5 ms·

It's how people resisted CGI back in the day. What people dislike is low quality. There is a loud subset who are really against it on principle like we also hav

It's how people resisted CGI back in the day. What people dislike is low quality. There is a loud subset who are really against it on principle like we also have people who insist on analog music but regular people are much more practical but they don't post about this all day on the internet.

Gigachad 7mo ago
Not really. The scale is entirely different. I think less of someone as a person if they send me AI slop.
- andrekandre 7mo ago
  > I think less of someone as a person if they send me AI slop. n=1 but working on side projects for others, i could easily generate ai images (instead of using stock photos) for a client, but i resist because i also feel this but as the sender... there is the fact that such images 'look ai' but even if it were perfect, idk somehow i feel cheap doing that.
  - Gigachad 7mo ago
    Agreed. Even in low value stuff I’d so much rather use basic stock images, ms paint drawings or almost anything over AI images. Seeing them is almost like being near someone who stinks or is sick/coughing. It’s a very visceral reaction.
trial3 7mo ago
perhaps one important detail is that cassette tape guys and Lucasfilm aren’t/weren’t demanding a complete and total restructuring of the economy and society
- runarberg 7mo ago
  An excellent observation. When films became digital the real backlash came when they stopped distributing film for the old film projectors and every movie theaters had to invest in a very expensive DCP projectors. Some couldn’t and were forced to shut down. If I had lost my local movie theater because of digital film, I would have a really good reason to hate the technology, even though the blame is on the studios forcing that technology on everyone.
gunsle 7mo ago
I think literally everyone could agree CGI has been detrimental to the quality of films.
- sanex 7mo ago
  Project Hail Mary is a great example of not relying on CGI.
- xnorswap 7mo ago
  Not just in the obvious ways either, even good CGI has been detrimental to the film (and TV) making process. I was watching some behind the scenes footage from something recently, and the thing that struck me most was just how they wouldn't bother with the location shoot now and just green-screen it all for the convenience. Even good CGI is changing not just how films are made, but what kinds of films get shot and what kind of stories get told. Regardless of the quality of the output, there's a creativeness in film-making that is lost as CGI gets better and cheaper to do.
  - andrekandre 7mo ago
    it may be an unpopular opinion but i feel like that watching any of the marvel movies... its like its just a showcase for green screens and ridiculous rubber-band acrobatics cgi everywhere... that kind if stuff might work in anime or cartoons, but live action just looks ridiculous to me for the most part.
- Levitz 7mo ago
  "Literally everyone" can't even agree on whether Polio is bad. I myself would disagree that CGI itself is a bad thing.
- NitpickLawyer 7mo ago
  Anecdata-- from me. I think cgi can be a net positive.
- delecti 7mo ago
  I could maybe agree in the sense of "has had detrimental effects", but certainly not in the sense of "net detrimental".
runarberg 7mo ago
It is not. People resisted bad CGI. During the advent of CGI people celebrated the masterpiece of the Matrix and even Titanic. They hated however the Scorpion King.
moron4hire 7mo ago
No, I don't think most people are really against AI Gen works "on principle". Or at least not in any interpretation of "on principle" that would allow for you to be dismissive of complaints in this way. I think principles are important. Especially when it comes to art, principle might be all we have. Going back to the crypto example, NFTs were art that real people had made. In some cases, very good art. People railed against NFTs despite the quality of the art. That is being against something on-principle. Comparatively, if my local grocery chains were owned by neonazis, I'd have a much harder time of standing on principle, giving that doing so may have a negative impact on my ability to survive and prosper. AI Gen works, on the other hand, most often do not come with readily available marking that it is AI Gen. What people are complaining about is the lack of quality in the work. If they accuse a poorly human-written article of being AI Gen, that's just a mistake. But the general case is a legitimate evaluation of the quality of the material and the conditions under which it was made and presented. In my own case, while I certainly have plenty of "principled" reasons to dislike AI Gen works, I also dislike it because it's just garbage. Oh yeah, sure, it's impressive that a computer can spit out reasonable content at all. It would equally be impressive for a chimpanzee to start talking in full sentences. That doesn't mean I'm going to start going to the chimpanzee for dissertations on the human condition.

Gigachad 7mo ago

Not really. The scale is entirely different. I think less of someone as a person if they send me AI slop.

andrekandre 7mo ago
> I think less of someone as a person if they send me AI slop. n=1 but working on side projects for others, i could easily generate ai images (instead of using stock photos) for a client, but i resist because i also feel this but as the sender... there is the fact that such images 'look ai' but even if it were perfect, idk somehow i feel cheap doing that.
- Gigachad 7mo ago
  Agreed. Even in low value stuff I’d so much rather use basic stock images, ms paint drawings or almost anything over AI images. Seeing them is almost like being near someone who stinks or is sick/coughing. It’s a very visceral reaction.

trial3 7mo ago

perhaps one important detail is that cassette tape guys and Lucasfilm aren’t/weren’t demanding a complete and total restructuring of the economy and society

runarberg 7mo ago
An excellent observation. When films became digital the real backlash came when they stopped distributing film for the old film projectors and every movie theaters had to invest in a very expensive DCP projectors. Some couldn’t and were forced to shut down. If I had lost my local movie theater because of digital film, I would have a really good reason to hate the technology, even though the blame is on the studios forcing that technology on everyone.

gunsle 7mo ago

I think literally everyone could agree CGI has been detrimental to the quality of films.

sanex 7mo ago
Project Hail Mary is a great example of not relying on CGI.
xnorswap 7mo ago
Not just in the obvious ways either, even good CGI has been detrimental to the film (and TV) making process. I was watching some behind the scenes footage from something recently, and the thing that struck me most was just how they wouldn't bother with the location shoot now and just green-screen it all for the convenience. Even good CGI is changing not just how films are made, but what kinds of films get shot and what kind of stories get told. Regardless of the quality of the output, there's a creativeness in film-making that is lost as CGI gets better and cheaper to do.
- andrekandre 7mo ago
  it may be an unpopular opinion but i feel like that watching any of the marvel movies... its like its just a showcase for green screens and ridiculous rubber-band acrobatics cgi everywhere... that kind if stuff might work in anime or cartoons, but live action just looks ridiculous to me for the most part.
Levitz 7mo ago
"Literally everyone" can't even agree on whether Polio is bad. I myself would disagree that CGI itself is a bad thing.
NitpickLawyer 7mo ago
Anecdata-- from me. I think cgi can be a net positive.
delecti 7mo ago
I could maybe agree in the sense of "has had detrimental effects", but certainly not in the sense of "net detrimental".

runarberg 7mo ago

It is not. People resisted bad CGI. During the advent of CGI people celebrated the masterpiece of the Matrix and even Titanic. They hated however the Scorpion King.

moron4hire 7mo ago

No, I don't think most people are really against AI Gen works "on principle". Or at least not in any interpretation of "on principle" that would allow for you to be dismissive of complaints in this way. I think principles are important. Especially when it comes to art, principle might be all we have. Going back to the crypto example, NFTs were art that real people had made. In some cases, very good art. People railed against NFTs despite the quality of the art. That is being against something on-principle. Comparatively, if my local grocery chains were owned by neonazis, I'd have a much harder time of standing on principle, giving that doing so may have a negative impact on my ability to survive and prosper. AI Gen works, on the other hand, most often do not come with readily available marking that it is AI Gen. What people are complaining about is the lack of quality in the work. If they accuse a poorly human-written article of being AI Gen, that's just a mistake. But the general case is a legitimate evaluation of the quality of the material and the conditions under which it was made and presented. In my own case, while I certainly have plenty of "principled" reasons to dislike AI Gen works, I also dislike it because it's just garbage. Oh yeah, sure, it's impressive that a computer can spit out reasonable content at all. It would equally be impressive for a chimpanzee to start talking in full sentences. That doesn't mean I'm going to start going to the chimpanzee for dissertations on the human condition.