[knowknow]

I wonder how Hideo Miyazaki feels about this, the fact that machines are able to recreate his style seems to go against the whimsy he creates in his art. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a possible lawsuit considering how strongly that style is tied to him, and that the model surely used his films as data.

If it was me I would feel horrible that what I gave to the public and dedicated my life to was contorted in this manner.

[lowq]

"An insult to life itself" [1]

[1] https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/hayao-miyazaki-ar...

[wlesieutre]

> After seeing a brief demo of a grotesque zombie-esque creature

Reacting to an animation where a gross critter "learned to walk using AI" instead of being animated by a person 8+ years ago, and ended up using its head as a leg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngZ0K3lWKRc

It has nothing to do with the current image generation topic beyond the "AI" label being stuck on both of them

Which is not to say I expect he's thrilled about ChatGPT cloning the art style on a mass scale, but that quote that everyone keeps reposting doesn't have anything to do with it

[zerreh50]

His last comment in the video "we humans are losing faith in ourselves" clearly about the overall concept and not just the particular creature though

[lowq]

Guilty as charged. I don't think the leap was far but there was certainly a logical leap. Thanks for pointing that out.

[gilbetron]

If you continue the quote, he says: "I would never wish to incorporate this technology into my work at all. I strongly feel that this is an insult to life itself."

He was pretty clearly talking about AI, at least to me.

[fenomas]

Not at all - he was talking about a CG demo he'd just seen of a wriggling 3D model, which didn't bear any technical or visual resemblance to generative AI.

I mean, the quote might very well reflect his actual views about generative AI, but that's definitely not what he was talking about.

[golly_ned]

The purpose of that demo was to create a machine that can draw like humans can, as the creators explained. His objection was that whatever produced this had no concept of pain, and that’s what makes it grotesque. He called out that he had no objection to creating horror if that’s what the authors wanted to do.

That complaint is just as applicable to current Gen AI models. He wasn’t simply reacting with his gut to a gross looking video but to the concept of a thing with no concept of pain creating and animating artwork of living things. He understood the technology was about Gen AI, as “deep learning” is written on the whiteboard. He deserves some credit.

[fenomas]

> The purpose of that demo was to create a machine that can draw like humans can, as the creators explained

Watch the video - the purpose of the demo, as the creators explained it, was to train a creature to move quickly. Since the AI model didn't simulate pain it used its head like a foot, and since the result was creepy they thought it could be used for a zombie game. That's what they presented to Miyazaki, and that's what he commented on. Then Suzuki asked where they eventually wanted to end up, and a different presenter said the thing about machines that can draw.

> That complaint is just as applicable to current Gen AI models

If you like, but that's not what Miyazaki applied it to.

[ogurechny]

It is really depressing to see how people universally don't even understand what he's talking about, and stick to non-explanations.

Art is humane. It tells humans how to be humans. A thought about an ill person in pain is worthy of being told as a story. Not only that animation automation thing is of no use to someone trying to express those thoughts, its authors — just like many, many others — have no idea what humans do with their lives, and which tools artists may need to show it. They've made a toy, and were told that it's just useless wanking, together with the whole genres of pointless amusement that introduced such images into pop culture.

“An insult to life itself” is not just a phrase. There is life, and there are people who deliberately ignore it, and enjoy the sights painted on cardboards.

[ThrowawayR2]

The article you link to directly quotes him:

"After seeing a brief demo of a grotesque zombie-esque creature, Miyazaki pauses and says that it reminds him of a friend of his with a disability so severe he can’t even high five. “Thinking of him, I can’t watch this stuff and find [it] interesting. Whoever creates this stuff has no idea what pain is whatsoever. I am utterly disgusted. If you really want to make creepy stuff, you can go ahead and do it. I would never wish to incorporate this technology into my work at all. I strongly feel that this is an insult to life itself.”

He's disgusted by the creature, not the computer based technique. While he's on record as disapproving of CGI, Earwig and the Witch, directed by his son, used CGI so his disapproval isn't absolute.

[lowq]

"Whoever creates this stuff has no idea what pain is whatsoever."

I think it's clear that he is specifically responding to the the overall soullessness of the technique - to animate without a human understanding of what is being animated. But as others have pointed out this is well before modern AI image gen and I have been corrected in that aspect.

[michaelt]

Let's look at the context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngZ0K3lWKRc

Presenters: "This is a presentation of an artificial intelligence model which learned certain movements [...] It's moving by using its head. It doesn't feel any pain, and has no concept of protecting its head. It uses its head like a leg. This movement is so creepy, and could be applied to zombie video games. An artificial intelligence could present us grotesque movements which we humans can't imagine."

The screen shows some Silent Hill looking vaguely humanoid, crawling blob. As the presenters say, it's pretty creepy looking.

Miyazaki: "I am utterly disgusted [...] I would never wish to incorporate this technology into my work at all"

IMHO saying Miyazaki outright hates AI is putting words into his mouth. All the clip shows is that a dude that doesn't make zombie horror films doesn't need a zombie horror generator thank you very much.

So yeah, he clearly rejects the product pitch. But judging from Kiki's Delivery Service and My Neighbor Totoro I don't see why you'd pitch him that product.

[lowq]

"Well, we would like to build a machine that can draw pictures like humans do"

"Would you?"

"Yes"

Awkward silence

From this I don't think it's difficult to extrapolate his feelings about modern AI image gen. But you are correct in that this is not a direct assessment. Appreciate the correction, thanks.

[conartist6]

The relevant title would be Grave of the Fireflies, his opus about the nature of human suffering.

[JohnBooty]

same studio, but not Miyazaki's work

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grave_of_the_Fireflies

[ted_bunny]

What's with the narrator's voice in that clip? Unwatchable

[jaredklewis]

Hideo? You mean Hayao right?

[alickz]

>I wonder how Hideo Miyazaki feels about this, the fact that machines are able to recreate his style seems to go against the whimsy he creates in his art.

How much of it is _his_ style and _his_ art?

How many people work on the frames and animation?

[ogurechny]

Supposedly, you have a working internet connection. In no time, you can check the name of Hayao Miyazaki. You can see how he draws his manga, in a style which would be really hard to animate. You can see how he designs his characters. Well, maybe the colour palette can be attributed to “his style” in some works. Still, you can learn that Ghibli had famous background artists and art directors like Nizo Yamamoto and Kazuo Oga. You can compare characters drawn by Yoshifumi Kondou and Katsuya Kondou with Miyazaki's, and guess who was responsible for what in different works. You can learn how in the era when everyone waited for computers to make economical marvel of “three dee” real, Isao Takahata used computers to transfer pen and brush strokes to animation in “The Yamadas” and “Princess Mononoke”.

But you don't want any of that. You want to have a familiar pop cultural label (“Miyazaki”) that produces a familiar reaction (“Oooh!”). Purely decorative, symbolic objects. Stories, ideas, hard work? Eh, don't bother me with that nonsense.

There is nothing new or “cutting edge” in ignorance. And AI companies know perfectly well that they work for exactly that audience. Despite all the talk, they don't create the next genius artist, they want to be a next “enhancement filter” in TVs, something that no one uses, but everyone has to add to impress the public. That's just parasitism on lack of ability to discern.

[JohnBooty]

    and that the model surely used his films as data.

While I don't doubt it's true, this could be challenging to prove, because Studio Ponoc (ex-Ghibli) has produced work that uh, hews rather closely to Miyazaki's style. Were the models trained on Ghibli, Ponoc, both, something else, etc?

I mean, I have no doubts. But proving it seems tough!

[aredox]

Ponoc is made of former Ghibli employees who founded a new home when Ghibli's future was uncertain. I am sure they are on friendly terms, if not family, with Ghibli: they worked together for years. People like them can have a gentleman's agreement.

What is OpenAI in all this, if not a greedy, sloppy, soulless outsider stealing their Art and effort for financial gain without ever asking for permission?

[JohnBooty]

I don't disagree with anything you said, but it doesn't seem to follow from what I wrote.

I pointed out a reason why litigation could be difficult. I'm quite sure nothing I wrote could have been seen as defending OpenAI. Just that I felt litigation would be tricky.

[Cthulhu_]

I gathered the Japanese government legalized using copyrighted works to train AI last year: https://www.privacyworld.blog/2024/03/japans-new-draft-guide...

[leoh]

Well they then stole from Ponoc, too, right?

[TiredOfLife]

Also hope he goes against all the artists who demanded payment for copying his style before

[footlose_3815]

>I wonder how Hideo Miyazaki feels about this

It's in the article

[knowknow]

It’s not, the quote in question was from a completely different AI demo which the author mischaracterizes.

the quote in context - https://youtu.be/ngZ0K3lWKRc?si=gw-_z17n_XWfqzcQ

[baggy_trough]

Hopefully he's wise enough to realize that it's the ultimate compliment.

[michaelt]

Truly, every artist hopes their distinctive style will be taken by a multi-billion-dollar corporation and used by the White House to make a jeering depiction of crying deportees. It's the ultimate compliment.

[baggy_trough]

That could be the worst thing that happened, but it's exceedingly far from the only thing that happened.

[forgotoldacc]

Art becomes tainted by association.

The USSR had some absolutely incredible art used on their propaganda posters. But if you use that for anything outside of ironic Russian themes (e.g. a goofy game set in that era, some silly snack that claims to be Russian-inspired), people will think you're an unironic communist and you instantly turn away loads of people.

When a dominant political force uses AI "art" for everything they do and the style becomes apparent, anything that looks similar to that instantly disgusts loads of people. You can argue "well that's their fault for being disgusted", but pattern recognition and being conditioned to associate certain images with "bad" goes far deeper than the conscious and it's a base instinct in animals.

[baggy_trough]

If you think Ghibli is now tainted by association with Trump based on this image, I don't know what to tell you. That sounds preposterous in the extreme.

[doright]

More like "AI art in the style of ____" will be tainted by association. I can almost hear the complaints to the editor to every boutique indie blog post and company listicle with AI filler at the top. For me at least it cheapens the feeling of the blog post itself - "if the author couldn't be arsed to get any real art/pay for a stock image, what about the rest of the content?"

[forgotoldacc]

Now, no. In a few months, yes.

People know the "NFT style", and when people see any sort of image like that, they instantly think "annoying crypto scammer."

There's now the "AI image" style, which people are becoming more aware of. And people associate that with scammers, very confused old people, weird porn, and the right.

Most of the ghiblified stuff is from AI/cryptobros and right wing movements (with heavy overlap on those groups). People possess pattern recognition and will become aware of the pattern each time they see these images.

[bobsmooth]

That crying deportee was a fentanyl trafficker btw.

[seizethecheese]

If it was me, I would feel great that my work has been extended to give joy at such a large scale. (Not that it’s invalid if he has a different opinion.)