5 ms·
There’s nothing admirable about lowest common denominator tactics like this, and it isn’t that out of the box. You just have to be desperate enough and sleazy e
by kbos87 9y ago
There’s nothing admirable about lowest common denominator tactics like this, and it isn’t that out of the box. You just have to be desperate enough and sleazy enough to want to do it. Are these videos an existential threat? No. Are they a net negative for the internet and everyone who gets value and utility out of good content? Absolutely.
- debt 9y agoIdk I think this is just a poor implementation of a really good idea. Don't get me wrong, spam videos aren't a good thing. But I do think removing the role of an editor and cinematagrapher and being able to programmatically convert a script/screenplay instantly into a useful video content seems like a great idea; the right approach. In addition, something like this could also create internationalized video content very quickly.
- 52-6F-62 9y agoIMHO, automating the artistic process of everybody/thing you think less important defeats the purpose. Why not go further? Once we can determine an affordable way to programmatically stimulate every necessary region of our brain to bring about emotions and the effects of nostalgic or sentimental introspection traditionally stimulated by beautiful artwork, then we can just plug in and go for the ride and get on with our daily work.
- creep 9y agoBrave New World style, love it!!! But seriously, that is not what art is. Art is not created automatically by a machine. We can program a 3d printer to spit out an exact copy of the veiled virgin, but will we find it as beautiful? Certainly not. Part of the charm of the artistic process is that a human being's perspective becomes illuminated, in part, in the medium. The natural imperfections of that perception are made beautiful and become less like imperfections and more like variations. A machine, as of yet, cannot do this. A computer program cannot have this multiplicity of perspective which is at once flawed and beautiful. It cannot understand the human emotive experience beyond what is input-output-- and the human emotive experience, as we can all attest, is not composed of input-output events. If we let the machines make our art for us, or to artificially induce the emotions in us, we have lost all understanding of what art is. Art is not utilitarian. We cannot have machines perform art.
- mlboss 9y agoThe key phrase is "as of yet". There are ML algorithms called generative models that try to understand the underlying probability distribution that is producing the data. All we need a better generative model that matches the internal state of humans and produces "Art" after interacting with the randomness of the outside world. I think there is nothing magical about being a human. We are complex machines with lot of processes, but nothing that can't be replicated.
- 52-6F-62 9y agoI think you're again missing the point. What matters is not even the act of creating in this case. It's the notion of shared experience communicated [in a variety of forms] when we undeniably experience a range of emotions and states that can make us feel endlessly apart from anyone or anything else. It matters that another human was responsible for the creation. That's just to start.
- creep 9y agoTo think of a human like a machine is to become like the machines. I think you are young. I hope you grow out of that state of mind.
- elif 9y agoyea this isn't original content. this is repackaging and theft of real creators' content.
- majormajor 9y ago> Are they a net negative for the internet and everyone who gets value and utility out of good content? Are the videos the net negative, or is the net negative that we have a laxly-moderated automated platform that gives a super-large platform to crap?