I am 15 years old who uses AI and machine learning. I think the issue with your take is that you don't understand that you are giving a single example of low effort work (the soulless wes Anderson imitations) and saying this is what all people using AI do. I disagree with this as people who create good art using AI only use it for 20% of the process. For example often people will film the video on their phone and transform what they filmed into the shot they envisioned. For example I can't get a drone shot of an Alien City and I don't have the money to pay for stock footage. With ai I can film a stack of books then extract data from those frames including the depth and canny maps to influence the AI. Then I can edit a video using my EDITING skills to try and create a cinematic film that otherwise should have been shot on a budget phone in my bedroom. You need to understand that good AI art is art because of the human creativity involved. Also quick point on how AI works: it does not attempt to copy any art. it has been trained to understand the correlation between a text description and an image output. Unless the user specifically is trying to get the AI to emulate something it should just be creating an image based on the prompt. Also pls give AI art a chance but don't just do it the wrong way and say oh look it sucks ignore the fact you just did this in the most soulless manner possible. I would suggest stable difusion as an AI tool because it's free Open source and requires skill. unlike midjourney
@@TheidiotAmongUs The thing you don't seem to understand, ironically enough, is that AI generated content has a massive ethical problem. With stable diffusion maybe the AI isn't literally meshing images together, but it still very much scrapping data from artists without their consent and without compensation. And the huge problem is that big companies knows this but don't care because they can use it to make mediocre-yet-sellable products but without "those pretentious elitists human artists" to give money to. This is something that is already happening, like in Japan, a studio hired few (like 2 or 3) artists to redraw based on AI work, instead of hiring several people AND that is during a horrible crisis of low employment. AI in this case is only making the problem worse by literally replacing what would be the work of dozens of people. What you described is just you working on top of what AI spewed, which still ethically questionable for the reason I said previously. Thing is, if the tech isn't built ethically one can't expect ethical use out of it. AI generative content has to be made ethically from the ground up, to avoid predatory use. We are not in that stage, not even close.
@@ZelphTheWebmancerThe way AI uses the images in the training data really is quite similar to the way us humans learn from the images we see. The AI models do not copy anything from the images, they learn the concepts behind images: what an arm or a banana or a car or a pterodactyl look like? What is in common with the images that are considered to be sad? Or joyful? What is the difference between a dark, moody skene and a bright neutral one? What does backlight look like? What is different in the shadows of direct sunlight and a large diffuse source like the window? What differentiates an iPhone photo from an oil painting? And so on. What people are actually scared about is the fact that AI already does this much better (and orders of magnitude faster) than most human artists. I make my living creating moving images, be that corporate videos or feature films. I specialise in VFX work. I'm one of the first in line to be replaceable by AI, to some extent at least. Is that AI:s fault? Not really, any more than replacing horse carriages was cars fault. It's progress, new and better technology replacing older where applicable. It's also a tsunami that will not be stopped by luddites. The only real options are to ride the wave or drown under it. I've chosen to ride it, and have actually enjoyed the surf. In my work, AI has enabled me to create more and better visual effects for my clients, for lower budgets - where applicable. I still use conventional methods where they apply better. To me, AI is just one more tool in the box (albeit a very powerful one).
@@ZelphTheWebmancerIf an expert can't identify which copyright is being infringed through observation of the output it is sufficiently transformative as to be ruled fair use.
@@ZelphTheWebmancerand the thing you don’t understand is that fair use includes “training purposes” but doesn’t specify that humans had to be what’s being trained. Hence why this video can’t be sued for using clips from other movies that the channel didn’t produce but copied without asking the original artists. 🤔 I wonder if all the people claiming AI art isn’t art could point out the AI art vs human art in a double blind study? I’m going to guess some people can but as the years go by less and less people will be able to do so.
This is some anthropocentric bullshit that needs to go away. Just because a human takes a dump it doesn't mean the dump is worth being put in a museum. There's a lot of things that AI evidently does better and faster than a human.
Hot take: the real reason studio execs are so horny for AI is because they've finally found someone they can relate to: a shameless, plagiarising, cliche-spouting, soulless machine that has literally no idea what it's talking about.
AI is trained on human data. It is a reflection of ourselves. And with the vast amount of data they have access to, especially Google, whose Gemini AI is predicted to be 5x the size of GPT-4. It can be benevolent and it doesn't have to consciously know something is good if its been trained correctly. And they're working hard on alignment issues. This is coming where we like it or not, so we can either fearmonger and complain or try our best to make it work for us. Since the invention of the steam engine it was just a matter of time.
@@squamish4244 AI is awesome, however the irony is that it will be used for increasing profit margins at the expense of culture and authentic intelligence. oh and also imperialism, war and murder!
@@stadium999 Yes, doom and gloom, we're all going to die etc. We've been jacking ourselves off to predictions like this long before AI was ever a thing. It's human nature to think of the worst possible outcomes to everything. It hasn't happened yet. Oh, but _this_ time, it's different. Yeah, everyone says that too, whenever some new 'crisis' happens. AI is a milestone in civilization, but good lord, what humans have already been through and come out better - I mean the Black Death killed up to 40% of the population of Europe, and it actually weakened the feudal system and increased the status of the lowest classes in society. It may have been the point at which Europe started moving ahead of the rest of the world. We've had countless famines. We've had climatic shifts. We've had countless epidemics. We went through the Industrial Revolution. We survived an ice age. And on and on. And we still crap on ourselves and on the future.
The most hilarious theory about AI "art" is that it is rapidly making itself worse. AI art is oversaturating the crops of links on websites that generative art is pulling from to train their models. This is causing newer models to replicate the mistakes found in the AI art it finds. This is compounded by the fact that the models are hard to "detrain", once that crap is in their algorithms it's stuck there.
@@D0MiN0ChAn As a consumer good it's really stagnating fast because most people just don't really need a constant supply of commissioned art, and the small producers that do (like small game devs) seem to be more willing to shell out money for art that doesn't look generated. The part that is more worrying is that large media companies are already using the threat of AI to wage campaigns of devaluing the inputs of creative workers through generative media's process of "mass production". Even though creative workers will still need to put in the same amount of overall energy and time into their jobs, they will be paid less and less over time as their jobs transition more towards fixing the issues with generated media.
@@capnbarky2682 Don't need to tell me 😅 I'm a freelance translator and many people have been trying to pay me less and undermine my work with MTPE ("The text is already translated, you just need to edit it, how hard can it be?!"), even though it involves much more time and effort to straighten out the rough edges and would 100% be faster if I simply translated from scratch 😵💫
@@D0MiN0ChAnThe value your labor produces over what a machine can do is minimal. People don't want to pay 1000x more for 10% more. Don't blame the market.
Studio executive attempting to replace everyone with A.I. but ends up just replacing themselves also sounds like a great premise for a Twilight Zone or Black Mirror episode.
I saw a tweet saying "AI can't make art because it doesn't get horny and you have to be full of desire to make art" and that one rattles around my brain like a tin can in a washing machine
As Sondheim once said, "the only two worthwhile things in life are children and art"... (Sunday in the Park with George) Well, now I suddenly understand that last part.
I think the whole AI problem is just a symptom of the bigger problem, which is that our society has a terrible relationship with art. Most people don’t understand the value of it, and corporations treat it like a conveyor belt. Plenty of people don’t even see being an artist as a real job. Until that problem gets addressed, there’ll be some new problem around every corner that all feel like the current AI one.
No, the problem is entitled assholes that shit on the new technology enabling people to express themselves. It happened with digital art 30+ years ago, it's happening again.
@@1998Cebola Ah. My friend. This issue has been in debate for the last 3500 years. I'm reasonably sure I even read a Socrates quote that is quite similar to yours. I.e. This aint gonna end. This is an infinite struggle.
@@1998Cebola We need artists and creativity, otherwise we don't get entertainment. You think things like star wars, a ridiculous juggernaut of a franchise, would have been created without artistic minds? Artists are one of the most important people we have on earth.
It's really sad that the general devaluation of art has come to this point. And I remember I was so excited when the "shoot a day in your life wes anderson style" trend went viral because I saw people not in the field doing an exercise of cinematography. It's so beautiful when people not accustomed to do art try to, and I think that perhaps that integration with the everyday can make a shift in how the general public treat the art
@@digitarum1014 People using the cameras on their telephones are still *doing photography*. The correct comparison here is someone sitting at home on their computer and photoshopping themselves into pictures of places they got from Google Images, and trying to pass that off as an alternative to travel.
Much like the devaluation of crafts such as carpentry and garment making. People seem less outraged about that though, because they prefer to spend less, even if the quality is terrible.
Hey, if art suddenly grows limbs, gets a medical degree, and begins a career in triage for disaster relief, we can have a conversation about its devaluation. Until then, we should be funneling the resources wasted on art to save actual human lives. Devaluing art is therefore a good thing.
@@jacksongreen4107Difference is, the purpose of travel is the travelling, not the photos, whereas the purpose of making movies is the movies, not the making.
yeah, pretty sure that was the opposite of the original idea and promise as pushed out by futurists. we were supposed to have lots of down time to paint, free from the chains of capitalism haha
Anything AI ends up doing better than me other humans have been doing better since before I was born, and that still hasn't dissuaded me from pursuing my interests and honing my skills. People that are bitter about this are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, as all of us ultimately are, AI is just forcing them to have to reckon with it.
You unlocked a memory for me. I watched that X-men parody years ago, but found this channel's video essays entirely separately just a few weeks ago. I'd completely forgotten about that parody video and would have never guessed it was you who'd made it.
The video trend of people turning their mundane tasks homages to Wes Anderson was pretty cool and the people who made them admitted how hard it was to find outfit's and perfectly place their cameras to capture the symmetrical shots. It was a funny trend and it at least involved people putting creativity into their videos and didn't harm anyone.
@netherportals Stick to the portals. They are a good place for your ignorance to go. Its not about the tech or the software, its about the creativity. AI is plagarised shit that harnesses the hard work and effort of countless genuine creatives without their consent or permission, from all fields and not just "People creating art with lines and mouse / layers". Any dingus can make a doughnut in Blender by following a tutorial that is not being creative.
@@RedbarParadise-ni4cq Yeah no, that's absolute bullshit and you know it He doesn't have skill, he has a program that poorly mixes together other people's skills and will probably even have to pay a monthly fee for regardless
AI "artwork" is already beginning to crowd out images on Pinterest. The most annoying part is that selecting the images to determine whether they are AI-generated seems to register with Pinterest as "liking" them, and it constantly tries to feed you more and more of them. You are forced to actively select them to hide them- and when it asks you why, it doesn't even let you say "because I do not want an AI-generated image".
🤦🏾♂️why are you quotationing everything it IS ARTWORK don’t be like the people who where over dramatic saying photography was the end of the world for art saying it’s not art
@@Flack0-Flackobecause there's quite a major difference between: * positioning a camera in the perfect location, at the perfect time, at perfect lighting, to capture a moment of time (photography) * stroking marks on a physical/digital canvas, layering multiple lines, colors, whatever to create an image (traditional drawn art( * rendering shapes and figures from a vague nothing base (modeling and carving) * typing a few words in a search engine, praying to create a visual noise that somehow looks like something (ai "art")
@@Flack0-Flacko Okey. It's crappy art. Soulless. Empty. Boring. The difference is obvious. Yes, I know, many people can't tell the difference. That isn't an affirmation of AI's success, it's an indictment of all those people's ability to discern the quality of a work.
Kitsch is the only thing being democratized here. Ya know when you're in a gift shop on vacation and there is all this stuff, like dishes with wolves on them or something like that. It's just like that. Slap something that looks like art onto another thing and sell it to someone. Complete Kitsch
I think it's wonderful that kitsch is being democratised, and devaluing kitsch art in the process. When clichés are free, it might help people to recognise actual originality.
@@AnthonyFlack And then somebody trains the AI the "originality" and they become a cliché too. AI will make artists and pretty much all intellectual work obsolete.
All the guy did was make a fake trailer parody. But you want to break something? Why were you disappointed that Wes Anderson wasn't actually making a Star Wars movie? Pat sure got you riled up over nothing.
@@Stand_By_For_Mind_Control the thing is that idea isn`t something ultra-creative and he could have simply come up with something like this in few seconds of using his brain and imagination, without any chat gpt.
Just last week I thought to myself "Isn't it funny that Patrick (H) Willems did that Wes Anderson x-men sketch and it was really cool and clearly a lot of effort went into it and this whole AI nonsense is just taking one cool idea and kicking it until it can't move anymore" and here I am a week later watching this vid like a nostradamus of some sort.
Yeh he would tke just the hobbit and just gandalf the dwarves and bilbo hanging out in the shire being jolly. I have nothing against a the hobbit pub movie honestly. But only if you have real people having fun with a hobit pub movie. I am sorry, hanging on with fancy teaparty elves.
not to spoil the fun but since The Lord of the Rings is a book, he would probably just keep the title of the book since that's what he does with adaptations.
I've been a fan of your essays for a while now. Over the years, I've watched you get better and better at this. I've seen you get more comfortable on camera (you're actually quite good at this now!) and more creative with your filmmaking. You've gone from a guy talking about film to a guy making film about film (I know that's a bit pointyheaded, but what can I say? It's true). Watching that growth over all this time... it's really rewarding to witness. You've taught me things. Your point of view has broadened my own... and I sincerely appreciate that. And now? I gotta say. I'm even more excited. You're using this platform, and the success that's come from it, to support people who need it. You're not making polemics, or obnoxious hot takes. You're thoughtfully and entertainingly breaking down a thing that is, and helping us see what it means for our culture, and for actual people. You're doing something not just smart, or funny, or interesting... you're doing something good. You're a good guy. And the crew (HI EMMA!) who helps you? They're good too. You're all actually, somehow, amid all of this [gestures wildly at the internet] accomplishing something. I really admire you all for it. Just wanted to thank you guys for that. :)
The gag about all this is that the AI needs constant annotation through Remotasks, where humans feed the AI by responding to and rating tasks for cents on the dollar. They’re the reason the AI even looks and reads as human, and it’s getting worse because those humans are using AI to annotate.
That's not a gag. To use human feedback efficiently is an entire area of research. What's amusing is your presumption that it should somehow become good at producing outputs humans like without human feedback. I don't know what that's even supposed to mean.
No, or open source AI wouldn’t be a thing. It's what happens when people who lack basic skills to do a form of art are finally given the tools to produce that art quickly and cheaply. It happened with almost every form of art. The camera has infiltrated every corner of our lives, people are posting billions of awful photographs each day to the internet. Programs like Unity and Unreal Engine made game making easy enough that you barely need to know how to code, and Steam is deluged with stock asset garbage. So why is everyone surprised when a tool comes out that allows non-artists to generate art and it is being used to generate a sea of garbage art? What we are seeing is what always happens when technology enables lesser skilled people to produce art. People on here are acting like every “Wes Anderson does X” film on RUclips is suddenly complete gold, and forgetting that 99% of human generated content on this page is utter garbage not fit for human consumption. AI isnt going viral because its good. Its going viral because its POTENTIAL to be good.
Honestly, the worst thing about this AI discussion is the parts where humans stroke their ego and declare themselves superior to all of creation. The only reasons companies want to replace their employees with algorithms is because algorithms don’t demand they get paid for their labor, at least not yet.
@@miclowgunman1987 The thing is. To a lot of consumers, this doesn't matter. AI generates things that, a lot of times, is "good enough" for people. To most people, these aren't garbage. They are fun, interesting, and aesthetically pleasing. AI will only get better, and so will the things that people with virtually no grasp of the thing they're replacing will be able to do. A picture you take on your phone is yours, you have chosen the aspects of that picture. The angle, composition, distance, etc. An AI image you make is not yours, all you did was tell a machine to do it for you, virtually as effortless as taking an ugly picture, yet it looks amazing to the point where most people wouldn't care if it's real or not. There are a lot of similarities of course, but you have to admit, this is kinda more worrying than iPhones or Unity or Unreal Engine
Is that why they resort to music videos instead of making their own songs now? Those segments made me stop watching SP. It feels so out of place and cringey. Pandering.@@crimsonlanceman7882
When those AI Wes Anderson parodies first started popping up on my Instagram feed and RUclips recommendations I just raised an eyebrow and went “Huh, that’s kinda neat, I guess I can see a version of Lord of the Rings with this cast.” But at this point any sight of these soulless husks triggers a visceral disgust
And then Across the Spider-verse triggered that massive wave of "Spidersona of my fave" fanart, which really showed lots of what those AI products are missing for me
I totally agree with the "A.I. is a grift" sentiment. It essentially allows lazy people to come up with an approximation of something, when they don't want to expend the effort to learn how to do the thing they want to do, and then to do it. "Art" without artistry isn't really art, now, is it?
At least for now, its attracting the same bums pushing NFTs. Theres a few artists that genuinely use ot as a tool, but the vast majority of ai image profiles are people who had no prior interest in art before and will stop once they realise what a waste of time it is for them.
@@aceyagehehe come on... 90% of modern art is ALL ABOUT how it's made. Think of Jackson Pollock, or Matthew Barney, or Andy Warhol and many many more. What was important (to collectors, art historians as well as critics) was HOW Pollock made his paintings by splattering paint, or Matthew Barney by attaching bungee cords to himself and stretching and straining to put each line on paper, etc. If HOW something was made wasn't important, why would filmmakers like Christopher Nolan work for ages putting together 30 minute long continuous takes, among other things? People love to know how art comes into being. Maybe you or some people you know don't care, but the people that the artist makes his living off of certainly do.
i think that's the paradox here : they copy Wes Anderson based on these tricks, but when you know Wes Anderson's work, you know that it is more than just shots and filters. Wes Anderson always tells a story, and in the most beautiful way, he's a dedicated director who loves what he's doing, and i can feel this love throughout the entire movie.And watching his movie is always an experience. Go Wes Anderson!!!
Also he's one of the most low tech famous filmmakers today. Take Asteroid City (it's great) - it's meant to be a play and it is. There's physical sets, puppets, camera tricks to mess with scale, great but obviously fake. The dreamlike homemade aesthetic makes his stories shine - no coincidence that his tales are often about growing up or family/found family troubles. Tldr the aesthetic isn't just a color palette or a particular series of cuts, it's a craft and it's meant to fit a context. Good luck getting a text generation machine to understand that.
@@milsthebard1085 and this is why I think IA will fail (at least for now) to reproduce his work, for all the reasons you listed!!! It is indeed a craft, and i don't think that IA is able to understand how hard it is to replicate this...
You and Adam Conover have had the best grasp of how large language processors cannot replace artists and writers effectively. And, quite frankly *why would we want it to?* I'm glad I have a machine to replace the many hours of labor I would have to spend washing my clothes, I don't want a machine who plays my guitar for me. Some people actually tried to use a machine learning program to finish Beethoven's 10th symphony by feeding it all of his work and..surprise! It sucked. Beethoven was such an innovator, there is no way to know what his *next* symphony would sound like.
That's because you're the kind of person who wants to play guitar. As someone who's had the misfortune of listening to the 'people' pushing AI, I can confirm that they're the kind that saw a rock star was popular, fiddled around on a guitar for five minutes before deciding it was too hard and giving up, then creamed their pants when they found out there might be a way for them to poison society such that anyone hardworking and talented will be dragged down to their shitty level. I'm not kidding, a substantial portion of the drive for AI media generation is pure jealousy and hatred of people that can create. I'm not really a creator or anything and it was still kind of sickening to read. Most of the rest is corporations realizing they can stop paying their workers.
@@nunyabiznes7446i could not agree with you less. i shall never by any means use ai to show my real creativity. unlike those godless lazy vermins, i have creativity, feelings and talent. i say we outlaw ai “””art””” for good
And I have been having the same thing to say to the people obsesed with it- what is this tech exactly freeing people to do with their time? What now when a passtime was automated so you have basically nothing to do between working and spending?
@@masterzoroark6664it allows someone to make a comic or images or movie in a day then a year for most people we dont have the time for art this opens art up to millions of people we will replace you
@@kiirolozanogarcia3003 You sound like a fascist, TBH. All of this talk about purity and other people being lazy vermin is something we've heard before. Pretty deranged reaction to other people making art a way you don't like. Fascist.
Thank you. I feel so depressed by these blatant hype cycles tech companies grift off for months at a time until the goldfish starts again with something different. SaaS, Streaming, Metaverse, Crypto, NFTs, and now AI continues the trend of a insulated VC-driven bubbles that grow to insane amounts before they burst and everyone moves on. I read stories every few months of a company that existed for 3 weeks getting billion dollar valuations after grafting the latest trend to their company vision. I'm sick of hearing about how 'x thing will disrupt the world as we know it'!
I don't know if you've noticed, but streaming is very much still a thing and the reason Blockbuster is out of business. In fact you streamed this video you just watched, so it did actually disrupt the world as we knew it, young people don't even know what a DVD is anymore. The bubble has not burst, and DVD's are not coming back in style, nobody is moving on from streaming. Crypto is also still around, but that was not pushed by some tech company, the open source community did that, at least the good ones. And it actually is an excellent technology, the only reason it's not been widely adopted is because of push back from banks and governments, and also some bad actors making the less tech savvy crowd a bit sceptical. SaaS is very much in use and widely adopted by people all over the world, being used in offices and at home every day. And Metaverse and NFT's where obvious failures from the start, almost nobody thought those thing were going disrupt or revolutionize anything.
@@daniel4647Streaming is still an unsustainable business model that a lot of people still use because there are still things on streaming services that they can’t watch anywhere else legally.
@@daniel4647 Ironically, though, I do think eventually DVD or something equivalent will return. The reason for this is I do think people will realize that by streaming services having a hold of things, we don't actually own it and movie can be tossed out at any time with no way for us to watch it again. The same with video games. Eventually people will find a way to have ownership of movies without streaming services or even without internet. History doesn't repeat but it does rhyme. Many people actually did think NFTs would revolutionize and some STILL do.
My sister is a medical doctor. I have a doctorate in computer science. As kids, we would rib each other in a good-natured way about whose profession was better (FYI, it's hers; I love my field but...yah). Anyway, after going back and forth teasing each other numerous times one of my responses was "My field is better because it will gradually replace the need for you human doctors." She was extremely dismissive about this, saying that no computer could understand people the way another human could and that you would always need a human doctor in the mix. To which my response was, "You're not looking at this right. It isn't about doing everything a doctor does, it's about making each doctor vastly more efficient at doing whatever it is that they're doing so that in the net you let a single doctor do what used to require 4 or 5 doctors or more." This exact scenario is what killed the legal profession, taking it from one of the most prestigious fields in the country to a complete dead end field with massive unemployment in less than a single generation. It happened so suddenly in law that television hasn't even caught on to this fact yet and still makes legal dramas like Suits that use views of the legal profession that haven 't been true for 10 years, minimum. You know when they show the young lawyer workin' on a big case late at night with a giant cup o' coffee and legal books spread all around them? Complete bullsh*t. It's such an iconic scene that movies and shows can't help going back to it, but legal research today is done by one person (or maybe a few) with a computer in a few percent of the time it used to take. That's what killed the profession; you just don't need as many lawyers now to perform legal research, traditionally one of the most labor intensive aspects of the job. Anyway, my sister and I break off the ribbing and time moves on, like four years later I get a call from my sister at a medical convention. "Oh my god," she says out of the blue, "you were right." She proceeds to describe a bunch of new products aimed at hospitals that will completely alter the landscape of life in a hospital, allowing each doctor to see many, many times more patients without a bunch of extra work by the doctor. And she's felt that fact professionally since. Medicine is funny, most of the shortage of doctors you might hear about is about non-lucrative underserved markets, but in the major markets there are already oversupplies of doctors that have difficulty finding jobs. It's not as bad as in legal, but it's steadily heading there. I bring all this up because this is the reality descending on the entertainment industry. It isn't about the ML that can automate some repetitive tasks, although you could think of that as the precursor to what AI is about to do. The real thing that is about to happen is context-aware AI manipulation. I don't mean some idiot telling an LLM to write him a script. I mean a digital assistant that you can tell "I need to punch this script up with some comedy" that can then search through a script and identify the likely places where you could insert or alter jokes along with a corresponding set of links to topical stories or situations that might be good research to assist you, so that a talented writer can work through the job so efficiently that what might have taken weeks can now be done in a single day. And yah, also digital camera operators to suggest shot framing, lighting, special effects, digital actors and 3D modeling; these things will all be gradually introduced. Not to outright eliminate the need for human professionals to do those jobs, but to make each one much more efficient and the entire process vastly less expensive so that making entertainment is much more approachable to an ever larger number of people. It's not about removing people all together, it's about just not needing anywhere as many of them while still allowing for the application of essential human creativity. This ability to not just do things, but to comprehend why a person is doing them and intelligently assist them is doing them is the real revolution AI is about to start rolling out. I know this post is getting a little long, but one more illustrative example to highlight the point I'm making. My employer occasionally brings in big wigs from other corporations to give talks. This guy from IBM came in to talk about the new LLM AI models and emerging use cases and he talked about factory automation. I'm talking about those robots that assemble cars or rapidly construct candy bars or whatever. Turns out, according to him, one of the biggest drawbacks to automation like that is paradoxically the labor requirements. See, you don't think about it when you watch a little clip of those robot arms moving faster than your eyes can track perfectly assembling a Toyota on an assembly line, but an absurdly vast amount of labor from people like me had to go into creating the ML that powers those robots. They have to be taught what to do, what not to do, when to do it, what conditions create exceptions. Little flaws have to be worked out and smoothed before you get to that impressive clip. It's really, really expensive and time consuming, which helps explain why a company like Tesla, even after taking over a working auto factory, still struggled with a largely manual process of car assembly for years. But here's the catch: it turns out that when you can feed a model a document of requirements telling it what needs to happen at each stage and it can do all that work translating that into digital logic in seconds, you can build models that create near-perfect first passes of the programming for those robots in a day when it used to take an army of developers months or even years. Doesn't even matter if it's not perfect, because it took you straight to the 90% completed point in a day! And with a good model design that allows for an iterative process of refinement...well, let's just say that cheap labor in places like China will over the next decade feel less and less appealing for manufacturing. Not that some companies won't continue to approach production that way, of course, but the point is again that it doesn't eliminate the need for highly trained professionals completely, it just means you need less and less of them every year as the new tools roll out and industries begin to see their peers utilizing it effectively.
Yeah, when I was in business school we talked about how people overestimate how much manufacturing has gone to countries like China, and underestimate how much has been automated.
These AI videos are like some sort of diet candy that just makes me want to watch someone do it well. A video that doesn't actually scratch the itch, just points out that it sure would be nice to see something like this.
The guy screams slick grifter, the type who will buy out a company and slash its quality to squeeze every last buck possible, leaving a hollow husk where it once was.
So hearing the idea that "trailers aren't art because they're marketing" set me off because all the best, most memorable ads have had an artistic charisma to them. Like there are a ton of projects that have more artistic intent put into their marketing than the actual end product
Yeah, the Pop Art movement in the 50s centered around this, exploring the relationship between artistic expression, advertising, and consumerism. A large part of that movement was aimed at breaking down elitist barriers and gatekeeping, defining what is or is not art.
I remember loving that Wes Anderson X-Men video so much because you could absolutely see the work that went into it. It actually made me really want to see him take on those characters because it certainly would deviate from the source material, but in a way that would probably have it's own charm that still be really entertaining in it's own way. These A.I. "trailers" though do feel soulless, but they're also kind of just depressing. There are interesting things to come out of them visually when it comes to mashing up concepts, but even then it sort of makes trying to make actual art feel kind of pointless in a way. Kind of makes me sick how many times I've seen "80's dark fantasy ____" pop up and you know someone basically just typed that and called it a day. There wasn't really any work put into it.
You are right. But in the same time I am still glad the technology is being developed. Current trend of videos wholly generated by AI is simply trend that gets attention because of it's novelty and certain kind of power. It is shocking for the first sight. The talk about empowering and democratization of art is problematic but in the same time it is not without the certain kind of point. Sure good art requires skill, innovation, inspiration, understanding and creativity. And enjoying piece of art does as well. And here is the thing, if we believe that AI generated content is less appealing than human made art, then it should not replace it but if it's regarded as being on par or sufficient for certain use or context for certain price it could be used instead of human art. Seccond we need to consider that piece of art could be understood in monadic manner. The piece of art is certain indivisible whole. But there are still certain corresponding subsegments that can also be considered piece of art themselves. One example would be the movie being one inidivisible whole while the individual costumes used in it also being works of art. Now the corresponding segments does not always have to be art. When you are filming amateur movie, you may decide to let your character be clothed in very generic industrialy created t-shirt. That would be legitimate choice. Choosing the right shirt could still be artistic choice. But perhaps you did not even put consideration into that and choose random t-shirt. This can make your movie worse but it can still be art because you used your creatvity elsewhere and it can still be pretty good at those places you put effort to and perhaps your random chose of t-shirt is kind of acceptable for the character. I think generative AI can be used in similar ways. Perhaps the indipendent creator would shoot their movie with actors wearing those random t-shirts and then let AI cloth their actors in the video into something else. They may ask AI to generate few versions of costumes based on some well though out prompts. They may get several results. They may choose one or few and then ask AI to combine the features they like and eliminate those they did not like. Then they could get some result. They could further edit that result and then ask AI to map of their actors. I believe in this case, the artist did use the AI as a tool. They even put some creativity into making the costume and the costume itself is just a segment of the whole movie. But the tool used was machine learning. It was generation of graphic content based on text prompt. Perhaps if the filmmaker had a profesional team of tailors and designers with wast knowledge of history and design and a team of people who could see the costumes, then the costumes could come out even better. But it was sufficient for that creator. The technology for creation of graphic content based on text prompt does provide certain kind of power so it is empowering. It could provide it to people who did not have it before so it is democratizing in certain ways. If anything it provides creators with less quality but cost effective alternative solutions for certain aspects of their work. It is just not replacement for everything and for the whole of the creative process. It gets it's hype for some rightful reasons while still being misused. People will go about and try to figure out how to use this technology in more creative ways. And hopefully more and more tools would develop that would allow users to use AI capabilities in interactive and intuitive manner, not just writing one prompt or pressing button. Btw even now what people like is the fact that it can portray their prompts. Perhaps the most greedy or attention seeking could like it even more if it did not need any input at all and instead generated supposedly the most viral content just on pressing the button, but most folk toying with it just like it's funny capability in materializing some of their ideas. But when this technology was first released it was not released as something fully integrated into other creative tools or something that invites more creativity and interactivity just because it was kind of prototype for showcase. The companies wanted to draw attention to the main mechanic of the tool they have and show it in simple way. But I believe there will be progress towards more interactivity, as there will be demand for it. Tho it is true this inovation towards more creative use of AI want happen by itself. The demand of it can be supported if we criticize the shallow content and praise the art. The nuanced critique of the trend can help to cultivate the technology and it's use. And I am glad that the author promoted Nebula in context of this video. Perhaps the projects like Nebula are walking in direction of creating better environment in which this better technology and cultivated use could thrive. While the more profit driven environment raising money from add viewership etc could make pressure towards lesser quality. And also while it is true that the difference between art using AI as tool and AI generated content is a slippery slope i first hope that this would be understood and judged by difference in quality. Also those internet user prompted AI generated stuff so far are more comparable to memes in the way people relate to them rather then other kind of graphic art. Meme culture is very self reflective. Meme culture knows usual limits of it's technical quality and sometime consciously uses it as kind of aesthetics. So even if AI generated video content comes to be prevalent on some kind of social media dedicated to it, I hope people will understand that this kind of "democratisation" comes with certain limitations and that they would reflect the difference between it and the artforms that use less of it. This social media could still be interesting hub of ideas anyway.
I could see Wes Anderson doing The Hobbit, actually. The Hobbit is pretty light and comedic to begin with, but involves several tragic figures, and one of the main characters is basically dealing with the grief of his entire race, not just his own, and it makes him stubborn and prone to lashing out. Anderson doesn't do, like, fight-y action all that much but The Hobbit's action is mostly chase scenes (sometimes chases with a little fighting going on in the background), and Anderson loves finding fun ways to have the camera follow people when they're running. Only two acts of outright violence are essential to the plot, one of which happens largely in the background (in the book, the Battle of Five Armies is handled in like a single page). The other moment is a dude being told where to shoot a dragon using his favorite arrow by a bird he just happens to be able to understand because that's just a thing people from his hometown can do. Pretty sure Wes Anderson can swing *that* particular scene.
Honestly, I think you nailed what was wrong with the Jackson trilogy. It was a fluffy story told as though it was epic, while the actual book was an epic story told as though it was fluffy. Which is exactly what Anderson does. Though if anyone is going to do a Hobbit in the style of Wes Anderson parody, it'd be preferable for it to be an actual filmmaker like Patrick.
@@rottensquid In Jackson's defense, it was a complete shitshow that was dumped on his lap that he had to try make epic or the economy of his country would have tanked. Not a fan of the result at all, but I do feel for him.
@@deadlockoriginalfilms2.096 writers and actors are still working for a24 because they met all the terms of the union. Patrick is working for himself, as are his writers and actors, and i doubt he's trying to replace them all with AI. The strike isn't an across the board "don't do shit," it's a targetted attack on actual supervillain overlords.
As much as I laughed at the joke about the WB execs losing their job to AI it should be noted that AI being used to decide what to make is just as bad as having AI write scripts. AI will choose even more recognizable IP movies and we'll get even less original ideas on the big screen.
The thing that unsettles me the most is how incestuous the whole thing is, with each successive one not imitating the original but rather the latest ai Wes Anderson hackjob. It's terrifying to think that these things are shaping the way that bottom-feeders on the internet see Wes Anderson more than his own movies.
On a positive, thats a major downside that ai using ai created content, and that going on. I go wth the incest metaphor why that makes problems using ai more tan just as muse or playing off idas. gpt need human creative art to seem real. ai created will, cause problems like incest down the line.
@@marocat4749 , ironically, I could see the ultimate byproduct of an AI cannibalizing its own data a million times turning out to be a genuine and weirdly-original piece of art.
@@dinosaysrawr this is already happening. AI art has started to get worse, because machine learning just sucks data indiscriminately, and since now there's so much junk AI art, it's starting to use itself as reference. Same with other machine learning stuff. The happy ending of this is either AI kills itself by choking on its own tail, or governments start actually questioning where did machine learning companies get all that material to feed the machine with, which is already happening in Europe.
@@WarriorZ676 - I haven't heard anything about large amounts of AI art making its way into anyone's training data. If it was you could just filter out any files in your training data that's less than a year old.
Great video, you talking about the difference between AI generated content vs creativity really hit home to me. I spent this past summer creating a homage to "The West Wing" by making a short film of the show if it took place in a college physics department (professionally I'm a physicist). I spent a month just playing around with drafting a script that was playing tribute to the show (not making fun of it) while also seeing if I could create a original narrative while hitting the beats of "walk and talk", "inspirational speech", team of passionate people working together to fix a problem, and a character like Josh that is somewhat of a disorder mess and over confident in his abilities. Than it took a month to film while constantly revising the script. All we were doing was familiar simple shots of people walking and talking and standing and talking, not nearly as much craftsman ship and skills as going into your X-Men short. While we were filming, one of my cast members gain a ChatGPT from her research group, and we jokingly asked it to generate a script for Josh and Donna from West Wing if they were discusing physics. ChatGPT did, we laughed when we read it, but not because of how great it was, the script ChatGPT made was somewhat hollow and sad. A lot of the physics jokes seemed recycle, and didn't really add anything new, just hitting the beats of arguing and than a "oh well, I really appreciate you, life is good" conclusion that was just awkwardly inserted in. It felt like an imitation of an imitation of what people think tv is. It left me somewhat sad thinking some people might actually make scripts to shoot this way and probably just get a lot more interest "AI generated Video" than anything my team could make after months of hard work. More seriously, there's even professor where I work who have decided to just use ChatGPT to create their assignments, or exams, or even solutions for their classes instead of creating their own teaching documents. I kind of wish this would be a fad, but I don't think it's going to be. This tool is going to help people who are prone to cut corners in every field are going to cut corners even more easily, it's really sad for both professional and creative work.
the scariest thing about a professor using chatgpt so much is that chatgpt is going to do everything in its power to be right--that includes making up answers and doubling down on wrong information. Computers don't understand much, so all a program knows how to do is whatever task it has been given. An AI just has a lot more freedom in how to complete this task. If someone asks it to tell them about work-kinetic energy theorem, then the ai will do just that...but it doesn't necessarily have to tell you anything true. It can just make stuff up based on whatever websites it can get its code-hands on regardless of whether or not those sites are fact-checked or have any actual sources at all. So that professor is potentially putting their job in the hands of something that has the ethical drive of a high schooler who needs to write an essay on shakespeare. It's going to bullshit until it gets a passing grade.
@@mallk238 yeah, kids in my class use chat gpt for essays, and I've read through them. Not only does it consistently drop info that is objectively wrong and unsourced, but it tries to gaslight you into believing it.
Man, I love how seriously you take your work. It shows and it keeps me coming back. I feel the need to be the same way and the platform should not determine the level of quality.
There’s a company in China who has an AI “woman” as their CEO, making decisions for the company and apparently when it was announced, their stock price went up. Some people have a lot of faith in “AI” aka machine learning. It’s called NetDragon, and a company called Hunna has also done this from what I just read. Wild times.
I'd correct that to say: "there's a company in China who *CLAIMS* to have an AI as their CEO". It's all smoke and mirrors over in that part of the world these days.
A.I content is the quintessential expression of 'agile methodology' in the arts. When a sales person reaches out to some executive and goes "Don't you hate those shitty artists and creators not doing what you want, when you want it? Don't you hate timelines and scope?!"
Agile very much has an emphasis on timelines and scope. Agile is about consistent, quality, sustainable releases. Replace human artists with AI? All that does is increase the speed at which some of the component parts are made (and even then, actual humans still have to fix it up). You could use AI in waterfall development for the same results.
But then to play devil's advocate, it would further democratise art to the point where anyone without having to develop any special skills or talent would be able to make their own art limited only by their imaginations. But then, to play devil's advocate again, if a person's unique combination of talent, skills, and imagination becomes devalued, that could work as a mechanism to suppress their individuality. It seems inevitable to me that eventually everything a person could create in their lifetime will be drowned out by the creations of far more efficient algorithms and machines. Thinking this way isn't new and it has always been proven wrong in the past so maybe I should be more optimistic.
@@mitzee8621 See but there's the issue, this garbage doesn't democratize anything, art has always been so easily, pen and paper, even most art programs are cheaper or free compared to the A.I programs with subscription fees Nobody was ever stopped from making art
@@PixelHeroViish I think you are misunderstanding just how hard art is for many people. I'm only barely capable of creating 3 lines on a white square to use as a hamburger menu on a site. AI image tools make it possible to do much more. That said the images I generate serve the same function as stock images. They aren't meant to be artistic expression. I've never thought or cared much about art in the past and am still trying to figure out what it means to create art. I wonder if AI will be for artists what the sewing machine was for tailors. Minimizing the value of certain skills but massively improving efficiency.
Agree that more people should watch A.I. by Spielberg. It definitely fell off the radar whenever people talk about great Spielberg films or science fiction films.
I recently rewatched it. I had always not wanted to rewatch it because of how sad it was ... and yup. It was still the same sad movie I remember. It's absolutely brutal. And still so sad ... but that's just a sign of how great of a movie it is. To trigger these feelings for what are essentially just programmed computers and machines is powerful.
A Big element of the grift, is the courses curious refuge are selling. The amount of AI related RUclips channels and courses that have popped up are insane as well.
I follow and like some of these channels just for the heck of it, but I really don’t see them replacing the need to make and enjoy genuine art. Corporate media pushing this hot garbage will backfire the already corporate mandated conveyor belt slush that we have been getting for the last 10 years, post lockdown and almost every studio having their own streamer just made it more obvious.
there are a lot of great ai content creators and you can tell who's doing it earnestly and who's just riding the wave....but definitely anyone selling a course nowadays is a scammer. they probably literally took another scam course that is just a course about scamming people with courses. a la andrew tate
I think art entirely created by AI will be remembered as a fascination of the early 21st century. It might pick up steam for a while as corporations see dollar signs, thinking they can make movies/books/tv for next to no money. But there will be a reckoning where the public has to finally acknowledge why we engage with art in the first place, in a way we've never meaningfully had to. Appreciating any kind of art is ultimately about a human connection between the artist(s) and the audience. It's a social experience when you get down to it, even when watching a movie by yourself. AI art will feel hollow, lacking that human connection, no matter how ably it imitates human creativity.
Or we make the companies currently plagiarising artists and monetising it using this software have the same copyright laws apply to them as everyone else. Its not fair use if it is performed by a machine.
i hope but i also feel like a lot of ppl who aren't creative or invested in art can't be bothered to do that, we all have lives and work and a lot of people might just be content to consume AI art as a distraction the same way other art/entertainment. I've seen so many depressing ppl online who are just praising AI becuz they hate artists, think they're pretentious, and also just whine that Hollywood is so bad nowadays they'd rather have AI.
Or it will become a useful tool, like digital ones that revolutionised how art is made. Funny that those that criticized digital art used the same bullshit argument of "hollow" and "lack of human connection" or "lack of soul".
@@mondodimotori different arguement, ai art that utilises only copyrighted material to produce work identical in style to that original work is plagiarism.
Something I see comun in this "AI bros" are what they really want to do, low effort money. If you are an artist you are in love with the procces, you love recording, singing, wirting or drawing. If you are an artist you love using time on your life learning and enjoing other artist. If you are an artist you will make art your life.
I mean, maybe don't go all in on making art your life - save some room for your pets or your kids or your friends or your hobbies - but I see your point. Joy in the journey and what it took to get there.
If it’s any consolation, I’d like to say that I had no idea that the trend of west Anderson parodies started out as an AI trend. On my Instagram feed I saw many many people creating west Anderson parodies of their daily life or studies or simple tasks, people who decided that they wanted, like the x-men parody, to imitate his style with their own little projects. Whether or not they had the same level of thought may be debated but I do believe that it’s important to notice that even still in the light of this ai trend there were people who decided they could do it without it’s help.
I'm an art school student doing an animation degree and over the past year, me and all of my classmates have lived in fear that we're going to be replaced and out of jobs before we even have the chance to get any. And honestly I still feel that fear so I appreciate this video a lot, it's very incisive about the exact things I'm worried about. The AI Patrick from your Nebula video will haunt me until my dying days. Also I just want to say that Emma is an absolute star and I am unbearably delighted to see her so present in the new season!
@@AnnDVine Did you know that almost the entire Ikea catalogue is digitally rendered now? Think that's a real photo of a chair or table or whatever? It's not, because digital renderings are cheaper, easier, and offers more control.
I had a good laugh when that AI filmmaker guy said that these tools democratize storytelling and allows people to express creativity. It's pretty rich coming from the guy who had AI write the script for those videos. Makes you wonder how exactly was he creative, maybe using AI for everything was the creative idea lol.
This. I just can't understand people who like using those character chat ai things either. I know a person who loves it so much, which is great for her, but like??? The things from it that she tells me are just like those empty wes anderson ai shots where it's generic text with the names of characters she likes inserted into them. It's so soulless and I don't know how to tell her I just don't give a shit about ai chats in a nice way. Like I don't care if gojo told you he's going to the store with naruto or whatever.
I kind of miss when ai generated content was a bit glitchier, because: 1. it wasn't yet an existential threat to human art, and 2. It sort of had a dreamlike (or nightmarelike) quality to it all. Most AI generated stuff now just seems... empty.
AI can make practically whatever you want. If you want glitches or more weirdness, you can still make that happen. You just have to actively make it happen with prompts/inpainting/edits. You need deliberate intent. I think the problem is that a lot of people playing around with the tech have kind of converged on a common digital painting style, and they decided that's what they like. I hate that style myself, but that crappy style isn't the only one AI can use. You're just seeing the curated ouputs that dumb people have selected. You can make your own art and train the AI on that if you really want. You could train it on screencaps of your favorite TV show. You could feed it images of your favorite painter or artist. It can make basically any visual, it's not limited to crappy spam that dumb people are constantly posting.
Also, the ways AI learning machines tend to naively stereotype or grossly misunderstand humans and our creations can be frankly pretty charming, I think, and the charm fades as the machine gets quote-unquote "better" at approximating the things it's trying to imitate or replicate.
It's still not a threat to human art. You can still draw. No one is stopping you. And you can still make dreamlike images if you ask it to or use the older models. They haven't disappeared
@@dinosaysrawr Just ask it to create what you want and it can make it if you know how to use it (it's A LOT more than just typing it in). Like traditional art, the only limits are your skill and creativity
The caveat that Patrick included about how “AI” will soon be able to replace C-Suite executives making shitty film decisions is honestly one I didn’t consider but is so much more of a reality. Like when you think about it, what’s more suited to cold, unfeeling collections of code: the inimitable creativity of human beings and the spirit of collaboration? Or decisions that weigh risk and reward and do multiple massive calculations of finances and predict trends? Maybe if Bob Iger or David Zaslav were threatened with the idea of them becoming obsolete they’d see things differently. I can’t say which I’d prefer honestly, a group of cold-blooded lizard-humans force-feeding me marvel movies until I asphyxiate or “AI” generated garbage that’s the exact same thing but with weird fucking hands.
It's not even remotely a reality lol. The ruling class are not gonna volenteer to let themselves be replaced. Those lowly artists can be replaced because that means less people to pay which means more money for them. That has always been and will always be their goal. Their interest in AI is not ideological, it's purely pragmatic.
@@Creamcups "It's not even remotely a reality lol." Not with that attitude. We little people outnumber the rich 1000-to-1; if they don't replace themselves, we'll just have to do it for them.
Obviously both creative people and business people will be using AI just as both creative people and business people use computers to help with their work today.
Steal like an Artist is a great book that I read when I was younger that talks about taking the things that inspire you and blending them into something new that's wholly your own. It's really disheartening to see that motto used as justification for straight up theft by machines that can never be artists or people that can never have any kind of ownership over the plagiarized things they make.
It's not a justification, it's how it works. It doesn't plagiarize, saying that it does is just a lack of understanding of the technology. It's like saying that drawing a landscape from memory is plagiarizing reality, it doesn't make any sense.
@@daniel4647But that’s not how the technology, or human interpretation of art, works at all. Of course “AI” can’t plagiarize. It also can’t interpret. Or imagine. All it does is find patterns in the most abstract way. Now the people behind the servers who set up the database of patterns? They CAN plagiarize, and have already had. We’re not upset at the technology, we’re upset at those abusing the tech to make money at the expense of people.
I work as a 3d artist and I constantly look for reference to practice and improve my sculpts now I have to deep dive into images to see if they are real or ai generated, there are so many ai skulls with inaccurate proportions, shapes and anatomical structures. So now i have to spend time finding credible images and thanks to googles patented enshitification of search most searches just bring me back to ai images because the internet is flooded with them. I might actually go out and start a bone collection so i have accurate references.
Thank you for making this. Another important thing to mention is that self-learning "A.I"cannot, and will never in its current form, partake in any kind of discourse. This is because it does not use language like we do. We attach a value judgement to what it spits out. We save it, or send a signal it did a good job, but never does A.I do this itself. While it may sound like a minor thing: discourse is required for new trends to emerge and new styles to challenge existing styles. Without discourse, art simply cannot happen. Yesterday I heard a guy say A.I will have a "market expanding effect" when it comes to film making. And sure, while it may scathe off development time and maybe help us crank out more films in a shorter time frame, it cannot escape the fact we will get sick and tired of the same old stuff. We see it with super hero movies right now. Not even the most perfect reiteration of the genre will save a studio from us getting tired of it at some point. A.I will simply accelerate that oversaturation. That new thing we inevitably want is something it can never provide, because it does not use language to express itself and therefore can never partake in the discourse of what's next. That market expansion that guy talked about will ultimately look more like a boom/bust cycle, with artists that cause a boom, and A.I grinding it down to a bust.
An AI model is trained by asking it to generate a result, then comparing it to the expected answer. A common method used in training is conditional generation - a two part AI consisting of a generator and a discriminator. The generator produces images based on the input text, and the discriminator assesses the quality of the generated images. AI, in fact, does send itself positive and negative feedback -- without that ability, AI would not be making the advancements it is right now.
This is just flat out false. You can literally go to any of the major AI sites and have a converstation with the ai. Why is it "artists" are always so willfully ignorant?
@@charlesreid9337 You're making a huge leap from A.I spitting out coherent syntax (which it does), and a conscious brain actually using that syntax as a tool for communication (which it doesn't).
@@Maxarcc youre wrong. Youve bought into these articles by.. people with ba's repeating this meme. AI works exactly as your brain does. The difference between deep networks and llm's is llm's have fewer neurons.. and more information. But llm's learn exactly as you do. LLm's suprised ai researchers because for 40 years we've thought the breakthrough would be the # of neurons .. when it wasnt processing.. it was information . I expect general ai about the time our processing power doubles or quadruples. A lot of ai researchers expect it sooner
My experience with A.I. writing resulted in a similar conclusion. The trick is that you need to actually be familiar with the artist that's being copied or you might be tricked into thinking that the A.I. is doing something better than it is. My experience was a mildly regrettable one where I was a bit harsh to a friend of mine who was showing me how far A.I. had come. I said, "Have it write something in the style of Louis L'Amour." It did. Well, it tried. I was already defensive, and doubly so because I'd previously thought A.I. could _not_ do something so detailed. Now I was discovering it could actually write stories, albeit, as I found out, exceptionally shallow ones that may or may not actually have logical progression. But anyway, the point is that it didn't really copy Louis L'Amour. It copied stereotypical Western novel tropes, but utterly failed in cadence, vocabulary and character style. It read like a beginner writer making a parody of the genre. The same thing seems to have happened here. It has the _trappings_ of a Wes Anderson movie, but outside of the transient amusement it provides to see someone's recognizable style transposed over something unrelated, there's very little to actually care about here. To sum up my opinion of A.I. works: Dry. Like the Wes Anderson-style X-men clip in this video, there's no depth to it, no real point, no indication of true insight into the style, the characters, a sense of humor, or anything else that might grab one's attention. Even the visual style was repetitive and quickly lost meaning.
I get pissed off easily when a friend of mine tries to advertise AI like it's the greatest thing ever and I'll probably always dislike it. Humans really are losing faith in humanity and it sucks.
@@juliuscaesar8163 My comment is relevant now. Hopefully, robits don't take over creative humqn expression. The more convenient life becomes, the more miserable humans get. I don't see this as a good thing.
AI is also about selecting from a choice of outputs. I can run a prompt on a batch of 50 and maybe 3 of the images are the things I plan on keeping. Seems like a lot of people are just basing their impression of it on what they can generate the first time with zero practice whatsoever.
@@juliuscaesar8163 The problem is that the algorithms Silicon Valley types mislabel as 'AI' are fundamentally reactive and unable to reliably guide their own development. The method for training them is to cram heaps of preexisting data down their throat, ask them to imitate it, watch them fail, tell them they failed, and then let them try again however many times it takes before it wardials its way into something passable. Then, the algorithm notes down that specific random decision as 'desirable', weights it accordingly, and we circle back around to the start. Current "AI" art is the fruit of decades' worth of research, but it's running up against a hard limit: the finite amount of existing art there is to be used as training data. Without having vast archives of never-before-used data to load into the hopper, the rate of progress slows commensurately and the amount of human labor needed for each little bit of that progress rises. This leads to a decreasing rate of new milestones to show off and wow investors with and an increasing minimum expenditure of funds to keep the engine from seizing up. People have already tested the most obvious possible solution of feeding algorithmically generated art back into the algorithm - and the results have been the opposite of promising. Making an algorithm reprocess its own data like that actually _degrades_ its ability to guess what we want from it. I couldn't wrap my head around the technical discussions on why that might be, but one metaphor stuck out to me: prion diseases. Prions are the cause of mad cow, kuru, and other cannibalism-related degenerative disorders. If we ingest prion-tainted tissue, the prions can make their way to our brain - they're just similar enough to actual viable components in our neurons and such that the brain tries to incorporate them, but they aren't actually fit for purpose and cause progressive breakdown in the basic processes of the brain. There are minute but _crucial_ details in how they're formed, how they react to various neurochemicals and neuroelectric signals, etc, that you get nonsense outputs instead of healthy brain activity. What might be worse is that prions can 'corrupt' examples of the actual useful proteins and turn _them_ into prions, which is what causes the progressive degeneration. And the type of tissue which carries the highest risk of transmitting prions? Dead brain tissue from close evolutionary relatives of the eater. Kuru in particular is a disease people get from committing cannibalism, with mad cow as a noteworthy instance of a prion disease that could affect both humans and bovines. It's very much a metaphor, but it's not entirely wrong to say that based on current evidence, algorithms can suffer forms of degeneration akin to kuru via "cannibalism". Which means not only is algorithmic art worse than useless as training data, trainers have to be increasingly wary of images made after the advent of current "AI" art generators due to the possibility of giving their algorithm "digital kuru" by letting an AI-generated image slip into the training data. That could easily lead to algorithmic art hitting a functional dead end, which could only even _potentially_ be worked past by putting the entire technology on ice for several human generations so a backlog of "untainted" data can build up again.
The voice all the Wes Anderson AI rip-off videos use is Bob Balaban. He was the narrator of Moonrise Kingdom. Now it seems to have become a default voice on TikTok videos for some reason. I hope he's getting paid for this or has good lawyers.
What AI does with Wes Anderson is similar to what many people do with Martin Luther King, who they turned into a cartoonish meme that can only recall one line from “I Had a Dream.”
That would be cool, but the nice thing is that is was made when he was a younger man. A younger less experienced filmmaker. It’s the charm. I’d love to go back and remake my old home movies, but the charm of film is in the nostalgia of it. The charm is the lessons you learned
if i asked an internet chatbot to make my video for me and it did everything from coming up with the concept to the script to all of the actual content in the video i wouldn't be stupid enough to call that "my" video.
I bet the AI chose Quicksilver because there was a lot of talk about his cameo appearance in WandaVision back in 2021 (which is about as recent as ChatGPT's knowledge base gets).
AI-generated "art" looks more like a bad dream than waking reality. And like a dream, it seems real enough while you're looking at it/experiencing it, but once you're back in reality you realize just how wrong it all looked.
The real danger is that studios or companies could have AI generate something, then hire an artist pennies to touch it up and make it usable, much less than they'd be paid for doing the whole thing from scratch. It's the same with writing. Yes, AI scripts kinda suck, but you can use an AI to spit something out, then hire one or two writers to edit and fix it up to be in a just usable state instead of having to hire a whole team to write the whole thing from scratch.
@@startrekmike yeah? I see your emotion, but my point is you can't rely on AI capabilities to stay at their current levels of "bad dream" for more than a few months or a year. The problem isn't merely "AI stuff looks bad lol", it's also that it will only improve.
My problem with machine learning is that it’s taking the friction out of a process that needs friction, IMO. I write, and sometimes it’s hard. It can suck. But I appreciate the struggle and writers block because it requires me to use my brain. It requires me to get advice from friends or have my editor look over my stuff. ML is basically a yes man that just does anything you tell it to. It’s not remotely fulfilling and tbh I think it’s actively harmful, particularly for creatives. Thanks for this video
@buddhafett2213 No, you can't. The most advanced LLM today with billions behind it can't do that. Actually, I've thought about how it could be possible halfway through my comment. But if all you do it train it to produce what the person would have already written, all the content with just be derivative. Circling the drain of mediocrity. And you would almost certainly be using already existing AI tools, just fine-tuning it, so you aren't even making that. So what are you actually producing?
As much as I love your essays on filmmaking and filmmakers, I am so happy to see you taking on topical subjects like AI's use in art. I'm really looking forward to your essay on Content and what that is, and how RUclips has molded the space to be more about generating stuff than being a creative space.
32:28 - As a kid, this is the thing I'd drew the most. I called them 'dungeons'.. basically rooms/landscapes full of spikes, with wild animals covered in spikes, vehicles/weapons covered in spikes, spikes on spikes. Good times.
This video finally convinced me to get Nebula. It was the perfect storm of worrying about creatives and AI, compounded by the strikes and worries that they have there, Matt Colville talking on a stream a while back about how production companies used to be led by people who cared about movies (like Pat also mentioned), and the deal on the yearly plan.
I mean if yiou can trough that rig a good story, yeah youhave shown enough reativity to do it yourselves. I mean or youplay off ideas to do your story out of it. And did you see gci artists done well or vtube avatars that are really good, agree making art out of tools, which that is, you are an artist.
The way i see it, AI tools are like a box cake. A good baker can use it as a base to make something good. A hack on the other hand will try and sell you a literally half baked cake and get mad that you aren't treating it like it's the former.
@@AdamOMcMurphy There are visible differences between a comment made by someone not fluent in English, and a comment made by someone having a stroke. This resembles the latter, with the bizarre skipped spacing, the randomly dropped or inserted letters, and how there's a double line break after every sentence.
While I am still on the fence regarding AI and its benefits vs dangers to human-made art, this is the video that made me a Patreon member. This is an important discussion and I am here for it. Looking forward to the next video on Content. Regarding the word "content"... Back in the '90s I worked for a certain National Bookstore Chain (whose HQ is in NYC). I love books and have deep respect for authors. Books are works of art. Authors are artists. But our National Bookstore Chain manager referred to all of the books as "product." His actual words to me were, "Stack them high and watch them fly." To him, books were no different from the boxes of screws and nails he sold at his previous job. Just another commodity. So yes, Patrick, I feel your pain when the art you love so much is referred to as "content."
We all know the studio execs won't mind AI churning out derivative ideas as long as it fits the algorithm's design, but the final barrier will be the audience. My biggest fear, and I think it's founded, is that the public won't care, or indeed notice the difference. Summer 2023 feels like it might be the breaking point for some of the more stale, formulaic movie practices that have ruled multiplexes for almost 2 decades, but it's not enough to give me any faith in people. There are generations of viewers who use Instagram and TikTok during screenings and get performatively angry when a big movie surprises them by not playing safe. They're happy to have machine-turned 'content' over art. Celluloid gruel. And yeah, it's not all of them but they were loud enough to change the last Star Wars movie into an apology tour for Disney daring to colour outside the lines so they have power.
Disney, and Lucasfilm in particular, are seriously worrying when you consider the greater implications of their bizarre experiments in replicating Mark Hamill's look and voice from close to 40 years ago in The Mandalorian, even before with Rogue One, and that de-aging technology from the latest Indiana Jones... With the ammount of IP's that Disney has aquired and public apathy, it wouldn't be out of the question for an executive to merely suggest using AI to plot and concoct official Star Wars media featuring Luke Skywalker without any kind of involvement or royalties paid to Mark Hamill, an issue that also amplifies the already difficult opportunities for actors to shine... I'm rather glad that the latest Indiana Jones and Flash movies bombed, as to show these studios that creating ghastly, digital zombies isn't as surefire as they believe to be...
I mean, most people who don't have some understanding of a field are pretty dumb about that field, but there is a limit. You show me x basketball player is the worst player in the NBA because of y and z stats, and I'll just shrug at worst and say 'okay, I guess' at best. You show me a game where he's constantly bouncing the ball off his own foot, and I'll see what you mean.
If the IDEA is generated from a machine and the product is generated from a machine, where is the artist's intention? People make art because they have something to say (even if they're not sure what it is but it burns inside till it gets out). The key part of being influenced by something is the step where it stews around in our own hearts/minds. Putting influence references into a machine takes out the most important step. An idea coming through our psycho physical makeup is deeply important. The process of art making is such an important part of being human. Thank you for this video! I'm really exhausted with people calling this kind of stuff art. I am a really big fan of artists utilizing technology as tools to make their stuff better. The tools need to be in the hands of people who are utilizing them specifically with intention, I think.
no they dont. This is more low iq "artist" "deep thought". Almost all artists copy. And what they dont conciously copy did what llm's do... they study what others have done.
Maybe they're not making art, they're just making a parody trailer for people to click on and laugh at? I don't remember that person saying anything about how great of an artist they are.
I think watching this video it makes me feel the film studios are really wanting the writers to be on the streets and have AI be the writers going forward in to the 2030’s.
If they let the strike go on too long, Hollywood will just evaporate and die. Motion pictures will still exist and filmmakers will still find work, but Hollywood literally cannot exist unless the striking unions go back to work. It'll be interesting to see what happens in Hollywood wipes themselves out just to spite the unions.
Bots have been better than humans at chess for decades now. That hasn't stopped people from playing chess. I hope it's the same with the arts. The economy of professional art is another matter; I'm talking about making art for the sake of making art. That said, people still love watching humans play chess. To my knowledge, there is no interest in watching AI-only chess matches-even though that would be the "best" chess in the world. People still just like watching people play chess. It's possible that, in the future, people will want to watch movies made by people because they were made by people. We feel a connection to the artist. I watched Barbie last night, and I found myself thinking, "Oh, so this is what Greta Gerwig thinks about these themes." I've seen a lot of AI art that is objectively gorgeous (maybe that's an oxymoron), but I don't feel emotionally connected to it because I can't stare in awe at the talent or hard work that someone put in to make it. The social aspect of consuming someone's creation isn't something these tools can manufacturer.
27:18 “all of us are pulling our creative ideas for something,” wrong, you didn’t have a creative idea and thus it wasn’t pulled from anywhere. You asked a chat-bot for ideas for viral videos, which it necessarily came up for ideas based off of previously viral videos and no original thoughts (because it is a computer and incapable). Nothing creative was done. No idea was created. This is just a cash in on a fad of something most people don’t understand and just think is cool, with no concern about the long term effects of this technology.
Mr Willems, you encapsulated perfectly my thoughts and feelings about A.I. I'm just a small filthy digital artist who does fanart so I feel like my stance on A.I. 'art' doesn't really matter in the big picture, but it's so true that the only ones excited about it are the techbros. It's disgusting to see A.I. 'artists' doing paid (yes, PAID) commissions (mostly lewd hentai but this could change very rapidly) and those techbros throwing money at those accounts just to stick it to the human artists who (obviously) charge way more (and then laugh crying when the final 'artwork' has a ton of anatomical, lighting, colouring, etc errors that human artists would have caught anyway). It's a truly depressing time to be a small-time creator.
I love Wes Andersons style, but I watch his movies for their stories and humor and tragedy. At this point I feel like his unique style has become an obstacle for him.
Wes Anderson should come out and flag that AI crap. Try & take it down in any way possible through court seeing as it’s not original & literally stolen art. Artist need to come out and start nipping this stuff in the bud.
The sad thing is exactly what you mention, but in digital artists community. I myself experienced this, as well as all other artists, the dread when your art is still "worse" in "quality" than AI. Yeah, it includes our own ideas, our own feelings, but for any platform, if you want to pursue art, all the AI art slowly kills not the platform, but the spirit of all the new generation. Thank you for the video, it's very nice to have reminders what exactly AI will never replicate
As an illustrator myself, the « steal like an artist » line is so infuriating, and shows a complete lack of knowledge about creativity. You explained it well so thank you for the great video as always Patrick H !
@@Brandon82967 And thieving artists absolutely get in legal trouble all the time due to blatant plagiarism. Why should AI art, built on unconsented copyrighted dataset, be exempt?
@@violentflamez All artists do it. Ask any one how they learned how to draw or where they get their inspiration from. It's almost always from someone else's work without permission.
it's part of the larger weird way the internet views Wes Anderson. like the Wes Anderson trend on TikTok, where viewers aim to recreate their lives and settings as if they were WA pictures. except, none of them feel like WA's style. they just add a gross colour filter and sorta try to be symmetrical. like you mentioned about the verbose titles too, people misunderstand WA's esoteric nature. his movies aren't complex, his characters aren't particularly intellectual. I don't know where that style has come from, his thing is literally deadpan delivery. Heck, a big part of the humour of some of his movies is how even though they establish as these semi fantastical stories the characters talk with a bluntness and sometimes vulgarity that absolutely contrasts it. they don't go on long winded verbose speeches. his movies are deeply emotional and deal with pretty heavy topics of depression, especially in his earlier years. his first two movies are much more subtle but the protagonists of both movies are clearly depressed. these people throw that away, and make out Wes Anderson to simply just be whimsy and bright colours. did they even watch the movies? how did his style become this? I wish people would understand this!
OMG THANK YOU!!! I had the same opinion about the Secret Invasion opening on twitter and got so much crap for it! If the creators were 100% on the level about the way they used the technology in conjunction with the clients (Marvel) own material it’s the best case scenario for the use of this stuff! I got into a dumb argument with someone that didn’t seem to understand that unfortunately this stuff isn’t going anywhere and just screaming “AI BAD” misses the point that there’s already tools like these being used in art they consider “ok”. You elucidate my entire thought process on the entire subject, especially terrible lazy “AI” parodies.
“It’s not the future” So in a few hundred years when AI can make a movie or video game as good as any human could what won’t be possible ? Just because we don’t have the tech rn doesn’t mean we won’t even pretty soon within our or our children’s lifetime
Your Wes Anderson video was recommended after their Lord of the Rings video. I did not realize their video was all AI generated at first, but yours clearly wasn't and was well acted, funny, and a great parody!
25:10 makes me think of the writers I've seen running their manuscripts through ChatGPT to "improve" them. It usually just makes them worse, but even if it didn't, there's value in knowing how to proof and edit your own work. Because that's not only how you improve the work, it's how you recognize your own weaknesses as a writer, and there are simply things that ChatGPT cannot do in rereading it. I've gone through a draft of a story and recognized that a scene was weak and needed to be totally rewritten. I've added a whole action sequence that I was really proud of because I felt like something was missing in a scene that I wrote, and it had reverberations later on because of how it affected the story's stakes. I've recognized where something contradicted an earlier choice I made or someone or something was being done in an unnecessarily difficult way and had to actually sit myself down and figure out my character's backstory or some element of worldbuilding. That's good for your projects. And not just for the one at hand, too. The more you look at what you've done, the more you recognize your strengths and weaknesses as a writer, and the better you get at capitalizing on those strengths and improving on your weaknesses. The more you learn to edit your own work, the less you need to edit it in the future simply because you have those problems less often in the first place. If you just feed it to ChatGPT a chapter at a time, you don't get that. That improvement simply doesn't happen. You don't learn anything. And you never improve as a writer.
I imagine somebody looking at a computer in 1982 and saying that computers will never be useful to artists because everything looks so blocky and terrible.
Realize that for most people, ChatGPT writes BETTER than them. I have a client who is disabled and finds ChatGPT to finally be the most useful thing in helping him actually communicate with *his* business clients. Listen, writing is hard and most people just want to get it over with. ChatGPT is used to automate work email, because even for that low bar, a significant number of people don't even clear that low bar and society has decided to exclude them because of the language barrier. On the other hand, when I'm writing something worthwhile, it is immensely satisfying though to be writing something better than the ChatGPT equivalent, recognizing what you have written is better, and feeling a sense of pride at having passed that Dunning-Kruger hill. To go from that mindless automata state of the human machine, endlessly typing and not knowing why she types, to becoming the architect of one's own hands, is a very fulfilling experience.
@@joereno955 I've heard that, but I don't 100 percent buy it. Even if so, I can do that just as well if not better with my friends, my family, or just me.
This is a pretty stuck-up take on AI. Just typing a prompt into Generative Models, then leaning back and going viral is a fad owed to the novelty of the technology (which is ALREADY wearing off). I STRONGLY suggest anyone who reads this to go and watch Austin Mc Connell's recent video "I used AI in a video. There was a backlash." It's the antithesis to this video. It explains how AI empowers filmmakers to tell stories in a way that simply wouldn't be possible without it.
The After Party just did a Wes Anderson-inspired episode. It's a great example of how to do something like that right. It's an episode focusing on a character that already fits into a Wes Anderson movie, it's a story that would fit into a Wes Anderson movie, it makes sense that this character sees her life through a Wes Anderson lens, etc. - and then the visual styles also match.
“These videos reduce Wes Anderson to an Instagram filter. A checklist of style tropes to be pasted onto something. There’s no effort to engage with his work on a deeper level than just skimming through some trailers with no sound.” Thank you! This was my complaint about all of the Wes Anderson parodies long before AI got involved.
Patrick definitely a Wes Anderson fan, will always remember his X-Men Wes Anderson video like 8 years ago before the whole A.I takeover....👌👌👌 He deserves to make this video👊
since 2021 i've dialled back posting my sketches online because someone will always chuck them in ai and be like "i improved the shading", i dont want my shading to be hyperrealistic, i hate it
Hey Patrick, I absolutely agree with most of your points. I work as a screenwriter and to sell my stuff I put a lot of work into my Spec-Treatments with Concept-Art and everything ... The problem before has always been that I had to spend a lot of money on concept artists for a project that had the risk of not making any money back in the end. I'm absolutely aware that those AI tools can't replace a real artist, as my main struggle with the program is that it is very unprecise and is more a vague estimation of what I really want to have. But at least it makes my shitty concept art better to look at, than what I had before and that could already be a selling point on if some producer reads it or not. But I guess that only works because nobody is expecting great concept art from the guy who sells you the screenplay.
This bs is the exact reason I'm filming my next music video on actual negative 16mm film, because the physicality of it is something that a machine will never be able to replace for me
These tech bros and grifters want to be seen as artists so bad in their interviews ("I made this" yadda-yadda), but can't even bother to come up with a prompt they're passionate about, only ones that will get them the most clicks and further their grift. A middleschooler doodling their mary-sue OCs in the margins of a textbook has more artistic merit than these sad metric-jackers will ever have. They have no business "stealing like an artist" since they're painfully unpassionate about art as a means or as an ends to express anything. They have nothing to say so they ask a language model to do that for them.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
I responded to a lot of comments here in the latest Patrick Replies episode over on the second channel: ruclips.net/video/Fv2xeZFP2_M/видео.html
I am 15 years old who uses AI and machine learning. I think the issue with your take is that you don't understand that you are giving a single example of low effort work (the soulless wes Anderson imitations) and saying this is what all people using AI do. I disagree with this as people who create good art using AI only use it for 20% of the process. For example often people will film the video on their phone and transform what they filmed into the shot they envisioned. For example I can't get a drone shot of an Alien City and I don't have the money to pay for stock footage. With ai I can film a stack of books then extract data from those frames including the depth and canny maps to influence the AI. Then I can edit a video using my EDITING skills to try and create a cinematic film that otherwise should have been shot on a budget phone in my bedroom. You need to understand that good AI art is art because of the human creativity involved. Also quick point on how AI works: it does not attempt to copy any art. it has been trained to understand the correlation between a text description and an image output. Unless the user specifically is trying to get the AI to emulate something it should just be creating an image based on the prompt. Also pls give AI art a chance but don't just do it the wrong way and say oh look it sucks ignore the fact you just did this in the most soulless manner possible. I would suggest stable difusion as an AI tool because it's free Open source and requires skill. unlike midjourney
@@TheidiotAmongUs The thing you don't seem to understand, ironically enough, is that AI generated content has a massive ethical problem. With stable diffusion maybe the AI isn't literally meshing images together, but it still very much scrapping data from artists without their consent and without compensation. And the huge problem is that big companies knows this but don't care because they can use it to make mediocre-yet-sellable products but without "those pretentious elitists human artists" to give money to. This is something that is already happening, like in Japan, a studio hired few (like 2 or 3) artists to redraw based on AI work, instead of hiring several people AND that is during a horrible crisis of low employment. AI in this case is only making the problem worse by literally replacing what would be the work of dozens of people.
What you described is just you working on top of what AI spewed, which still ethically questionable for the reason I said previously. Thing is, if the tech isn't built ethically one can't expect ethical use out of it. AI generative content has to be made ethically from the ground up, to avoid predatory use. We are not in that stage, not even close.
@@ZelphTheWebmancerThe way AI uses the images in the training data really is quite similar to the way us humans learn from the images we see. The AI models do not copy anything from the images, they learn the concepts behind images: what an arm or a banana or a car or a pterodactyl look like? What is in common with the images that are considered to be sad? Or joyful? What is the difference between a dark, moody skene and a bright neutral one? What does backlight look like? What is different in the shadows of direct sunlight and a large diffuse source like the window? What differentiates an iPhone photo from an oil painting? And so on.
What people are actually scared about is the fact that AI already does this much better (and orders of magnitude faster) than most human artists.
I make my living creating moving images, be that corporate videos or feature films. I specialise in VFX work. I'm one of the first in line to be replaceable by AI, to some extent at least. Is that AI:s fault? Not really, any more than replacing horse carriages was cars fault. It's progress, new and better technology replacing older where applicable. It's also a tsunami that will not be stopped by luddites.
The only real options are to ride the wave or drown under it.
I've chosen to ride it, and have actually enjoyed the surf. In my work, AI has enabled me to create more and better visual effects for my clients, for lower budgets - where applicable. I still use conventional methods where they apply better. To me, AI is just one more tool in the box (albeit a very powerful one).
@@ZelphTheWebmancerIf an expert can't identify which copyright is being infringed through observation of the output it is sufficiently transformative as to be ruled fair use.
@@ZelphTheWebmancerand the thing you don’t understand is that fair use includes “training purposes” but doesn’t specify that humans had to be what’s being trained. Hence why this video can’t be sued for using clips from other movies that the channel didn’t produce but copied without asking the original artists. 🤔
I wonder if all the people claiming AI art isn’t art could point out the AI art vs human art in a double blind study? I’m going to guess some people can but as the years go by less and less people will be able to do so.
"It sucked in a way that only a human can suck." I am inspired.
This is some anthropocentric bullshit that needs to go away. Just because a human takes a dump it doesn't mean the dump is worth being put in a museum. There's a lot of things that AI evidently does better and faster than a human.
This was the best.
*sad sex robot noises*
@@davisbrowne1906 Especially while eating figs. 😂😂😂
Humans doing the hard jobs on minimum wage while the robots write poetry and paint is not the future I wanted
especially if your art isn't any better than theirs. and on average, it isn't.
I love this comment.
AI = The high cost of free social media.
Hot take: the real reason studio execs are so horny for AI is because they've finally found someone they can relate to: a shameless, plagiarising, cliche-spouting, soulless machine that has literally no idea what it's talking about.
Beautifully put.
AI is trained on human data. It is a reflection of ourselves. And with the vast amount of data they have access to, especially Google, whose Gemini AI is predicted to be 5x the size of GPT-4. It can be benevolent and it doesn't have to consciously know something is good if its been trained correctly. And they're working hard on alignment issues.
This is coming where we like it or not, so we can either fearmonger and complain or try our best to make it work for us. Since the invention of the steam engine it was just a matter of time.
Oh this comment is so accurate
@@squamish4244 AI is awesome, however the irony is that it will be used for increasing profit margins at the expense of culture and authentic intelligence. oh and also imperialism, war and murder!
@@stadium999 Yes, doom and gloom, we're all going to die etc. We've been jacking ourselves off to predictions like this long before AI was ever a thing. It's human nature to think of the worst possible outcomes to everything. It hasn't happened yet. Oh, but _this_ time, it's different. Yeah, everyone says that too, whenever some new 'crisis' happens.
AI is a milestone in civilization, but good lord, what humans have already been through and come out better - I mean the Black Death killed up to 40% of the population of Europe, and it actually weakened the feudal system and increased the status of the lowest classes in society. It may have been the point at which Europe started moving ahead of the rest of the world. We've had countless famines. We've had climatic shifts. We've had countless epidemics. We went through the Industrial Revolution. We survived an ice age. And on and on. And we still crap on ourselves and on the future.
The most hilarious theory about AI "art" is that it is rapidly making itself worse. AI art is oversaturating the crops of links on websites that generative art is pulling from to train their models. This is causing newer models to replicate the mistakes found in the AI art it finds. This is compounded by the fact that the models are hard to "detrain", once that crap is in their algorithms it's stuck there.
Here's to hoping this whole AI art fad might die as quickly as NFTs.
@@D0MiN0ChAn As a consumer good it's really stagnating fast because most people just don't really need a constant supply of commissioned art, and the small producers that do (like small game devs) seem to be more willing to shell out money for art that doesn't look generated.
The part that is more worrying is that large media companies are already using the threat of AI to wage campaigns of devaluing the inputs of creative workers through generative media's process of "mass production". Even though creative workers will still need to put in the same amount of overall energy and time into their jobs, they will be paid less and less over time as their jobs transition more towards fixing the issues with generated media.
@@capnbarky2682 Don't need to tell me 😅 I'm a freelance translator and many people have been trying to pay me less and undermine my work with MTPE ("The text is already translated, you just need to edit it, how hard can it be?!"), even though it involves much more time and effort to straighten out the rough edges and would 100% be faster if I simply translated from scratch 😵💫
AI art is cherry-picked and so is useful for model training. L.
@@D0MiN0ChAnThe value your labor produces over what a machine can do is minimal. People don't want to pay 1000x more for 10% more. Don't blame the market.
Studio executive attempting to replace everyone with A.I. but ends up just replacing themselves also sounds like a great premise for a Twilight Zone or Black Mirror episode.
No they only want to get rid of people who are not popular in Hollywood
There was a TZ episode during the Serling Era. It's called "The Brain Center at Whipple's"
It's the most logical application for the tech to be be honest 😂
A company in Hong Kong tried this and their stocks went up.
True. GPT 3.5 and 4 smashed the MBA exam. This is not far off from reality.
I saw a tweet saying "AI can't make art because it doesn't get horny and you have to be full of desire to make art" and that one rattles around my brain like a tin can in a washing machine
As Sondheim once said, "the only two worthwhile things in life are children and art"... (Sunday in the Park with George)
Well, now I suddenly understand that last part.
So you’re saying we need hornier robots.
I'm going to liberally interpret that as "ai doesn't want anything, but humans do". Making it all about fucking sounds too Freudian to me
Which is an empty statement because AI never makes art. People direct AI to make art. And people are horny AF.
How do you think training a NN works? You tell it what to want, and then it outperforms humans in a day.
I think the whole AI problem is just a symptom of the bigger problem, which is that our society has a terrible relationship with art. Most people don’t understand the value of it, and corporations treat it like a conveyor belt. Plenty of people don’t even see being an artist as a real job. Until that problem gets addressed, there’ll be some new problem around every corner that all feel like the current AI one.
No, the problem is entitled assholes that shit on the new technology enabling people to express themselves. It happened with digital art 30+ years ago, it's happening again.
Being an artist shouldn't be a job, as long as there are economic factors influencing the art being made art is not free
@@1998Cebola Ah. My friend. This issue has been in debate for the last 3500 years. I'm reasonably sure I even read a Socrates quote that is quite similar to yours.
I.e. This aint gonna end. This is an infinite struggle.
@@KutluMizrak there is a certain 19th century german with a big beard who might disagree with you
@@1998Cebola We need artists and creativity, otherwise we don't get entertainment. You think things like star wars, a ridiculous juggernaut of a franchise, would have been created without artistic minds? Artists are one of the most important people we have on earth.
It's really sad that the general devaluation of art has come to this point. And I remember I was so excited when the "shoot a day in your life wes anderson style" trend went viral because I saw people not in the field doing an exercise of cinematography. It's so beautiful when people not accustomed to do art try to, and I think that perhaps that integration with the everyday can make a shift in how the general public treat the art
I bet you walk around telling people to stop using the cameras on their telephones in order not to devaluate photography, right?
@@digitarum1014 People using the cameras on their telephones are still *doing photography*. The correct comparison here is someone sitting at home on their computer and photoshopping themselves into pictures of places they got from Google Images, and trying to pass that off as an alternative to travel.
Much like the devaluation of crafts such as carpentry and garment making. People seem less outraged about that though, because they prefer to spend less, even if the quality is terrible.
Hey, if art suddenly grows limbs, gets a medical degree, and begins a career in triage for disaster relief, we can have a conversation about its devaluation. Until then, we should be funneling the resources wasted on art to save actual human lives. Devaluing art is therefore a good thing.
@@jacksongreen4107Difference is, the purpose of travel is the travelling, not the photos, whereas the purpose of making movies is the movies, not the making.
Super cool that we've got the robots doing the writing and art and poetry whilst we do all the menial shitty manual labour.
Wes Anderson's I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream.
I get paid for manual labor. Machines cant replace me... yet. ❤❤❤❤😂😂😂😂😂😂
yeah, pretty sure that was the opposite of the original idea and promise as pushed out by futurists. we were supposed to have lots of down time to paint, free from the chains of capitalism haha
Anything AI ends up doing better than me other humans have been doing better since before I was born, and that still hasn't dissuaded me from pursuing my interests and honing my skills. People that are bitter about this are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, as all of us ultimately are, AI is just forcing them to have to reckon with it.
yeah everyone is celebrating in the fact that we can now automate away one of the best parts of humanity, it's so sad.
AI stopping us from having patrick talk about tom cruise’s hair for 30min will forever be known as one of humanity’s greatest disasters
Funny that you’d think that would only be a 30 min video.
As in the real actor for him. Certainly.
This is great content.
How dare you
You'll make Patrick cry :)
Don't start no shit man.
It's not. It's simple elitism with no actual objective arguments.
@patrickhwillems you tell him, pat. You saw Tom Cruise do that thing before I did, and that makes me happy.
You unlocked a memory for me. I watched that X-men parody years ago, but found this channel's video essays entirely separately just a few weeks ago. I'd completely forgotten about that parody video and would have never guessed it was you who'd made it.
Same
The video trend of people turning their mundane tasks homages to Wes Anderson was pretty cool and the people who made them admitted how hard it was to find outfit's and perfectly place their cameras to capture the symmetrical shots. It was a funny trend and it at least involved people putting creativity into their videos and didn't harm anyone.
@netherportalsi just clicked on your channel and im actually genuinely curious, why are you so interested in nether portals?
@@dramaticbananathemovie6889because they're nether portals
@netherportals Stick to the portals. They are a good place for your ignorance to go. Its not about the tech or the software, its about the creativity. AI is plagarised shit that harnesses the hard work and effort of countless genuine creatives without their consent or permission, from all fields and not just "People creating art with lines and mouse / layers". Any dingus can make a doughnut in Blender by following a tutorial that is not being creative.
@@RedbarParadise-ni4cq Why would he wanna make a game all by himself without funds if he doesn't have the skill to do it? That makes no sense
@@RedbarParadise-ni4cq Yeah no, that's absolute bullshit and you know it
He doesn't have skill, he has a program that poorly mixes together other people's skills and will probably even have to pay a monthly fee for regardless
AI "artwork" is already beginning to crowd out images on Pinterest. The most annoying part is that selecting the images to determine whether they are AI-generated seems to register with Pinterest as "liking" them, and it constantly tries to feed you more and more of them. You are forced to actively select them to hide them- and when it asks you why, it doesn't even let you say "because I do not want an AI-generated image".
🤦🏾♂️why are you quotationing everything it IS ARTWORK don’t be like the people who where over dramatic saying photography was the end of the world for art saying it’s not art
I have my instagram and twitter being flooded with AI art, and I love it. Better than the art I was seeing when it was made by humans.
@@Flack0-Flackobecause there's quite a major difference between:
* positioning a camera in the perfect location, at the perfect time, at perfect lighting, to capture a moment of time (photography)
* stroking marks on a physical/digital canvas, layering multiple lines, colors, whatever to create an image (traditional drawn art(
* rendering shapes and figures from a vague nothing base (modeling and carving)
* typing a few words in a search engine, praying to create a visual noise that somehow looks like something (ai "art")
@@Flack0-Flacko Okey. It's crappy art. Soulless. Empty. Boring. The difference is obvious.
Yes, I know, many people can't tell the difference.
That isn't an affirmation of AI's success, it's an indictment of all those people's ability to discern the quality of a work.
@@OnigoroshiZero That is so sad.
Kitsch is the only thing being democratized here. Ya know when you're in a gift shop on vacation and there is all this stuff, like dishes with wolves on them or something like that. It's just like that. Slap something that looks like art onto another thing and sell it to someone. Complete Kitsch
I think it's wonderful that kitsch is being democratised, and devaluing kitsch art in the process. When clichés are free, it might help people to recognise actual originality.
And 100% harmless.
@@AnthonyFlack And then somebody trains the AI the "originality" and they become a cliché too. AI will make artists and pretty much all intellectual work obsolete.
The part where you mention he used AI just to come up with the idea made me want to break something.
All the guy did was make a fake trailer parody. But you want to break something? Why were you disappointed that Wes Anderson wasn't actually making a Star Wars movie? Pat sure got you riled up over nothing.
@@Stand_By_For_Mind_Control the thing is that idea isn`t something ultra-creative and he could have simply come up with something like this in few seconds of using his brain and imagination, without any chat gpt.
This is gonna turn into that "monkey taking the selfie" type situation, where the ownership of that dudes channel is gonna be given to the AI lol
When ideas being "a dime a dozen" are too hard.
@@Stand_By_For_Mind_Controlfound the grifter
Just last week I thought to myself "Isn't it funny that Patrick (H) Willems did that Wes Anderson x-men sketch and it was really cool and clearly a lot of effort went into it and this whole AI nonsense is just taking one cool idea and kicking it until it can't move anymore" and here I am a week later watching this vid like a nostradamus of some sort.
My main takeaway from this is if Wes Anderson did direct a Lord of the Rings movie it would probably be called The Prancing Pony.
Yeh he would tke just the hobbit and just gandalf the dwarves and bilbo hanging out in the shire being jolly. I have nothing against a the hobbit pub movie honestly. But only if you have real people having fun with a hobit pub movie.
I am sorry, hanging on with fancy teaparty elves.
Oh I see, you want the ring, and you think I have it.
Pause
*Merry and Pippin about face and exaggeratedly sprint away*
I could picture a stop motion short film about the Tom Bombadil bit in the books done by Wes Anderson.
Wow, Eyebrow Cinema is here... The other feature-length video essayist
not to spoil the fun but since The Lord of the Rings is a book, he would probably just keep the title of the book since that's what he does with adaptations.
I've been a fan of your essays for a while now. Over the years, I've watched you get better and better at this. I've seen you get more comfortable on camera (you're actually quite good at this now!) and more creative with your filmmaking. You've gone from a guy talking about film to a guy making film about film (I know that's a bit pointyheaded, but what can I say? It's true). Watching that growth over all this time... it's really rewarding to witness. You've taught me things. Your point of view has broadened my own... and I sincerely appreciate that.
And now? I gotta say. I'm even more excited. You're using this platform, and the success that's come from it, to support people who need it. You're not making polemics, or obnoxious hot takes. You're thoughtfully and entertainingly breaking down a thing that is, and helping us see what it means for our culture, and for actual people. You're doing something not just smart, or funny, or interesting... you're doing something good. You're a good guy. And the crew (HI EMMA!) who helps you? They're good too.
You're all actually, somehow, amid all of this [gestures wildly at the internet] accomplishing something. I really admire you all for it.
Just wanted to thank you guys for that. :)
HELLO
The gag about all this is that the AI needs constant annotation through Remotasks, where humans feed the AI by responding to and rating tasks for cents on the dollar. They’re the reason the AI even looks and reads as human, and it’s getting worse because those humans are using AI to annotate.
A lot of tech sector "automation" is just making labor invisible and unpaid.
And question to techbros- Do you want to be an assistant to a robot?
@@masterzoroark6664they don’t. Their human egos can’t handle it. But they don’t want to admit they were wrong in the first place either.
@@mr.x2567
Yeah, and they are a cult so proving shit to them mostly makes them believe in more ridiculous shit
That's not a gag. To use human feedback efficiently is an entire area of research.
What's amusing is your presumption that it should somehow become good at producing outputs humans like without human feedback. I don't know what that's even supposed to mean.
This is what happens when the future is only motivated through companies with profit in mind
No, or open source AI wouldn’t be a thing. It's what happens when people who lack basic skills to do a form of art are finally given the tools to produce that art quickly and cheaply. It happened with almost every form of art. The camera has infiltrated every corner of our lives, people are posting billions of awful photographs each day to the internet. Programs like Unity and Unreal Engine made game making easy enough that you barely need to know how to code, and Steam is deluged with stock asset garbage. So why is everyone surprised when a tool comes out that allows non-artists to generate art and it is being used to generate a sea of garbage art? What we are seeing is what always happens when technology enables lesser skilled people to produce art. People on here are acting like every “Wes Anderson does X” film on RUclips is suddenly complete gold, and forgetting that 99% of human generated content on this page is utter garbage not fit for human consumption. AI isnt going viral because its good. Its going viral because its POTENTIAL to be good.
Honestly, the worst thing about this AI discussion is the parts where humans stroke their ego and declare themselves superior to all of creation. The only reasons companies want to replace their employees with algorithms is because algorithms don’t demand they get paid for their labor, at least not yet.
@@miclowgunman1987 The thing is. To a lot of consumers, this doesn't matter. AI generates things that, a lot of times, is "good enough" for people. To most people, these aren't garbage. They are fun, interesting, and aesthetically pleasing. AI will only get better, and so will the things that people with virtually no grasp of the thing they're replacing will be able to do. A picture you take on your phone is yours, you have chosen the aspects of that picture. The angle, composition, distance, etc. An AI image you make is not yours, all you did was tell a machine to do it for you, virtually as effortless as taking an ugly picture, yet it looks amazing to the point where most people wouldn't care if it's real or not. There are a lot of similarities of course, but you have to admit, this is kinda more worrying than iPhones or Unity or Unreal Engine
@@miclowgunman1987 open source and non-profit were just excuses to market themselves and avoid regulation
so, capitalism. yeah, capitalism destroys art. always and forever. art flourishes through anarchy.
AI replicates filmakers' aesthetics the same way South Park handles celebrity impersonations.
"this is south park... We have the budget of morbillion dollars, but instead of ever putting it on quality, we industrialized our production process"
Is that why they resort to music videos instead of making their own songs now? Those segments made me stop watching SP. It feels so out of place and cringey. Pandering.@@crimsonlanceman7882
I don’t even like South Park and I feel insulted on Parker and Stone’s behalf.
When those AI Wes Anderson parodies first started popping up on my Instagram feed and RUclips recommendations I just raised an eyebrow and went “Huh, that’s kinda neat, I guess I can see a version of Lord of the Rings with this cast.” But at this point any sight of these soulless husks triggers a visceral disgust
That's how I feel about all the A.I song covers I've been seeing recommended to me on RUclips. The novelty wears off pretty quick.
That's how I feel about Anderson's original movies...
AI just doesn't have the juice. And never will. Can't fake the funk.
@@KyleGallagher It's like getting Nickel Back to perform James Browns' tunes. It will never work.
And then Across the Spider-verse triggered that massive wave of "Spidersona of my fave" fanart, which really showed lots of what those AI products are missing for me
I totally agree with the "A.I. is a grift" sentiment. It essentially allows lazy people to come up with an approximation of something, when they don't want to expend the effort to learn how to do the thing they want to do, and then to do it. "Art" without artistry isn't really art, now, is it?
At least for now, its attracting the same bums pushing NFTs. Theres a few artists that genuinely use ot as a tool, but the vast majority of ai image profiles are people who had no prior interest in art before and will stop once they realise what a waste of time it is for them.
The way how any piece of art is made is irrelevant to the viewer.
@@aceyage, well, it may be irrelevant to SOME viewers. 😄
@@ourson66 Most ;)
@@aceyagehehe come on... 90% of modern art is ALL ABOUT how it's made. Think of Jackson Pollock, or Matthew Barney, or Andy Warhol and many many more. What was important (to collectors, art historians as well as critics) was HOW Pollock made his paintings by splattering paint, or Matthew Barney by attaching bungee cords to himself and stretching and straining to put each line on paper, etc. If HOW something was made wasn't important, why would filmmakers like Christopher Nolan work for ages putting together 30 minute long continuous takes, among other things? People love to know how art comes into being. Maybe you or some people you know don't care, but the people that the artist makes his living off of certainly do.
i think that's the paradox here : they copy Wes Anderson based on these tricks, but when you know Wes Anderson's work, you know that it is more than just shots and filters. Wes Anderson always tells a story, and in the most beautiful way, he's a dedicated director who loves what he's doing, and i can feel this love throughout the entire movie.And watching his movie is always an experience. Go Wes Anderson!!!
Andersonians Represent!
Also he's one of the most low tech famous filmmakers today. Take Asteroid City (it's great) - it's meant to be a play and it is. There's physical sets, puppets, camera tricks to mess with scale, great but obviously fake. The dreamlike homemade aesthetic makes his stories shine - no coincidence that his tales are often about growing up or family/found family troubles.
Tldr the aesthetic isn't just a color palette or a particular series of cuts, it's a craft and it's meant to fit a context. Good luck getting a text generation machine to understand that.
@@milsthebard1085 and this is why I think IA will fail (at least for now) to reproduce his work, for all the reasons you listed!!! It is indeed a craft, and i don't think that IA is able to understand how hard it is to replicate this...
You and Adam Conover have had the best grasp of how large language processors cannot replace artists and writers effectively. And, quite frankly *why would we want it to?* I'm glad I have a machine to replace the many hours of labor I would have to spend washing my clothes, I don't want a machine who plays my guitar for me.
Some people actually tried to use a machine learning program to finish Beethoven's 10th symphony by feeding it all of his work and..surprise! It sucked. Beethoven was such an innovator, there is no way to know what his *next* symphony would sound like.
That's because you're the kind of person who wants to play guitar. As someone who's had the misfortune of listening to the 'people' pushing AI, I can confirm that they're the kind that saw a rock star was popular, fiddled around on a guitar for five minutes before deciding it was too hard and giving up, then creamed their pants when they found out there might be a way for them to poison society such that anyone hardworking and talented will be dragged down to their shitty level.
I'm not kidding, a substantial portion of the drive for AI media generation is pure jealousy and hatred of people that can create. I'm not really a creator or anything and it was still kind of sickening to read. Most of the rest is corporations realizing they can stop paying their workers.
@@nunyabiznes7446i could not agree with you less.
i shall never by any means use ai to show my real creativity.
unlike those godless lazy vermins, i have creativity, feelings and talent. i say we outlaw ai “””art””” for good
And I have been having the same thing to say to the people obsesed with it- what is this tech exactly freeing people to do with their time? What now when a passtime was automated so you have basically nothing to do between working and spending?
@@masterzoroark6664it allows someone to make a comic or images or movie in a day then a year for most people we dont have the time for art this opens art up to millions of people we will replace you
@@kiirolozanogarcia3003 You sound like a fascist, TBH. All of this talk about purity and other people being lazy vermin is something we've heard before.
Pretty deranged reaction to other people making art a way you don't like. Fascist.
Thank you. I feel so depressed by these blatant hype cycles tech companies grift off for months at a time until the goldfish starts again with something different. SaaS, Streaming, Metaverse, Crypto, NFTs, and now AI continues the trend of a insulated VC-driven bubbles that grow to insane amounts before they burst and everyone moves on. I read stories every few months of a company that existed for 3 weeks getting billion dollar valuations after grafting the latest trend to their company vision. I'm sick of hearing about how 'x thing will disrupt the world as we know it'!
I don't know if you've noticed, but streaming is very much still a thing and the reason Blockbuster is out of business. In fact you streamed this video you just watched, so it did actually disrupt the world as we knew it, young people don't even know what a DVD is anymore. The bubble has not burst, and DVD's are not coming back in style, nobody is moving on from streaming. Crypto is also still around, but that was not pushed by some tech company, the open source community did that, at least the good ones. And it actually is an excellent technology, the only reason it's not been widely adopted is because of push back from banks and governments, and also some bad actors making the less tech savvy crowd a bit sceptical. SaaS is very much in use and widely adopted by people all over the world, being used in offices and at home every day. And Metaverse and NFT's where obvious failures from the start, almost nobody thought those thing were going disrupt or revolutionize anything.
Idk. This time those people are grifting off of actual legitimate tech that scientists made…
cheap capital is over, which means this BS is ending
@@daniel4647Streaming is still an unsustainable business model that a lot of people still use because there are still things on streaming services that they can’t watch anywhere else legally.
@@daniel4647 Ironically, though, I do think eventually DVD or something equivalent will return. The reason for this is I do think people will realize that by streaming services having a hold of things, we don't actually own it and movie can be tossed out at any time with no way for us to watch it again. The same with video games. Eventually people will find a way to have ownership of movies without streaming services or even without internet. History doesn't repeat but it does rhyme.
Many people actually did think NFTs would revolutionize and some STILL do.
My sister is a medical doctor. I have a doctorate in computer science. As kids, we would rib each other in a good-natured way about whose profession was better (FYI, it's hers; I love my field but...yah). Anyway, after going back and forth teasing each other numerous times one of my responses was "My field is better because it will gradually replace the need for you human doctors." She was extremely dismissive about this, saying that no computer could understand people the way another human could and that you would always need a human doctor in the mix. To which my response was, "You're not looking at this right. It isn't about doing everything a doctor does, it's about making each doctor vastly more efficient at doing whatever it is that they're doing so that in the net you let a single doctor do what used to require 4 or 5 doctors or more."
This exact scenario is what killed the legal profession, taking it from one of the most prestigious fields in the country to a complete dead end field with massive unemployment in less than a single generation. It happened so suddenly in law that television hasn't even caught on to this fact yet and still makes legal dramas like Suits that use views of the legal profession that haven 't been true for 10 years, minimum. You know when they show the young lawyer workin' on a big case late at night with a giant cup o' coffee and legal books spread all around them? Complete bullsh*t. It's such an iconic scene that movies and shows can't help going back to it, but legal research today is done by one person (or maybe a few) with a computer in a few percent of the time it used to take. That's what killed the profession; you just don't need as many lawyers now to perform legal research, traditionally one of the most labor intensive aspects of the job.
Anyway, my sister and I break off the ribbing and time moves on, like four years later I get a call from my sister at a medical convention. "Oh my god," she says out of the blue, "you were right." She proceeds to describe a bunch of new products aimed at hospitals that will completely alter the landscape of life in a hospital, allowing each doctor to see many, many times more patients without a bunch of extra work by the doctor. And she's felt that fact professionally since. Medicine is funny, most of the shortage of doctors you might hear about is about non-lucrative underserved markets, but in the major markets there are already oversupplies of doctors that have difficulty finding jobs. It's not as bad as in legal, but it's steadily heading there.
I bring all this up because this is the reality descending on the entertainment industry. It isn't about the ML that can automate some repetitive tasks, although you could think of that as the precursor to what AI is about to do. The real thing that is about to happen is context-aware AI manipulation. I don't mean some idiot telling an LLM to write him a script. I mean a digital assistant that you can tell "I need to punch this script up with some comedy" that can then search through a script and identify the likely places where you could insert or alter jokes along with a corresponding set of links to topical stories or situations that might be good research to assist you, so that a talented writer can work through the job so efficiently that what might have taken weeks can now be done in a single day. And yah, also digital camera operators to suggest shot framing, lighting, special effects, digital actors and 3D modeling; these things will all be gradually introduced. Not to outright eliminate the need for human professionals to do those jobs, but to make each one much more efficient and the entire process vastly less expensive so that making entertainment is much more approachable to an ever larger number of people. It's not about removing people all together, it's about just not needing anywhere as many of them while still allowing for the application of essential human creativity. This ability to not just do things, but to comprehend why a person is doing them and intelligently assist them is doing them is the real revolution AI is about to start rolling out.
I know this post is getting a little long, but one more illustrative example to highlight the point I'm making. My employer occasionally brings in big wigs from other corporations to give talks. This guy from IBM came in to talk about the new LLM AI models and emerging use cases and he talked about factory automation. I'm talking about those robots that assemble cars or rapidly construct candy bars or whatever. Turns out, according to him, one of the biggest drawbacks to automation like that is paradoxically the labor requirements. See, you don't think about it when you watch a little clip of those robot arms moving faster than your eyes can track perfectly assembling a Toyota on an assembly line, but an absurdly vast amount of labor from people like me had to go into creating the ML that powers those robots. They have to be taught what to do, what not to do, when to do it, what conditions create exceptions. Little flaws have to be worked out and smoothed before you get to that impressive clip. It's really, really expensive and time consuming, which helps explain why a company like Tesla, even after taking over a working auto factory, still struggled with a largely manual process of car assembly for years. But here's the catch: it turns out that when you can feed a model a document of requirements telling it what needs to happen at each stage and it can do all that work translating that into digital logic in seconds, you can build models that create near-perfect first passes of the programming for those robots in a day when it used to take an army of developers months or even years. Doesn't even matter if it's not perfect, because it took you straight to the 90% completed point in a day! And with a good model design that allows for an iterative process of refinement...well, let's just say that cheap labor in places like China will over the next decade feel less and less appealing for manufacturing. Not that some companies won't continue to approach production that way, of course, but the point is again that it doesn't eliminate the need for highly trained professionals completely, it just means you need less and less of them every year as the new tools roll out and industries begin to see their peers utilizing it effectively.
Yeah, when I was in business school we talked about how people overestimate how much manufacturing has gone to countries like China, and underestimate how much has been automated.
These AI videos are like some sort of diet candy that just makes me want to watch someone do it well. A video that doesn't actually scratch the itch, just points out that it sure would be nice to see something like this.
The fact that Caleb Ward didn't even come up with the idea to "make" a Wes Anderson Star Wars video makes me excessively furious.
That upset me as well.
The guy screams slick grifter, the type who will buy out a company and slash its quality to squeeze every last buck possible, leaving a hollow husk where it once was.
It was gross but I did laugh. What a hack!
bro is such a massive hack he can't even think of ideas 😭 what's the point of living if you can't even do anything yourself
So hearing the idea that "trailers aren't art because they're marketing" set me off because all the best, most memorable ads have had an artistic charisma to them. Like there are a ton of projects that have more artistic intent put into their marketing than the actual end product
Yeah, the Pop Art movement in the 50s centered around this, exploring the relationship between artistic expression, advertising, and consumerism. A large part of that movement was aimed at breaking down elitist barriers and gatekeeping, defining what is or is not art.
I remember loving that Wes Anderson X-Men video so much because you could absolutely see the work that went into it. It actually made me really want to see him take on those characters because it certainly would deviate from the source material, but in a way that would probably have it's own charm that still be really entertaining in it's own way.
These A.I. "trailers" though do feel soulless, but they're also kind of just depressing. There are interesting things to come out of them visually when it comes to mashing up concepts, but even then it sort of makes trying to make actual art feel kind of pointless in a way. Kind of makes me sick how many times I've seen "80's dark fantasy ____" pop up and you know someone basically just typed that and called it a day. There wasn't really any work put into it.
You are right. But in the same time I am still glad the technology is being developed. Current trend of videos wholly generated by AI is simply trend that gets attention because of it's novelty and certain kind of power. It is shocking for the first sight. The talk about empowering and democratization of art is problematic but in the same time it is not without the certain kind of point. Sure good art requires skill, innovation, inspiration, understanding and creativity. And enjoying piece of art does as well. And here is the thing, if we believe that AI generated content is less appealing than human made art, then it should not replace it but if it's regarded as being on par or sufficient for certain use or context for certain price it could be used instead of human art. Seccond we need to consider that piece of art could be understood in monadic manner. The piece of art is certain indivisible whole. But there are still certain corresponding subsegments that can also be considered piece of art themselves. One example would be the movie being one inidivisible whole while the individual costumes used in it also being works of art. Now the corresponding segments does not always have to be art. When you are filming amateur movie, you may decide to let your character be clothed in very generic industrialy created t-shirt. That would be legitimate choice. Choosing the right shirt could still be artistic choice. But perhaps you did not even put consideration into that and choose random t-shirt. This can make your movie worse but it can still be art because you used your creatvity elsewhere and it can still be pretty good at those places you put effort to and perhaps your random chose of t-shirt is kind of acceptable for the character. I think generative AI can be used in similar ways. Perhaps the indipendent creator would shoot their movie with actors wearing those random t-shirts and then let AI cloth their actors in the video into something else. They may ask AI to generate few versions of costumes based on some well though out prompts. They may get several results. They may choose one or few and then ask AI to combine the features they like and eliminate those they did not like. Then they could get some result. They could further edit that result and then ask AI to map of their actors. I believe in this case, the artist did use the AI as a tool. They even put some creativity into making the costume and the costume itself is just a segment of the whole movie. But the tool used was machine learning. It was generation of graphic content based on text prompt. Perhaps if the filmmaker had a profesional team of tailors and designers with wast knowledge of history and design and a team of people who could see the costumes, then the costumes could come out even better. But it was sufficient for that creator. The technology for creation of graphic content based on text prompt does provide certain kind of power so it is empowering. It could provide it to people who did not have it before so it is democratizing in certain ways. If anything it provides creators with less quality but cost effective alternative solutions for certain aspects of their work. It is just not replacement for everything and for the whole of the creative process. It gets it's hype for some rightful reasons while still being misused.
People will go about and try to figure out how to use this technology in more creative ways. And hopefully more and more tools would develop that would allow users to use AI capabilities in interactive and intuitive manner, not just writing one prompt or pressing button. Btw even now what people like is the fact that it can portray their prompts. Perhaps the most greedy or attention seeking could like it even more if it did not need any input at all and instead generated supposedly the most viral content just on pressing the button, but most folk toying with it just like it's funny capability in materializing some of their ideas. But when this technology was first released it was not released as something fully integrated into other creative tools or something that invites more creativity and interactivity just because it was kind of prototype for showcase. The companies wanted to draw attention to the main mechanic of the tool they have and show it in simple way. But I believe there will be progress towards more interactivity, as there will be demand for it.
Tho it is true this inovation towards more creative use of AI want happen by itself. The demand of it can be supported if we criticize the shallow content and praise the art. The nuanced critique of the trend can help to cultivate the technology and it's use.
And I am glad that the author promoted Nebula in context of this video. Perhaps the projects like Nebula are walking in direction of creating better environment in which this better technology and cultivated use could thrive. While the more profit driven environment raising money from add viewership etc could make pressure towards lesser quality.
And also while it is true that the difference between art using AI as tool and AI generated content is a slippery slope i first hope that this would be understood and judged by difference in quality. Also those internet user prompted AI generated stuff so far are more comparable to memes in the way people relate to them rather then other kind of graphic art. Meme culture is very self reflective. Meme culture knows usual limits of it's technical quality and sometime consciously uses it as kind of aesthetics. So even if AI generated video content comes to be prevalent on some kind of social media dedicated to it, I hope people will understand that this kind of "democratisation" comes with certain limitations and that they would reflect the difference between it and the artforms that use less of it. This social media could still be interesting hub of ideas anyway.
I could see Wes Anderson doing The Hobbit, actually. The Hobbit is pretty light and comedic to begin with, but involves several tragic figures, and one of the main characters is basically dealing with the grief of his entire race, not just his own, and it makes him stubborn and prone to lashing out. Anderson doesn't do, like, fight-y action all that much but The Hobbit's action is mostly chase scenes (sometimes chases with a little fighting going on in the background), and Anderson loves finding fun ways to have the camera follow people when they're running. Only two acts of outright violence are essential to the plot, one of which happens largely in the background (in the book, the Battle of Five Armies is handled in like a single page). The other moment is a dude being told where to shoot a dragon using his favorite arrow by a bird he just happens to be able to understand because that's just a thing people from his hometown can do. Pretty sure Wes Anderson can swing *that* particular scene.
It depends. Is the bird stop motion?
Honestly, I think you nailed what was wrong with the Jackson trilogy. It was a fluffy story told as though it was epic, while the actual book was an epic story told as though it was fluffy. Which is exactly what Anderson does.
Though if anyone is going to do a Hobbit in the style of Wes Anderson parody, it'd be preferable for it to be an actual filmmaker like Patrick.
Creator: Ai Bad
Audience : AAAAA YEEEES KING SAY IT
Will edit if video has nuisance at the end
@@Jescribano1 Well, if you consider the comment section as "the end", you're certainly a nuisance.
@@rottensquid In Jackson's defense, it was a complete shitshow that was dumped on his lap that he had to try make epic or the economy of his country would have tanked. Not a fan of the result at all, but I do feel for him.
Patrick supporting the picket line like the true H Willems he is👍
If he was actually supporting the strikes though, I don't think he should be writing or acting in a RUclips video during the strike :o
@@deadlockoriginalfilms2.096 writers and actors are still working for a24 because they met all the terms of the union. Patrick is working for himself, as are his writers and actors, and i doubt he's trying to replace them all with AI. The strike isn't an across the board "don't do shit," it's a targetted attack on actual supervillain overlords.
As much as I laughed at the joke about the WB execs losing their job to AI it should be noted that AI being used to decide what to make is just as bad as having AI write scripts. AI will choose even more recognizable IP movies and we'll get even less original ideas on the big screen.
Emma is such a lovely part of your newer videos. Her style of comedy fits your videos so well. :)
thank you
The thing that unsettles me the most is how incestuous the whole thing is, with each successive one not imitating the original but rather the latest ai Wes Anderson hackjob. It's terrifying to think that these things are shaping the way that bottom-feeders on the internet see Wes Anderson more than his own movies.
On a positive, thats a major downside that ai using ai created content, and that going on. I go wth the incest metaphor why that makes problems using ai more tan just as muse or playing off idas. gpt need human creative art to seem real. ai created will, cause problems like incest down the line.
@@marocat4749 , ironically, I could see the ultimate byproduct of an AI cannibalizing its own data a million times turning out to be a genuine and weirdly-original piece of art.
@@dinosaysrawr this is already happening. AI art has started to get worse, because machine learning just sucks data indiscriminately, and since now there's so much junk AI art, it's starting to use itself as reference. Same with other machine learning stuff.
The happy ending of this is either AI kills itself by choking on its own tail, or governments start actually questioning where did machine learning companies get all that material to feed the machine with, which is already happening in Europe.
@@WarriorZ676 , yes, exactly! That's the scuttlebutt I've heard as well.
@@WarriorZ676 - I haven't heard anything about large amounts of AI art making its way into anyone's training data. If it was you could just filter out any files in your training data that's less than a year old.
Great video, you talking about the difference between AI generated content vs creativity really hit home to me. I spent this past summer creating a homage to "The West Wing" by making a short film of the show if it took place in a college physics department (professionally I'm a physicist). I spent a month just playing around with drafting a script that was playing tribute to the show (not making fun of it) while also seeing if I could create a original narrative while hitting the beats of "walk and talk", "inspirational speech", team of passionate people working together to fix a problem, and a character like Josh that is somewhat of a disorder mess and over confident in his abilities. Than it took a month to film while constantly revising the script. All we were doing was familiar simple shots of people walking and talking and standing and talking, not nearly as much craftsman ship and skills as going into your X-Men short. While we were filming, one of my cast members gain a ChatGPT from her research group, and we jokingly asked it to generate a script for Josh and Donna from West Wing if they were discusing physics. ChatGPT did, we laughed when we read it, but not because of how great it was, the script ChatGPT made was somewhat hollow and sad. A lot of the physics jokes seemed recycle, and didn't really add anything new, just hitting the beats of arguing and than a "oh well, I really appreciate you, life is good" conclusion that was just awkwardly inserted in. It felt like an imitation of an imitation of what people think tv is. It left me somewhat sad thinking some people might actually make scripts to shoot this way and probably just get a lot more interest "AI generated Video" than anything my team could make after months of hard work. More seriously, there's even professor where I work who have decided to just use ChatGPT to create their assignments, or exams, or even solutions for their classes instead of creating their own teaching documents. I kind of wish this would be a fad, but I don't think it's going to be. This tool is going to help people who are prone to cut corners in every field are going to cut corners even more easily, it's really sad for both professional and creative work.
the scariest thing about a professor using chatgpt so much is that chatgpt is going to do everything in its power to be right--that includes making up answers and doubling down on wrong information. Computers don't understand much, so all a program knows how to do is whatever task it has been given. An AI just has a lot more freedom in how to complete this task. If someone asks it to tell them about work-kinetic energy theorem, then the ai will do just that...but it doesn't necessarily have to tell you anything true. It can just make stuff up based on whatever websites it can get its code-hands on regardless of whether or not those sites are fact-checked or have any actual sources at all. So that professor is potentially putting their job in the hands of something that has the ethical drive of a high schooler who needs to write an essay on shakespeare. It's going to bullshit until it gets a passing grade.
@@mallk238 yeah, kids in my class use chat gpt for essays, and I've read through them. Not only does it consistently drop info that is objectively wrong and unsourced, but it tries to gaslight you into believing it.
Man, I love how seriously you take your work. It shows and it keeps me coming back. I feel the need to be the same way and the platform should not determine the level of quality.
There’s a company in China who has an AI “woman” as their CEO, making decisions for the company and apparently when it was announced, their stock price went up. Some people have a lot of faith in “AI” aka machine learning. It’s called NetDragon, and a company called Hunna has also done this from what I just read.
Wild times.
I'd correct that to say: "there's a company in China who *CLAIMS* to have an AI as their CEO". It's all smoke and mirrors over in that part of the world these days.
I suppose when giant bugs take over the world and most of the planet's landmass is submerged underwater, they'll become Pinnacle Robots, then?
Reminds me the plot of Deus Ex Machine
@@MPSmaruj AI in general is smoke and mirrors a lot of the time. Not exclusive to China.
Gross
A.I content is the quintessential expression of 'agile methodology' in the arts. When a sales person reaches out to some executive and goes "Don't you hate those shitty artists and creators not doing what you want, when you want it? Don't you hate timelines and scope?!"
Agile very much has an emphasis on timelines and scope. Agile is about consistent, quality, sustainable releases.
Replace human artists with AI? All that does is increase the speed at which some of the component parts are made (and even then, actual humans still have to fix it up). You could use AI in waterfall development for the same results.
I don’t think AI should ever be used to replace the arts. What a bleak world that would be
But then to play devil's advocate, it would further democratise art to the point where anyone without having to develop any special skills or talent would be able to make their own art limited only by their imaginations.
But then, to play devil's advocate again, if a person's unique combination of talent, skills, and imagination becomes devalued, that could work as a mechanism to suppress their individuality.
It seems inevitable to me that eventually everything a person could create in their lifetime will be drowned out by the creations of far more efficient algorithms and machines. Thinking this way isn't new and it has always been proven wrong in the past so maybe I should be more optimistic.
Who ever said replace? There’s a place for AI in art.
Art won’t be replaced. Imagery might…
@@mitzee8621 See but there's the issue, this garbage doesn't democratize anything, art has always been so easily, pen and paper, even most art programs are cheaper or free compared to the A.I programs with subscription fees
Nobody was ever stopped from making art
@@PixelHeroViish I think you are misunderstanding just how hard art is for many people. I'm only barely capable of creating 3 lines on a white square to use as a hamburger menu on a site. AI image tools make it possible to do much more. That said the images I generate serve the same function as stock images. They aren't meant to be artistic expression.
I've never thought or cared much about art in the past and am still trying to figure out what it means to create art. I wonder if AI will be for artists what the sewing machine was for tailors. Minimizing the value of certain skills but massively improving efficiency.
Agree that more people should watch A.I. by Spielberg. It definitely fell off the radar whenever people talk about great Spielberg films or science fiction films.
I recently rewatched it. I had always not wanted to rewatch it because of how sad it was ... and yup. It was still the same sad movie I remember. It's absolutely brutal. And still so sad ... but that's just a sign of how great of a movie it is. To trigger these feelings for what are essentially just programmed computers and machines is powerful.
A Big element of the grift, is the courses curious refuge are selling. The amount of AI related RUclips channels and courses that have popped up are insane as well.
I follow and like some of these channels just for the heck of it, but I really don’t see them replacing the need to make and enjoy genuine art. Corporate media pushing this hot garbage will backfire the already corporate mandated conveyor belt slush that we have been getting for the last 10 years, post lockdown and almost every studio having their own streamer just made it more obvious.
there are a lot of great ai content creators and you can tell who's doing it earnestly and who's just riding the wave....but definitely anyone selling a course nowadays is a scammer. they probably literally took another scam course that is just a course about scamming people with courses. a la andrew tate
@@IRLlosersQ oh my God, this! It has been soooooooo distasteful to put it mildly.
I think art entirely created by AI will be remembered as a fascination of the early 21st century. It might pick up steam for a while as corporations see dollar signs, thinking they can make movies/books/tv for next to no money. But there will be a reckoning where the public has to finally acknowledge why we engage with art in the first place, in a way we've never meaningfully had to. Appreciating any kind of art is ultimately about a human connection between the artist(s) and the audience. It's a social experience when you get down to it, even when watching a movie by yourself. AI art will feel hollow, lacking that human connection, no matter how ably it imitates human creativity.
I hope this goes the way of NFTs, lots of hype but no substence... I really hope...
Or we make the companies currently plagiarising artists and monetising it using this software have the same copyright laws apply to them as everyone else. Its not fair use if it is performed by a machine.
i hope but i also feel like a lot of ppl who aren't creative or invested in art can't be bothered to do that, we all have lives and work and a lot of people might just be content to consume AI art as a distraction the same way other art/entertainment. I've seen so many depressing ppl online who are just praising AI becuz they hate artists, think they're pretentious, and also just whine that Hollywood is so bad nowadays they'd rather have AI.
Or it will become a useful tool, like digital ones that revolutionised how art is made.
Funny that those that criticized digital art used the same bullshit argument of "hollow" and "lack of human connection" or "lack of soul".
@@mondodimotori different arguement, ai art that utilises only copyrighted material to produce work identical in style to that original work is plagiarism.
Something I see comun in this "AI bros" are what they really want to do, low effort money.
If you are an artist you are in love with the procces, you love recording, singing, wirting or drawing.
If you are an artist you love using time on your life learning and enjoing other artist.
If you are an artist you will make art your life.
I mean, maybe don't go all in on making art your life - save some room for your pets or your kids or your friends or your hobbies - but I see your point. Joy in the journey and what it took to get there.
If it’s any consolation, I’d like to say that I had no idea that the trend of west Anderson parodies started out as an AI trend. On my Instagram feed I saw many many people creating west Anderson parodies of their daily life or studies or simple tasks, people who decided that they wanted, like the x-men parody, to imitate his style with their own little projects. Whether or not they had the same level of thought may be debated but I do believe that it’s important to notice that even still in the light of this ai trend there were people who decided they could do it without it’s help.
Exactly. A local tv show did a cute little post where the main characters were shot "Wes Anderson style".
22:17 emma's thumbs up of approval at that disaster is the kind of thumbs up we need sometimes in life
👍
I'm an art school student doing an animation degree and over the past year, me and all of my classmates have lived in fear that we're going to be replaced and out of jobs before we even have the chance to get any. And honestly I still feel that fear so I appreciate this video a lot, it's very incisive about the exact things I'm worried about. The AI Patrick from your Nebula video will haunt me until my dying days.
Also I just want to say that Emma is an absolute star and I am unbearably delighted to see her so present in the new season!
Were you also afraid of photoshop, maya, houdini, premiere, davinci resolve etc?
Adapt or not. It 's your choice.
@@charlesreid9337What human job did Photoshop subsume?
@@AnnDVine Did you know that almost the entire Ikea catalogue is digitally rendered now? Think that's a real photo of a chair or table or whatever? It's not, because digital renderings are cheaper, easier, and offers more control.
@@deadeyeguys it will not die down over time just so you know
@@charlesreid9337”paging false equivalence, false equivalence you have a cal at the front desk.”
I had a good laugh when that AI filmmaker guy said that these tools democratize storytelling and allows people to express creativity. It's pretty rich coming from the guy who had AI write the script for those videos. Makes you wonder how exactly was he creative, maybe using AI for everything was the creative idea lol.
ai allowed him to express the creativity he had for the idea he came up w- oh sorry, the idea that he had generated for him by ai.
I don't want a computer to tell me a story. I just don't.
This. I just can't understand people who like using those character chat ai things either. I know a person who loves it so much, which is great for her, but like??? The things from it that she tells me are just like those empty wes anderson ai shots where it's generic text with the names of characters she likes inserted into them. It's so soulless and I don't know how to tell her I just don't give a shit about ai chats in a nice way. Like I don't care if gojo told you he's going to the store with naruto or whatever.
I kind of miss when ai generated content was a bit glitchier, because: 1. it wasn't yet an existential threat to human art, and 2. It sort of had a dreamlike (or nightmarelike) quality to it all. Most AI generated stuff now just seems... empty.
AI can make practically whatever you want. If you want glitches or more weirdness, you can still make that happen. You just have to actively make it happen with prompts/inpainting/edits. You need deliberate intent. I think the problem is that a lot of people playing around with the tech have kind of converged on a common digital painting style, and they decided that's what they like. I hate that style myself, but that crappy style isn't the only one AI can use. You're just seeing the curated ouputs that dumb people have selected.
You can make your own art and train the AI on that if you really want. You could train it on screencaps of your favorite TV show. You could feed it images of your favorite painter or artist. It can make basically any visual, it's not limited to crappy spam that dumb people are constantly posting.
Also, the ways AI learning machines tend to naively stereotype or grossly misunderstand humans and our creations can be frankly pretty charming, I think, and the charm fades as the machine gets quote-unquote "better" at approximating the things it's trying to imitate or replicate.
Exactly! 2 years ago I though AI art was really cool abstract. But it wasn't train on other people's work, it was mostly genuine
It's still not a threat to human art. You can still draw. No one is stopping you.
And you can still make dreamlike images if you ask it to or use the older models. They haven't disappeared
@@dinosaysrawr Just ask it to create what you want and it can make it if you know how to use it (it's A LOT more than just typing it in). Like traditional art, the only limits are your skill and creativity
The caveat that Patrick included about how “AI” will soon be able to replace C-Suite executives making shitty film decisions is honestly one I didn’t consider but is so much more of a reality. Like when you think about it, what’s more suited to cold, unfeeling collections of code: the inimitable creativity of human beings and the spirit of collaboration? Or decisions that weigh risk and reward and do multiple massive calculations of finances and predict trends? Maybe if Bob Iger or David Zaslav were threatened with the idea of them becoming obsolete they’d see things differently. I can’t say which I’d prefer honestly, a group of cold-blooded lizard-humans force-feeding me marvel movies until I asphyxiate or “AI” generated garbage that’s the exact same thing but with weird fucking hands.
It's not even remotely a reality lol. The ruling class are not gonna volenteer to let themselves be replaced. Those lowly artists can be replaced because that means less people to pay which means more money for them. That has always been and will always be their goal. Their interest in AI is not ideological, it's purely pragmatic.
@@Creamcups "It's not even remotely a reality lol." Not with that attitude. We little people outnumber the rich 1000-to-1; if they don't replace themselves, we'll just have to do it for them.
Obviously both creative people and business people will be using AI just as both creative people and business people use computers to help with their work today.
It will be like Robocop. The executives will have a Directive 4 in order to protect their jobs from replacement.
Computer models already do all that stuff and have for decades.
Steal like an Artist is a great book that I read when I was younger that talks about taking the things that inspire you and blending them into something new that's wholly your own. It's really disheartening to see that motto used as justification for straight up theft by machines that can never be artists or people that can never have any kind of ownership over the plagiarized things they make.
It's not a justification, it's how it works. It doesn't plagiarize, saying that it does is just a lack of understanding of the technology. It's like saying that drawing a landscape from memory is plagiarizing reality, it doesn't make any sense.
@@daniel4647But that’s not how the technology, or human interpretation of art, works at all. Of course “AI” can’t plagiarize. It also can’t interpret. Or imagine. All it does is find patterns in the most abstract way. Now the people behind the servers who set up the database of patterns? They CAN plagiarize, and have already had. We’re not upset at the technology, we’re upset at those abusing the tech to make money at the expense of people.
I work as a 3d artist and I constantly look for reference to practice and improve my sculpts now I have to deep dive into images to see if they are real or ai generated, there are so many ai skulls with inaccurate proportions, shapes and anatomical structures. So now i have to spend time finding credible images and thanks to googles patented enshitification of search most searches just bring me back to ai images because the internet is flooded with them. I might actually go out and start a bone collection so i have accurate references.
Honestly, even just getting a medical skeleton model would work.
Thank you for making this. Another important thing to mention is that self-learning "A.I"cannot, and will never in its current form, partake in any kind of discourse. This is because it does not use language like we do. We attach a value judgement to what it spits out. We save it, or send a signal it did a good job, but never does A.I do this itself. While it may sound like a minor thing: discourse is required for new trends to emerge and new styles to challenge existing styles. Without discourse, art simply cannot happen.
Yesterday I heard a guy say A.I will have a "market expanding effect" when it comes to film making. And sure, while it may scathe off development time and maybe help us crank out more films in a shorter time frame, it cannot escape the fact we will get sick and tired of the same old stuff. We see it with super hero movies right now. Not even the most perfect reiteration of the genre will save a studio from us getting tired of it at some point. A.I will simply accelerate that oversaturation. That new thing we inevitably want is something it can never provide, because it does not use language to express itself and therefore can never partake in the discourse of what's next. That market expansion that guy talked about will ultimately look more like a boom/bust cycle, with artists that cause a boom, and A.I grinding it down to a bust.
An AI model is trained by asking it to generate a result, then comparing it to the expected answer. A common method used in training is conditional generation - a two part AI consisting of a generator and a discriminator. The generator produces images based on the input text, and the discriminator assesses the quality of the generated images. AI, in fact, does send itself positive and negative feedback -- without that ability, AI would not be making the advancements it is right now.
This is just flat out false. You can literally go to any of the major AI sites and have a converstation with the ai. Why is it "artists" are always so willfully ignorant?
@@metrics-inithat’s not effective enough to make it able to make good art though
@@charlesreid9337 You're making a huge leap from A.I spitting out coherent syntax (which it does), and a conscious brain actually using that syntax as a tool for communication (which it doesn't).
@@Maxarcc youre wrong. Youve bought into these articles by.. people with ba's repeating this meme. AI works exactly as your brain does. The difference between deep networks and llm's is llm's have fewer neurons.. and more information. But llm's learn exactly as you do. LLm's suprised ai researchers because for 40 years we've thought the breakthrough would be the # of neurons .. when it wasnt processing.. it was information . I expect general ai about the time our processing power doubles or quadruples. A lot of ai researchers expect it sooner
"That has existed for 20 years, and it's called the Royal Tenenbaums." Thank you! That was my first reaction, too.
My experience with A.I. writing resulted in a similar conclusion. The trick is that you need to actually be familiar with the artist that's being copied or you might be tricked into thinking that the A.I. is doing something better than it is.
My experience was a mildly regrettable one where I was a bit harsh to a friend of mine who was showing me how far A.I. had come. I said, "Have it write something in the style of Louis L'Amour."
It did.
Well, it tried.
I was already defensive, and doubly so because I'd previously thought A.I. could _not_ do something so detailed. Now I was discovering it could actually write stories, albeit, as I found out, exceptionally shallow ones that may or may not actually have logical progression.
But anyway, the point is that it didn't really copy Louis L'Amour. It copied stereotypical Western novel tropes, but utterly failed in cadence, vocabulary and character style. It read like a beginner writer making a parody of the genre.
The same thing seems to have happened here. It has the _trappings_ of a Wes Anderson movie, but outside of the transient amusement it provides to see someone's recognizable style transposed over something unrelated, there's very little to actually care about here.
To sum up my opinion of A.I. works: Dry. Like the Wes Anderson-style X-men clip in this video, there's no depth to it, no real point, no indication of true insight into the style, the characters, a sense of humor, or anything else that might grab one's attention. Even the visual style was repetitive and quickly lost meaning.
I get pissed off easily when a friend of mine tries to advertise AI like it's the greatest thing ever and I'll probably always dislike it. Humans really are losing faith in humanity and it sucks.
@@juliuscaesar8163 My comment is relevant now.
Hopefully, robits don't take over creative humqn expression.
The more convenient life becomes, the more miserable humans get.
I don't see this as a good thing.
@@juliuscaesar8163 And in those same 10 years you still won't have the skill to make anything yourself
AI is also about selecting from a choice of outputs. I can run a prompt on a batch of 50 and maybe 3 of the images are the things I plan on keeping. Seems like a lot of people are just basing their impression of it on what they can generate the first time with zero practice whatsoever.
@@juliuscaesar8163
The problem is that the algorithms Silicon Valley types mislabel as 'AI' are fundamentally reactive and unable to reliably guide their own development. The method for training them is to cram heaps of preexisting data down their throat, ask them to imitate it, watch them fail, tell them they failed, and then let them try again however many times it takes before it wardials its way into something passable. Then, the algorithm notes down that specific random decision as 'desirable', weights it accordingly, and we circle back around to the start.
Current "AI" art is the fruit of decades' worth of research, but it's running up against a hard limit: the finite amount of existing art there is to be used as training data. Without having vast archives of never-before-used data to load into the hopper, the rate of progress slows commensurately and the amount of human labor needed for each little bit of that progress rises. This leads to a decreasing rate of new milestones to show off and wow investors with and an increasing minimum expenditure of funds to keep the engine from seizing up.
People have already tested the most obvious possible solution of feeding algorithmically generated art back into the algorithm - and the results have been the opposite of promising. Making an algorithm reprocess its own data like that actually _degrades_ its ability to guess what we want from it. I couldn't wrap my head around the technical discussions on why that might be, but one metaphor stuck out to me: prion diseases.
Prions are the cause of mad cow, kuru, and other cannibalism-related degenerative disorders. If we ingest prion-tainted tissue, the prions can make their way to our brain - they're just similar enough to actual viable components in our neurons and such that the brain tries to incorporate them, but they aren't actually fit for purpose and cause progressive breakdown in the basic processes of the brain. There are minute but _crucial_ details in how they're formed, how they react to various neurochemicals and neuroelectric signals, etc, that you get nonsense outputs instead of healthy brain activity. What might be worse is that prions can 'corrupt' examples of the actual useful proteins and turn _them_ into prions, which is what causes the progressive degeneration.
And the type of tissue which carries the highest risk of transmitting prions? Dead brain tissue from close evolutionary relatives of the eater. Kuru in particular is a disease people get from committing cannibalism, with mad cow as a noteworthy instance of a prion disease that could affect both humans and bovines.
It's very much a metaphor, but it's not entirely wrong to say that based on current evidence, algorithms can suffer forms of degeneration akin to kuru via "cannibalism". Which means not only is algorithmic art worse than useless as training data, trainers have to be increasingly wary of images made after the advent of current "AI" art generators due to the possibility of giving their algorithm "digital kuru" by letting an AI-generated image slip into the training data. That could easily lead to algorithmic art hitting a functional dead end, which could only even _potentially_ be worked past by putting the entire technology on ice for several human generations so a backlog of "untainted" data can build up again.
The voice all the Wes Anderson AI rip-off videos use is Bob Balaban. He was the narrator of Moonrise Kingdom. Now it seems to have become a default voice on TikTok videos for some reason. I hope he's getting paid for this or has good lawyers.
What AI does with Wes Anderson is similar to what many people do with Martin Luther King, who they turned into a cartoonish meme that can only recall one line from “I Had a Dream.”
If the budget allows, i think a lot of us would love an updated version of Patrick (H) Willems' Wes Anderson's X Men!
That would be cool, but the nice thing is that is was made when he was a younger man. A younger less experienced filmmaker. It’s the charm. I’d love to go back and remake my old home movies, but the charm of film is in the nostalgia of it. The charm is the lessons you learned
if i asked an internet chatbot to make my video for me and it did everything from coming up with the concept to the script to all of the actual content in the video i wouldn't be stupid enough to call that "my" video.
Exactly.
I bet the AI chose Quicksilver because there was a lot of talk about his cameo appearance in WandaVision back in 2021 (which is about as recent as ChatGPT's knowledge base gets).
AI-generated "art" looks more like a bad dream than waking reality.
And like a dream, it seems real enough while you're looking at it/experiencing it, but once you're back in reality you realize just how wrong it all looked.
Wait for next year capabilities then
@@Fiddler1990 Wait until AI generated violin music closes all the doors to you as an up and coming musician.
The real danger is that studios or companies could have AI generate something, then hire an artist pennies to touch it up and make it usable, much less than they'd be paid for doing the whole thing from scratch. It's the same with writing. Yes, AI scripts kinda suck, but you can use an AI to spit something out, then hire one or two writers to edit and fix it up to be in a just usable state instead of having to hire a whole team to write the whole thing from scratch.
@@startrekmike yeah? I see your emotion, but my point is you can't rely on AI capabilities to stay at their current levels of "bad dream" for more than a few months or a year. The problem isn't merely "AI stuff looks bad lol", it's also that it will only improve.
In that case, there's no risk of it replacing artists right?
My problem with machine learning is that it’s taking the friction out of a process that needs friction, IMO.
I write, and sometimes it’s hard. It can suck. But I appreciate the struggle and writers block because it requires me to use my brain. It requires me to get advice from friends or have my editor look over my stuff. ML is basically a yes man that just does anything you tell it to. It’s not remotely fulfilling and tbh I think it’s actively harmful, particularly for creatives.
Thanks for this video
That's a very bloody good point!
Fulfillment? What's that?
@buddhafett2213 No, you can't. The most advanced LLM today with billions behind it can't do that. Actually, I've thought about how it could be possible halfway through my comment. But if all you do it train it to produce what the person would have already written, all the content with just be derivative. Circling the drain of mediocrity.
And you would almost certainly be using already existing AI tools, just fine-tuning it, so you aren't even making that. So what are you actually producing?
As much as I love your essays on filmmaking and filmmakers, I am so happy to see you taking on topical subjects like AI's use in art. I'm really looking forward to your essay on Content and what that is, and how RUclips has molded the space to be more about generating stuff than being a creative space.
32:28 - As a kid, this is the thing I'd drew the most. I called them 'dungeons'.. basically rooms/landscapes full of spikes, with wild animals covered in spikes, vehicles/weapons covered in spikes, spikes on spikes. Good times.
This video finally convinced me to get Nebula. It was the perfect storm of worrying about creatives and AI, compounded by the strikes and worries that they have there, Matt Colville talking on a stream a while back about how production companies used to be led by people who cared about movies (like Pat also mentioned), and the deal on the yearly plan.
uesd to? yes, but there also used to be time where the companies did not give a f@ck. It was also terrible in the past, not just better.
@@xBINARYGODx that was a long time ago. Before the seventies, when all the movie studios were bought up by investment firms.
There is an irony there: I strongly believe that the only people that could really use AI's work to making art are artists themselves.
I mean if yiou can trough that rig a good story, yeah youhave shown enough reativity to do it yourselves.
I mean or youplay off ideas to do your story out of it.
And did you see gci artists done well or vtube avatars that are really good, agree making art out of tools, which that is, you are an artist.
@@marocat4749are you having stroke, I genuinely can’t read what you’re trying to say
@@ramonaof12thdimension13 Maybe lighten up. It is very possible English is not their first language.
The way i see it, AI tools are like a box cake. A good baker can use it as a base to make something good. A hack on the other hand will try and sell you a literally half baked cake and get mad that you aren't treating it like it's the former.
@@AdamOMcMurphy There are visible differences between a comment made by someone not fluent in English, and a comment made by someone having a stroke. This resembles the latter, with the bizarre skipped spacing, the randomly dropped or inserted letters, and how there's a double line break after every sentence.
While I am still on the fence regarding AI and its benefits vs dangers to human-made art, this is the video that made me a Patreon member. This is an important discussion and I am here for it. Looking forward to the next video on Content.
Regarding the word "content"...
Back in the '90s I worked for a certain National Bookstore Chain (whose HQ is in NYC). I love books and have deep respect for authors. Books are works of art. Authors are artists. But our National Bookstore Chain manager referred to all of the books as "product." His actual words to me were, "Stack them high and watch them fly." To him, books were no different from the boxes of screws and nails he sold at his previous job. Just another commodity.
So yes, Patrick, I feel your pain when the art you love so much is referred to as "content."
How did it take so long for me to find your channel?? This is gold. The humor. The editing. Even the vibes! It's all perfection.
We all know the studio execs won't mind AI churning out derivative ideas as long as it fits the algorithm's design, but the final barrier will be the audience. My biggest fear, and I think it's founded, is that the public won't care, or indeed notice the difference.
Summer 2023 feels like it might be the breaking point for some of the more stale, formulaic movie practices that have ruled multiplexes for almost 2 decades, but it's not enough to give me any faith in people. There are generations of viewers who use Instagram and TikTok during screenings and get performatively angry when a big movie surprises them by not playing safe. They're happy to have machine-turned 'content' over art. Celluloid gruel. And yeah, it's not all of them but they were loud enough to change the last Star Wars movie into an apology tour for Disney daring to colour outside the lines so they have power.
Disney, and Lucasfilm in particular, are seriously worrying when you consider the greater implications of their bizarre experiments in replicating Mark Hamill's look and voice from close to 40 years ago in The Mandalorian, even before with Rogue One, and that de-aging technology from the latest Indiana Jones...
With the ammount of IP's that Disney has aquired and public apathy, it wouldn't be out of the question for an executive to merely suggest using AI to plot and concoct official Star Wars media featuring Luke Skywalker without any kind of involvement or royalties paid to Mark Hamill, an issue that also amplifies the already difficult opportunities for actors to shine...
I'm rather glad that the latest Indiana Jones and Flash movies bombed, as to show these studios that creating ghastly, digital zombies isn't as surefire as they believe to be...
Very good points.
I mean, most people who don't have some understanding of a field are pretty dumb about that field, but there is a limit. You show me x basketball player is the worst player in the NBA because of y and z stats, and I'll just shrug at worst and say 'okay, I guess' at best. You show me a game where he's constantly bouncing the ball off his own foot, and I'll see what you mean.
oh yeah definitely, people won't care or even notice, just more media to consume to distract us from our miserable jobs
This is it. If the audience is wants slop, they’ll get slop
If the IDEA is generated from a machine and the product is generated from a machine, where is the artist's intention? People make art because they have something to say (even if they're not sure what it is but it burns inside till it gets out). The key part of being influenced by something is the step where it stews around in our own hearts/minds. Putting influence references into a machine takes out the most important step. An idea coming through our psycho physical makeup is deeply important. The process of art making is such an important part of being human. Thank you for this video! I'm really exhausted with people calling this kind of stuff art. I am a really big fan of artists utilizing technology as tools to make their stuff better. The tools need to be in the hands of people who are utilizing them specifically with intention, I think.
no they dont. This is more low iq "artist" "deep thought". Almost all artists copy. And what they dont conciously copy did what llm's do... they study what others have done.
Maybe they're not making art, they're just making a parody trailer for people to click on and laugh at? I don't remember that person saying anything about how great of an artist they are.
I think watching this video it makes me feel the film studios are really wanting the writers to be on the streets and have AI be the writers going forward in to the 2030’s.
AI are one reason for the current strikes that really seem to work if studios have to go to crimes agaist trees far.
If they let the strike go on too long, Hollywood will just evaporate and die. Motion pictures will still exist and filmmakers will still find work, but Hollywood literally cannot exist unless the striking unions go back to work. It'll be interesting to see what happens in Hollywood wipes themselves out just to spite the unions.
@@daltonbedore8396 Do you think there is still hope for writers and actors?
Adrian Brody as Nightcrawler sounds kind of amazing NGL.
Bots have been better than humans at chess for decades now. That hasn't stopped people from playing chess. I hope it's the same with the arts. The economy of professional art is another matter; I'm talking about making art for the sake of making art. That said, people still love watching humans play chess. To my knowledge, there is no interest in watching AI-only chess matches-even though that would be the "best" chess in the world. People still just like watching people play chess. It's possible that, in the future, people will want to watch movies made by people because they were made by people. We feel a connection to the artist. I watched Barbie last night, and I found myself thinking, "Oh, so this is what Greta Gerwig thinks about these themes." I've seen a lot of AI art that is objectively gorgeous (maybe that's an oxymoron), but I don't feel emotionally connected to it because I can't stare in awe at the talent or hard work that someone put in to make it. The social aspect of consuming someone's creation isn't something these tools can manufacturer.
Trailer Making is an art form. To this day I regularly watch the final botw Trailer, because someone created something truly special.
I love how Patrick snuck a Wes Anderson retrospective into a video about A.I. … that’s so Patrick H Willems
27:18 “all of us are pulling our creative ideas for something,” wrong, you didn’t have a creative idea and thus it wasn’t pulled from anywhere. You asked a chat-bot for ideas for viral videos, which it necessarily came up for ideas based off of previously viral videos and no original thoughts (because it is a computer and incapable). Nothing creative was done. No idea was created. This is just a cash in on a fad of something most people don’t understand and just think is cool, with no concern about the long term effects of this technology.
Mr Willems, you encapsulated perfectly my thoughts and feelings about A.I. I'm just a small filthy digital artist who does fanart so I feel like my stance on A.I. 'art' doesn't really matter in the big picture, but it's so true that the only ones excited about it are the techbros. It's disgusting to see A.I. 'artists' doing paid (yes, PAID) commissions (mostly lewd hentai but this could change very rapidly) and those techbros throwing money at those accounts just to stick it to the human artists who (obviously) charge way more (and then laugh crying when the final 'artwork' has a ton of anatomical, lighting, colouring, etc errors that human artists would have caught anyway). It's a truly depressing time to be a small-time creator.
I love Wes Andersons style, but I watch his movies for their stories and humor and tragedy. At this point I feel like his unique style has become an obstacle for him.
Wes Anderson should come out and flag that AI crap. Try & take it down in any way possible through court seeing as it’s not original & literally stolen art.
Artist need to come out and start nipping this stuff in the bud.
No. The stupid people will have their say.
They outnumber us.
The sad thing is exactly what you mention, but in digital artists community. I myself experienced this, as well as all other artists, the dread when your art is still "worse" in "quality" than AI. Yeah, it includes our own ideas, our own feelings, but for any platform, if you want to pursue art, all the AI art slowly kills not the platform, but the spirit of all the new generation.
Thank you for the video, it's very nice to have reminders what exactly AI will never replicate
The worst human art is still less uncanny than the best AI art.
As an illustrator myself, the « steal like an artist » line is so infuriating, and shows a complete lack of knowledge about creativity. You explained it well so thank you for the great video as always Patrick H !
All artists steal. That's how they learn to draw. Even Picasso knew this.
@@Brandon82967 And thieving artists absolutely get in legal trouble all the time due to blatant plagiarism. Why should AI art, built on unconsented copyrighted dataset, be exempt?
@@violentflamez All artists do it. Ask any one how they learned how to draw or where they get their inspiration from. It's almost always from someone else's work without permission.
@@Brandon82967 Yeah then they develop their own style, or else they're a bad artist.
it's part of the larger weird way the internet views Wes Anderson. like the Wes Anderson trend on TikTok, where viewers aim to recreate their lives and settings as if they were WA pictures. except, none of them feel like WA's style. they just add a gross colour filter and sorta try to be symmetrical. like you mentioned about the verbose titles too, people misunderstand WA's esoteric nature. his movies aren't complex, his characters aren't particularly intellectual. I don't know where that style has come from, his thing is literally deadpan delivery. Heck, a big part of the humour of some of his movies is how even though they establish as these semi fantastical stories the characters talk with a bluntness and sometimes vulgarity that absolutely contrasts it. they don't go on long winded verbose speeches.
his movies are deeply emotional and deal with pretty heavy topics of depression, especially in his earlier years. his first two movies are much more subtle but the protagonists of both movies are clearly depressed. these people throw that away, and make out Wes Anderson to simply just be whimsy and bright colours. did they even watch the movies? how did his style become this? I wish people would understand this!
OMG THANK YOU!!! I had the same opinion about the Secret Invasion opening on twitter and got so much crap for it! If the creators were 100% on the level about the way they used the technology in conjunction with the clients (Marvel) own material it’s the best case scenario for the use of this stuff! I got into a dumb argument with someone that didn’t seem to understand that unfortunately this stuff isn’t going anywhere and just screaming “AI BAD” misses the point that there’s already tools like these being used in art they consider “ok”. You elucidate my entire thought process on the entire subject, especially terrible lazy “AI” parodies.
“It’s not the future”
So in a few hundred years when AI can make a movie or video game as good as any human could what won’t be possible ? Just because we don’t have the tech rn doesn’t mean we won’t even pretty soon within our or our children’s lifetime
that's ridiculous! It could never happen in a few hundred years... more like a decade... or half a decade.
Your Wes Anderson video was recommended after their Lord of the Rings video. I did not realize their video was all AI generated at first, but yours clearly wasn't and was well acted, funny, and a great parody!
25:10 makes me think of the writers I've seen running their manuscripts through ChatGPT to "improve" them. It usually just makes them worse, but even if it didn't, there's value in knowing how to proof and edit your own work. Because that's not only how you improve the work, it's how you recognize your own weaknesses as a writer, and there are simply things that ChatGPT cannot do in rereading it.
I've gone through a draft of a story and recognized that a scene was weak and needed to be totally rewritten. I've added a whole action sequence that I was really proud of because I felt like something was missing in a scene that I wrote, and it had reverberations later on because of how it affected the story's stakes. I've recognized where something contradicted an earlier choice I made or someone or something was being done in an unnecessarily difficult way and had to actually sit myself down and figure out my character's backstory or some element of worldbuilding. That's good for your projects.
And not just for the one at hand, too. The more you look at what you've done, the more you recognize your strengths and weaknesses as a writer, and the better you get at capitalizing on those strengths and improving on your weaknesses. The more you learn to edit your own work, the less you need to edit it in the future simply because you have those problems less often in the first place.
If you just feed it to ChatGPT a chapter at a time, you don't get that. That improvement simply doesn't happen. You don't learn anything. And you never improve as a writer.
I imagine somebody looking at a computer in 1982 and saying that computers will never be useful to artists because everything looks so blocky and terrible.
@@AnthonyFlack Do you actually read the comments you respond to or do you just have ChatGPT generate "snappy comebacks to own AI haters"?
Realize that for most people, ChatGPT writes BETTER than them. I have a client who is disabled and finds ChatGPT to finally be the most useful thing in helping him actually communicate with *his* business clients. Listen, writing is hard and most people just want to get it over with. ChatGPT is used to automate work email, because even for that low bar, a significant number of people don't even clear that low bar and society has decided to exclude them because of the language barrier.
On the other hand, when I'm writing something worthwhile, it is immensely satisfying though to be writing something better than the ChatGPT equivalent, recognizing what you have written is better, and feeling a sense of pride at having passed that Dunning-Kruger hill. To go from that mindless automata state of the human machine, endlessly typing and not knowing why she types, to becoming the architect of one's own hands, is a very fulfilling experience.
It is good for bouncing ideas off of. Plenty of it's "ideas" are bad, but plenty aren't.
@@joereno955 I've heard that, but I don't 100 percent buy it. Even if so, I can do that just as well if not better with my friends, my family, or just me.
This was extremely fun to watch, so much hard work, team work, and originality. I just loved it, and appreciated the effort so much.
This is a pretty stuck-up take on AI. Just typing a prompt into Generative Models, then leaning back and going viral is a fad owed to the novelty of the technology (which is ALREADY wearing off).
I STRONGLY suggest anyone who reads this to go and watch Austin Mc Connell's recent video "I used AI in a video. There was a backlash."
It's the antithesis to this video.
It explains how AI empowers filmmakers to tell stories in a way that simply wouldn't be possible without it.
The After Party just did a Wes Anderson-inspired episode. It's a great example of how to do something like that right. It's an episode focusing on a character that already fits into a Wes Anderson movie, it's a story that would fit into a Wes Anderson movie, it makes sense that this character sees her life through a Wes Anderson lens, etc. - and then the visual styles also match.
I thought of the After Party while watching this video! You make a very good point.
“These videos reduce Wes Anderson to an Instagram filter. A checklist of style tropes to be pasted onto something. There’s no effort to engage with his work on a deeper level than just skimming through some trailers with no sound.”
Thank you! This was my complaint about all of the Wes Anderson parodies long before AI got involved.
Patrick definitely a Wes Anderson fan, will always remember his X-Men Wes Anderson video like 8 years ago before the whole A.I takeover....👌👌👌 He deserves to make this video👊
since 2021 i've dialled back posting my sketches online because someone will always chuck them in ai and be like "i improved the shading", i dont want my shading to be hyperrealistic, i hate it
even the lowest budget parody has more charm than these AI generated things
Hey Patrick,
I absolutely agree with most of your points. I work as a screenwriter and to sell my stuff I put a lot of work into my Spec-Treatments with Concept-Art and everything ...
The problem before has always been that I had to spend a lot of money on concept artists for a project that had the risk of not making any money back in the end.
I'm absolutely aware that those AI tools can't replace a real artist, as my main struggle with the program is that it is very unprecise and is more a vague estimation of what I really want to have. But at least it makes my shitty concept art better to look at, than what I had before and that could already be a selling point on if some producer reads it or not.
But I guess that only works because nobody is expecting great concept art from the guy who sells you the screenplay.
This bs is the exact reason I'm filming my next music video on actual negative 16mm film, because the physicality of it is something that a machine will never be able to replace for me
These tech bros and grifters want to be seen as artists so bad in their interviews ("I made this" yadda-yadda), but can't even bother to come up with a prompt they're passionate about, only ones that will get them the most clicks and further their grift. A middleschooler doodling their mary-sue OCs in the margins of a textbook has more artistic merit than these sad metric-jackers will ever have. They have no business "stealing like an artist" since they're painfully unpassionate about art as a means or as an ends to express anything. They have nothing to say so they ask a language model to do that for them.