[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.

[golly_ned]

  Watch the video

Back at you. Watch the video until the end where they say this explicitly.

  the purpose of the demo, as the creators explained it, was to train a creature to move quickly

That's an extremely narrow and literal conception of the demo and the response. They're not children.

- "Here, Mr. Miyazaki -- we have made a fast-moving zombie!"

- "I don't like the zombie you have made!"

[fenomas]

> Watch the video until the end where they say this explicitly

1. The person who says that wasn't describing the purpose of the demo

2. He says it after Miyazaki's comments, ergo Miyazaki was not commenting on it

> - "Here, Mr. Miyazaki -- we have made a fast-moving zombie!"

Please don't sarcastically put words in the mouth of the person you're replying to - it's rude and it's never useful. All my previous comment did was summarize what was said, in the order it was said. I didn't suggest it was anything more or less than the words in the transcript.

[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.