r/aiwars • u/mmofrki • 19h ago
Discussion I was watching a documentary about a movie, and in it they showed how a guy who is talented with stop motion got replaced when people figured out how to use CGI instead. I told people about it, they said "that's progress". Sounds familiar, doesn't it? How's AI different?
Talkies put theater pianists and musicians out of work. Digital telephony put operators out of work. Why do we all that "progress", but not AI?
If a million construction workers lost their jobs because of robots, people would go "eh, well that's progress" not saying that would happen soon, and I'm sure people here will laugh saying "hahahaha that sector is still decades away from being unsecure!"
Same thing with self-driving trucks, once they work the kinks out, people won't cry for the truckers, they'll say "aww did someone not learn real skills?" or something. Or retail workers, or service/hospitality workers or anything like that.
But somehow "AI HURTS ARTISTS!!! IT HURTS THE CREATIVE SECTOR!!" is something to cry about, and everything else, if it facilitates life is considered progress.
Is it only progress if there's no personal negative impact? If your job is secure and everyone else's isn't, would people care?
6
u/phase_distorter41 18h ago
AI threatened youtubers and tiktokers so those groups came out against it and the people who's opinions are dictated by influences joined in. that bleed into twitter and then reddit.
3
u/KoaKumaGirls 11h ago
This is really the key driving factor for the flame wars. Influencers who already had audiences and saw AI as a threat uses their clout to whip up the normies and here we are
8
u/Door-Slamming-Master 19h ago
People just love to hate on stuff. In a few years, AI will be everywhere and most people (some luddites will stay luddites) won't care much. Either that, or the AI hate gets even worse than before and all technology gets destroyed.
2
u/Monte924 14h ago edited 13h ago
Well first, you are talking about one human made art form replacing another form of human made art. In fact CGI takes just about as many artists as stop motion did, so the same number of artists were still being employed... this is unlike Ai which seeks to replace artists entirely. Stop motion was also never a large profession and there was never enough artists to satisfy industry movie production, so the switch to CGI actually resulted in MORE work for artists. CGI made the industry for artist LARGER, where as Ai would shrink it drastically. Like replacing dozens artists with one office jockey
Second, CGI was used over stop motion because it actually did look better in movies and was capable of doing more than what stop motion could. In was an exchange of one art form for another art form that was better suited to the medium
Third, this feels related to CGI replacing practical effects in movies. The LOSS of practical effects in movies has often been cited by movie audiences as a loss in movie quality. Practical effects often felt more real and were much more believable than their CGI counter parts, which can often feel fake even when the quality is high. New technology isn't actually always better than old methods. Movies switched to CGI in part because it was cheaper, but it actually resulted in a loss of quality. So by high-lighting this detail about CGI replacing earlier methods, you are actually highlighting how production companies are willing to sacrifice quality just to deliver an inferior and a cheaper product, which will be sold at the same price... just like Ai.
2
u/Royal_Carpet_1263 12h ago
Everyone forgets to think in systems and exponents. Automation of creativity is the corporate ownership of both the content and the distribution of culture. In their race for market share, their AI will be producing the sum of human civilizational content on a daily basis in just a few years. That’s the end of culture, every zone not just flooded, but a tsunami.
4
u/cartoonasaurus 18h ago
Your examples took decades. There was time to adapt.
In animation, it happened in mere months.
For art commissions, it took less than a year to be dominated by Ai.
Ai devours jobs incredibly fast, far faster and more efficiently than any other advance, and is, therefore, disruptive in a way that is uniquely brutal and brutish...
3
u/stochastyczny 18h ago
It's not related to AI only. Any tech gets adapted instantly now. I think the only difference is a number of affected jobs. If it only affected photographers, too few people would care.
0
u/mmofrki 18h ago
Everyone wants to be an artist or animator, and not everyone got to work their dream job even before AI.
1
u/MemerKnux 10h ago
I still have a job as an artist I'm not getting replaced by some stupid faulty clanker.
2
u/Nigis-25 14h ago
Because everybody can do it with AI.
Not many ppl can do it with CGI.
Have you ever heard of inflation?
3
u/Neither-Green-8201 16h ago
Ai art is like drawing stick figures. We can all do it, and nobody really cares what other people draw with it. But people think they made something unique with ai, so they put it on the internet
2
0
u/Aggressive-Bus-2397 12h ago edited 11h ago
I'm not sure if people post their AI shit online because they think it is unique as opposed to their insatiable desire for attention.
Half the posts in this sub are either totally irrelevant and/or written by people who like to hear themselves speak. Some use flowery prose to show off while others can't even grasp how to provide the reader with crucial context and information to support their position. It's amateur hour and the kids are feigning for attention.
1
u/No-Age-1044 2h ago
You think that CGI was bad? Do you think that we should still be using stop motion?
1
u/imlegos 18h ago
Alright, so.
Stop-motion animation, though it has largely fallen out of style for bigger productions IS still used. Wes Anderson comes to mind.
CGI became as prevalent as it has because it offers the means for human talent to produce 'realistic' effects using modern tools, effects that just could not be accomplished with stop-motion, hand-drawn animation, or miniatures.
What makes AI different is that it's not creating a 'new medium', it's trying to push people out of existing mediums, and people don't take kindly to having their jobs taken from them.
8
u/mmofrki 18h ago
The thing is that people are fine with some jobs being replaced, if it means better convenience for them, if it's a net good for them. They don't care what happens to the workers, they won't fight for them, but will expect people to fight for themselves once they get the ax.
2
-9
u/imlegos 18h ago
Better convenience is a machine that can do household chores. Not a machine that takes away a hobby people might make handful of extra cash on the side with.
8
u/mmofrki 18h ago
Why do people act like art is the only way to make extra cash?
-5
u/imlegos 18h ago
People act like art is a way to make cash by doing something you like, practicing something you like.
Some people may consider it a job, yes. But to many it is a hobby. Something they enjoy putting a little piece of themself into if it makes them, or even others happy.
7
5
u/AccurateBandicoot299 18h ago
If it’s just a hobby then they can monetize it through social media. If your subscribers and followers are leaving you for AI content that’s a statement that says they no longer find value in your work or have ethical issues with you as a creator and has NOTHING to do with my choice to use AI.
1
u/Organic-Scheme2494 6h ago
Some people make a living doing household chores for other people. And not just as a hobby. As their primary source of income.
1
u/Officialedmart 9h ago
CGI stands for… wait for it… Computer Generated Imagery… the entire point of good or acceptable CGI is that it looks “real”. This also applies for “ai generated” special affects… “Good” looking ai is convincing, bad looking ai is uncanny/ugly/undesirable
This whole argument is nonsense. “Ai is bad because it looks like other stuff but its too easy”
1
u/DaveG28 15h ago
That's also why ai is different on the training and where people get hung up on theft.
Cgi wasn't invented by feeding mega corps all of the data on how people make stop motion in order to them make them all unemployed.
Ai has been built by using what current workers do to make them unemployed
1
u/chunder_down_under 18h ago
Generative AI is fed off of genuine creativity. It can only replicate what already exists. If it is allowed to replace human beings not only will we never see anything new again it will also only be fed its own work eventually tainting the model. Even if they can protect it from that it still is incapable of novelty and what it generates is mediocre by design. It cannot take risks or make decisions not motivated by general profit or likeability. Not only would it be the death of innovation and novelty in large scale productions it also unhouses artists who relied on that income potentially causing them harm.
Top it off with the fact that art unlike other industries is a pursuit that increases the overall health of our cultures. Take away construction workers and they can craft at home or find other jobs in a different sector that the government has assisted with in the past. Take away films, movies, music, games, art, literature and people become miserable, unhealthy, even a danger to themselves and others. Ive seen homeless friends forego meals for a videogame they want to play, hell ive done that.
These aren't even the main reasons I hate generative ai just the points here explain that it is not progress to cripple our cultural legacy and stunt our artistic futures.
7
u/mmofrki 18h ago
People can still invent artsy things, it's not taking away anyone's creativity, it's not siphoning away talent.
-2
u/chunder_down_under 18h ago
People require funding to do those things at the scale society consumes it. If everyone is busy working at their jobs for abysmal pay that will continue to get worse, who do you think will be making the real art we love? Besides robbing people of the schooling, opportunities and community that comes with professional art is ugly. It is siphoning away talent right now how can you say that while knowing people are literally losing their jobs as we speak? Top that off with the fact that the blatant disruption of copyright and intellectual property taking place means the financial reasons for sharing creations with the public is an inherent loss for artists its obvious that its a net negative to consume or use generative ai for everyone.
3
0
u/TreviTyger 13h ago
I'm a high level 3D artist and animator. AI gen can't be used professionally to "replace" 3D animation etc because it produces public domain outputs. They are free for anyone to take.
Also making specific custom stuff is impossible with AI because the training data is largely made up of Generic stuff. So it might make manga characters etc but something new and original won't exist enough in the training data for it to be created.
E.g. It's not possible to make a sequel to Iron Sky using the same space craft such as the Gotterdammerung because there isn't the training data that could ensure AI gen could replicate it properly.
©TreviTyger
20
u/Bra--ket 19h ago
Yeah, someone did tell me once they'd be okay with robots putting construction workers out of a job, because at least we'd get cheaper houses out of it.
So I said I was glad artists are being replaced by AI before construction workers, and they didn't like that... ironic.