OpenAI's latest image-generation update has taken social media by storm, as users are flooding X, Instagram, and Reddit with Studio Ghibli-style images
An insult to life is working 12h a day japanese style for the industry. I’m aware that they do things differently at studio ghibli but at the end of the day they are a for profit company making billions like the rest. Labeling AI as an insult to life sound like much bigotism.
Tell me you’ve never seen a Studio Ghibli movie without telling me you’ve never seen a single Studio Ghibli movie. Literally every one of them contains some “advancing technology isn’t necessarily a good thing and the old ways have value” message. If AI were personified in one of their movies, it’d be a oozing black oil demon monstrosity spitting soot into the air.
It’d be like Banksy doing advertisement for Nestle. It’s just so contrary to the message they put out.
A magical person delivering mail instead of a soulless automated machine? The value of human experience and interactions? I didn’t say it was the core message, I said it was a message in all his movies. A “theme” or “motif”, if you will.
Bigoted against what?? A machine? The money grubbing assholes who are using those machines to profit on other people’s work without giving them a dime in compensation? Who the hell are you defending here?
Studio Ghibli and their artists put in millions of hours collectively to create works if absolute art. Sam Altman just borrowed millions of dollars to rip them off.
Bigoted against a tool that is going to change the industry and digital art, the same way computers did back in the day.
If you throw AI at your hand draw 20 frames per second you are going to get the smoothest film ever and that’s just a stupid example. You can use AI for a thousand things already from the story boards to your final work.
a tool that is going to change the industry and digital art, the same way computers did back in the day.
This type of comparison makes no sense: with traditional art you have to put skill, knowledge and personality into your work, with digital art it’s the same thing but with computers, with AI “art” you don’t. You just ask the mighty machine what you want and it’ll spit processed garbage heavily approximating what you asked for. You could try fixing the output yourself, but at that point it’s no longer just AI, it becomes a mix of digital art and AI “art” with all the other problems the latter carries with it such as copyright, constant output reprocessing and especially energy consumption as making one crappy looking output takes way too much power for it to be viable in the long term.
with traditional art you have to put skill, knowledge and personality into your work, with digital art it’s the same thing but with computers, with AI “art” you don’t.
I think many people here have a romantic view of how art is made and never tried AI image generators. Would you be able to tell apart an artist who use reference pictures and one who doesn’t?
An artist using references doesn’t just copy and paste, there’s a whole process of understanding what they’re looking at, their interpretation of it, of why it is like that and of how they can learn something new from it, things that AI generators cannot do. And the “romantic” part is essential because that’s what art is about. You make art to transmit a message, an emotion, it isn’t just about making something “pretty”, that’s something contemplated only by naive people who never made art or who don’t understand it.
Who said that AI art doesn’t carry a message or emotions? With AI you can create much easily photorealistic faces that carries twice the emotion than a sketch with frog eyes.
An artist using references doesn’t just copy and paste, there’s a whole process of understanding what they’re looking at, their interpretation of it, of why it is like that and of how they can learn something new from it, things that AI generators cannot do.
Why are you assuming there’s no artistic process behind using image generators? Have you ever play around with graphic softwares?
There are a thousand ways you can make art. In the japanese industry they use may techniques that one could consider gimmicks, for example even famous mangaka have assistants who draw for them or they use 3d models or real pictures as backgrounds.
An insult to life is working 12h a day japanese style for the industry. I’m aware that they do things differently at studio ghibli but at the end of the day they are a for profit company making billions like the rest. Labeling AI as an insult to life sound like much bigotism.
Do you know the context of the quote?
Why not both?
Tell me you’ve never seen a Studio Ghibli movie without telling me you’ve never seen a single Studio Ghibli movie. Literally every one of them contains some “advancing technology isn’t necessarily a good thing and the old ways have value” message. If AI were personified in one of their movies, it’d be a oozing black oil demon monstrosity spitting soot into the air.
It’d be like Banksy doing advertisement for Nestle. It’s just so contrary to the message they put out.
Where’s the “advancing technology isn’t necessarily a good thing and the old ways have value” message in Kiki’s Delivery Service?
A magical person delivering mail instead of a soulless automated machine? The value of human experience and interactions? I didn’t say it was the core message, I said it was a message in all his movies. A “theme” or “motif”, if you will.
Bigoted against what?? A machine? The money grubbing assholes who are using those machines to profit on other people’s work without giving them a dime in compensation? Who the hell are you defending here?
Studio Ghibli and their artists put in millions of hours collectively to create works if absolute art. Sam Altman just borrowed millions of dollars to rip them off.
Bigoted against a tool that is going to change the industry and digital art, the same way computers did back in the day.
If you throw AI at your hand draw 20 frames per second you are going to get the smoothest film ever and that’s just a stupid example. You can use AI for a thousand things already from the story boards to your final work.
This type of comparison makes no sense: with traditional art you have to put skill, knowledge and personality into your work, with digital art it’s the same thing but with computers, with AI “art” you don’t. You just ask the mighty machine what you want and it’ll spit processed garbage heavily approximating what you asked for. You could try fixing the output yourself, but at that point it’s no longer just AI, it becomes a mix of digital art and AI “art” with all the other problems the latter carries with it such as copyright, constant output reprocessing and especially energy consumption as making one crappy looking output takes way too much power for it to be viable in the long term.
I think many people here have a romantic view of how art is made and never tried AI image generators. Would you be able to tell apart an artist who use reference pictures and one who doesn’t?
An artist using references doesn’t just copy and paste, there’s a whole process of understanding what they’re looking at, their interpretation of it, of why it is like that and of how they can learn something new from it, things that AI generators cannot do. And the “romantic” part is essential because that’s what art is about. You make art to transmit a message, an emotion, it isn’t just about making something “pretty”, that’s something contemplated only by naive people who never made art or who don’t understand it.
Who said that AI art doesn’t carry a message or emotions? With AI you can create much easily photorealistic faces that carries twice the emotion than a sketch with frog eyes.
Why are you assuming there’s no artistic process behind using image generators? Have you ever play around with graphic softwares?
There are a thousand ways you can make art. In the japanese industry they use may techniques that one could consider gimmicks, for example even famous mangaka have assistants who draw for them or they use 3d models or real pictures as backgrounds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7wyjDvu_Ao
Yes, only one thing can be an “insult to life”. GOOD point.