A Hypothetical (Another AI Post)

[Voboy]

Quick recap.

You mentioned AI causing real harm to workers.

So I pointed out that so do DAW's.

...

FL Studio has library of instrument packs, just about instrument you can think off, and perhaps many or even most of those sounds were recorded from a paid musician. But they aren't paying that musician royalties.

And for the last two decades, every single artist who has used a DAW to compose their music did NOT pay a musician to perform and record it.

...

If there comes a time where an AI tool can be precisely directed in the way a DAW can, then what is the difference?

I mentioned the harm to workers because you seemed confused by Bramblethorn's post; you interpreted it as "scolding" and I didn't think it was. Hence, my explanation about the workers.

My deeper problems with AI are better expressed in my own replies here, specifically Post 4. At base, I don't care for AI because I think it makes us all dumber. To me, that trumps all other arguments.

 

[AG31]

For the anti-AI crowd, consider the REALITY of todays "art".

How many "authors" really make their own creative work of art to publish? Do they need other English majors from a publishing house to edit their stories, going through repetitive cycles until they're told it's ready to publish? Do they depend on word processors, spelling and grammar checking because they can't produce a high-quality stream of text on a typewriter as done in days of old? Do they ask some graphic "artist" to use 3d modeling software to create an image or photoshop some living model's pic to perfection for illustrations or a book cover?

How many music "artists" today depend on purchasing their music written by others, then have sound engineers to perfect their soundtrack, and use other engineers for voiceovers during a stage performance? How about their body sculpting trainers, doctors for facelifts, boob jobs, and other enhancements? Are they still artists?

How many true human visual artists are still smearing paint on cave walls with their fingers? Or are they using state-of-the-art brushes and paints.

Today's creative artists are all using and depending on the latest tools of the trade to perfect something appealing to a larger audience.

Those who adamantly oppose AI in all its forms and potential uses are the same ones who insist that you only rate their stories with a 5. If you don't "LOVE" their story, then you shouldn't rate it at all!

In reality, the audience/reader decides what they want and like. Regardless of what tools are used to create the story, when they finally read it, they are reading the words on their screen, and everything used to put those words together become a "difference which makes no difference" if the reader can't distinguish any difference.

As for the approach of tools which can animate our stories, I imagine a time will come when such tools DO exist and people will retreat into their own self-created fantasy worlds, because their work is the only thing deserving of their time and it's obviously a 5!

I don't really know anything about these industries, but I hate to think they are as you depict them.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Those who adamantly oppose AI in all its forms and potential uses are the same ones who insist that you only rate their stories with a 5.

This seems like a baseless ad hominem.

 

[Bramblethorn]

To a certain extent, I agree that getting good at anything requires investing time and effort, but when new technology comes along that lower the amount of time and effort it takes to accomplish something, it's historically been met with hostility. Claims of it being lazy, cheating, or unfair for the people who do it the 'right' way.

The most classic example is the typewriter. There was a good chunk of time where using one wasn't considered 'real writing' because many people of that time felt the lack of real human handwriting was pivotal to the art of writing.

A closer analogy here would be ghost writing. Ghost writing has been around for centuries and not only in prose; Mozart, for instance was famously commissioned by Franz von Walsegg to write a Requiem which von Walsegg intended to represent as his own work.

In some cases, the commissioner puts a lot of work into the writing, to the extent where it's reasonable to think of them as an author. But where the commissioner's role extends only to "write something to be published under my name, here's a basic outline", they're not taken seriously as author; nobody calls it "von Walsegg's Requiem".

In all the years that ghost writing has been a thing, I don't think we've moved any closer to treating that kind of commissioning as legitimate authorship.

Next logical question seems to be... if AI get's to the point where it can do special effects just as good or better than human special effects artists, and the director decides to spends a couple hours using the AI tools for the special effects, has he contribute more or less to the project than he would've if he directed a human to do it?

How much time do you envision an AI-director spending on this project, total?

If we were talking about somebody putting as much thought into the process as a conventional director does into all aspects of directing a movie, then sure, I'd be willing to acknowledge that as serious creative work (albeit still ethically problematic, see below).

But that doesn't seem to be how the vast majority of people actually want to use AI, and it doesn't fit into the "time-poor person wants to make a film" use case that your argument was based on.

That's a criticism of ruthless authoritarian capitalism, and it's happening in everywhere. There's practical slavery happening around the world to ensure we can have cheap smart phones and computers. Every valuable resource brought out of this earth is either 'on the back' of underpaid and unfairly treated workers(basically modern day slaves).

I'm fine with calling it out, and it's something that should change, but neither me nor you or anyone else is innocent of supporting massive corporations that have exploitive inhumane work conditions and/or severely damage the environment.

So, I agree with the criticism capitalism, but I'm still not sending all my electronics off to garbage island and moving into the woods to be off grid.

Yep, it's pretty much impossible to live in the modern world without some complicity in these things. But that doesn't seem like a good excuse for seeking them out, particularly in discretionary activities that aren't part of making a living, or in encouraging businesses that invent new abuses. I own a smartphone, there's no practical alternative if I want to make a living, but you betcha I have a "scolding" "elitist" attitude to people who buy a new phone every year.

I think it's elitist to tell aspiring artists who want to create something that would typically cost tens of thousands of dollars that they shouldn't use tools that would make it affordable for them.

From an ethical POV: we are not automatically entitled to the things that we want, merely because we want them.

From a creative POV: the issue is not so much "artists who want to create something" as "artists who want most of the creating done for them".

I haven't posted a new story here in years. There are several things going on there, but one of the biggies is lack of time/energy. (It's not so much lack of hours - I have enough time to be posting here - but that writing demands focus in a way that forum posting doesn't, and working a busy side job on top of a full-time day job doesn't leave me with much focus.)

I have plenty of ideas that I'd love to get out on the page, and my job pays well enough that I could commission somebody to ghost-write them for me. But I wouldn't be the author of those works, because I know very well that coming up with story ideas is not where most of the skill lies. End of the day, it's on me to find the time/focus to make art myself, or to accept that I'm not going to make new art until that situation changes.

 

[OddLove]

A closer analogy here would be ghost writing. Ghost writing has been around for centuries and not only in prose; Mozart, for instance was famously commissioned by Franz von Walsegg to write a Requiem which von Walsegg intended to represent as his own work.

In some cases, the commissioner puts a lot of work into the writing, to the extent where it's reasonable to think of them as an author. But where the commissioner's role extends only to "write something to be published under my name, here's a basic outline", they're not taken seriously as author; nobody calls it "von Walsegg's Requiem".

In all the years that ghost writing has been a thing, I don't think we've moved any closer to treating that kind of commissioning as legitimate authorship.

The ghostwriting comparison fits in situations where a person uses an AI tool non-precisely. An example for that could be, someone feeds general ideas into the AI tool, such as "Write a character introduction of a tall athletic tan man lifting weights at the gym, then on his way home he meets a short athletic white women with blond hair while standing in line at a coffee shop, they're both in gym clothes, when they both catch each other staring, the guy smiles and friendly flirting occurs, then he gives lady his number before heading home."

Then feeding another prompt asking for a chapter where the lady calls him and they agree to go out for lunch, and continuing the process.

...

In that situation, I think AI completely ghostwrote that story.

But in a situation, such as using AI translation tools, or Grammarly type situations, it's not ghost writing. It's using tools as a translator or editor instead of paying a human to do it. In the situation of using AI or another human to translate or edit, it's more along the lines of a collaboration. In that case the ethical dilemma is "Am I morally obligated to pay a human for this service?"

That's why I specified an advanced AI tool that may or may not ever exist. One that doesn't only generate randomly based off vague prompts, but it can provides services and works alongside human intention. I feel like everytime I've had this discussion here and other places, people automatically assume the AI would replacing 'creativity' like much of the randomized slop that's flooding the world now, and that's clearly a communication error on my behalf.

Because I agree fully that someone generating 'art' with basic prompts like I described above is pretty much the same thing as someone paying a ghostwriter to take their few paragraphs of ideas and writing a full story for them so they could claim to be the author... which is slimy and lazy.

How much time do you envision an AI-director spending on this project, total?

If we were talking about somebody putting as much thought into the process as a conventional director does into all aspects of directing a movie, then sure, I'd be willing to acknowledge that as serious creative work (albeit still ethically problematic, see below).

But that doesn't seem to be how the vast majority of people actually want to use AI, and it doesn't fit into the "time-poor person wants to make a film" use case that your argument was based on.

If the AI tool becomes so advanced that it allows a AI-director to have complete creative control, from visuals, sounds, scenes, unlimited and very specific editing... they could spend as much time as they want to. In such a world where the tools became that advanced, a person could theoretically build character profiles for each character along with a voice profiles for them, then they could record all their characters dialog on their headset with the cadence and tone they want, then have the AI tool running those audio recording through the voice filters of each character.

And I know I'm in magical christmas land and it might never be that advanced and comprehensive. That's why I fully admit "IF" instead of "WHEN"

But I agree, the majority of people don't, and never will use AI tools like that. They just want to type in a simple prompt and get a picture of a amazonian with massive knockers squeezing a mans head between her strong muscular thighs, and then they post it online as say 'look what I made'. That's unfortunate never going to stop.

Yep, it's pretty much impossible to live in the modern world without some complicity in these things. But that doesn't seem like a good excuse for seeking them out, particularly in discretionary activities that aren't part of making a living, or in encouraging businesses that invent new abuses. I own a smartphone, there's no practical alternative if I want to make a living, but you betcha I have a "scolding" "elitist" attitude to people who buy a new phone every year.There are alternatives to owning a smart phone, it's Not owning a smart phone. Even if someone's entire lifestyle henges on owning a smart phone because they need the internet to work, that's an option.

And I could turn around and throw articles at you about how evil corporations involved in manufacturing smart devices are, and I could use your same argument that you're supporting and encouraging an unethical industry built through exploitation and abuse, because EVERYONE has the option to change their lifestyles and choose the much harder path of surviving without the benefits of systems that exploit and abuse humans.

But *Most people are not doing that. *Most has their own personal exceptions, whether it's buying animal product from a grocery store, contributing to the consumption of fossil fuels, sending endless amounts of garbage to garbage island, using any technology that requires mined materials, etc.

From an ethical POV: we are not automatically entitled to the things that we want, merely because we want them.

I agree that we're not entitled to things we want just because we want them. I never made a claim against it. (In fact, I'd apply that same thing to a animators, voice actors, etc.) But I'd also add, a smart phone is a WANT not a NEED. People have the choice to exist without them, but they want the benefits that comes along with having them despite the horrible and abusive business practices that provided them with that smart phone.

From a creative POV: the issue is not so much "artists who want to create something" as "artists who want most of the creating done for them".

Not so much "artists who want most of the creating done for them" as "artists who are using an AI tool to provide services they'd normally be required to pay others for"

I proposed an AI tool that has all the technical skills a person would typically have to pay for, and one that can be directed in such a specific and intentional way that the final production is as exactly how the user imagined.

And if that user achieved that, accurate end credits would credit the human as the writer and director, and credit the AI tool for all the services it provided such as animation, sound engineering, editing, etc.

 

[Voboy]

Thanks for trying, OP, but we're back to being yet another "AI Apologetics" thread. It is, now, about using AI for writing.

Good luck in your endeavors!

 

[OddLove]

Thanks for trying, OP, but we're back to being yet another "AI Apologetics" thread. It is, now, about using AI for writing.

Good luck in your endeavors!

You may wanna talk about using AI for writing, but that's not at all what I'm discussing here.

[EDIT] More accurately, that's not what I proposed.

 

[Bramblethorn]

If the AI tool becomes so advanced that it allows a AI-director to have complete creative control, from visuals, sounds, scenes, unlimited and very specific editing... they could spend as much time as they want to. In such a world where the tools became that advanced, a person could theoretically build character profiles for each character along with a voice profiles for them, then they could record all their characters dialog on their headset with the cadence and tone they want, then have the AI tool running those audio recording through the voice filters of each character.

At that point, if they're investing a lot of time and thought into guiding what they're doing with the tool, I'd consider that legitimate creativity.

But this person who can "spend as much time as they want to" doesn't appear to be the same person as the "Someone who works full time to survive" with "one or two free hours a day" that you were talking about at the beginning of the thread.

I agree that we're not entitled to things we want just because we want them. I never made a claim against it. (In fact, I'd apply that same thing to a animators, voice actors, etc.) But I'd also add, a smart phone is a WANT not a NEED. People have the choice to exist without them, but they want the benefits that comes along with having them despite the horrible and abusive business practices that provided them with that smart phone.

This is a silly comparison. Sorry, but it is.

So many aspects of 21st-century life depend on access to a smartphone. In many jobs, mine included, smartphone apps have become a mandatory part of the workflow. Need to park near the supermarket? Guess what, they replaced the old coin meters with parking apps. Need to use government services and can't wait on the phone for hours? App. Need to do banking after they closed your local branch? App. Need to manage a medical condition? Good chance your monitoring device/etc. is app-based. Want to chuck in city life, move to the country, and grow your own food? Guess what, you'll still need a smartphone for safety purposes in fire season. And once you have that smartphone, you're not creating more abuses by using it for discretionary purposes alongside the essential ones.

Against that, we have...people who want to make a TV show. (In a world where "making a TV show" is unlikely to be a bread-winning activity, because we just made it possible for billions of people to make their own shows.) With a tech where the social/environmental costs have a LOT to do with volume of use; even if you have to use AI for some essential purposes, you can still do good by not using it unnecessarily.

 

[Lifestyle66]

At that point, if they're investing a lot of time and thought into guiding what they're doing with the tool, I'd consider that legitimate creativity.

But this person who can "spend as much time as they want to" doesn't appear to be the same person as the "Someone who works full time to survive" with "one or two free hours a day" that you were talking about at the beginning of the thread.

This is a silly comparison. Sorry, but it is.

So many aspects of 21st-century life depend on access to a smartphone. In many jobs, mine included, smartphone apps have become a mandatory part of the workflow. Need to park near the supermarket? Guess what, they replaced the old coin meters with parking apps. Need to use government services and can't wait on the phone for hours? App. Need to do banking after they closed your local branch? App. Need to manage a medical condition? Good chance your monitoring device/etc. is app-based. Want to chuck in city life, move to the country, and grow your own food? Guess what, you'll still need a smartphone for safety purposes in fire season. And once you have that smartphone, you're not creating more abuses by using it for discretionary purposes alongside the essential ones.

Against that, we have...people who want to make a TV show. (In a world where "making a TV show" is unlikely to be a bread-winning activity, because we just made it possible for billions of people to make their own shows.) With a tech where the social/environmental costs have a LOT to do with volume of use; even if you have to use AI for some essential purposes, you can still do good by not using it unnecessarily.

Sorry, but somewhere in all of that I think you got lost in the woods.

If you want to move to the country and need an app? Are you suggesting you weren't smart enough on you own to live without it?

And if there are billions of people doing nothing other than creating worthless TV shows, ... Maybe we have billions of useless people on the planet. And what's the basic solution to THAT if it's a problem? Eliminate AI? Or eliminate useless people?

 

[OddLove]

At that point, if they're investing a lot of time and thought into guiding what they're doing with the tool, I'd consider that legitimate creativity.

But this person who can "spend as much time as they want to" doesn't appear to be the same person as the "Someone who works full time to survive" with "one or two free hours a day" that you were talking about at the beginning of the thread.

In one situation, a single person can spend a couple hours in their evening working on their project in the same way aspiring authors can spend a couple hours in the evening working on their novel or an aspiring musician can spend a couple hours in the evening working on their album. It's a massive difference in both Time and Money.

Someone who only has a couple hours of time to devote to their hobby/passion/dream can work on their project by themself with no college degrees, internships, or paying out their ass for other people's labor. And just like the aspiring authors and musicians who write novels and create music in their spare time, it doesn't have to be a 'bread winning' outcome. Easily over 99% of all the stories written and songs created will never make a penny. Yet, people still find a sense of meaning in creating.

*Added Note - Both Authors and Musicians use technology that destroyed the barrier to entry. Word Processors and Digital Audio Workstations to create faster and easier, and Internet(Data Centers) to share those creations.

This is a silly comparison. Sorry, but it is.

So many aspects of 21st-century life depend on access to a smartphone. In many jobs, mine included, smartphone apps have become a mandatory part of the workflow. Need to park near the supermarket? Guess what, they replaced the old coin meters with parking apps. Need to use government services and can't wait on the phone for hours? App. Need to do banking after they closed your local branch? App. Need to manage a medical condition? Good chance your monitoring device/etc. is app-based. Want to chuck in city life, move to the country, and grow your own food? Guess what, you'll still need a smartphone for safety purposes in fire season. And once you have that smartphone, you're not creating more abuses by using it for discretionary purposes alongside the essential ones.

You contribute to the AI data centers every time you use YouTube or social media, because they use AI to develop your personal algorithm. Every time you search something on google, it generates an AI summery at the top. Every website you go to that has targeted advertisement(Almost every website) you're participating in being the product data centers sell to advertisers.

My point being, AI will become as infused into our daily lives as the smart phone and internet.

I agree AI has ethical problems, but I think your condonement of personal use is misdirected. It's like telling people to stop driving their personal gas-powered vehicles when that contributes to less then 20% off all greenhouse emissions. Trains, jets, cargo ships, power plants, industry farming, these things are doing the most damage to the environment. *And contribute to more exploitation and abuse of people.

When we order something off Amazon, we're contributing to damaging the environment, and we're supporting industries that exploit humans across the globe. Same goes for using the internet for any purpose.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Sorry, but somewhere in all of that I think you got lost in the woods.

If you want to move to the country and need an app? Are you suggesting you weren't smart enough on you own to live without it?

I thought I made it pretty clear in the post you're replying to, but okay, I'll spell it out in more detail:

I live in Australia. The Australian countryside is prone to devastating bushfires. Fires can move very quickly, and staying safe in fire season means staying informed about the current situation - knowing when it's time to have bags packed, when it's time to get out (and what roads are open), when it's necessary to shelter in place because it's too late to get out. That means having access to information, which is often only available by web or app.

I have no idea where you got "not smart enough" from, unless you think being smart somehow makes people fireproof or able to pick up internet without a device.

(To answer the inevitable "what did people do before smartphones then?": well, quite often they died, but also, fire seasons have been getting more dangerous over time.)

...so what did you think I meant by "fire season"?

And if there are billions of people doing nothing other than creating worthless TV shows, ... Maybe we have billions of useless people on the planet. And what's the basic solution to THAT if it's a problem? Eliminate AI? Or eliminate useless people?

Sounds a bit genocidal TBH. And nobody said these people were "doing nothing other than creating worthless TV shows". Where did you get that from?

 

[Bramblethorn]

You contribute to the AI data centers every time you use YouTube or social media, because they use AI to develop your personal algorithm. Every time you search something on google, it generates an AI summery at the top. Every website you go to that has targeted advertisement(Almost every website) you're participating in being the product data centers sell to advertisers.

You might be doing all those things, but kindly don't take it on yourself to speak for me.

Adblockers, privacy settings, anonymous browser mode and VPNs exist. Search engines that aren't Google exist, and even on Google the AI summary is not mandatory; last I looked, including "-ai" in the query disabled it. Social media sites without a personal algorithm exist. And some of us use these things.

But also, it's doubling down on the sillyness to try to draw some equivalency between "if you use YouTube or social media, orgs like Google will try using AI to profile you, whether you want it or not" and seeking out AI products specifically to use those capabilities.

(Also, comparing YT recommender algorithms to generative AI is another false equivalency. They use some of the same techniques but beyond that, the differences are vast.)

I agree AI has ethical problems, but I think your condonement of personal use is misdirected.

...did you mean "condemnation" here?

It's like telling people to stop driving their personal gas-powered vehicles when that contributes to less then 20% off all greenhouse emissions.

I will indeed happily tell people that they should moderate their use of cars.

Trains, jets, cargo ships, power plants, industry farming, these things are doing the most damage to the environment. *And contribute to more exploitation and abuse of people.

I'm sorry, did you just claim that cars are more greenhouse-friendly than trains? Okay, no, this is just too much bullshit. I'm checking out of this discussion. Bye now.

 

[Lifestyle66]

I thought I made it pretty clear in the post you're replying to, but okay, I'll spell it out in more detail:

I live in Australia. The Australian countryside is prone to devastating bushfires. Fires can move very quickly, and staying safe in fire season means staying informed about the current situation - knowing when it's time to have bags packed, when it's time to get out (and what roads are open), when it's necessary to shelter in place because it's too late to get out. That means having access to information, which is often only available by web or app.

I have no idea where you got "not smart enough" from, unless you think being smart somehow makes people fireproof or able to pick up internet without a device.

(To answer the inevitable "what did people do before smartphones then?": well, quite often they died, but also, fire seasons have been getting more dangerous over time.)

...so what did you think I meant by "fire season"?

Sounds a bit genocidal TBH. And nobody said these people were "doing nothing other than creating worthless TV shows". Where did you get that from?

No, you didn't make it clear in the first post, because MOST people don't move to fire country. I'd guess that IF someone wants to move to fire-prone disaster areas, then Yeah, they might need something smarter than they are to tell them when to get out.

As for the genocidal, ... YEAH, if you are of the opinion the humans are responsible for the increasing heat causing climate change, ... THEN the logical solution is that the planet needs fewer humans. Otherwise, what's the harm of more people doing their own tv series? Watch it or not. We all make choices, unless you want to restrict someone else's choices (like not allowing them to move to fire-prone areas.)

 

[Bramblethorn]

No, you didn't make it clear in the first post, because MOST people don't move to fire country. I'd guess that IF someone wants to move to fire-prone disaster areas, then Yeah, they might need something smarter than they are to tell them when to get out.

Where do you think "fire country" is in Australia?

 

[Lifestyle66]

Where do you think "fire country" is in Australia?

Well, if I grew up somewhere which was prone to fires or some other disaster, I'd probably aspire to move somewhere safer rather than toward the area needing an app to warn me. If they move from a city to "the country" where they need the app, I'd think the city was safer.

Hmmm. But then I'm not an Australian living in the city and aspiring to move to the countryside.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Well, if I grew up somewhere which was prone to fires or some other disaster, I'd probably aspire to move somewhere safer rather than toward the area needing an app to warn me. If they move from a city to "the country" where they need the app, I'd think the city was safer.

People live in fire-prone areas in Australia for the same kinds of reasons that people live in disaster-prone or otherwise suboptimal areas in any country; cost is a big one. Housing in Australian cities is expensive.

In any case, the only reason I mentioned country living in the first place was to point out that moving to the country doesn't save people from needing smartphones. If your answer is to move back to the city - and you can afford to do so - then I refer back to the examples of why city folk need smartphones.

But then I'm not an Australian

Clearly.

 

[Voboy]

Well, if I grew up somewhere which was prone to fires or some other disaster, I'd probably aspire to move somewhere safer rather than toward the area needing an app to warn me. If they move from a city to "the country" where they need the app, I'd think the city was safer.

Hmmm. But then I'm not an Australian living in the city and aspiring to move to the countryside.

Tens of millions of people willingly live in fire zones in Southern California. They pay extra to do so. Many of them even stay there after fires destroy their neighborhoods; they rebuild, knowing it'll only be a matter of time before they burn again. They do this for the same reasons folks live anywhere: they've decided that the benefits outweigh the costs. People do this all over the world: in Siberia, in Tornado Alley, in earthquake fault zones, in tsunami areas, along floodplains...

Very demonstrably, not everyone is like you.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

There are DAW's, Digital Audio Workstations. They're loaded with instrumentals and a piano roll. Guitars, Flutes, Violins, Drums, etc. People who've never played a single instrument can create drum tracks, arrange chords, and compose professional quality tracks for their music. Then they can record their vocals on a cheap $100 microphone from Amazon and use compression, reverb, delays, and autotune to get high production vocals.

Throughout that process, they bypassed paying music producers, audio engineers, and musicians.

And it's common practice in the music industry, many successful independent artist in the music industry produce their music without paying a single artist, and without knowing how to play a real instrument. Just a DAW and microphone on their laptop.

Do you think people should stop using DAW's because it costs audio engineers, producers, and musicians jobs?

That's where the "but jobs" argument always falls flat.

The choice isn't between paying someone for the work or using AI in most cases. It's using AI or not doing it at all.


But to return to the OP, it's an interesting question, and to be quite honest, if the technology was available, I would absolutely animate, or perhaps even make photo-realistic movies from ideas I have for scripts.
I take my idea, and I use a computer to create a document someone can read, or I use it to create a video you can watch.
It's fundamentally the same thing.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

But aspiring animators don't want to use AI instead of doing animation work themselves. The question in this thread wasn't "do you, an artist, want AI to make your art for you". It was a hypothetical about people creating art they don't already want to make.

But what if we don't think of ourselves as animators, but as movie makers?

I don't want to animate, I want to create a video, and AI is the best available tool to do that.

Some of us DO want to create art in video.

 

[Rambling_Chantrix]

But what if we don't think of ourselves as animators, but as movie makers?

I don't want to animate, I want to create a video, and AI is the best available tool to do that.

Some of us DO want to create art in video.

What if?

Do you want to use these tools?

If you are the hypothetical aspiring movie maker, do it. If you think you can make a good video with AI, and that's what you really wanna do, do it. Make the art you want to make using the tools you wanna use. If it's good, it's good. If you feel good about it, you feel good about it. If it sucks or feels hollow, well, then you'll have answered your own question.

If you want to prove that the tool can make good art... use the tool to make good art.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

What if?

We can spin hypotheticals forever but the fact is you asked a group of people if they would do a thing and most of us are saying no.

It doesn't sound like you actually wanted to hear that. Why?

Do you want to use these tools?

If you are the hypothetical aspiring movie maker, do it. If you think you can make a good video with AI, and that's what you really wanna do, do it. Make the art you want to make using the tools you wanna use. If it's good, it's good. If you feel good about it, you feel good about it. If it sucks or feels hollow, well, then you'll have answered your own question.

If you want to prove that the tool can make good art... use the tool to make good art.

Umm.... I didn't ask the question. I'm not the OP.

 

[Rambling_Chantrix]

Umm.... I didn't ask the question. I'm not the OP.

Adjusted accordingly, sorry. Thank you.

 

[OddLove]

You might be doing all those things, but kindly don't take it on yourself to speak for me.

Adblockers, privacy settings, anonymous browser mode and VPNs exist. Search engines that aren't Google exist, and even on Google the AI summary is not mandatory; last I looked, including "-ai" in the query disabled it. Social media sites without a personal algorithm exist. And some of us use these things.

But also, it's doubling down on the sillyness to try to draw some equivalency between "if you use YouTube or social media, orgs like Google will try using AI to profile you, whether you want it or not" and seeking out AI products specifically to use those capabilities.

(Also, comparing YT recommender algorithms to generative AI is another false equivalency. They use some of the same techniques but beyond that, the differences are vast.)

You conveniently missed the part where I said "My point being, AI will become as infused into our daily lives as the smart phone and internet."

And when it does, all those same excuses you use to justify having a smart phone and using the internet while transfer over perfectly when justifying the use of AI.

...did you mean "condemnation" here?

Yes.

I will indeed happily tell people that they should moderate their use of cars.

Okay.

I'm sorry, did you just claim that cars are more greenhouse-friendly than trains?

and No.

I specifically said "Trains, jets, cargo ships, power plants, industry farming, these things are doing the most damage to the environment."

Meaning...

Less than 20 percent of greenhouse gasses come from personal vehicles. The rest comes from industries, such as trains, cargo ships, semi trucks, factories, power plants, agriculture, etc.

Okay, no, this is just too much bullshit. I'm checking out of this discussion. Bye now.

Okay, bye now.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Adjusted accordingly, sorry. Thank you.

I actually already answered those questions earlier.

And I don't really think I need your permission to do any of it...

People are allowed to have an opinion that differs from yours. It won't hurt you.

 

[Rambling_Chantrix]

I actually already answered those questions earlier.

And I don't really think I need your permission to do any of it...

People are allowed to have an opinion that differs from yours. It won't hurt you.

I don't see myself as being in a position to grant or deny permission. I feel confused as to why you asked me the hypothetical if you weren't hoping I'd answer. Either way I think you should have confidence in your art.