[pcvonz]

There is a great Miyazaki video where some students showcase some AI tech that generates animations. He ends the talk really disheartened by the experience -- saying something to the effect that he thinks people are losing faith in themselves. I'd never listen to something that is AI generated.

When my favorite podcast ended it felt like I lost touch with a group of friends, this ain't going to have that sort of impact on me. Pass.

[pcthrowaway]

I actually felt like he came across as insensitive in that video.

These are students playing with new technology to produce animated characters that move in unintuitive ways, resulting in something actually quite interesting, yet unnaturally creepy (which was intentional).

Miyazaki dismissed it 'an insult to life itself'. I can't imagine the disappointment those students must have felt.

[somenameforme]

But perhaps in many ways that is where humans really shine. Messages (which can be interpreted metaphorically as well as literally) written with sincerity reveal much more than whatever is said. Whenever we do anything, the closer it comes to being unfiltered and directly from us, the more it means.

If you suspect I'm writing in a way to try to make you feel (or not) a certain way, or to avoid breaking some taboo, or to follow some dogma, then you have no real reason to care about what I ultimately say, because you have no real reason to think its "authentic." By contrast when he views something overtly as "an insult to life itself" it's an incredibly insightful view on his perspective of the world. You would have lost so much in "translation" had he crafted his message in a less sincere way.

I also think this is why there will be minimal to zero market for much "AI" content. Content is not just content. It's a reflection of ourselves. Think about how much you can, probably accurately, infer about me, my views, and more - based on these 3 paragraphs. When this comes from a chatbot, any reflections you might see would be as real as the shapes you might see in the clouds.

[cageface]

What this current generation of "AI" tech seems to enable, more than anything else, is efficiently generating massive volumes of mediocre content. I'm not sure whose problems that's supposed to solve but it certainly isn't mine.

[toyg]

One could argue the internet as a whole, and arguably the PC revolution as a whole, had that same effect.

My dad always said "computers are very fast idiots". They will probably never be Mozarts, but they can and will be Salieris; and most of the world would be extremely happy to have a personal Salieri - in fact, we'll probably be happier like that, considering how Mozarts can be very problematic from so many perspectives.

[cageface]

The problem is it’s increasingly difficult to pick out the Mozarts from the vast sea of Salieris.

[Kiro]

That you think him being an absolute douchebag was a good take on AI that made a lasting impression on you is baffling.

[qwertox]

Do we watch a show like The Simpsons because it is hand drawn, or because of the content?

Last weekend I watched part of an episode and there was a scene where they walked towards "Place de la Pointillisme" [0]. The effect is clearly CGI and you can see how Homer and Marge are actually animated 3D models, so effectively all the "newer" shows (it was aired May 8, 2016) are computer animations with a very flat cel shader. Some argue that newer episodes aren't as good as old ones, but I'm not sure if this could be attributed to them not being hand drawn anymore. In any case, one could apply an XKCD-shader to make the lines a bit more human if the look doesn't appeal.

The Miyazaki video, I get it why he says what he says, but it's an issue with the students targeting the wrong audience. I could see their horrible graphics being a part of a horror movie or game, but that is a completely different world than Miyazaki's.

[0] https://simpsonswiki.com/wiki/File:Pointillism_Marge_and_Hom...

[goosedragons]

I don't think this is the case. They don't film animation cells anymore and the animation is done on a computer but for most shots they're not CG models. Even in the pre-HD era they've done a few shots where CG helped.

[qwertox]

I thought the same, but that specific scene, it wouldn't make sense to use 3D models only for those 5 seconds if all that was of importance in that shot was the point-like effect of the entire image. You need to see the video version of this to see that it is a 3D scene, the shading is just too perfect on them, specially Marge's dress, it looks like cloth animation.

I found the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf6dp4k-gmc&t=167s

[vuciv1]

I mean, it could be like that, but you won’t know until you try it.