'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.
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.
-
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.
One of my favorite things is when people mash up two popular songs and shared it on Napster. Can't get anywhere close to that today without risking account bans on most sites. I say open the flood gates.
Eh? Of course you could.
-
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?
That will only happen if a society completely is reorganized to get rid of money or if they introduce universal basic income (at a rate that actually allows people to live).
Realistically I can't see either of those things happening.
-
So was it trained on his work without his approval?
Like all other AI and all the copyright in the world. Shareholders are ok with. Copyright for me, not for you. Pirates were the bad guys. These are the saviours we deserve.
-
I don't know about you, but I don't absolutely require job for my life. I do require nutrients and shelter though...
Hopefully Soylent Green comes fast to save us.
-
That will only happen if a society completely is reorganized to get rid of money or if they introduce universal basic income (at a rate that actually allows people to live).
Realistically I can't see either of those things happening.
Or, more broadly, when individuals are recognized as valued participants in the community rather than obsolete expenses to try and scratch off the books.
Realistically I can’t see either of those things happening.
Not under current business and political leadership, no. But with a strong union movement leading a next generation of working class people... maybe.
-
Yes I agree. But copyrighted material isn't a public resource.
I don't care about copyrights. I care about content.
