'An Insult To Life Itself': Hayao Miyazaki’s AI Criticism Resurfaces As OpenAI’s Ghibli-Style Image Trend Takes Over Social Media
-
The bigger problem here is the loss of jobs and we are talking about a huge loss of employment that will affect economies really hard. The future looks more and more bleak.
What if it allows other creative people to create newer works rather than these few people. Could spell a new Renaissance of creativity that didn't exist before. Lots of people have great stories to tell but lacked artistic ability or resources.
-
Ironic since the decrease of human made work (art or software) will decrease the quality or diversity of generative AI itself
Artist will no longer exist as a species
-
Tell me you've never seen a Studio Ghibli movie without telling me you've never seen a single Studio Ghibli movie. Literally every one of them contains some "advancing technology isn't necessarily a good thing and the old ways have value" message. If AI were in one of their movies, it's be a oozing black oil demon monstrosity spitting soot into the air.
It'd be like Banksy doing advertisement for Nestle. It's just so contrary to the message they put out.
Where's the "advancing technology isn't necessarily a good thing and the old ways have value" message in Kiki's Delivery Service?
-
It’s a good use for me. I work with children and the things I’ve “created” have been significantly better thanks to mid-journey.
Before that it was just generic clip art, now I can make really beautifully themed stuff that was both out of my skill range and price range.
The artists, would never get money from me since I’m not rich enough to afford it but the children benefit.
How do you define better? More photrealistic? I'd wager kids could learn as much if not more from your own hand-drawn chicken scratch that has a greater emphasis and less distractions on the points you want to convey. They might relate to the lack of conventional quality that they themselves aren't able to achieve as well. There is an incredible vapidness to AI art. Also it absolutely blows at trying to make anything diagrammatic for teaching. I've tried to use it to convey scientic topics that I'd normally use grant funds (back in the day when there were grants) to hire artists to do, and it was an exercise in purified frustration.
-
Where's the "advancing technology isn't necessarily a good thing and the old ways have value" message in Kiki's Delivery Service?
A magical person delivering mail instead of a soulless automated machine? The value of human experience and interactions? I didn't say it was the core message, I said it was a message in all his movies. A "theme" or "motif", if you will.
-
That should be the headline. Assuming it was done without consent, which lets face it, it most likely was.
The way Altman whines about how much he should be allowed to steal people's work to feed his bottom line, I have no doubt whatsoever that this is the case.
-
The bigger problem here is the loss of jobs and we are talking about a huge loss of employment that will affect economies really hard. The future looks more and more bleak.
The bigger problem here is the loss of jobs and we are talking about a huge loss of employment that will affect economies really hard.
I would say that's a tangential problem. Because, you know, in theory...
But the deeper problem is ultimately in expertise as a learned skill developed over time and through practice. If you're de-skilling work, you're dismantling the tools by which we train the next generation of artists and production crews. If we were just replacing humans with machines for some route manual labor (like Pixar replaced Disney's old hand drawn animations with a newer CGI look), the result would be a new style and perhaps less tendentious from route reproductions.
But we're gutting the whole process of development which means you're losing the pool of skilled professionals who know how to create CGI (or even flip-book style 60s animation) from first principles. That means sacrificing whole fields of specialized expertise for... what? This?
-
Say what you will about the soulessnes of AI imagery (I find it very dissapointing), but this new technology is going to take our jobs argument is incredibly tired boomer-speak that shows a lack of understanding of history and a lack of imagination.
As a tool, it should be highly useful to artists to help them create things. However, the fact that these algorithms (I don't care to call them AI because they aren't) are stealing people's work and then shitting out mediocre garbage and the people in the creative industry who tend to finance such things start thinking that "these machines can just do what an artist can so why pay for an artist" is the problem.
-
This post did not contain any content.
See this is the (well, one major) problem with copyright.
Imaginary property for me ("AI" goons), not for thee (actual artists).
-
I don't know about you, but I don't absolutely require job for my life. I do require nutrients and shelter though...
All these job people are just barking up the wrong tree. Oh no my 9-5 is gone instead of oh wow now we collectively have less work load and should focus on resource redistribution.
-
An insult to life is working 12h a day japanese style for the industry. I'm aware that they do things differently at studio ghibli but at the end of the day they are a for profit company making billions like the rest. Labeling AI as an insult to life sound like much bigotism.
Bigoted against what?? A machine? The money grubbing assholes who are using those machines to profit on other people's work without giving them a dime in compensation? Who the hell are you defending here?
Studio Ghibli and their artists put in millions of hours collectively to create works if absolute art. Sam Altman just borrowed millions of dollars to rip them off.
-
Replacing amazing creative humans with bland AI generated content is not a good use of AI.
Mostly true, but...
Replacing clip art, generic filler from Getty images, and other hand-crafted slop with machine-made slop for things like slideshows, YouTube thumbnails, and other applications where the image isn't meant to convey something actually existing from the primary content, that I think is fine.
Of course it should be based on free software (such as AGPL) and use only freely provided or public domain inputs.
Of course it shouldn't be used to misrepresent its outputs as produced by, authorized, or of people that it is not.
But what we have right now is an another sort of enclosure of the cultural commons, blended with plagerism-by-another-name. If there are already terms for this sort of misappropriation, I can't think of them right now.
-
Hopefully. It makes cool pictures.
I said without, I wouldn't believe they got his approval...
-
Nah AI is just garbo in general. Any productivity it gives has a noticible drop in quality and capabilities that result in net loss.
Nah. Humans are "garbo" in general.
-
I said without, I wouldn't believe they got his approval...
Shouldn't't need it. Instead I say the push should be that any AI trained on public resources must remain public and any derivative of that model also must remain publicly available.
-
An insult to life is working 12h a day japanese style for the industry. I'm aware that they do things differently at studio ghibli but at the end of the day they are a for profit company making billions like the rest. Labeling AI as an insult to life sound like much bigotism.
Yes, only one thing can be an "insult to life". GOOD point.
-
Mostly true, but...
Replacing clip art, generic filler from Getty images, and other hand-crafted slop with machine-made slop for things like slideshows, YouTube thumbnails, and other applications where the image isn't meant to convey something actually existing from the primary content, that I think is fine.
Of course it should be based on free software (such as AGPL) and use only freely provided or public domain inputs.
Of course it shouldn't be used to misrepresent its outputs as produced by, authorized, or of people that it is not.
But what we have right now is an another sort of enclosure of the cultural commons, blended with plagerism-by-another-name. If there are already terms for this sort of misappropriation, I can't think of them right now.
And despite all of its other programs, it's still not even profitable.
-
The bigger problem here is the loss of jobs and we are talking about a huge loss of employment that will affect economies really hard.
I would say that's a tangential problem. Because, you know, in theory...
But the deeper problem is ultimately in expertise as a learned skill developed over time and through practice. If you're de-skilling work, you're dismantling the tools by which we train the next generation of artists and production crews. If we were just replacing humans with machines for some route manual labor (like Pixar replaced Disney's old hand drawn animations with a newer CGI look), the result would be a new style and perhaps less tendentious from route reproductions.
But we're gutting the whole process of development which means you're losing the pool of skilled professionals who know how to create CGI (or even flip-book style 60s animation) from first principles. That means sacrificing whole fields of specialized expertise for... what? This?
"A real labor of love"
Christ. It's like people cosplaying as real artists.
-
Shouldn't't need it. Instead I say the push should be that any AI trained on public resources must remain public and any derivative of that model also must remain publicly available.
Yes I agree. But copyrighted material isn't a public resource.
-
Uh huh, so your going to grow and hunt your own nutrients then I guess? Build your own shelter?
I guess you could do all that if you had the money to buy the required land for it, but then again if you had that kind of money you didn't need a job in the first place.
Do you really not see the difference between food/shelter, things that you WILL die without, and employment?
The only reason you need the latter for the former (and I mean, no you don't but whatever) is because of how society is set up.
Your body doesn't shut down if you don't clock in to your job for X days.
