Postmodern TVbox
May 10, 2024 4:07 PM Subscribe
AI has fostered a lot of mash-ups in various styles. Some guy named demonflyingfox has been turning popular animated and live-action series into colorized versions from the fifties. I'm not really doing it justice so check out Friends, The Simpsons, and SpongBob SquarePants among many others.
He's also got some "this but that"-style videos like Star Wars But in Japan or South Park But 80s Sitcom. There are other creators in this genre, like Abandoned Films.
He's also got some "this but that"-style videos like Star Wars But in Japan or South Park But 80s Sitcom. There are other creators in this genre, like Abandoned Films.
Pretty freaky. And fun. I like watching how the details shift on what should be solid objects.
posted by Ayn Marx at 4:22 PM on May 10 [2 favorites]
posted by Ayn Marx at 4:22 PM on May 10 [2 favorites]
Hmmm. Hmmm! No sir, I don't like it.
posted by aubilenon at 4:47 PM on May 10 [8 favorites]
posted by aubilenon at 4:47 PM on May 10 [8 favorites]
Live action Milhouse is just Paul Pfeiffer from the Wonder Years,
posted by The Manwich Horror at 4:58 PM on May 10 [11 favorites]
posted by The Manwich Horror at 4:58 PM on May 10 [11 favorites]
Some guy named demonflyingfox is telling an AI to make a bunch of clips (based on a lot of reference material they didn't license), stringing them together, getting a different AI to mimic a human voice, and lying to themselves that it's a creative output. These are not creators, this is not a genre. This is the thin end of the wedge.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 5:06 PM on May 10 [33 favorites]
These are not creators, this is not a genre. This is the thin end of the wedge.
I'm opposed to generative AI in the vast majority of cases, but these feel pretty harmless.
All AI is good for is remixing what has come before. But that us all these do. There is no pretense that this guy came up with the Simpson or Friends. And the characters and sets are pretty clearly remixes from period visuals. One of the cartoon characters (in American Dad, I think) is just Patrick Stewart. It's just mashing up old fashioned visuals with more recent designs.
Also, DFF has been using generative AI to make weird and offputting videos since the technology was new, like Harry Potter Balenciaga. I appreciate leaning in to the uncanny and bizarre effect "AI" produces.
It's not going to make anybody rich, it is weird and obviously fake, it is fun and lets people do something that would be unnecessarily laborious to do otherwise. This feels like the best possible use of the technology.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 5:19 PM on May 10 [9 favorites]
I'm opposed to generative AI in the vast majority of cases, but these feel pretty harmless.
All AI is good for is remixing what has come before. But that us all these do. There is no pretense that this guy came up with the Simpson or Friends. And the characters and sets are pretty clearly remixes from period visuals. One of the cartoon characters (in American Dad, I think) is just Patrick Stewart. It's just mashing up old fashioned visuals with more recent designs.
Also, DFF has been using generative AI to make weird and offputting videos since the technology was new, like Harry Potter Balenciaga. I appreciate leaning in to the uncanny and bizarre effect "AI" produces.
It's not going to make anybody rich, it is weird and obviously fake, it is fun and lets people do something that would be unnecessarily laborious to do otherwise. This feels like the best possible use of the technology.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 5:19 PM on May 10 [9 favorites]
I'm opposed to generative AI in the vast majority of cases, but these feel pretty harmless.
I don't care necessarily that this is gen-AI fluff. But I very strongly object to anyone, especially the person who asked the generator to make it, saying he made anything.
posted by tclark at 5:39 PM on May 10 [6 favorites]
I don't care necessarily that this is gen-AI fluff. But I very strongly object to anyone, especially the person who asked the generator to make it, saying he made anything.
posted by tclark at 5:39 PM on May 10 [6 favorites]
IDK I think this is at least as creative a project as collage is.
posted by aubilenon at 5:50 PM on May 10 [12 favorites]
posted by aubilenon at 5:50 PM on May 10 [12 favorites]
Homer and Joey are gonna be antagonists if they ever bring back Dexter.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:56 PM on May 10 [1 favorite]
posted by Going To Maine at 5:56 PM on May 10 [1 favorite]
These are not creators, this is not a genre.
“These fancy pants computer machines are a travesty!”
posted by iamck at 6:02 PM on May 10 [4 favorites]
“These fancy pants computer machines are a travesty!”
posted by iamck at 6:02 PM on May 10 [4 favorites]
If it was your face and voice being generated by AI, would it be harmless? Too bad this person can’t create original work.
posted by Ideefixe at 6:11 PM on May 10 [2 favorites]
posted by Ideefixe at 6:11 PM on May 10 [2 favorites]
I saw some of these and I was amused but I thought posting them to MetaFilter would lead to an argument.
posted by hippybear at 6:12 PM on May 10 [16 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 6:12 PM on May 10 [16 favorites]
“… lets people do something that would be unnecessarily laborious to do otherwise.”
Yes, somebody else did a lot of labor before… This person is just using that labor for their own aggrandizement.
posted by njohnson23 at 6:30 PM on May 10 [2 favorites]
Yes, somebody else did a lot of labor before… This person is just using that labor for their own aggrandizement.
posted by njohnson23 at 6:30 PM on May 10 [2 favorites]
Well, they are using the products of that labor.
But would anything actually be gained by having someone shoot footage for these sorts of little one off jokes? Is the world any worse off for their existing? I don't think so.
I don't feel like AI is some intrinsic evil. It has way more destructive uses than good ones, but if it is around, people making the 2020s equivalent of YT Poops with them seems pretty inconsequential.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 6:41 PM on May 10 [2 favorites]
But would anything actually be gained by having someone shoot footage for these sorts of little one off jokes? Is the world any worse off for their existing? I don't think so.
I don't feel like AI is some intrinsic evil. It has way more destructive uses than good ones, but if it is around, people making the 2020s equivalent of YT Poops with them seems pretty inconsequential.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 6:41 PM on May 10 [2 favorites]
IDK I think this is at least as creative a project as collage is.
Yeah, but making a collage usually meant cutting up things like magazines, magazines who paid the artist to publish their work that you were remixing. This is just a machine regurgitating stolen IP
posted by Dr. Twist at 6:48 PM on May 10 [3 favorites]
Yeah, but making a collage usually meant cutting up things like magazines, magazines who paid the artist to publish their work that you were remixing. This is just a machine regurgitating stolen IP
posted by Dr. Twist at 6:48 PM on May 10 [3 favorites]
Some guy named demonflyingfox is telling an AI to make a bunch of clips (based on a lot of reference material they didn't license), stringing them together, getting a different AI to mimic a human voice, and lying to themselves that it's a creative output. These are not creators, this is not a genre. This is the thin end of the wedge.
you breach copyright pretty much every time you Ctrl c/Ctrl v without explicit permission from the creator, play an mp3 or load youtube/imgur. it's extremely unambiguous, way more so than AI from a legal perspective.
it's tedious seeing this kind of nerd sanctimony directed at delightful creations like this, from people who, presumptively, either partake in or are happy tolerating industrial level breach of copyright.
it's fine to find AI icky, but don't pivot to an ip maximalist stance to do it, the scale of the hypocrisy is distasteful.
posted by Sebmojo at 7:01 PM on May 10 [16 favorites]
you breach copyright pretty much every time you Ctrl c/Ctrl v without explicit permission from the creator, play an mp3 or load youtube/imgur. it's extremely unambiguous, way more so than AI from a legal perspective.
it's tedious seeing this kind of nerd sanctimony directed at delightful creations like this, from people who, presumptively, either partake in or are happy tolerating industrial level breach of copyright.
it's fine to find AI icky, but don't pivot to an ip maximalist stance to do it, the scale of the hypocrisy is distasteful.
posted by Sebmojo at 7:01 PM on May 10 [16 favorites]
Yeah, but making a collage usually meant cutting up things like magazines, magazines who paid the artist to publish their work that you were remixing. This is just a machine regurgitating stolen IP
Dr. Twist
I'm not following this line of thought. The networks/studios also already paid (and continue to pay via royalties) the artists involved in these shows.
posted by star gentle uterus at 7:02 PM on May 10 [6 favorites]
Dr. Twist
I'm not following this line of thought. The networks/studios also already paid (and continue to pay via royalties) the artists involved in these shows.
posted by star gentle uterus at 7:02 PM on May 10 [6 favorites]
Yes, somebody else did a lot of labor before… This person is just using that labor for their own aggrandizement.
njohnson23
But as noted above that's also true of collage, or really anything involving the reuse or recontextualisation of the works of others (e.g. music sampling or remixing).
posted by star gentle uterus at 7:08 PM on May 10 [6 favorites]
njohnson23
But as noted above that's also true of collage, or really anything involving the reuse or recontextualisation of the works of others (e.g. music sampling or remixing).
posted by star gentle uterus at 7:08 PM on May 10 [6 favorites]
What the heck does “for their own aggrandizement” even mean, as a criticism?? Like, what does this possibly have to do with any legitimate value judgment on the subject??
posted by not just everyday big moggies at 7:11 PM on May 10 [8 favorites]
posted by not just everyday big moggies at 7:11 PM on May 10 [8 favorites]
Transformation and creation of new artwork from old content isn't what he did, though.
He asked a machine to create correlations for him. This isn't like someone creating a collage. This is more like David Zaslav saying he created everything Warner Bros. makes just because he's the boss and told someone what he wanted them to make.
posted by tclark at 7:13 PM on May 10 [1 favorite]
He asked a machine to create correlations for him. This isn't like someone creating a collage. This is more like David Zaslav saying he created everything Warner Bros. makes just because he's the boss and told someone what he wanted them to make.
posted by tclark at 7:13 PM on May 10 [1 favorite]
But as noted above that's also true of collage, or really anything involving the reuse or recontextualisation of the works of others (e.g. music sampling or remixing).
Except it isn't? Because you aren't cutting things out, you aren't laying them out, you aren't picking the samples, you aren't overlaying the tracks or working the turntables... All you're doing is suggesting that a robot try doing those things. That's not doing work. At all.
The creativity in doing a collage isn't in having the idea for the collage. It's in having the ability to follow through and create the actual collage by making actual choices about how you're going to carry it out. Telling a robot to cut things out and making things isn't creative.
I don't know why this is difficult to understand.
Having the idea isn't the creative act. If it were, the world would be full of creations by stoned people sitting in living rooms having conversations.
The creative act is in manifesting your idea through deliberate choices. And a computer isn't going to be making deliberate choices -- it's going to be making lowest-common-denominator choices, because that's how it's been trained.
AI is trained to look for "what is most likely to come next". Human creativity comes from "what is unlikely to come next that I can create context for it to make sense here".
No computer will ever do that.
posted by hippybear at 7:13 PM on May 10 [13 favorites]
Except it isn't? Because you aren't cutting things out, you aren't laying them out, you aren't picking the samples, you aren't overlaying the tracks or working the turntables... All you're doing is suggesting that a robot try doing those things. That's not doing work. At all.
The creativity in doing a collage isn't in having the idea for the collage. It's in having the ability to follow through and create the actual collage by making actual choices about how you're going to carry it out. Telling a robot to cut things out and making things isn't creative.
I don't know why this is difficult to understand.
Having the idea isn't the creative act. If it were, the world would be full of creations by stoned people sitting in living rooms having conversations.
The creative act is in manifesting your idea through deliberate choices. And a computer isn't going to be making deliberate choices -- it's going to be making lowest-common-denominator choices, because that's how it's been trained.
AI is trained to look for "what is most likely to come next". Human creativity comes from "what is unlikely to come next that I can create context for it to make sense here".
No computer will ever do that.
posted by hippybear at 7:13 PM on May 10 [13 favorites]
This guy doesn't seem to be that familiar with the style he's supposedly mimicking. The music he picks (1940s-ish big band) is about 10 years outdated for the mid 50s era he's shooting for, the narration is far too matter-of-fact, and he calls these "Super Panavision 70" — a film format whose main feature was that it was very wide (2.20:1 instead of the 16:9 he made these at).
posted by jonathanhughes at 7:14 PM on May 10 [8 favorites]
posted by jonathanhughes at 7:14 PM on May 10 [8 favorites]
Some guy named demonflyingfox opened that book bound in human skin and read an incantation, and here we are
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 7:22 PM on May 10 [2 favorites]
I don't know why this is difficult to understand.
hippybear
I appreciate that this is a subject that arouses intense emotions, and for good reason, but I am with the commenters above in believing that ultimately generative AI is just another tool with potential artistic uses. There is a history of incorporating mechanical or similar processes into art. We are in a transition period right now as the capabilities and meaning of this new technology is being staked out, but as with any other tool while there are malicious or harmful ways to use it there is also creative potential. Of course this isn't identical to the traditional way collage was done, that was just a metaphor, but it is remixing and recontexutalizing existing elements in its own way.
No computer will ever do that.
I think this may be the ultimate source of friction on this topic stemming from confusion that AI boosters have pushed: computers aren't doing anything here. "Artificial intelligence" as used here is just a marketing term, this isn't AGI or sentient thinking machines, or whatever you want to call it. These are just very fancy dumb programs that do what a human user directs them to do.
posted by star gentle uterus at 7:28 PM on May 10 [3 favorites]
hippybear
I appreciate that this is a subject that arouses intense emotions, and for good reason, but I am with the commenters above in believing that ultimately generative AI is just another tool with potential artistic uses. There is a history of incorporating mechanical or similar processes into art. We are in a transition period right now as the capabilities and meaning of this new technology is being staked out, but as with any other tool while there are malicious or harmful ways to use it there is also creative potential. Of course this isn't identical to the traditional way collage was done, that was just a metaphor, but it is remixing and recontexutalizing existing elements in its own way.
No computer will ever do that.
I think this may be the ultimate source of friction on this topic stemming from confusion that AI boosters have pushed: computers aren't doing anything here. "Artificial intelligence" as used here is just a marketing term, this isn't AGI or sentient thinking machines, or whatever you want to call it. These are just very fancy dumb programs that do what a human user directs them to do.
posted by star gentle uterus at 7:28 PM on May 10 [3 favorites]
These are just very fancy dumb programs that do what a human user directs them to do.
And which will never do them with any truly creative leaps of logic that exemplifies the finest in human art. Because it's trained to do lowest common denominator processing, what is MOST LIKELY to come next. It has no ability to generate anything truly new. It's just a blender, not a creative engine.
posted by hippybear at 7:34 PM on May 10 [3 favorites]
And which will never do them with any truly creative leaps of logic that exemplifies the finest in human art. Because it's trained to do lowest common denominator processing, what is MOST LIKELY to come next. It has no ability to generate anything truly new. It's just a blender, not a creative engine.
posted by hippybear at 7:34 PM on May 10 [3 favorites]
But it's being used by a human being. You really believe it's completely impossible for a human to find creative uses for this tool?
posted by star gentle uterus at 7:44 PM on May 10 [2 favorites]
posted by star gentle uterus at 7:44 PM on May 10 [2 favorites]
In its current form it can do nothing new.
posted by hippybear at 7:46 PM on May 10 [3 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 7:46 PM on May 10 [3 favorites]
The gripe isn't so much what the computer is or is not doing, it's the fact that it was trained on copyright art without recompense or permission.
I think that's the gripe anyway.
posted by The otter lady at 7:59 PM on May 10 [1 favorite]
I think that's the gripe anyway.
posted by The otter lady at 7:59 PM on May 10 [1 favorite]
Agree that this is pretty weak sauce.
Also hate collage art.
posted by Windopaene at 8:00 PM on May 10 [2 favorites]
Also hate collage art.
posted by Windopaene at 8:00 PM on May 10 [2 favorites]
Telling a robot to cut things out and making things isn't creative.
what a weird narrow definition of art and creativity.
posted by iamck at 8:21 PM on May 10 [6 favorites]
what a weird narrow definition of art and creativity.
posted by iamck at 8:21 PM on May 10 [6 favorites]
Wish Ren and Stimpy hadn't milkshake ducked so egregiously... Had some bits that still resonate...
posted by Windopaene at 8:59 PM on May 10 [1 favorite]
posted by Windopaene at 8:59 PM on May 10 [1 favorite]
The creative act is in manifesting your idea through deliberate choices
These clearly are the product of a series of deliberate creative choices made by a person, though? If you want to voice a fundamental opposition to the use of the software because of how it was made, okay, if you just think it sucks artistically, okay, but I don’t see how the argument that generating a bunch of themed material and editing it together is nothing like collage holds water.
posted by atoxyl at 11:06 PM on May 10 [4 favorites]
These clearly are the product of a series of deliberate creative choices made by a person, though? If you want to voice a fundamental opposition to the use of the software because of how it was made, okay, if you just think it sucks artistically, okay, but I don’t see how the argument that generating a bunch of themed material and editing it together is nothing like collage holds water.
posted by atoxyl at 11:06 PM on May 10 [4 favorites]
Hard pass on all of the above. This isn’t creative, this is like playing a game and then showing your run through of the level; is that the level of art you want in your life? Also these ai models are hideous plastic people.
posted by The River Ivel at 2:42 AM on May 11 [1 favorite]
posted by The River Ivel at 2:42 AM on May 11 [1 favorite]
In its current form it can do nothing new.
This argument has been made time and again about various new artistic mediums. It was most famously claimed about photography: how can it be art to use a piece of technology to document what's right in front of you? The beauty of painting lies in the human choice implicit in each brushstroke; the moment you can just point a lens at actual life, all artistry goes away.
Similar arguments were made about electronic music: the cold precision of a synthesizer can't possibly speak to human experience like a guitar does. Those arguments were made again when hip-hop used samples to form its beats: this isn't original! At best it's plagiarism.
Theatre practitioners argued that film would always be an inferior medium to theatre because recording inherently destroys what's human about the artform. There were musicians and music critics who insisted the same thing about recordings. These are REPLICAS! They inherently cannot be creative acts.
Brian Eno's take on this has been my cornerstone for years: when you introduce mechanical components to an artistic medium, artistry inevitably comes to be defined by flaws and limits. The LLM-generated art that I've enjoyed the most consists of people intentionally setting an LLM up to do something it can't do well, then letting it fuck up in unpredictable and very original ways. "Original," here, doesn't mean an LLM is thinking for itself: it means that it's so profoundly bad at thinking that it makes mistakes no human would be dumb enough to make. The joy of those projects comes from people finding delightful ways to anticipate and exploit that idiocy—and then, usually, from their curating the results, using their taste and discernment to find meaning where an LLM could not.
I think that LLMs in their current form are inherently unethical. I think that most proponents of "AI art" are pathetic fucking dipshits. I think there is something very worrisome about people replacing human labor with mechanical labor that's not only lazier but worse. I fear a world in which everything's shittier and more apathetic, because the people who control culture and consumption and public space just don't give a shit about the ways in which their miracle machines impose a cancerous simulacrum of reality over reality.
All of that is very valid, and any person who makes art with LLMs has to wrestle with those ethics, and personally I don't think it's possible to make things with LLMs at the moment without crossing some lines that I think should not be crossed. But "it's just a machine imitating the works of MAN!" has limits as a critique. It's valid when you're talking about dumbasses thinking they can make Picasso and Shakespeare obsolete. But when people start making things with LLMs whose focus is on LLMs' flaws, on the weird surprising results of computers not thinking like people (or at all), you're looking at human ingenuity. The one proof that computers can't think, after all, is their inability to comprehend that they have flaws and limitations at all.
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 4:43 AM on May 11 [22 favorites]
This argument has been made time and again about various new artistic mediums. It was most famously claimed about photography: how can it be art to use a piece of technology to document what's right in front of you? The beauty of painting lies in the human choice implicit in each brushstroke; the moment you can just point a lens at actual life, all artistry goes away.
Similar arguments were made about electronic music: the cold precision of a synthesizer can't possibly speak to human experience like a guitar does. Those arguments were made again when hip-hop used samples to form its beats: this isn't original! At best it's plagiarism.
Theatre practitioners argued that film would always be an inferior medium to theatre because recording inherently destroys what's human about the artform. There were musicians and music critics who insisted the same thing about recordings. These are REPLICAS! They inherently cannot be creative acts.
Brian Eno's take on this has been my cornerstone for years: when you introduce mechanical components to an artistic medium, artistry inevitably comes to be defined by flaws and limits. The LLM-generated art that I've enjoyed the most consists of people intentionally setting an LLM up to do something it can't do well, then letting it fuck up in unpredictable and very original ways. "Original," here, doesn't mean an LLM is thinking for itself: it means that it's so profoundly bad at thinking that it makes mistakes no human would be dumb enough to make. The joy of those projects comes from people finding delightful ways to anticipate and exploit that idiocy—and then, usually, from their curating the results, using their taste and discernment to find meaning where an LLM could not.
I think that LLMs in their current form are inherently unethical. I think that most proponents of "AI art" are pathetic fucking dipshits. I think there is something very worrisome about people replacing human labor with mechanical labor that's not only lazier but worse. I fear a world in which everything's shittier and more apathetic, because the people who control culture and consumption and public space just don't give a shit about the ways in which their miracle machines impose a cancerous simulacrum of reality over reality.
All of that is very valid, and any person who makes art with LLMs has to wrestle with those ethics, and personally I don't think it's possible to make things with LLMs at the moment without crossing some lines that I think should not be crossed. But "it's just a machine imitating the works of MAN!" has limits as a critique. It's valid when you're talking about dumbasses thinking they can make Picasso and Shakespeare obsolete. But when people start making things with LLMs whose focus is on LLMs' flaws, on the weird surprising results of computers not thinking like people (or at all), you're looking at human ingenuity. The one proof that computers can't think, after all, is their inability to comprehend that they have flaws and limitations at all.
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 4:43 AM on May 11 [22 favorites]
The "old man yells at cloud" vibe is strong in this thread.
posted by gnutron at 5:18 AM on May 11 [6 favorites]
posted by gnutron at 5:18 AM on May 11 [6 favorites]
I watched a couple of these, and then realized I really shouldn't watch any more.
My biggest concern isn't the copyright issue as much as the power one. Often, when I give into temptation (maybe because I'm bored or lonely), I'll bring up ChatGPT and have some fun with storytelling, deep-dives into long-lost trivia, RPGs, or even music. And when I do, I worry about how I'm basically burning down another part of a tree somewhere, or digging up another glug of irreplaceable petroleum, heating up the world by just one more tiny tick.
Yes, capitalism is wielding AI like a weapon against regular people, and against creative types even more. But I worry more that it's hastening the rush towards our planet's demise. Or at least humanity's.
So go ahead. Watch a few silly AI videos. Tell each other a few AI stories, mediocre though they are (for now). A few. Just a few. We all need a bit more joy in our lives. But please keep in mind the cost. The terrible price, getting nearer every day.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 7:10 AM on May 11 [3 favorites]
My biggest concern isn't the copyright issue as much as the power one. Often, when I give into temptation (maybe because I'm bored or lonely), I'll bring up ChatGPT and have some fun with storytelling, deep-dives into long-lost trivia, RPGs, or even music. And when I do, I worry about how I'm basically burning down another part of a tree somewhere, or digging up another glug of irreplaceable petroleum, heating up the world by just one more tiny tick.
Yes, capitalism is wielding AI like a weapon against regular people, and against creative types even more. But I worry more that it's hastening the rush towards our planet's demise. Or at least humanity's.
So go ahead. Watch a few silly AI videos. Tell each other a few AI stories, mediocre though they are (for now). A few. Just a few. We all need a bit more joy in our lives. But please keep in mind the cost. The terrible price, getting nearer every day.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 7:10 AM on May 11 [3 favorites]
I saw some of these and I was amused but I thought posting them to MetaFilter would lead to an argument.
Yep, you were right about there being an argument. I think it's an important argument though, and that fact doesn't reflect badly on the one who posts it. Some arguments are good to have.
I'm torn. I feel like these kinds of projects are made to serve as a trojan horse, to try to get the wider internet to accept all the other uses of "AI," most of which have not been nearly so innocent. Making mostly still videos (see below) of pop culture ephemera (here's another one, linked previously) is possibly the thing "AI" is best at, like the software that makes readings of text in the style of different character voices. It's fun for the novelty of some things being made in the style of other things (when the original property holders have been reluctant/legally unable to), but I feel there's a vast venture capital behemoth behind it, whether the people making them realize it or not, trying to replace large portions of creative endeavor with a beep-boop box. There's already a Dummies book about Writing AI Prompts, and another one on ChatGPT. One end we get (mostly) innocent uses on this, but on the other we get atrocious uses like AdVon who are trying to turn the internet into a content-providing Skinner box, filling the media internet with fake articles written by fake people, but published by Sports Illustrated and the freaking Los Angeles Times. I'm reminded of how the original motto of the World Wide Web was "Let's Share What We Know." The Web has become so much more since then, sure, but on another axis so much less, and never before has it been less than that.
The money is pushing incredibly hard to get people to accept this, and other than these mashups, the public has been tellingly resistant to have their online life turned into an infinite tunnel of glurge and lies. A presentation on "AI" was roundly booed at SXSW earlier this year, and that was an audience of tech enthusiasts!
So, enjoy these kinds of mashups, sure. But don't let them cause you to think we're on the edge of some breakthrough in general AI, that generative "AI"s can really do much more than this, or that really anything of value would be lost, as it stands, if all of these shallow applications of the software vanished instantly. It's fluff. Fun fluff sure, but not worth losing entire creative industries to.
(Aside: The similarity in style between these mashups and the Wes Anderson Star Wars video causes me to think, maybe the "AI"s used can't make true full video, and what we see is the result of editing. I think the generative "AI"s can't keep the content between frames of the video strongly enough for the characters to cohere over time.)
posted by JHarris at 7:45 AM on May 11 [4 favorites]
Yep, you were right about there being an argument. I think it's an important argument though, and that fact doesn't reflect badly on the one who posts it. Some arguments are good to have.
I'm torn. I feel like these kinds of projects are made to serve as a trojan horse, to try to get the wider internet to accept all the other uses of "AI," most of which have not been nearly so innocent. Making mostly still videos (see below) of pop culture ephemera (here's another one, linked previously) is possibly the thing "AI" is best at, like the software that makes readings of text in the style of different character voices. It's fun for the novelty of some things being made in the style of other things (when the original property holders have been reluctant/legally unable to), but I feel there's a vast venture capital behemoth behind it, whether the people making them realize it or not, trying to replace large portions of creative endeavor with a beep-boop box. There's already a Dummies book about Writing AI Prompts, and another one on ChatGPT. One end we get (mostly) innocent uses on this, but on the other we get atrocious uses like AdVon who are trying to turn the internet into a content-providing Skinner box, filling the media internet with fake articles written by fake people, but published by Sports Illustrated and the freaking Los Angeles Times. I'm reminded of how the original motto of the World Wide Web was "Let's Share What We Know." The Web has become so much more since then, sure, but on another axis so much less, and never before has it been less than that.
The money is pushing incredibly hard to get people to accept this, and other than these mashups, the public has been tellingly resistant to have their online life turned into an infinite tunnel of glurge and lies. A presentation on "AI" was roundly booed at SXSW earlier this year, and that was an audience of tech enthusiasts!
So, enjoy these kinds of mashups, sure. But don't let them cause you to think we're on the edge of some breakthrough in general AI, that generative "AI"s can really do much more than this, or that really anything of value would be lost, as it stands, if all of these shallow applications of the software vanished instantly. It's fluff. Fun fluff sure, but not worth losing entire creative industries to.
(Aside: The similarity in style between these mashups and the Wes Anderson Star Wars video causes me to think, maybe the "AI"s used can't make true full video, and what we see is the result of editing. I think the generative "AI"s can't keep the content between frames of the video strongly enough for the characters to cohere over time.)
posted by JHarris at 7:45 AM on May 11 [4 favorites]
maybe the "AI"s used can't make true full video, and what we see is the result of editing. I think the generative "AI"s can't keep the content between frames of the video strongly enough for the characters to cohere over time
But aren't we on the verge of true text-to-video tools being opened up to the public? OpenAI has Sora, which is supposed to generate up to a minute of video, Google has announced Imagen, and Microsoft announced VASA-1.
Seems like it's a matter of time till we've got much more impressive AI video coming to regular users.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 8:10 AM on May 11
But aren't we on the verge of true text-to-video tools being opened up to the public? OpenAI has Sora, which is supposed to generate up to a minute of video, Google has announced Imagen, and Microsoft announced VASA-1.
Seems like it's a matter of time till we've got much more impressive AI video coming to regular users.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 8:10 AM on May 11
This isn’t creative, this is like playing a game and then showing your run through of the level; is that the level of art you want in your life?
People do watch video game playthroughs for entertainment.
I don't think indulging in entertainment that isn't sufficiently artistic means it has to replace fine art in your life.
I can enjot a twinkie occasionally without giving up good cooking. I get the discomfort with AI. I feel it. But I don't think there is something intrinsically anti-art about enjoying it.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 8:13 AM on May 11 [5 favorites]
People do watch video game playthroughs for entertainment.
I don't think indulging in entertainment that isn't sufficiently artistic means it has to replace fine art in your life.
I can enjot a twinkie occasionally without giving up good cooking. I get the discomfort with AI. I feel it. But I don't think there is something intrinsically anti-art about enjoying it.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 8:13 AM on May 11 [5 favorites]
Besides the ethical aspect: it's just not that good?
I guess AI generated "art" is not for me. Maybe someday they will create an AI version of me that can enjoy it!
posted by splitpeasoup at 8:38 AM on May 11 [2 favorites]
I guess AI generated "art" is not for me. Maybe someday they will create an AI version of me that can enjoy it!
posted by splitpeasoup at 8:38 AM on May 11 [2 favorites]
It was most famously claimed about photography: how can it be art to use a piece of technology to document what's right in front of you?
Funny thing, the guy who made these is identified as a photographer in profiles.
maybe the "AI"s used can't make true full video, and what we see is the result of editing
The linked piece (talking about his earlier videos) says he used static image generation and then a separate tool that turns static images of faces into animated video. Longer-form AI video is in the works, for sure, but these videos 100 percent involved editing in multiple senses of the word.
Look, these are not the test case for “gen AI” as a tool for making great art. The 50s thing is kind of one joke and it’s not a new one. But some responses seem to be going out of their way not to think too carefully about art history… or what the actual limitations of the technology are at the moment.
posted by atoxyl at 9:22 AM on May 11 [4 favorites]
Funny thing, the guy who made these is identified as a photographer in profiles.
maybe the "AI"s used can't make true full video, and what we see is the result of editing
The linked piece (talking about his earlier videos) says he used static image generation and then a separate tool that turns static images of faces into animated video. Longer-form AI video is in the works, for sure, but these videos 100 percent involved editing in multiple senses of the word.
Look, these are not the test case for “gen AI” as a tool for making great art. The 50s thing is kind of one joke and it’s not a new one. But some responses seem to be going out of their way not to think too carefully about art history… or what the actual limitations of the technology are at the moment.
posted by atoxyl at 9:22 AM on May 11 [4 favorites]
For the folks saying, "they aren't artists they didn't make art they just tell the computer what to make":
If it is actually that easy, let's see you do it.
posted by AlSweigart at 9:31 AM on May 11 [6 favorites]
If it is actually that easy, let's see you do it.
posted by AlSweigart at 9:31 AM on May 11 [6 favorites]
My main problem with it is that it's ugly.
posted by mattgriffin at 10:36 AM on May 11 [2 favorites]
posted by mattgriffin at 10:36 AM on May 11 [2 favorites]
But aren't we on the verge of true text-to-video tools being opened up to the public? OpenAI has Sora, which is supposed to generate up to a minute of video, Google has announced Imagen, and Microsoft announced VASA-1.
Seems like it's a matter of time till we've got much more impressive AI video coming to regular users.
Maybe. When I see it, actually, not faked, and working for general cases, I will believe it, but not until then. I have learned not to believe in advance hype, some hurdles are much higher than they seem at a distance.
posted by JHarris at 4:19 PM on May 11 [3 favorites]
Seems like it's a matter of time till we've got much more impressive AI video coming to regular users.
Maybe. When I see it, actually, not faked, and working for general cases, I will believe it, but not until then. I have learned not to believe in advance hype, some hurdles are much higher than they seem at a distance.
posted by JHarris at 4:19 PM on May 11 [3 favorites]
Daughter 1 looked over my shoulder while I watched the one for The Simpsons. "I loathe it," she said. "The world has been made worse."
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 7:38 PM on May 11 [2 favorites]
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 7:38 PM on May 11 [2 favorites]
I appreciate everyone’s opinion but, in contrast to 99% of the dreck I see on the Internet these days, the freshness and novelty of this thrilled me and I thank you very much for posting this!
posted by Turtles all the way down at 9:52 PM on May 11 [3 favorites]
posted by Turtles all the way down at 9:52 PM on May 11 [3 favorites]
It's at least as novel and far more entertaining than Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbies if you need that context) being drawn fresh by some new aspiring artist pissing on something he's not previously been seen to piss on. Sadly I wish that wasn't an argument for artistic integrity
posted by ToasterKing at 1:03 AM on May 12
posted by ToasterKing at 1:03 AM on May 12
Norwegian philosopher/YouTuber Jonas Čeika recently posted his own brief take on the issue of AI and art on his CCK Philosophy channel.
posted by xigxag at 9:28 PM on May 12
posted by xigxag at 9:28 PM on May 12
« Older We’re the men, and here’s the map. | Jeff Daniels Loves His Guitar, And Talks About... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Insert Clever Name Here at 4:17 PM on May 10 [8 favorites]