5 ms·

It's a cute ad all but as a French kid I used to see similar things often, we have a good culture of animation. Is "they didn't use AI" really a criteria now?

by Zealotux 10mo ago

ekblom 10mo ago
I think that comment is in response to McDonalds recent AI-slop-ad.
- kminehart 10mo ago
  And Coca Cola
jfindper 10mo ago
Advertising that you didn't use AI is definitely a thing now. But this is more likely a jab at the recent McDonalds ad, which did use AI, and which the agency who made the ad vigorously defended the use of AI (hilariously, by bragging about how many hours it took to make that ad).
- jsheard 10mo ago
  > vigorously defended the use of AI (hilariously, by bragging about how many hours it took to make that ad). Likewise with the Coca Cola ad, the agency said in their defense that they had to sift through 70,000 video generations to assemble the few dozen shots in the final ad. And after all that sifting they still couldn't get the one element of continuity (the Coke truck) to look consistent from shot to shot, and had to manually composite over all of the Coke logos since the model kept mangling them.
- watwut 10mo ago
  I feel like there are subcultures that value "long hours and hard work" over "result". If you can produce great things easily, then it is lazy. But if worked hours and hours including through Christmans, then it is great even if result is crap.
- prodigycorp 10mo ago
  That’s hilarious. I had cursory familiarity with the McDonald’s situation but did not know thread agency aspect. I’d be very curious how many “hours” were spent minus the inference time.
- dundarious 10mo ago
  The only mention of AI is the editorialized title in the HN submission, I don't see any mention at all in the ad or the video description. This ad does not appear to be a reaction to anything.
  - dmix 10mo ago
    It's reactions to reactions. Low quality type of engagement, similar to why people complain about AI.
stronglikedan 10mo ago
> Is "they didn't use AI" really a criteria now? Absolutely. Have you been living under a rock? /jk ;-)
- wiether 10mo ago
  I don't watch TV and use ad-blockers on my devices so I don't have a clue of what ads look like nowadays. And given how people are praising this one (that looks exactly like the ones I was used to growing up) I can only guess that the situation must be awful.
  - latexr 10mo ago
    > that looks exactly like the ones I was used to growing up Unless you’re so young you just finished growing up, I find that unlikely. Sure, this ad isn’t visually revolutionary by today’s standards (nor does it need to be; it’s an ad, it’s not being played in theatres before the next Disney movie), but it’s still competent and has a ton of detail which surpasses earlier Pixar pictures.

It's a cute ad all but as a French kid I used to see similar things often, we have a good culture of animation. Is "they didn't use AI" really a criteria now?

ekblom 10mo ago

I think that comment is in response to McDonalds recent AI-slop-ad.

kminehart 10mo ago
And Coca Cola

jfindper 10mo ago

Advertising that you didn't use AI is definitely a thing now. But this is more likely a jab at the recent McDonalds ad, which did use AI, and which the agency who made the ad vigorously defended the use of AI (hilariously, by bragging about how many hours it took to make that ad).

jsheard 10mo ago
> vigorously defended the use of AI (hilariously, by bragging about how many hours it took to make that ad). Likewise with the Coca Cola ad, the agency said in their defense that they had to sift through 70,000 video generations to assemble the few dozen shots in the final ad. And after all that sifting they still couldn't get the one element of continuity (the Coke truck) to look consistent from shot to shot, and had to manually composite over all of the Coke logos since the model kept mangling them.
watwut 10mo ago
I feel like there are subcultures that value "long hours and hard work" over "result". If you can produce great things easily, then it is lazy. But if worked hours and hours including through Christmans, then it is great even if result is crap.
prodigycorp 10mo ago
That’s hilarious. I had cursory familiarity with the McDonald’s situation but did not know thread agency aspect. I’d be very curious how many “hours” were spent minus the inference time.
dundarious 10mo ago
The only mention of AI is the editorialized title in the HN submission, I don't see any mention at all in the ad or the video description. This ad does not appear to be a reaction to anything.
- dmix 10mo ago
  It's reactions to reactions. Low quality type of engagement, similar to why people complain about AI.

stronglikedan 10mo ago

> Is "they didn't use AI" really a criteria now? Absolutely. Have you been living under a rock? /jk ;-)

wiether 10mo ago
I don't watch TV and use ad-blockers on my devices so I don't have a clue of what ads look like nowadays. And given how people are praising this one (that looks exactly like the ones I was used to growing up) I can only guess that the situation must be awful.
- latexr 10mo ago
  > that looks exactly like the ones I was used to growing up Unless you’re so young you just finished growing up, I find that unlikely. Sure, this ad isn’t visually revolutionary by today’s standards (nor does it need to be; it’s an ad, it’s not being played in theatres before the next Disney movie), but it’s still competent and has a ton of detail which surpasses earlier Pixar pictures.