I actually think that when we moved to CGI animation, the inbetweener role was lost. Most of those movements typically come from way easier animation programs than actually hand drawing everything on paper. I do think that you can tell if you've watched enough animation to notice how a film is made. There is something very organic to the inbetweener role, but I can't argue that it's a lot of time, effort, and eventually leads to carpal tunnel or other hand issues.
I'm with you that lower budget filmmakers will likely take advantage of this on a wider scale than the bigger corporations in Hollywood. That has both upsides and downsides to it, but I think that we can't ignore either side to see the whole picture. Great comment!
@@ModernMouse Yes. And I totally agree with you. AI will be used as a shortcut for big studio animations. Hopefully it’s in a more harmless way like in-betweens
I didn’t know the intro for Secret Invasion was created by AI 😳 Each time I watched the intro, I was mesmerized by how unique, cool, & mysterious the artwork looked. I guess having AI create the intro is a good analytical connection to the theme of the show. Now I’m reminded of the creepy song from Pocahontas II, “Things are not what they appear” 💚🖤
I believe that the argument from the showrunners was that the intro did fit the theme so you are on point there, and to a degree, because of that I don't care as much. It's one show that ran a handful of episodes. I think many people feared that once a studio starts using AI for stuff like that, where do they draw the line to stop. That's why these union deals and legislation will be important in the future.
I don’t even worry for the job than I do the worker. AI is taking the worker out of the job. Unless people can make their own machine learning and then jump straight to making their own AI algorithms for their own medias and business, people are going to find the result behind quantum computing to be more exclusive to the workers than inclusive.
The common misconception about AI art is that you just type a prompt and boom you have an Art. But the artist who use it and are serious about making art really delve into iterating with the AI. Those who just type a prompt won’t be as good as someone who actually puts thought into what the use AI for. Also the Marvel opening credits, it’s presumptuous to think it was just put a prompt and there’s the animation. We just know it was generated with AI. We also No it was a choice because of the uncanny pictures AI produced. I mean it does look bad imo but because of how the used it. I saw someone do a better one with AI generators
I agree that there are a lot of misconceptions, but the way many in the tech industry talk, the end goal will be going directly from a text prompt to finished product. There are people on both extremes of the argument for AI and I wanted to make a video that felt more realistic and probable. Keeping AI out of the arts is impossible so there is going to have to be legislation and union deals in order to make sure the industry uses it as a tool for animation and not as a replacement for people.
At 1:50 you stress that AI builds on what is done before. You are absolutely correct, but I would go a bit further and say that it is only as good as the text labels associated with the training data - that is, descriptions of what has been done before. These descriptions are created by humans. (And often poorly paid humans working in sweat-shop conditions.) This is the hidden human basis for what AI gets credit for. If the training data describes a frog that feeds on human flesh as "happy" the AI will respond in kind. So they have motivation to be very mainstream and conservative in their descriptions. But creativity is all about violating these expectations. Maybe figuring out how "happy" might include a frog that feeds on human flesh. (Well, maybe something adjacent...) Bottom line is exactly what you point out: AI is still only really useful for things that do not require any significant deviation from past behavior. There's a little ditty from long ago that still applies: "I hate this damn computer, I wish that they would sell it. It won't do what I want it to, but only what I tell it."
It has to happen. All the blacksmiths lost their jobs during the industrial revolution. All the people who drove horse-and-buggy all lost their jobs when the automobile was invented. I know that this seems scary, But knowing hollywoodthey're not going to be as wild with it as you think. Hollywood is very risk averse, and they don't like taking chances. Look at all the top grossing movies they're all safe, predictable, bankable movies. So they're just going to use it to do very safe things. The great example you made of the in-betweeners, dotting dalmatians are exactly the safe things they will do. Just like how machines do the extremely dangerous parts of manufacturing in factories. Did people lose jobs to the machines? Yes. But less people lost lives. Less families lost their father. Less wives lost their husband. But you brought up marvel of all things and you used that as an example. And it's funny because Marvel is the literal definition of cookie cutter Hollywood. Sure. They might experiment on the opening credits. But here's the thing, Absolutely nobody cares about the opening credits. As soon as that button says skip intro, they press it. Do I think there will be AI generated films in the near-future? Yes. But it won't be from Hollywood. It will be from those same creative people who like tinkering and messing with things. All of the CGI we see in movies today, all originally came from music videos of all places. All digital editing, digital color correction, and everything that is commonplace in movies now, all started out in music videos. Because thats where directors were allowed to be ambitious, and try out new and strange technologies. And yes, people look back on the effects in old music videos, and roast how bad it looks. But what they don't realize is that the effects they're laughing at, were experimental. And that they were intended to look that way on purpose. Because thats the only way you can perfect something. You have to put it out there and let the public see it for themselves. Look at all the commercials and music videos pixar did before Toy Story. And what people don't realize is that CGI had existed for 30 years before Toy Story. And CGI went through every single venue and medium, before they made the first full length animated movie using only CGI. And I'm not saying that it will take 30 years for AI to make a whole movie. It will most definitely be a shorter time than that. But were still in the uncanny-valley, so I don't think we should take this as the sky is falling just yet.
As technology develops, we always regulate it and as old jobs cease to exist, new ones pop up. I don't think many people look at history for the answers to these types of things, but it's usually the first place I go to since it always repeats itself in some form or another. Is AI in the arts different from the industrial factories? Yes and no, but the things that are similar are there and if you are looking for it, it's easy to see. I'm hopeful that AI won't completely destroy the animation industry as we know it. I think that people will use it as a tool just as any other developing tech has been.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on AI and animation since I shared mine. Thanks for watching!
2:49 I love in-betweens they are great. Timing adds a lot to a scene. If timing is automated you lose a lot.
I actually think that when we moved to CGI animation, the inbetweener role was lost. Most of those movements typically come from way easier animation programs than actually hand drawing everything on paper. I do think that you can tell if you've watched enough animation to notice how a film is made. There is something very organic to the inbetweener role, but I can't argue that it's a lot of time, effort, and eventually leads to carpal tunnel or other hand issues.
The upside is it will be easier to make ideas for new filmmakers and AI animation would be a great tool for a low budget proof of concept
I'm with you that lower budget filmmakers will likely take advantage of this on a wider scale than the bigger corporations in Hollywood. That has both upsides and downsides to it, but I think that we can't ignore either side to see the whole picture. Great comment!
@@ModernMouse Yes. And I totally agree with you. AI will be used as a shortcut for big studio animations. Hopefully it’s in a more harmless way like in-betweens
I didn’t know the intro for Secret Invasion was created by AI 😳 Each time I watched the intro, I was mesmerized by how unique, cool, & mysterious the artwork looked. I guess having AI create the intro is a good analytical connection to the theme of the show.
Now I’m reminded of the creepy song from Pocahontas II, “Things are not what they appear” 💚🖤
I believe that the argument from the showrunners was that the intro did fit the theme so you are on point there, and to a degree, because of that I don't care as much. It's one show that ran a handful of episodes. I think many people feared that once a studio starts using AI for stuff like that, where do they draw the line to stop. That's why these union deals and legislation will be important in the future.
I don’t even worry for the job than I do the worker. AI is taking the worker out of the job. Unless people can make their own machine learning and then jump straight to making their own AI algorithms for their own medias and business, people are going to find the result behind quantum computing to be more exclusive to the workers than inclusive.
Thanks for making a such good video.
The common misconception about AI art is that you just type a prompt and boom you have an Art. But the artist who use it and are serious about making art really delve into iterating with the AI. Those who just type a prompt won’t be as good as someone who actually puts thought into what the use AI for.
Also the Marvel opening credits, it’s presumptuous to think it was just put a prompt and there’s the animation. We just know it was generated with AI. We also No it was a choice because of the uncanny pictures AI produced. I mean it does look bad imo but because of how the used it. I saw someone do a better one with AI generators
I agree that there are a lot of misconceptions, but the way many in the tech industry talk, the end goal will be going directly from a text prompt to finished product. There are people on both extremes of the argument for AI and I wanted to make a video that felt more realistic and probable. Keeping AI out of the arts is impossible so there is going to have to be legislation and union deals in order to make sure the industry uses it as a tool for animation and not as a replacement for people.
At 1:50 you stress that AI builds on what is done before. You are absolutely correct, but I would go a bit further and say that it is only as good as the text labels associated with the training data - that is, descriptions of what has been done before. These descriptions are created by humans. (And often poorly paid humans working in sweat-shop conditions.) This is the hidden human basis for what AI gets credit for. If the training data describes a frog that feeds on human flesh as "happy" the AI will respond in kind. So they have motivation to be very mainstream and conservative in their descriptions. But creativity is all about violating these expectations. Maybe figuring out how "happy" might include a frog that feeds on human flesh. (Well, maybe something adjacent...) Bottom line is exactly what you point out: AI is still only really useful for things that do not require any significant deviation from past behavior. There's a little ditty from long ago that still applies: "I hate this damn computer, I wish that they would sell it. It won't do what I want it to, but only what I tell it."
Eventually AI will be able to create it’s own original ideas, but not for a while.
It has to happen. All the blacksmiths lost their jobs during the industrial revolution. All the people who drove horse-and-buggy all lost their jobs when the automobile was invented. I know that this seems scary, But knowing hollywoodthey're not going to be as wild with it as you think. Hollywood is very risk averse, and they don't like taking chances. Look at all the top grossing movies they're all safe, predictable, bankable movies. So they're just going to use it to do very safe things. The great example you made of the in-betweeners, dotting dalmatians are exactly the safe things they will do. Just like how machines do the extremely dangerous parts of manufacturing in factories. Did people lose jobs to the machines? Yes. But less people lost lives. Less families lost their father. Less wives lost their husband. But you brought up marvel of all things and you used that as an example. And it's funny because Marvel is the literal definition of cookie cutter Hollywood. Sure. They might experiment on the opening credits. But here's the thing, Absolutely nobody cares about the opening credits. As soon as that button says skip intro, they press it. Do I think there will be AI generated films in the near-future? Yes. But it won't be from Hollywood. It will be from those same creative people who like tinkering and messing with things. All of the CGI we see in movies today, all originally came from music videos of all places. All digital editing, digital color correction, and everything that is commonplace in movies now, all started out in music videos. Because thats where directors were allowed to be ambitious, and try out new and strange technologies. And yes, people look back on the effects in old music videos, and roast how bad it looks. But what they don't realize is that the effects they're laughing at, were experimental. And that they were intended to look that way on purpose. Because thats the only way you can perfect something. You have to put it out there and let the public see it for themselves. Look at all the commercials and music videos pixar did before Toy Story. And what people don't realize is that CGI had existed for 30 years before Toy Story. And CGI went through every single venue and medium, before they made the first full length animated movie using only CGI. And I'm not saying that it will take 30 years for AI to make a whole movie. It will most definitely be a shorter time than that. But were still in the uncanny-valley, so I don't think we should take this as the sky is falling just yet.
As technology develops, we always regulate it and as old jobs cease to exist, new ones pop up. I don't think many people look at history for the answers to these types of things, but it's usually the first place I go to since it always repeats itself in some form or another. Is AI in the arts different from the industrial factories? Yes and no, but the things that are similar are there and if you are looking for it, it's easy to see. I'm hopeful that AI won't completely destroy the animation industry as we know it. I think that people will use it as a tool just as any other developing tech has been.