3 ms·

I think the article has mischaracterised Hayao's response to this. His main objection is that it's "creepy" and doesn't respect the pain and suffering of those

I think the article has mischaracterised Hayao's response to this. His main objection is that it's "creepy" and doesn't respect the pain and suffering of those with mobility disabilities. While it's important that we respect and include those people, it's also true that had a human animator produced the same work, we should see the same response. The article's, or Hayao's response is flawed therefore in 2 ways: 1) That this is something that AI / animation technology has brought to us, truly, and 2) Just because it may not be well received by individuals with disabilities (by no means would this be rejected by all or maybe even most in that situation), that it is not effective animation (though I'm not judging its effectiveness either way, I'm just saying that this alone is a poor argument).

true_religion 10y ago
But they made it for zombie games, and were specifically going for grotesque and creepy motions. I don't see what this has to do with the disabled. I think this is simply reflective off Miyazaki's view of what animations should be represented at all, and what entertainment in general reflect upon. He's not a fan of the grotesque, creepy, or disquieting. If this is a group of his subordinates and they came to him with this.... they truly failed to capture the spirit of his animation style, and were way off target with their goals. Claiming it could be used for zombie's seems like a poor post-facto justification for their failure.
- jackfrodo 10y ago
  >I think this is simply reflective off Miyazaki's view of what animations should be represented at all > He's not a fan of the grotesque, creepy, or disquieting. Studio Ghibli has produced lots of work that's grotesque and disquieting. He's not against representing them. Spirited Away and Grave of the Fireflies come to mind as films that show the grotesque in a way that there's a strong human spirit endowed in the animation.
jolux 10y ago
>While it's important that we respect and include those people, it's also true that had a human animator produced the same work, we should see the same response. I don't think so. I think part of his point is that having humans do the animation means that the creators have empathy for the less fortunate and thus won't use them as cheap creepiness the way a neural network might if it was just solving for certain constraints. Miyazaki's movies are often about the conflict between the human spirit and technology, and as far as high-tech goes he's not really a booster. High tech in his films is frequently cold and inhuman in creepy ways, and seeing a demo like this is probably confirmation of this theme.
- rabbyte 10y ago
  I feel like this is the point that's being lost. It's not that it's AI, it could have been a paint brush, but whatever the tool there needs to be a connection between the artist and their works. The current state of AI largely erases that connection. That he mentions we're losing confidence in ourselves I feel backs this up, that we're engaged in the act of replacing ourselves from the design of the world with not enough thought in how we're negotiating our future selves. The tech crowd are looking at this as an old artist who doesn't like future tools when I think it's meant to be deeper and more a critique on how we use our tools. An animator in touch with their disabled friend may come to tears in their work and create moments that connect with the audience on a deeper level because of it while AI will only pass over those moments in microseconds.
  - jolux 10y ago
    nailed it. spot on.
smnc 10y ago
> While it's important that we respect and include those people, it's also true that had a human animator produced the same work, we should see the same response. Not necessarily. I suppose he might be commenting on how depicting that particular movement in such a way might be a choice taken by a "human animator" to achieve an end goal or to evoke a certain (rational or emotional or a combination of the two) response from the viewer (hopefully in context of a greater goal/story). The default response here would be that the animation sequence in question is something that should serve as input or inspiration to the artist(s) creating the movie/video/artproduct/whatever and unlock some previously untappable source in their imagination. The question that then arises is "What if the artist is also an AI" (whatever we currently mean when we say "AI"). Does that change anything?
tinus_hn 10y ago
The people who are demoing this are so enamoured with their technology that they have lost touch with reality. They casually mention the model does not feel pain and so uses its head as a leg. It's so smart! But they don't realize the end result is an insult to those who are struggling because of disability. All they see is cool technology. I think the demo shows great promise, either for a grotesque human form in a zombie scenario or some animal or mechanical creature. Considering the type of stories mr. Miyazaki is know for the horror scenario was a poor choice. If the technology isn't ready for something better they shouldn't have presented it to him.
- candiodari 10y ago
  Firstly this is a genetic algorithm designed walk. If that is your criticism, it's easy to fix. Simply make the head feel pain, as an extra constraint. This algorithm is trying to find ways of moving the body it was given in a way that would work (like a human or any animal would. This algorithm is trying to be smart about moving around, it's NOT trying to imitate human animators. You want that, we have algorithms for that as well. Second, is this really a valid criticism ? In a pinch, I have in fact used my head as an appendage to move around, to support things when moving furniture, and a million other ways so ... I don't see the problem. I have in fact moved furniture with a partially disabled person that used his head as an appendage to keep furniture stable just like I did. I always found that disabled people prefer that you just ignore their disabilities, as much as possible (unless it makes something truly impossible for them, but hard is just fine). Is that a wrong attitude ?

true_religion 10y ago

But they made it for zombie games, and were specifically going for grotesque and creepy motions. I don't see what this has to do with the disabled. I think this is simply reflective off Miyazaki's view of what animations should be represented at all, and what entertainment in general reflect upon. He's not a fan of the grotesque, creepy, or disquieting. If this is a group of his subordinates and they came to him with this.... they truly failed to capture the spirit of his animation style, and were way off target with their goals. Claiming it could be used for zombie's seems like a poor post-facto justification for their failure.

jackfrodo 10y ago
>I think this is simply reflective off Miyazaki's view of what animations should be represented at all > He's not a fan of the grotesque, creepy, or disquieting. Studio Ghibli has produced lots of work that's grotesque and disquieting. He's not against representing them. Spirited Away and Grave of the Fireflies come to mind as films that show the grotesque in a way that there's a strong human spirit endowed in the animation.

jolux 10y ago

>While it's important that we respect and include those people, it's also true that had a human animator produced the same work, we should see the same response. I don't think so. I think part of his point is that having humans do the animation means that the creators have empathy for the less fortunate and thus won't use them as cheap creepiness the way a neural network might if it was just solving for certain constraints. Miyazaki's movies are often about the conflict between the human spirit and technology, and as far as high-tech goes he's not really a booster. High tech in his films is frequently cold and inhuman in creepy ways, and seeing a demo like this is probably confirmation of this theme.

rabbyte 10y ago
I feel like this is the point that's being lost. It's not that it's AI, it could have been a paint brush, but whatever the tool there needs to be a connection between the artist and their works. The current state of AI largely erases that connection. That he mentions we're losing confidence in ourselves I feel backs this up, that we're engaged in the act of replacing ourselves from the design of the world with not enough thought in how we're negotiating our future selves. The tech crowd are looking at this as an old artist who doesn't like future tools when I think it's meant to be deeper and more a critique on how we use our tools. An animator in touch with their disabled friend may come to tears in their work and create moments that connect with the audience on a deeper level because of it while AI will only pass over those moments in microseconds.
- jolux 10y ago
  nailed it. spot on.

smnc 10y ago

> While it's important that we respect and include those people, it's also true that had a human animator produced the same work, we should see the same response. Not necessarily. I suppose he might be commenting on how depicting that particular movement in such a way might be a choice taken by a "human animator" to achieve an end goal or to evoke a certain (rational or emotional or a combination of the two) response from the viewer (hopefully in context of a greater goal/story). The default response here would be that the animation sequence in question is something that should serve as input or inspiration to the artist(s) creating the movie/video/artproduct/whatever and unlock some previously untappable source in their imagination. The question that then arises is "What if the artist is also an AI" (whatever we currently mean when we say "AI"). Does that change anything?

tinus_hn 10y ago

The people who are demoing this are so enamoured with their technology that they have lost touch with reality. They casually mention the model does not feel pain and so uses its head as a leg. It's so smart! But they don't realize the end result is an insult to those who are struggling because of disability. All they see is cool technology. I think the demo shows great promise, either for a grotesque human form in a zombie scenario or some animal or mechanical creature. Considering the type of stories mr. Miyazaki is know for the horror scenario was a poor choice. If the technology isn't ready for something better they shouldn't have presented it to him.

candiodari 10y ago
Firstly this is a genetic algorithm designed walk. If that is your criticism, it's easy to fix. Simply make the head feel pain, as an extra constraint. This algorithm is trying to find ways of moving the body it was given in a way that would work (like a human or any animal would. This algorithm is trying to be smart about moving around, it's NOT trying to imitate human animators. You want that, we have algorithms for that as well. Second, is this really a valid criticism ? In a pinch, I have in fact used my head as an appendage to move around, to support things when moving furniture, and a million other ways so ... I don't see the problem. I have in fact moved furniture with a partially disabled person that used his head as an appendage to keep furniture stable just like I did. I always found that disabled people prefer that you just ignore their disabilities, as much as possible (unless it makes something truly impossible for them, but hard is just fine). Is that a wrong attitude ?