3 ms·
That's an over simplification I think. If you're only generating a video because 'I can oooh AI' - then of course no one wants it. If you treat the tools as w
by w0m 2y ago
That's an over simplification I think. If you're only generating a video because 'I can oooh AI' - then of course no one wants it. If you treat the tools as what they are, Tools - then people may want it.
No one really cares about a tech demo, but if generative tools help you make a cool music video to an awesome song? People will want it.
Well, as long as they aren't put off by a regressive stigma against new tool at least.
- AlienRobot 2y agoIf you used AI to make something awesome, even if I liked it, I'd feel scammed if it wasn't clearly labelled as AI, and if it was clearly labelled as AI I wouldn't even look at it.
- w0m 2y ago> I'd feel scammed if it wasn't clearly labelled as AI TBF - have you looked at a digital photo made in the last decade? Likely had significant 'AI' processing applied to it. That's why I call it a regressive pattern to dislike anything with a new label attached - it minimizes at best and often flat out ignores the very real work very real artists put in to leverage the new tools.
- AlienRobot 2y agoYou still have to take the photo. That's a billion times more effort than typing a prompt in ChatGPT.
- w0m 2y agohonestly, that's the same argument people made against photographs when the technology became available. Same argument made against the printing press. New tools aren't inherently inferior, they open up new opportunities.
- AlienRobot 2y agoI've never seen a photograph pretending to be an illustration, or vice-versa. It's only AI that pretends to be a genre it isn't.
- bobthepanda 2y agoIf anything photography mostly just replaced painted portraits, hence why high art went super abstract in response.
- numpad0 2y agoFace it. People are okay with super resolution efforts, including most deep learning-based methods. But not "AI". You can run video through i2i as a cleanup tool and upload it on the Internet, some tried and quit. YouTubers and TikTokers aren't doing it and they're all for attention. Output of current image generators are trash. It's unsalvageable. That's the problem, not "regressive pattern".
- mindcandy 2y ago> if it was clearly labelled as AI I wouldn't even look at it. If you dislike it without even seeing it, that would indicate the problem isn't with the video...
- AlienRobot 2y agoYes, the problem is with AI. I'm tired of trying to find X and finding "AI X" instead. I google "pixel art" I get "AI pixel art." I google clipart I get "AI clipart." I go to /r/logodesign to see some cool logo designs, it's 50% people who used ChatGPT asking if it looks good enough. The only good AI is AI out of my sight.
- giraffe_lady 2y agoAre there any valid reasons people might not like this or is it only "regressive stigma?"
- bobthepanda 2y agoHumans find lots of value in human effort towards culturally important things. See: a grandmother’s food vs. the industrial equivalent
- johnnyanmac 2y agowell we had an entire article explaining parts of that. You can skimp out on some areas and fool a human, but human proportions and environmental weight is hard. Then you get to motion and it's extremely hard to fool the human eye. One end of art is spending millions of man hours to polish this effect to fool the eye. the other side simplifies the environment and focuses more on making this new environment cohesive, which relaxes our expectations. Take your favorite 90's/early 00's 3d game and compare it to Mass Effect: Andromeda to get a feel of this. AI is promising to do the former with the costs of the latter. And so far it's maybe halfway to Andromeda in its infancy of videos.