'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.
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.
-
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.
You think you could?
I think the minute it gets popular the lawyers start getting paid
-
This post did not contain any content.
Unfathomably based
-
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?
I think it's intentional. Where you had to think to do something, you'd inevitably learn to think. Where you had to put soul and wisdom and aesthetic feeling into your work, you'd inevitably touch those things for other parts of your life.
There are people higher in the society, who think lower castes shouldn't have that and will be fine with knowledge and expertise just sufficient to do their jobs.
They wouldn't be so hellbent on this particular technology, if they didn't see how relatively recent progress changed that curve of expertise for radio, electric engineering, all engineering, computer science, automobiles, home appliances, and what not. So they see this consistently works for 25+ years.
So they work to deprive us of practice that allows to do more in all those directions. There's a moat that could as well be an abyss between what we know and what we'd need to know to make relevant things. That moat wasn't there 25 years ago. The path from a novice computer user to someone knowing all DOS interrupts and what DMA and IRQ are was less than the path from a novice computer user today to making a simple GUI application.
(I've got executive dysfunction, so feel these things more, but I'm certain they are true.)
-
I don't care about copyrights. I care about content.
If we didn't have copyright then people wouldn't be able to justify putting effort into creating content because they wouldn't be guaranteed financial compensation for the time and effort they put in.
Everything costs money, If I'm writing a novel I still have to pay the bills I still have to buy groceries I still have to pay for water and electricity I need to be compensated for my time.
-
I don't care about copyrights. I care about content.
Well, that's one take I guess... Not a good one, but one none the less...
-
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.
What about the transition.
Because this will take time to happen, and the thing about not eating because you have literally no money, is it's a rather immediate concern. You can't just wait a decade or so for everyone to sort it out.
-
If we didn't have copyright then people wouldn't be able to justify putting effort into creating content because they wouldn't be guaranteed financial compensation for the time and effort they put in.
Everything costs money, If I'm writing a novel I still have to pay the bills I still have to buy groceries I still have to pay for water and electricity I need to be compensated for my time.
I have needs and wants as well. I hope you get paid well. But when you stand in the path of something I think to be progress then we conflict.
-
I have needs and wants as well. I hope you get paid well. But when you stand in the path of something I think to be progress then we conflict.
I'm not standing in your path of success, fiscal reality is. If you want your utopia future by all means, but you need to actually come up with a solution.
Making naive comments online isn't a stance, it's just declaring to the world you don't know what you're talking about.
-
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.
Well it kind of does because if I don't have a job then I don't get money, And I need that to buy things like food and shelter. And yes that's because of the way society is set up but since it's the way every single society on Earth is set up, I think we have a problem.
There has never been a culture on Earth at any point in history that didn't have some version of money.
-
I'm not standing in your path of success, fiscal reality is. If you want your utopia future by all means, but you need to actually come up with a solution.
Making naive comments online isn't a stance, it's just declaring to the world you don't know what you're talking about.
I know what I want. I don't have to care that you think you should stand in the way of people creating new things. If they're not copying your work then it's not a problem. If they buy your book and use it to train an AI that is ethically fine. I don't support the growth of intellectual property laws.
And I don't buy for a second that the world is a better place with artists all fighting to be the next best seller or financially stable painter. The world will turn people will create and I'll argue until I day I die that the best content ever is the stuff nobody is looking to profit from. That's the stuff that is actually created from a place that's pure creativity
-
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.
A message about technology isn't the same as labeling AI as "an insult to life itself."
This guy simply sound like a bigot. His studio is going to rely on AI in any case through the software they are using. If they use photoshop they are already using AI.
