I’d say art but for many, generated pictures are amazing so I’ll accept that.
But creating compelling narratives seems impossible right now. I wonder why is that. Are the models missing something?
The videos here are short clips. They can’t be made into a full movie or even a full YouTube video.
Computer is the medium, like painting on a canvas. You can paint, or you can pay someone to paint for you.
On a conceptual level, DTGI is a big change. From painting, or paying a creative to paint, to paying a faceless corp to generate a permutation of paintings by other people (who probably did not consent to that).
If creator is transparent about it, I would appreciate it, but as someone said once I’d prefer to just see the prompt since that is the extent of creative input.
I recently went to a small conference focused on AI art. What you said is simply not true for the best AI "infused" works. Many AI art creators use tools that allow you to combine different inputs, including their own "handmade" art, which are later processed by a pipeline that also include AI and require manual selection of intermediate results. There's a lot of manual work and artistic expression involved, and the average person wouldn't be able to replicate the results through a simple prompt.
While it is true that most people enter a low-effort prompt and call the output "art", better artists are going well beyond that. This is why I think it's just a more powerful version of "standard CGI" (image processing and 3D rendering).
It is a subset of CGI, a special case. I have never seen the term “standard CGI”, there is no standard.
> Many AI art creators use tools
Any sources?
> the average person wouldn't be able to replicate the results through a simple prompt
For how long? Do you think what these people post will somehow not be used to train Veo3 and thus make it capable of reproducing it through a simple prompt?
strogonoff•8mo ago
turtleyacht•8mo ago
Seeing total video automation is incredible. It's the most compelling reason yet to avoid the infinite treadmill.
strogonoff•8mo ago
turtleyacht•8mo ago
At the same time, they can also choose to deliver in a binary medium like a game or proprietary WASM container. Or even scans of their handwritings.
Text is now zero cost; ideas may need to be carried along in frictive streams.
strogonoff•8mo ago
Citation needed. Humans have created for as long as they could benefit from their creativity (be it reputation, patronage, or capitalism when combined with IP laws). If that way is no more, I would not be so sure.
benwad•8mo ago
strogonoff•8mo ago
Writing “for the drawer” is generally a thing that happens if one is not yet satisfied or not confident about the quality of own output, or if one is self-censoring, or if one is expecting someone to read it eventually (communication can happen over time and space). I don’t think this is worth in-depth look, as art that was not seen by others for all intents and purposes does not exist.
(All art is communication; if you shouted into the void and made sure no one hears it, did it really take place?)
turtleyacht•8mo ago
> void
Art as therapy, communicating with oneself. It's a specific case, though.
Writing in a journal is another example.
Interested in hearing your perspective on these.
strogonoff•8mo ago
turtleyacht•8mo ago
> new data
We'll likely keep seeing it, up until the inflection point between "machines are for people" and "people are for machines." Along a spectrum, the latter being complete cybernetic mechanization of a life.
turtleyacht•8mo ago
At the same time, people do not always calculate world states ahead of time; sometimes, it's just to do the thing.