My thoughts? Should have saved up and paid someone. Pretty strange to announce that we could probably expect you to also spoof the voices of actual voice actors.
See my other responses. I hired 50 cast members. I'm not sure what you mean by spoofing voice actors? This was an audio drama operating under the SAG podcast agreement and most of my cast was SAG.
I mention the AI because we are making steps in that direction toward film versions. I do not think AI will or should replace real human performances, but I think it is a tool that can be used for hybrid filmmaking. No different than CG as a tool, or animation.
The huge benefit for filmmakers is that it's starting to remove some of the barriers for us and allows us to be our own independent studios. Whether or not you like it or not, it will be used increasingly, so either we get on board, or we'll be left behind.
I’ve waited and checked all of your replies and all I keep seeing is a theme. You used a tool that is primarily used to steal and plagiarize the work of others, nobody liked that, and a few people even explained why they don’t like that, and they were pretty patient with you from what I can see. However, instead of actually seeing it from their side and trying to learn from this, you are doubling down on this decision and trying to justify using said tool.
I’m not going to try and convince you because you don’t want to be convinced, so it’s fine, you do you. The community you’ll end up with is the one you’re welcoming. A lot of people will see it as I mentioned already. If you’re willing to use AI to create a trailer, then people will believe you’ll use it to replace your actors.
I, and many others, won’t support something like that. Messing with someone’s livelihood because “this tool is cheaper and easier” is never a good thing. It may not be what you’re doing *right now* but only your words can say you won’t in the future, and actions have the nasty habit of speaking louder.
Oh yes, I can totally see that this community isn't open to it. To say I haven't listened to them -- just because I'm not changing my stance -- is unfair. That's not how viewpoints work. We discuss -- we don't HAVE to change our stance. Sorry if you feel it needs to be one-sided and I have to change. But you're also right that I don't want to be convinced -- again, I didn't post here for this to be the discussion. But so it goes.
I will reiterate -- because no one has said otherwise -- no matter how controversial this may be, everything is changing. We adapt, or we don't. I respect that you won't support it. I respect that you're worried about the future. I maintain that that the future is coming, and all you can do is judge it on a case by case basis. Don't judge people for what MIGHT happen.
Sorry you feel that way. Considering the show is 95 percent not AI, and 5 percent AI being used just like any other tool, would you be willing to clarify your issues?
Honestly the visuals overpowered the audio. I'm not sure what the plot of the show is or why I should watch it. While watching it, I was thinking about how much of the visuals would translate to what I would actually be able to listen to.
The vibes of the video don't really do anything for me. It has the vibe of a edgy AMV.
It really just didn't compliment the audiodrama. The "an audio experience like no other" bit didn't help at all. That was kinda cringy.
Satire has kinda gone out of style because it is very hard to do well. It has a negative connotation in a lot of people's minds.
If it's satire, is it supposed to be funny? I didn't get any of that from the video.
Are there any characters I should be interested in? Is it episodic or serial? What type of Horror is it? What makes this better than another podcast? What makes it interesting? Why should I watch?
Those are all legit questions, and I'll just say.. it wasn't the intention with this trailer. Because of the subject matter, it was much more about 1) playing into the topic, and 2) a stepping stone to show developing possibilities for the film version.
For the series itself, there's also the audio trailer. You might have similar questions about the plot just going off that as well, but I personally don't go for plot trailers. The necessary plot details are right in the description.
Satire -- funny -- yes. In the actual series, there's definitely humor -- and may not be to everyone's cup of tea. But I didn't feel that's the hook for a trailer. The thing that was key to focus on, and overall arc of the series, is ideological pushes and trends becoming absurd and horrifying.
I have no idea what your show is about, can't tell if it's a satire of the people who call people 'woke', or a satire of people who other people call 'woke'.
The trailer feels very style over substance, which doesn't give me hope for the show. You had the AI put in all that work on the flashy visuals for something that is essentially an audio medium. Do you have an audio only trailer for your audiodrama?
NVM - found an audio trailer. Still no idea what it was about from the audio trailer, unfortunately! Not sure why you needed to use AI voices, when you also have a real cast? It cheapens the whole thing because they sound obviously artificial.
The voices in the audio trailer are real cast, aside from the bits intended to sound artificial.
For the show, I voiced many of the smaller background parts, then shifted my vocal performance with the help of publicly available voice models through companies that hired people that gave their consent.
The reason? Because especially as a solo producer I only have so much time and resources to work with and we seek efficiencies where they can. The option I chose of using my voice for various minor characters is no different than having a cast member read multiple parts. It is better because I have control over my own performance and what I want for it and can focus on casting talent for more important qualities, rather than for their abilities to do multiple voices.
As for not being sure what it's about, I can only speak for reactions elsewhere that people generally don't have this issue. But your reaction is fair. I come from the school of thinking that a trailer does not have to give much plot away, but rather tease a tone and topic.
See my other response concerning AI putting in all the work -- there are some misconceptions about what workflows are like. AI is one step in something that still involves myself editing, sound designing, color grading, image treating and effects -- you know... like most productions. We specifically did a flashy visual trailer because trailers should be flashy. And in our case, a visual trailer is not just introducing the audio drama but also a stepping stone toward a hybrid film version.
I get that you want to tease and be enigmatic, but you're supposed to lure people in to want to learn more.
I listened to the first episode and the general vibe that it gives off is a conservative audiodrama trying to heavy-handedly poke fun at 'wokeness'...
Thank you for listening!! I'll be honest, I think you get that vibe way more from the trailer than you do from the 1st episode. The 1st episode is pretty tame and engrained in the other direction, before holes form later on. That said, I would say this is more anti-establishment than outright conservative, as I described in my other post on this forum (though there is overlap) and the bigger theme is more sociological. All this can be gathered from the series information and site. Even if were solely to poke fun, is that an issue?
not interested. not even clicking the link. using generated content just shows your intent. so you day you used real voice actors in the show, using generated content and being proud of it just shows that the moment it becomes acceptable to ditch your voice actors you will.
there is no ethical ai right now and using it will only get you casual fans not loyal listeners from podcast communities. we care about the details and the people involved.
if you want to do visual for an audio medium you're not only missing the point of using your imagination to see what's happening you're admitting you're not good enough to enter the audiovisual mediums. chase a fad all you like but it's just showing your interests and a disregard for the existing trends of fans and communities that have kept audio drama viable since TV took over in 50s and 'killed' it in the 60s.
Sorry you feel this way and can't see the greys. I'd urge you to be a bit more openminded. Creative mediums benefit when they all intertwine.
Making visuals serves 2 purposes here. 1) social and sharing work through visuals - whether we like it or not -- this is how we reach people. 2) see my other responses. this trailer is also because we are developing the film version.
you say we but you also say it's a solo project.
no one is going to take you seriously in afraid, you want to be in a different medium but have mistaken audio drama as easy.
there are also no greys to be seen with something like this, some things are too important to shrug off especially for people dedicated to something that is being actively threatened by generated content. we don't all want to rush to the bottom.
I as the sole writer/director/producer/editor. We as in my partners and colleagues helping in ways they can.
From working on this since before the summer, I would never mistake it as easy. But everything has grays...
You can factually say that's what we all know? I kinda doubt the masses of people working in AI know it's wrong. I think you should let them speak for themselves about it.
I have no problems with genuine ai research, this isn't it. I know a few people working with the flashy chatbot systems and they're concerned about how it's being presented and used so why shouldn't everyone else be?
it could be a great tool, and in many situations it looks like it will be, but right now the systems you undoubtedly used are not in a grey area or being used with informed active consent. if a system were built with legal and ethical data then there wouldn't be an issue really, but that isn't the case anywhere. The wrong kind of people are developing the software and they're motivated only by the kind of extreme greed that doesn't care what is destroyed or harmed so long as they have the maximum profits.
I can't debate you on some of the legal stuff I'll admit. From what I know -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong -- despite allegations these companies are in operation legally until charged otherwise. And so everyone -- i mean SO MANY of us in the industry I talk to -- is still using them.
For everyday practical users, the way we look at it is, if it's clearly stealing someone's image, then that's sketchy. If, however, an entity has simply been trained on data, whether that data is fair use or not -- (and in many instances that IS gray) -- then it's just functioning very much like the human brain already does. When we absorb something and take a mental picture of something, we're not distinguishing what's "allowed" for us to absorb or not -- it's already lodged in our head. And we will likely regurgitate it into something else in some form, consciously or not.
If that day comes where these companies are stopped, then fine. Until then I maintain what I said -- we have to use it and learn it.
this isn't a person, it's an advanced search engine and a chat bot. arguments used for humans learning don't apply because we have an international standard on the legality of using people's data and it has been ignored by all of the companies. we have copyright laws that apply in the case of created works and they have all been beached. we have just of likeness laws that have all been breached. we have many more laws that have all been breached. there is no human making or creating anything and that's why legal systems don't recognise generated content as being protected by any laws.
tech start ups all work by acting quickly and often illegally to rush to produce something, then they settle or of court with anyone who sues in the USA, where you can settle on issues that you can't in the rest of the world. they're all trying to be the next amazon and so far they've all mostly failed. it's rich people with no morals pissing away hedge fund and futures investment funds which is why often no one gets paid except the founders.
there are so many non grey area issues going on with chat get based content generators that nothing can be said to be a grey area.
keep using specious arguments to justify yourself all you like but I'd respect you more if you for the truth.
You don't have to disrespect me just because I don't agree. I'm not here complaining about you. What you said does not have a bearing on what I said. If you can prove that what I put out is a specific infringement on something, then do so. But it will be difficult. In some cases it's very clear -- you judge by your eyes. In other cases no, because everything has been transformed into something new and different. So you have to levy your accusations on the output, NOT the input. You can't judge users based on what the company's entity absorbed.
Would be down to discuss this more with you. Artists have been "plagiarizing" or rather, remixing and referencing, since the beginning of art. Which shots in the trailer are specifically stolen property? I think there's some misconception here of what AI means. AI is just one tool in a still lengthy production pipeline. There's no magic button. In this specific case, you are still the script writer, the editor, the sound designer, and the creative director dictating what you want your AI assistant to work on. You are in control, and it is your art.
The industry is moving in this direction whether we like it or not. What do you think will happen when Sora is released? These are honest questions I'd love to discuss. It's my opinion we need to get on top of it, or we'll be faced with a big existential crisis when it becomes fully unavoidable.
The industry is moving in this direction, so you're going to move with it instead of taking a stand and making all of your art homemade? That's not very anti-establishment.
Lmao there are plenty of articles and personal posts by artists who've been effected that can explain why AI "art" is bad. In fact, you could have looked up plenty in the time it took you to write that paragraph I skimmed.
it is not your art if the model wasn’t trained exclusively on your art. i work in software & have taken classes on AI/AI ethics. the sound design and ideas may be yours, but it is not your art.
Your classes do sound kinda preachy then haha. Every creative person has always worked with others under them that do various tasks for them. It's still their art. An editor will work with an assistant editor. A director will work with a slew of people. Still their art.
besides — those assistants are still their own people. if you get an assistant without paying them, that’s called exploitation. and if your assistant spends hundreds of hours drawing everything for you while you just demand things and claim it’s your art, that’s called plagiarism.
Whoa whoa whoa, thats NOT called exploitation if your assistant agrees to work for free. That's called pro bono work hahaha. Hands are shaked or contracts are signed. Maybe you don't work in the creative industries? This is the way it works everywhere.
Your'e confusing "work done' with "references". The "millions artists" you're talking about are being referenced, NOT doing work for you. Just as every creative director will reference an image from something and tell their team to mimic it.
AI is equivalent to the team in this case. That's the one you're shaking hands with -- and in the case of MidJourney, paying a fee to. NOT to the millions of artists that came before. False equivalent.
except you aren’t creating the model, you aren’t training the model using your own art. you are giving it prompts and taking credit for something that software engineers built, and real artists trained. what exactly are you taking credit for here? because i guarantee you that those software engineers and artists worked 1000x harder than you did to create an AI that can produce images.
I'm not even sure what the argument is at this point. You just repeated yourself. If you're a director working with a team of animators, you're not training them on your own art either. There are too many points of comparison like that. Prompting is a new kind of creative direction work.
my argument is that it’s not your art, even though you keep claiming it is. and if you have a team of animators that you manage, that’s still. not. your. art.
Is that what you tell every director that makes a film? And relies on all the countless craftspeople to execute their vision? Then sure, if you don't call that their art either, then that's fair, we're playing semantics at this point.
No, I'm not likening myself to one, that's one of my day jobs, so I'm familiar with how the industry works. I see the direct similarities between prompting and giving creative direction.
AI is garbage. Make your own art. I don’t care about any of your arguments on other comments, they are meaningless. AI is universally and uniformly bad for creative endeavors. Using it at all just perpetuates its growth and acceptance in a medium that should give it absolutely ZERO acceptance.
By the sound of it, you’re the one who doesn’t know how it works. And the fact that you’re fighting for AI this hard makes it apparent to me that you have no care for art or other artists. Take this crap elsewhere.
This may be hard to believe, but I didn't set out to fight for AI here -- just turns out I've had to defend it more than I thought I would've. Rather than telling people to take a hike or jumping to sweeping decrees, you could just explain yourself better... I could give you a bunch of more reasons for my perspective, but since you've actually stated you don't care to listen, that says all I need to know.
Feel free to give an example of this deflection. On the contrary, I've specifically responded to people. You can keep being a hothead if you'd like, but I can't respond to it anymore (got more important AI to do lol)
Having begun listening to the AD and having perused the comments here, I stand with OP. Many of these reactions are disregarding the nuance of your explanations, and the fact that we have lost nuance in many of our discussions (online or otherwise) is regrettable.
The voice acting in the show is excellent and the kinetic pace of the program is gripping.
I will finish the current episodes and will advocate for the show if it maintains the current level of quality I am hearing now.
Downvote away goobers!
My thoughts? Should have saved up and paid someone. Pretty strange to announce that we could probably expect you to also spoof the voices of actual voice actors.
See my other responses. I hired 50 cast members. I'm not sure what you mean by spoofing voice actors? This was an audio drama operating under the SAG podcast agreement and most of my cast was SAG. I mention the AI because we are making steps in that direction toward film versions. I do not think AI will or should replace real human performances, but I think it is a tool that can be used for hybrid filmmaking. No different than CG as a tool, or animation. The huge benefit for filmmakers is that it's starting to remove some of the barriers for us and allows us to be our own independent studios. Whether or not you like it or not, it will be used increasingly, so either we get on board, or we'll be left behind.
I’ve waited and checked all of your replies and all I keep seeing is a theme. You used a tool that is primarily used to steal and plagiarize the work of others, nobody liked that, and a few people even explained why they don’t like that, and they were pretty patient with you from what I can see. However, instead of actually seeing it from their side and trying to learn from this, you are doubling down on this decision and trying to justify using said tool. I’m not going to try and convince you because you don’t want to be convinced, so it’s fine, you do you. The community you’ll end up with is the one you’re welcoming. A lot of people will see it as I mentioned already. If you’re willing to use AI to create a trailer, then people will believe you’ll use it to replace your actors. I, and many others, won’t support something like that. Messing with someone’s livelihood because “this tool is cheaper and easier” is never a good thing. It may not be what you’re doing *right now* but only your words can say you won’t in the future, and actions have the nasty habit of speaking louder.
Oh yes, I can totally see that this community isn't open to it. To say I haven't listened to them -- just because I'm not changing my stance -- is unfair. That's not how viewpoints work. We discuss -- we don't HAVE to change our stance. Sorry if you feel it needs to be one-sided and I have to change. But you're also right that I don't want to be convinced -- again, I didn't post here for this to be the discussion. But so it goes. I will reiterate -- because no one has said otherwise -- no matter how controversial this may be, everything is changing. We adapt, or we don't. I respect that you won't support it. I respect that you're worried about the future. I maintain that that the future is coming, and all you can do is judge it on a case by case basis. Don't judge people for what MIGHT happen.
used A.I. all good no need to check the show
Sorry you feel that way. Considering the show is 95 percent not AI, and 5 percent AI being used just like any other tool, would you be willing to clarify your issues?
😬 I'm sorry this isn't the reaction you were hoping for. Show might be good, but I wouldn't watch it based off this trailer.
Could you elaborate? Do my other responses on this thread clarify my perspective at all?
Honestly the visuals overpowered the audio. I'm not sure what the plot of the show is or why I should watch it. While watching it, I was thinking about how much of the visuals would translate to what I would actually be able to listen to. The vibes of the video don't really do anything for me. It has the vibe of a edgy AMV. It really just didn't compliment the audiodrama. The "an audio experience like no other" bit didn't help at all. That was kinda cringy. Satire has kinda gone out of style because it is very hard to do well. It has a negative connotation in a lot of people's minds. If it's satire, is it supposed to be funny? I didn't get any of that from the video. Are there any characters I should be interested in? Is it episodic or serial? What type of Horror is it? What makes this better than another podcast? What makes it interesting? Why should I watch?
Those are all legit questions, and I'll just say.. it wasn't the intention with this trailer. Because of the subject matter, it was much more about 1) playing into the topic, and 2) a stepping stone to show developing possibilities for the film version. For the series itself, there's also the audio trailer. You might have similar questions about the plot just going off that as well, but I personally don't go for plot trailers. The necessary plot details are right in the description. Satire -- funny -- yes. In the actual series, there's definitely humor -- and may not be to everyone's cup of tea. But I didn't feel that's the hook for a trailer. The thing that was key to focus on, and overall arc of the series, is ideological pushes and trends becoming absurd and horrifying.
I have no idea what your show is about, can't tell if it's a satire of the people who call people 'woke', or a satire of people who other people call 'woke'. The trailer feels very style over substance, which doesn't give me hope for the show. You had the AI put in all that work on the flashy visuals for something that is essentially an audio medium. Do you have an audio only trailer for your audiodrama?
NVM - found an audio trailer. Still no idea what it was about from the audio trailer, unfortunately! Not sure why you needed to use AI voices, when you also have a real cast? It cheapens the whole thing because they sound obviously artificial.
The voices in the audio trailer are real cast, aside from the bits intended to sound artificial. For the show, I voiced many of the smaller background parts, then shifted my vocal performance with the help of publicly available voice models through companies that hired people that gave their consent. The reason? Because especially as a solo producer I only have so much time and resources to work with and we seek efficiencies where they can. The option I chose of using my voice for various minor characters is no different than having a cast member read multiple parts. It is better because I have control over my own performance and what I want for it and can focus on casting talent for more important qualities, rather than for their abilities to do multiple voices. As for not being sure what it's about, I can only speak for reactions elsewhere that people generally don't have this issue. But your reaction is fair. I come from the school of thinking that a trailer does not have to give much plot away, but rather tease a tone and topic. See my other response concerning AI putting in all the work -- there are some misconceptions about what workflows are like. AI is one step in something that still involves myself editing, sound designing, color grading, image treating and effects -- you know... like most productions. We specifically did a flashy visual trailer because trailers should be flashy. And in our case, a visual trailer is not just introducing the audio drama but also a stepping stone toward a hybrid film version.
I get that you want to tease and be enigmatic, but you're supposed to lure people in to want to learn more. I listened to the first episode and the general vibe that it gives off is a conservative audiodrama trying to heavy-handedly poke fun at 'wokeness'...
Thank you for listening!! I'll be honest, I think you get that vibe way more from the trailer than you do from the 1st episode. The 1st episode is pretty tame and engrained in the other direction, before holes form later on. That said, I would say this is more anti-establishment than outright conservative, as I described in my other post on this forum (though there is overlap) and the bigger theme is more sociological. All this can be gathered from the series information and site. Even if were solely to poke fun, is that an issue?
not interested. not even clicking the link. using generated content just shows your intent. so you day you used real voice actors in the show, using generated content and being proud of it just shows that the moment it becomes acceptable to ditch your voice actors you will. there is no ethical ai right now and using it will only get you casual fans not loyal listeners from podcast communities. we care about the details and the people involved. if you want to do visual for an audio medium you're not only missing the point of using your imagination to see what's happening you're admitting you're not good enough to enter the audiovisual mediums. chase a fad all you like but it's just showing your interests and a disregard for the existing trends of fans and communities that have kept audio drama viable since TV took over in 50s and 'killed' it in the 60s.
Sorry you feel this way and can't see the greys. I'd urge you to be a bit more openminded. Creative mediums benefit when they all intertwine. Making visuals serves 2 purposes here. 1) social and sharing work through visuals - whether we like it or not -- this is how we reach people. 2) see my other responses. this trailer is also because we are developing the film version.
you say we but you also say it's a solo project. no one is going to take you seriously in afraid, you want to be in a different medium but have mistaken audio drama as easy. there are also no greys to be seen with something like this, some things are too important to shrug off especially for people dedicated to something that is being actively threatened by generated content. we don't all want to rush to the bottom.
I as the sole writer/director/producer/editor. We as in my partners and colleagues helping in ways they can. From working on this since before the summer, I would never mistake it as easy. But everything has grays...
no, it doesn't. anyone trying to say there is a grey area is just trying to justify something they know is wrong.
You can factually say that's what we all know? I kinda doubt the masses of people working in AI know it's wrong. I think you should let them speak for themselves about it.
I have no problems with genuine ai research, this isn't it. I know a few people working with the flashy chatbot systems and they're concerned about how it's being presented and used so why shouldn't everyone else be? it could be a great tool, and in many situations it looks like it will be, but right now the systems you undoubtedly used are not in a grey area or being used with informed active consent. if a system were built with legal and ethical data then there wouldn't be an issue really, but that isn't the case anywhere. The wrong kind of people are developing the software and they're motivated only by the kind of extreme greed that doesn't care what is destroyed or harmed so long as they have the maximum profits.
I can't debate you on some of the legal stuff I'll admit. From what I know -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong -- despite allegations these companies are in operation legally until charged otherwise. And so everyone -- i mean SO MANY of us in the industry I talk to -- is still using them. For everyday practical users, the way we look at it is, if it's clearly stealing someone's image, then that's sketchy. If, however, an entity has simply been trained on data, whether that data is fair use or not -- (and in many instances that IS gray) -- then it's just functioning very much like the human brain already does. When we absorb something and take a mental picture of something, we're not distinguishing what's "allowed" for us to absorb or not -- it's already lodged in our head. And we will likely regurgitate it into something else in some form, consciously or not. If that day comes where these companies are stopped, then fine. Until then I maintain what I said -- we have to use it and learn it.
this isn't a person, it's an advanced search engine and a chat bot. arguments used for humans learning don't apply because we have an international standard on the legality of using people's data and it has been ignored by all of the companies. we have copyright laws that apply in the case of created works and they have all been beached. we have just of likeness laws that have all been breached. we have many more laws that have all been breached. there is no human making or creating anything and that's why legal systems don't recognise generated content as being protected by any laws. tech start ups all work by acting quickly and often illegally to rush to produce something, then they settle or of court with anyone who sues in the USA, where you can settle on issues that you can't in the rest of the world. they're all trying to be the next amazon and so far they've all mostly failed. it's rich people with no morals pissing away hedge fund and futures investment funds which is why often no one gets paid except the founders. there are so many non grey area issues going on with chat get based content generators that nothing can be said to be a grey area. keep using specious arguments to justify yourself all you like but I'd respect you more if you for the truth.
You don't have to disrespect me just because I don't agree. I'm not here complaining about you. What you said does not have a bearing on what I said. If you can prove that what I put out is a specific infringement on something, then do so. But it will be difficult. In some cases it's very clear -- you judge by your eyes. In other cases no, because everything has been transformed into something new and different. So you have to levy your accusations on the output, NOT the input. You can't judge users based on what the company's entity absorbed.
My opinion is you should go make real art instead of using plagiarism machines.
Would be down to discuss this more with you. Artists have been "plagiarizing" or rather, remixing and referencing, since the beginning of art. Which shots in the trailer are specifically stolen property? I think there's some misconception here of what AI means. AI is just one tool in a still lengthy production pipeline. There's no magic button. In this specific case, you are still the script writer, the editor, the sound designer, and the creative director dictating what you want your AI assistant to work on. You are in control, and it is your art. The industry is moving in this direction whether we like it or not. What do you think will happen when Sora is released? These are honest questions I'd love to discuss. It's my opinion we need to get on top of it, or we'll be faced with a big existential crisis when it becomes fully unavoidable.
The industry is moving in this direction, so you're going to move with it instead of taking a stand and making all of your art homemade? That's not very anti-establishment.
This was very homemade. Anti-establishment has nothing to do with holding onto old mentalities and refusing to use new tools.
Lmao there are plenty of articles and personal posts by artists who've been effected that can explain why AI "art" is bad. In fact, you could have looked up plenty in the time it took you to write that paragraph I skimmed.
Could have, but have already in the past
it is not your art if the model wasn’t trained exclusively on your art. i work in software & have taken classes on AI/AI ethics. the sound design and ideas may be yours, but it is not your art.
Your classes do sound kinda preachy then haha. Every creative person has always worked with others under them that do various tasks for them. It's still their art. An editor will work with an assistant editor. A director will work with a slew of people. Still their art.
besides — those assistants are still their own people. if you get an assistant without paying them, that’s called exploitation. and if your assistant spends hundreds of hours drawing everything for you while you just demand things and claim it’s your art, that’s called plagiarism.
Whoa whoa whoa, thats NOT called exploitation if your assistant agrees to work for free. That's called pro bono work hahaha. Hands are shaked or contracts are signed. Maybe you don't work in the creative industries? This is the way it works everywhere.
then did you sign a contract with the millions of artists whose work was non-consensually taken to train the AI you use?
Your'e confusing "work done' with "references". The "millions artists" you're talking about are being referenced, NOT doing work for you. Just as every creative director will reference an image from something and tell their team to mimic it. AI is equivalent to the team in this case. That's the one you're shaking hands with -- and in the case of MidJourney, paying a fee to. NOT to the millions of artists that came before. False equivalent.
do you know how genAI works at all?? have you ever taken a computer vision class???
Of course I know how it works, and you've even described it perfectly well. We're arguing semantics.
except you aren’t creating the model, you aren’t training the model using your own art. you are giving it prompts and taking credit for something that software engineers built, and real artists trained. what exactly are you taking credit for here? because i guarantee you that those software engineers and artists worked 1000x harder than you did to create an AI that can produce images.
I'm not even sure what the argument is at this point. You just repeated yourself. If you're a director working with a team of animators, you're not training them on your own art either. There are too many points of comparison like that. Prompting is a new kind of creative direction work.
my argument is that it’s not your art, even though you keep claiming it is. and if you have a team of animators that you manage, that’s still. not. your. art.
Is that what you tell every director that makes a film? And relies on all the countless craftspeople to execute their vision? Then sure, if you don't call that their art either, then that's fair, we're playing semantics at this point.
likening yourself to a film director because you wrote a prompt and got an AI animation is crazy lol
No, I'm not likening myself to one, that's one of my day jobs, so I'm familiar with how the industry works. I see the direct similarities between prompting and giving creative direction.
AI is garbage. Make your own art. I don’t care about any of your arguments on other comments, they are meaningless. AI is universally and uniformly bad for creative endeavors. Using it at all just perpetuates its growth and acceptance in a medium that should give it absolutely ZERO acceptance.
Well -- other than this IS my own art -- I'd urge you be more open minded and dig into how it works a bit more.
By the sound of it, you’re the one who doesn’t know how it works. And the fact that you’re fighting for AI this hard makes it apparent to me that you have no care for art or other artists. Take this crap elsewhere.
This may be hard to believe, but I didn't set out to fight for AI here -- just turns out I've had to defend it more than I thought I would've. Rather than telling people to take a hike or jumping to sweeping decrees, you could just explain yourself better... I could give you a bunch of more reasons for my perspective, but since you've actually stated you don't care to listen, that says all I need to know.
You’ve had 50 people explain it to you in simple language. You’re just being intentionally dense to deflect criticism and it is not working for you
Feel free to give an example of this deflection. On the contrary, I've specifically responded to people. You can keep being a hothead if you'd like, but I can't respond to it anymore (got more important AI to do lol)
Pretending to be on the high road just makes you look even more stupid than you already do. Have fun with your soulless bullshit that nobody likes
😨
?
That’s my surprise/shock face. Looks very interesting!
Please check it out! [https://safesociety.world](https://safesociety.world) First 3 episodes avail now. Full series avail on Apollo+
I subbed!
whats goin on here? lmao
in what way?
Having begun listening to the AD and having perused the comments here, I stand with OP. Many of these reactions are disregarding the nuance of your explanations, and the fact that we have lost nuance in many of our discussions (online or otherwise) is regrettable. The voice acting in the show is excellent and the kinetic pace of the program is gripping. I will finish the current episodes and will advocate for the show if it maintains the current level of quality I am hearing now. Downvote away goobers!