3 ms·
>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
by 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 agoI 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 agonailed it. spot on.