’t be so much a ghost town as a zombie apocalypse’: How AI might forever change how we use the internet
-
Some people love AI, others hate it. Here’s why.
-
‘Artificial intelligence’ myths have existed for centuries – from the ancient Greeks to a pope’s chatbot
A scarcity of regard
Concerning any Indigenous material online (whether authentic or AI-generated), there exists lingering bigoted discourse. As Indigenous individuals, we frequently advise against reading the commentary in relation to social media and Indigenous content.
While the Bush Legend is not genuine, nor culturally deep-rooted, it too is not exempt from internet racism. I have perused remarks on their videos that celebrate this AI portrayal whilst disparaging all other Aboriginal people.
Even though this might not personally affect the creator, it does bear an impact on Indigenous individuals who read such responses.
The sole piece of information presented regarding Bush Legend, beyond the fact it is AI-derived, is that the creator resides in Aotearoa New Zealand. This indicates a likely absence of connection to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander societies from whom the representation is appropriated.
Lately, Bush Legend addressed facets of this criticism in a video.
He stated:
I’m not intending to represent any culture or demographic […] If this is not something you appreciate, then simply scroll onward.
A post shared by Keagan John Mason (@bushlegend.offical)
A photo posted by on
This response does not comprehensively resolve the significant issues. Assuming the videos are merely “regarding animal stories”, why does the creator persist in utilizing the image of an Aboriginal man?
Responsibility to the communities entangled is absent within this context.
The morals of AI
Generative AI constitutes a novel platform wherein Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP) entitlements are infringed upon.
Trepidations concerning AI and Indigenous communities span several domains, including education, and the dearth of Indigenous involvement in AI creation and governance. Certainly, there are also ecological ramifications with notable environmental repercussions.
@outbackmike
♬ original sound – Outback Mike
The newly introduced national AI framework offers sparse regulatory provisions.
Aboriginal peoples have relentlessly advocated to narrate their own stories. AI signifies another avenue through which our autonomy is undermined or eliminated completely. Additionally, it enables non-Indigenous people to distance themselves from actual Indigenous populations by consenting to content that is contrived and, frequently, easier to accept.
Bush Legend epitomizes a treacherous pathway in the context of AI-generated content concerning Aboriginal individuals, as people can progressively disengage from interacting with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people directly.
An evolving era of AI Blakface
We are observing an upsurge of AI Blakface, which is effortlessly employed owing to the availability and proliferation of AI.
Non-Indigenous individuals and organizations are capable of forging Indigenous identities via AI, often rooted in stereotypical depictions that both merge and adopt cultures.
Bush Legend is frequently observed donning cultural jewelry and exhibiting ochre skin art. Given these are manufactured, they represent superficial exploitations, lacking the required cultural principles inherent in these traditions.
This establishes a different variant of misappropriation, augmenting the abuse already suffered by Indigenous individuals in the digital sphere, most acutely on social media. The illicit use of Indigenous knowledge for generative AI engenders a fresh pattern of algorithmic settler colonialism, compromising Indigenous sovereignty.
Most troublingly, these AI Blakfaces can be revenue-generating and yield monetary rewards for the originator. Such financial gains ought to benefit the communities that the content draws from.
What is paramount?
It is disconcerting to exist in an era where we are unsure if the information we consume digitally is trustworthy. Elevating our understanding of AI and media is crucial.
RELATED STORIES
—Even AI has trouble figuring out if text was written by AI — here’s why
—Will AI ever be more creative than humans?
—When an AI algorithm is labeled ‘female,’ people are more likely to exploit it
Detecting AI content online that is presented as fact? Inform the individual sharing this data — interactions with our circles give a chance to educate one another.
Back genuine Indigenous people dispensing knowledge online, for example @Indigigrow, @littleredwrites or @meissa. Alternatively, examine all the Indigenous Ranger clips on TikTok.
When participating online, pause to ponder the origin. Is this made by AI? Should this merit my endorsement?
This adapted piece is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons agreement. See the initial article.
Tamika WorrellSenior Lecturer within the Division of Critical Indigenous Studies, Macquarie University
Dr Tamika Worrell serves as a Senior Lecturer within Critical Indigenous Studies at Macquarie University. Tamika’s kin originate from Gamilaroi Lands, and she was raised by Dharug Ngurra (Land) Western Sydney since birth. Her research investigates Indigenous representation through all levels of learning, along with Indigenous digital experiences encompassing artificial intelligence.
Show More Comments
You must verify your public display name before commenting
Please logout and then login again, you will then be prompted to enter your display name.
LogoutRead more
‘It won’t be so much a ghost town as a zombie apocalypse’: How AI might forever change how we use the internet
Some people love AI, others hate it. Here’s why.
‘Artificial intelligence’ myths have existed for centuries – from the ancient Greeks to a pope’s chatbot
Your AI-generated image of a cat riding a banana exists because of children clawing through the dirt for toxic elements. Is it really worth it?
Experts divided over claim that Chinese hackers launched world-first AI-powered cyber attack — but that’s not what they’re really worried about
AI is getting better and better at generating faces — but you can