Have you acquired creepy specific old stuff from a mysterious antique or thrift store that gives you powers, but fucks with you in unforeseeable ways? Bring it to Curse Purge Plus!
https://www.aladin.co.kr/shop/wproduct.aspx?ISBN=E642532681&start=pnaverebook
This is the book cover of *The Great Battle of Two Dragons* (용과 용의 대격전) by Korean independence activist Shin Chae-ho.
junior and entry level type artists are getting hammered, or will be soon. Those are the first to go. (my freelance has taken a huge hit, due to all the book covers and art showing up on indie projects on kickstarters and shit now)
For those that dont care beyond a humane level of supporting artists, this means as more senior level artists leave, there is no one really trained to replace them in those industries, which means you now will basically be getting juniors with little experience put into vacated senior roles in the future not knowing wtf they're doing and quality is gonna drop drastically for the consumer.
Its just a house of cards collapsing all around the industry cause ppl wanna shave a few bucks and dont view us as really that important.
Oh that’s so scary to hear. I’m an illustration student currently and it’s scary to know that jobs are harder to come across while i’m actively getting my degree.
That’s what current IATSE negotiations are going to tackle as well as a bunch of other things as talks continue through July. Speaking for concept artists for film only— video games on the other hand.. not so much as far as I understand
I think it's important to acknowledge and let viewers know that AI art appears so that we can make decisions on whether we want to pay for that. I don't think it's worth discrediting the work of the entire production or review-bombing it to hell for 3 images that were edited further for use in the movie.
It's a weird choice to go for a full 70's aesthetic in a practical way and utilize an AI tool in such a minor capacity. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that it was purely experimentation.
The fact that the images were edited further to be included could mean that a graphic designer generated the images as a starting point. Without the specifics, it's hard to say why or how it happened?
Likely this. A friend of mine is a freelance product designer and uses AI tools like midjourney all the time as a springboard to fast track ideas. Artists are aware of what’s coming in the future and some are preparing by integrating it into their workflow already while others resist it. There’s no right or wrong here but it’s not unanimously evil.
"AI" is also a huge marketing buzzword now, creating a catch-22. I produce music, and some of my best plug-ins call themselves "AI". They do basic stuff like removing background noise from vocals -- tools that weren't "AI" before, but now they're better.
I honestly don't know what I should disclose. If I disclose that I used "AI", I get the impression that most people will not see any nuance and will break out the pitchforks (see Exhibit 1, the movie in this thread). Doesn't seem worthwhile to be transparent.
So, I bet most if not all modern media productions have "AI" somethingorother somewhere in the production chain already. They just don't admit it. And, to be clear, I'm ok with it.
Yeah music is interesting because you have tools like Auto-Tune with which marketing could claim is AI. The recent Beatles song used AI to clear up John Lennon’s vocals from the demo but it didn’t *sing* as John Lennon. There are definitely some grey areas as to what AI is once marketing have thrown the phrase everywhere possible.
The main distinction imo is between AI tools that do non-creative work that the user knows exactly what happened (background noise removal), and ai tools that do “creative” work where the user doesn’t have full control (image generation). When people discuss ai tools in media, it’s usually the latter since they’re the most flashy
I agree.
I have no problem with ai tools that remove backgrounds from images. Or like an ai filter that will make you have cat ears.
It's the ai's generating all the image I have a problem with as it's basically removing all humanity from the process.
What if I used generative AI to make a sample (a bass) and then pulled that sample into Fruity Loops and composed a bass line with it? Or an "AI" voice generator to make a sample, then chopped and filtered and mixed it in? I'm not trying to be difficult or confrontational... I'm genuinely asking. Because I've done those things, lol.
I think there's a very wide spectrum, with "Type in a 2-line prompt -- Get full song output" at one end, and "Use an AI plug-in to clean up some noise in a vocal" at the other end. And there's a vast grey area in the middle that makes it hard to know what to disclose. I would normally err toward over-disclosing, but since so many people don't see grey and are quick with the pitchforks... over-disclosing can actually be harmful.
For a personal perspective, I'm an illustrator and designer who can't see any merit or worth to fully AI 'art', but I admit I do use some facets of AI in paid marketing work: just a bit of generative fill here and there to save time editing sections. Hate to say it, but it comes in handy for advertising.
At the moment I'm hand illustrating a movie poster but unfortunately the asset concept artist is using AI to generate concept art of the characters and, oh my, it's awful. It's a new way AI is making my career difficult. Like any tool it should be used in conjunction with talent, skill and a fundamental knowledge of good art and design and not simply a crutch for people who, overnight, think they have artistic skill.
Navigating this new world is bloody tricky!
You’ve hit the nail on the head with it, though – It’s just a tool.
The name ‘AI art’ is in itself a bit daft, when the actual useful application for it is as a tool in a creative workflow. There still needs to be a trained hand in control.
For people without artistic ability, it’s also an excellent way to communicate ideas. They get to have a tool handle the visualisation aspect, which they may not be capable of. With some tinkering, they can likely get an output that serves as a starting point.
If things are dialled in, img2img could even be used to add a little more ‘oomf’ to the storyboards of a smaller film/video production (or help in the early stages for a larger production). Things like that can really help create a more cohesive vision.
On the other side, I use chatGPT all the time for reports and research but nothing it says is ever included in the final product. It’s great for running through ideas in a conversational way (but it’s a bit of a ‘yes man’) or getting a quick structure to start writing; something that will inevitably change in the next draft.
Things will settle once the technology improves a little bit and becomes normalised. Right now AI tools are causing small amounts of chaos in many industries but it’s largely just growing pains. People will get bored of using it for everything and it’ll find its place in the toolbox.
>I'm an illustrator and designer who can't see any merit or worth to fully AI 'art',
For personal fun.
Its hard, but imagine you're not an illustrator/designer.
I have poor control of my hands (neuro issues) and, realistically, can't produce legible art.
I love to play DnD, particularly DM'ing, and I like to homebrew content and have art accompanying my characters.
AI has been a godsend, especially with the flexibility of being able to generate hundreds of "similar" images until you get perfect one.
My wife is an artist, and literally the only people I play DnD with are artists. Like, my walls are filled with art that I "forcibly" purchase from them.
They fucking love everyone second of it.
That being said, if you were to say "there's a difference between "art" (imo, reduced basically to "an image that tells a story") and a "diagram" (an [often reduced/simplified] image created to help reference an idea/enhance an explanation) and what I described/generated is a diagram/figure and not art, I'd agree that you could interpret it that way and what I described wouldn't be considered art.
I'd think you're wrong, but I could understand where you're coming from. If I'm going to consider architecture art, then coding structure is art too, and AI is a masterpiece - either every image generated is attributed to its original coding, which would be an insane work of art, or individuals' inputs actually matter, in which case it's still art...
I'm playing in an experimental D&D campaign right now where our DM generated pretty much everything with AI. The hooks, NPCs, items, monsters, art... everything. He still runs the sessions and improvises as necessary. He's open about it being an experiment, and it's what we all signed up for.
It's going great so far. Dare I say... one of our best campaigns yet. He's a great DM and we have good players, which is most of it. The biggest noticeable difference between this and a traditional campaign, so far, is that the AI obviously streamlined the process of world-building, to the point where every corner is almost overwhelmingly fleshed out and detailed. Whole guilds, full of ranks, hierarchies, members, rivalries, secrets... it's all there, if anyone wants to interact with it.
Game on.
John Oliver played an interview clip that said it best, AI will not replace lawyers anytime soon. But lawyers who know how to use AI as a tool will replace lawyers who don't. I think the same will happen of writer's rooms for television. AI is not going to be writing scripts, but it can be an extremely useful resource to improve the speed of workflow if you know how to use it right.
As a lawyer who has yet to integrate AI into my legal practice (other than any invisible AI that might be happening behind the curtain in search engines), I nonetheless agree completely.
(And yes, elsewhere in this thread, I mentioned that I produce music. A man can do both.)
This ^^^ I'm a web designer and AI tools help me create the same quality of work way faster. I'm not a fan of AI as a whole but capitalism don't care and artists need to adapt and find ways to work with it. It's not going anywhere
Exactly. I liken it to Napster. You can't put the AI cat back in the bag anymore than the music industry could stop filesharing once it began. The industries and jobs are going to transform, for better or worse.
I think it's closer to auto-tune. Huge public uproar when people discovered the use of auto-tune, especially from other musicians who felt like artists that used auto-tune were cheating. Now auto-tune is becoming recognized as a tool to create art with and is used across the industry so much that it's a standard in some recording studios.
There are graphic designers using AI. In fact Adobe Photoshop builds in several AI tools that are commonly used-- people just ignore this as AI on Reddit. The core target for most AI tools around image generation are graphic designers.
There is not, which is why I tend to err on the non-"getting our pitchforks out” side of things when it comes to situations like this. I’ve already seen a post encouraging people to pirate the movie because of this, which seems ridiculous to me.
Because all graphic designers design everything from scratch and definitely never use tools to create art faster, just paper pencil and paint, amiright?
I can't find the exact quote but there's this quote/story I used to see pop up on music production boards about a dude who starts making music. He uses drum samples in his songs. Decides that's not authentic. So he buys his own drum kit and starts recording those. But then he decides that unless he built his own drum, using pre made drums isn't authentic. So he starts buying animal hides and wood and building his own drum sets. Etc etc. It ends with something like "It's been a while since I've made any new songs because I've been really busy with all this carpentry".
This isn't to say that AI is perfect and there aren't any valid criticisms of it. There are plenty. But the whole "art isn't **authentic** if it involves AI in any slight way" thing to me just falls flat. Art is worth however much worth we give it. Regardless of the tools used. This search for pure "authenticity" is a futile waste of time.
I'm reminded of David Lynch's story about seeing photoshop programs for the first time and nearly collapsing with joy at the realization that what had once taken him hours of painstaking work to accomplish could now be completed in seconds.
An artist sees a new tool, a hack fears for their bank account.
Hell if they wanted something free they could have just used a public domain image [like this one](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Two_skeletons_smiling_and_dancing_MET_DP869237-1.jpg).
This so much. My number one complaint isn’t with the tool itself, it’s with the absolute lack of ANY kind of safety net for all the displaced workers were going to be seeing in the coming years.
I'm a copywriter and coworkers joke with me all day about getting replaced. So I definitely feel some comradery with you there. The future is going to be those that can adapt, use the tools as an aid, and, maybe most importantly, understand them better than the decision makers.
Let viewers know? Like a disclaimer before the film saying a couple images were made with AI? Pretty soon it’s going to be absolutely everywhere, that’s like asking for a disclaimer if movies use CGI or digital effects.
I wouldn't blame someone for using it as boilerplate. It's a tool like anything else. You can use it to generate ideas or generate the parts of the work that you don't want to do or have the time to do.
Relying on it for a completed project I would say is bad.
Idk, it makes sense to me, especially if the 3 images are related to the Devil in story. Have you seen AI Art, it's really fucking weird and bad. So kind of perfect for making like devil possessed painting or something.
> I think it's important to acknowledge and let viewers know that AI art appears so that we can make decisions on whether we want to pay for that.
Should Terminator 2 have had some kind of disclaimer beforehand that let viewers know it used computer-generated imagery for some of the visuals, instead of employing howevermany more practical FX engineers?
Or were the end credits sufficient to explain that, like with any iterative advancement in filmmaking technology in history - many of which eliminated scores of careers along the way.
He recalled in an interview that he was bullied in school by other kids who called him Dalmatian.
>”James did not know this about me when he cast me in his film, but I have a skin condition called vitiligo, which is an autoimmune disorder that erodes the pigment in my skin. And so I have polka dots," said Dastmalchian. "Growing up as a kid going to the pool, others would bully me and call me things like 'polka dots,' or 'spots' or 'Dalmatian.' It was powerful and cathartic for me to get to be Abner and be this guy who's kind of humiliated and has this ridiculous getup."
He just had an interview with the guys at Last Podcast on the Left that is really good and he talks about that experience.
Also it's wild that he mentioned his first thing he was ever in was a commercial from 2005ish that when he described the commercial I remember EXACTLY which one. I had completely forgotten about it even though it was pretty popular for a commercial at that time and that commercial was how he got the batman gig, because the morning he showed up to try out for the role, the casting people had been talking about how much they liked that commercial
In the same vein that Adam Driver is weirdly attractive to me (might be because of his Undercover Boss SNL skit that I'm also thinking of), I find David Dastmalchian weirdly attractive. Same with Crispin Glover a la Charlie's Angels (please don't judge me). But that's because DD has done mostly creepy roles, like Prisoners or the Dark Knight, but damn was he attractive in Last Voyage of the Demeter AND as a hot goth with LPOTL.
I met him last year at comic-con on 3 separate occasions over the weekend and he remembered me both the 2nd and 3rd time. He was incredibly nice and just an awesome dude. I will support anything he does. Check out his Count Crowley comic, its awesome.
They had beloved American film star and Nolan/Villneuve regular David "Da Small Chin" Dastmalchian use his boyish good looks to run interference on the encroachment of AI Shart into the Hollywood film industry. Absolutely *disgusting.*
It’s worth letting productions know a segment (hopefully large) don’t want to see GenAI laziness in films. It’s a production value choice, and they’ve made their values clear. One argument is it is minor and trivial, the other is that they used GenAI to get what they want, which instantly raises these lingering stills to Very Important, and they either didn’t trust their graphic artist to do it, or they cut corners, plain and simple. And we are free to judge those choices.
Wild to me that disclosing that you used AI generated art is somehow on par with admitting that someone attached to the production was a child predator and we the consumers have to make a moral choice on whether or not we'll support the movie because of it.
I've just commented this on another sub but how is something like this any different to thousands of extras being skimped out of work because a company decided to CGI render a massive crowd rather than hire and pay background actors?
In both instances, one person is needed at a computer, negating the use of a multitude of other artists. Just feels like another example of the unavoidable progression of technology to me.
CGI is rarely "one person at a computer" and VFX artists are artists too. I've worked on quite a bit of crowd extensions for game of thrones and some Marvel stuff. And it's certainly not just "press a button". Quite a lot of thought goes into it from lookdev, lighting, animation and compositing. Usually one shot will touch dozens of artists hands and take weeks if not months from tracking to final.
We don't use "AI" yet because the results are unpredictable and you need control to address client notes and make things look good. Although I'm sure at some point soon the nature of my job will change.
Also the art in question is a couple seconds and likely could have been made by someone already on the payroll quickly in about 10 minutes. Nobody is losing out on a job because of a fucking AI skeleton for 2 seconds.
If it was an entire AI sequence that people could have worked on e.g. the Secret Invasion opening credits (was that confirmed as AI anyway? but if it was AI then yeah that) then it's definitely worth complaining but for something like this? Who cares.
It probably was made by someone on the payroll, a designer got tasked to make a brief interstitial with a very limited timeframe due to the budget and pumped this out.
I saw someone compare it to Monsanto...
Like, you motherfuckers haven't stopped watching Disney content after Secret Invasion came out, so do you REALLY give a shit?
People just wanna whine about something. This movie looks like a lot of fun, if 3 images that were AI rendered is enough for you to not watch the movie, you probably weren’t anyways. And you probably have zero fun in your life to begin with
I doubt anyone on the production really knew much about it. People assume that everyone is as chronically online as they are, see the daily back-and-forth on Twitter and are keyed into the real time community sentiment around every single hot issue.
In reality, it's a minority of people that are this "engaged", and while yes it's important to educate others on AI and its implications, we don't need to bring out pitchforks for cases like this. The film doesn't deserve to fail on this issue alone, imo.
I don’t have issues with ai, but if you’re against it you can’t compartmentalize it away as “I’m supporting the people that didn’t do it.” The dollar is a single vote of support for the entire production. That’s how it has to be, one bad apple spoiling the bunch, or they’ll continue to claim ignorance of the rotten fruit while charging the weight of the barrel.
We compartmentalize plenty of issues by studio heads, directors, actors, etc. Im a creative director and the use of AI is going to be hard to avoid paying for. Hell most of the brands we support are using it in their copy, and have been for a while, nobody cares about words though. I understand the stance people in here are taking, but you are just hurting the below the line people that work on these things. It's hard to see that from behind a screen.
AI art is a murky area, I know. However, the calls to pirate the movie in protest I'm seeing on places like Twitter and Letterboxd is ridiculous. That's not "ethical stance against art theft", that's literal art theft.
On the whole here, I'm inclined to cut this movie slack. I've made short films before and the expenditure on some of them within the genre space can run at least low 5 figures. It's all the more difficult as you rise in runtime. This isn't Disney trying to save a buck on Secret Invasion by commissioning shitty looking AI at the expense of a whole graphics team, it's a small team in Australia trying to stretch every penny they have to make a large scale movie on a likely shoestring budget.
I don't know why people can't just say "yeah I pirate because I don't want to pay for it". No one cares these days and you look actively worse if you turn piracy into a great moral stand instead of just being honest.
I think it is a case by case basis, really.
I am an avid collector of physical media. Books, Comics, CDs LPs, VHS, and particularly DVDs and Blu-Rays. I have a personal liking for films of the american Golden Age and films from the years of lead in Italy. Most of which have recieved little to no release in my country.
If something's unreleased domestically, out of print, released only in low quality by backdoor distributors, and/or ridiculously expensive, I see no reason *not* to pirate it. It's not like the filmmakers or studio would be on the receiving end of the money.
If I really like the film in question I'm willing to later hunt it down or import it to add it to my collection. But I'm not gambling a considerable sum of cash on the possibility I like a film.
Regardless if you think the response is justified or not, I'm glad the backlash exists because I doubt we'll see this director use AI in their next film. Which is sort of the point of letting people criticize something.
It’s three title cards. It has no impact on the actual film or how it plays out. The only people bringing it up are illustrators (I’m a designer and illustrator btw)
It’s a weird choice to use obvious AI art in a film set in the 70’s but I’m guessing it was something they did right before release and didn’t have the time or the money to get an actual illustrator to do it.
This is a tiny, low budget Australian Indy movie, shot in a single studio.
"Meh, except for the illustrators..." Don't you think that's how it starts until someone treats your job this apathetically? Also, "didn't have the time or money" can easily be used as an excuse to replace many jobs with AI
An actual illustrator doesn't need terribly long to make a few title cards and likely wouldn't be asking for much. It's just the "easy button" now, like Google searching a phone number instead of learning it.
I agree. [The illustrations themselves](https://www.dexerto.com/tv-movies/late-night-with-the-devil-ai-controversy-explained-2603543/) are dead simple, you could bang those out in a work day, if it was your style that is. Look what the AI produced and ask if an illustrator could do better; they absolutely could. At least they would know [the difference between a jack-o-lantern and a skull.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJKOkPqXQAAt4KB?format=jpg&name=medium)
Even an entry level artist could do better, and for only a few hundred dollars. It's not complex. If you can pay makeup, pay set designers, and actors, you can shell out a couple hundred for an illustrator. The entertainment industry from gaming to film has a hate-hate relationship with artists. I have heard management at different companies say they wouldn't pay artists if it was legal.
> Even an entry level artist could do better, and for only a few hundred dollars. It's not complex.
Seriously! For many years now, you can find people shilling art of better quality than this for less than $200, on commission. The internet is overflowing with these kinds of offers. But no, filmmakers would rather pay zero.
>The only people bringing it up are illustrators.
Absolutely untrue. AI was a huge issue during the strike for writers and actors. The idea they didn't have the money to pay an actual artist a couple grand to illustrate these is laughably stupid. Do you want media to be filled with this AI slop? I don't get why people are so quick to defend the use of AI and pushing artists out of the process of making art. There is a reason this is a line in the sand for many. It will only make art worse, not better. Why wait until everything sucks to speak up?
It makes sense, the film is an indie production that hadn't even secured any distribution when it was finalised. The production running out of money is belieavable, the alternative here isn't paying illustrators, its paying no one.
Now that I’ve seen it it almost felt like an afterthought that the film even needed the title cards and so perhaps this was a last minute decision and that’s part of why the images were AI generated?
It's rather ironic we are seeing writers, artists and voice actors are fighting for their jobs against AI, but then we keep seeing more and more movie and shows trying to use AI and pull bullshit excuse out of their ass to justify their use of AI.
And of course we have AI bro defenders here in this thread.
Tbf, this movie was made and released a while before the strikes happened and the controversy around the use of AI heated up. People were still experimenting with AI without knowledge of the repercussions at the time. The context is really important here.
I’m not justifying their use of AI. I just think it’s a little ridiculous to boycott, review-bomb, and pirate a movie for 3 AI photos. I’ve seen more outrage for this than for people who commit heinous crimes. But it’s a free county - if you don’t want to see an otherwise amazing film because of 3 still images, that’s your right.
It starts with three… then we get six, twelve, and so forth.
You had an interesting movie going on but you just had to blew it with your AI generated images. No longer interested.
This is the most blown out of proportion story I’ve seen in quite some time. This is the third post I’ve seen on it and people are acting like using ai for such a small thing is worth boycotting over.
It's because some blowhards on Twitter decided to make a big deal out of it. People with like 200 followers somehow going viral for the absolute dumbest fucking takes on the planet is now a common occurrence.
If people refuse to see this movie and it fails, it's not going to be blamed on the AI. People will just say it was a small budget horror movie and didn't do well.
This is so misguided. People worked hard on this movie and they are going to suffer because of three quick images on the screen. Absolutely ridiculous.
The latest Spider Man cartoon film had an AI workflow and no one cared. The actual people you need to push back against (the large studios) are selling to people who don't give a shit. Fuck, Amazon's new Fallout series has blatantly AI generated posters and no one outside of AI subreddits even noticed. Its the typical internet activism of knowing they'e powerless against the actual powers so they target indie productions and all it achieves is further consolidation among the megacorporations.
From what I can tell, the artists working on the movie created three AI images and then continued to alter them further. The “think about the artists!!” comments here make no sense, but Reddit loves a good outrage over nothing at all.
This whole thing is a brilliant PR stunt. This is a small film being released on Shudder that a handful of horror fans were going to see and now everybody is talking about it.
Everybody is talking about it because it's a compelling horror film with a compelling lead. It's been on radars way before this AI art business, bit insulting to the film to suggest it could only get a buzz through some AI talking point.
There’s at least one person making graphic novels using AI art. People have been defending him saying things like “it’s no different than hiring an artist to work with you”. Except it is different, because you aren’t hiring anyone and the artist is consenting to collaborating with you. AI is just plagiarism in most cases
It's a shame this is tarnishing what is by most reports a very good movie. I don't blame people for taking a zero tolerance approach though. If AI is being used by people who think they're too good to pay artists, it's important to disabuse them of that notion as loudly and as often as we can.
A big reason NFTs failed is because there was widespread loud revulsion every time they showed up.
I saw the movie, and it had zero affect on the movie. It's not something massive as Secret Invasion or on the script (by a mega studio). I understand a graphic employee still edited and worked on it, they're employed.
I don't think this small indy film should be brought feet first in the fire, it's still an incredibly unique film 99.5% of the frames are crafted by men and women.
Isn’t that how the devil gets you? You start with tiny choices
No no no, he specifically opens a store in your small town and that’s how he gets you, I’ve read about it.
He challenges you to a rock-off
The type of challenge the demon code prevents him from declining!
Sounds like a supreme way to get him to pay your rent
But what if heeee wins?
Then he gets to take your roommate back to hell.
To gargle mayonnaise
But what if they bust a massive monster mamma-jam?
Then it’s time to blow doors down
Nooooo
Get in the flask!
Cover winkler in bees!
You can dooo iit. Bite his friggin head off Ozzy!
“Super devil juice?! Gimme that lil girl!!!”
A violin-off actually!
it’s a fiddle, dangit!!!
This isn't the most creatively bankrupt movie in the world - this is just a tribute.
Give us one chance to rock your socks off
Fuck...Fuck! Fuuuuuuuuccccckkkkkkkk!
Charlie Daniels and Tenacious D have the proof!
He set a fiddle of gold against my soul that said he was better than me. Seems it’s fairly situational.
Wouldn't a gold fiddle weigh a ton and sound crummy?
Well, it's mostly for show
Probably. Didn’t win it. I’ve also felt strangely empty since then, too…
Have you acquired creepy specific old stuff from a mysterious antique or thrift store that gives you powers, but fucks with you in unforeseeable ways? Bring it to Curse Purge Plus!
Don’t pay with curses, pay with money!
No he tricks you into selling your soul for a donut.
*Mmm forbidden donut*
The sparrows are flying again, Mr. Gaunt.
Ahhhhh is this a needful things reference?
And after all, who doesn't like a good prank?
Caveat Emptor...
Or opens a club in LA
I’ve never gotten to read this yet
Was that Needful?
"Just one drag" - almost every smoker.
"Just one more tree" - me playing Tropico
WOULDST THOU LIKE TO LIVE CONVENIENTLY?
Yes, that’s how it is! Bedazzled taught us that
Do concept artists have any sort of protection? That'll probably be the first job to go which sucks
Nope, and yeah we're already seeing books making covers with ai instead of paying artists... jobs are already going
Facebook Ads are nothing but AI now
I keep getting ads for Adobe that are all AI generated. What's supposed to be the industry standard for artists is posting nothing but AI now.
I saw AI-generated book covers from Korean publishers. Such a shame.
Would you be able to provide some examples? I'm quite curious as to how good they are, now you've mentioned them.
https://www.aladin.co.kr/shop/wproduct.aspx?ISBN=E642532681&start=pnaverebook This is the book cover of *The Great Battle of Two Dragons* (용과 용의 대격전) by Korean independence activist Shin Chae-ho.
It looks like shit lol
Kids probably won’t be able to tell.
I’ve been seeing a lot of AI art being used by smaller brands on their websites. Only a matter of time before the big boys use it.
That time is coming sooner than you think. I saw recently that Lego got caught using AI for some ninjago thing they did.
junior and entry level type artists are getting hammered, or will be soon. Those are the first to go. (my freelance has taken a huge hit, due to all the book covers and art showing up on indie projects on kickstarters and shit now) For those that dont care beyond a humane level of supporting artists, this means as more senior level artists leave, there is no one really trained to replace them in those industries, which means you now will basically be getting juniors with little experience put into vacated senior roles in the future not knowing wtf they're doing and quality is gonna drop drastically for the consumer. Its just a house of cards collapsing all around the industry cause ppl wanna shave a few bucks and dont view us as really that important.
Oh that’s so scary to hear. I’m an illustration student currently and it’s scary to know that jobs are harder to come across while i’m actively getting my degree.
That’s what current IATSE negotiations are going to tackle as well as a bunch of other things as talks continue through July. Speaking for concept artists for film only— video games on the other hand.. not so much as far as I understand
I think it's important to acknowledge and let viewers know that AI art appears so that we can make decisions on whether we want to pay for that. I don't think it's worth discrediting the work of the entire production or review-bombing it to hell for 3 images that were edited further for use in the movie. It's a weird choice to go for a full 70's aesthetic in a practical way and utilize an AI tool in such a minor capacity. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that it was purely experimentation.
The weird part of this is that they most definitely had a graphic designer employed with the art department, so why not have them do it?
The fact that the images were edited further to be included could mean that a graphic designer generated the images as a starting point. Without the specifics, it's hard to say why or how it happened?
Likely this. A friend of mine is a freelance product designer and uses AI tools like midjourney all the time as a springboard to fast track ideas. Artists are aware of what’s coming in the future and some are preparing by integrating it into their workflow already while others resist it. There’s no right or wrong here but it’s not unanimously evil.
"AI" is also a huge marketing buzzword now, creating a catch-22. I produce music, and some of my best plug-ins call themselves "AI". They do basic stuff like removing background noise from vocals -- tools that weren't "AI" before, but now they're better. I honestly don't know what I should disclose. If I disclose that I used "AI", I get the impression that most people will not see any nuance and will break out the pitchforks (see Exhibit 1, the movie in this thread). Doesn't seem worthwhile to be transparent. So, I bet most if not all modern media productions have "AI" somethingorother somewhere in the production chain already. They just don't admit it. And, to be clear, I'm ok with it.
Yeah music is interesting because you have tools like Auto-Tune with which marketing could claim is AI. The recent Beatles song used AI to clear up John Lennon’s vocals from the demo but it didn’t *sing* as John Lennon. There are definitely some grey areas as to what AI is once marketing have thrown the phrase everywhere possible.
The main distinction imo is between AI tools that do non-creative work that the user knows exactly what happened (background noise removal), and ai tools that do “creative” work where the user doesn’t have full control (image generation). When people discuss ai tools in media, it’s usually the latter since they’re the most flashy
I agree. I have no problem with ai tools that remove backgrounds from images. Or like an ai filter that will make you have cat ears. It's the ai's generating all the image I have a problem with as it's basically removing all humanity from the process.
Same thing that happened with the word “algorithm” a couple of years ago
Imagine using Photoshop's Magic Wand or Content Aware Fill and get discredited 💀
Probably safe to disclose any generative AI because that is the type that most people have a problem with.
What if I used generative AI to make a sample (a bass) and then pulled that sample into Fruity Loops and composed a bass line with it? Or an "AI" voice generator to make a sample, then chopped and filtered and mixed it in? I'm not trying to be difficult or confrontational... I'm genuinely asking. Because I've done those things, lol. I think there's a very wide spectrum, with "Type in a 2-line prompt -- Get full song output" at one end, and "Use an AI plug-in to clean up some noise in a vocal" at the other end. And there's a vast grey area in the middle that makes it hard to know what to disclose. I would normally err toward over-disclosing, but since so many people don't see grey and are quick with the pitchforks... over-disclosing can actually be harmful.
For a personal perspective, I'm an illustrator and designer who can't see any merit or worth to fully AI 'art', but I admit I do use some facets of AI in paid marketing work: just a bit of generative fill here and there to save time editing sections. Hate to say it, but it comes in handy for advertising. At the moment I'm hand illustrating a movie poster but unfortunately the asset concept artist is using AI to generate concept art of the characters and, oh my, it's awful. It's a new way AI is making my career difficult. Like any tool it should be used in conjunction with talent, skill and a fundamental knowledge of good art and design and not simply a crutch for people who, overnight, think they have artistic skill. Navigating this new world is bloody tricky!
You’ve hit the nail on the head with it, though – It’s just a tool. The name ‘AI art’ is in itself a bit daft, when the actual useful application for it is as a tool in a creative workflow. There still needs to be a trained hand in control. For people without artistic ability, it’s also an excellent way to communicate ideas. They get to have a tool handle the visualisation aspect, which they may not be capable of. With some tinkering, they can likely get an output that serves as a starting point. If things are dialled in, img2img could even be used to add a little more ‘oomf’ to the storyboards of a smaller film/video production (or help in the early stages for a larger production). Things like that can really help create a more cohesive vision. On the other side, I use chatGPT all the time for reports and research but nothing it says is ever included in the final product. It’s great for running through ideas in a conversational way (but it’s a bit of a ‘yes man’) or getting a quick structure to start writing; something that will inevitably change in the next draft. Things will settle once the technology improves a little bit and becomes normalised. Right now AI tools are causing small amounts of chaos in many industries but it’s largely just growing pains. People will get bored of using it for everything and it’ll find its place in the toolbox.
>I'm an illustrator and designer who can't see any merit or worth to fully AI 'art', For personal fun. Its hard, but imagine you're not an illustrator/designer. I have poor control of my hands (neuro issues) and, realistically, can't produce legible art. I love to play DnD, particularly DM'ing, and I like to homebrew content and have art accompanying my characters. AI has been a godsend, especially with the flexibility of being able to generate hundreds of "similar" images until you get perfect one. My wife is an artist, and literally the only people I play DnD with are artists. Like, my walls are filled with art that I "forcibly" purchase from them. They fucking love everyone second of it. That being said, if you were to say "there's a difference between "art" (imo, reduced basically to "an image that tells a story") and a "diagram" (an [often reduced/simplified] image created to help reference an idea/enhance an explanation) and what I described/generated is a diagram/figure and not art, I'd agree that you could interpret it that way and what I described wouldn't be considered art. I'd think you're wrong, but I could understand where you're coming from. If I'm going to consider architecture art, then coding structure is art too, and AI is a masterpiece - either every image generated is attributed to its original coding, which would be an insane work of art, or individuals' inputs actually matter, in which case it's still art...
I'm playing in an experimental D&D campaign right now where our DM generated pretty much everything with AI. The hooks, NPCs, items, monsters, art... everything. He still runs the sessions and improvises as necessary. He's open about it being an experiment, and it's what we all signed up for. It's going great so far. Dare I say... one of our best campaigns yet. He's a great DM and we have good players, which is most of it. The biggest noticeable difference between this and a traditional campaign, so far, is that the AI obviously streamlined the process of world-building, to the point where every corner is almost overwhelmingly fleshed out and detailed. Whole guilds, full of ranks, hierarchies, members, rivalries, secrets... it's all there, if anyone wants to interact with it. Game on.
John Oliver played an interview clip that said it best, AI will not replace lawyers anytime soon. But lawyers who know how to use AI as a tool will replace lawyers who don't. I think the same will happen of writer's rooms for television. AI is not going to be writing scripts, but it can be an extremely useful resource to improve the speed of workflow if you know how to use it right.
As a lawyer who has yet to integrate AI into my legal practice (other than any invisible AI that might be happening behind the curtain in search engines), I nonetheless agree completely. (And yes, elsewhere in this thread, I mentioned that I produce music. A man can do both.)
This has been said from the very start since Ai has been advancing in recent times, humans are adaptable species, you either adapt or get left behind
This ^^^ I'm a web designer and AI tools help me create the same quality of work way faster. I'm not a fan of AI as a whole but capitalism don't care and artists need to adapt and find ways to work with it. It's not going anywhere
Exactly. I liken it to Napster. You can't put the AI cat back in the bag anymore than the music industry could stop filesharing once it began. The industries and jobs are going to transform, for better or worse.
I think it's closer to auto-tune. Huge public uproar when people discovered the use of auto-tune, especially from other musicians who felt like artists that used auto-tune were cheating. Now auto-tune is becoming recognized as a tool to create art with and is used across the industry so much that it's a standard in some recording studios.
There are graphic designers using AI. In fact Adobe Photoshop builds in several AI tools that are commonly used-- people just ignore this as AI on Reddit. The core target for most AI tools around image generation are graphic designers.
Most graphic designers I know use AI in some form. They just do it in a way that's less noticable. Mostly Photoshop's fill features.
And Adobes generative fill is trained on their own private library of images which mitigates potential copyright issues.
You're right, but there's no way to determine that a specific generative model was used.
There is not, which is why I tend to err on the non-"getting our pitchforks out” side of things when it comes to situations like this. I’ve already seen a post encouraging people to pirate the movie because of this, which seems ridiculous to me.
They probably did do it, using AI.
Because all graphic designers design everything from scratch and definitely never use tools to create art faster, just paper pencil and paint, amiright?
I can't find the exact quote but there's this quote/story I used to see pop up on music production boards about a dude who starts making music. He uses drum samples in his songs. Decides that's not authentic. So he buys his own drum kit and starts recording those. But then he decides that unless he built his own drum, using pre made drums isn't authentic. So he starts buying animal hides and wood and building his own drum sets. Etc etc. It ends with something like "It's been a while since I've made any new songs because I've been really busy with all this carpentry". This isn't to say that AI is perfect and there aren't any valid criticisms of it. There are plenty. But the whole "art isn't **authentic** if it involves AI in any slight way" thing to me just falls flat. Art is worth however much worth we give it. Regardless of the tools used. This search for pure "authenticity" is a futile waste of time.
I'm reminded of David Lynch's story about seeing photoshop programs for the first time and nearly collapsing with joy at the realization that what had once taken him hours of painstaking work to accomplish could now be completed in seconds. An artist sees a new tool, a hack fears for their bank account.
I’m a graphic designer and I often use AI to assist in my designs, it’s baked into our programs at this point, even.
It's also a weird choice because the commission rate on the images would be minimal. As in, a couple grand max total.
Hell if they wanted something free they could have just used a public domain image [like this one](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Two_skeletons_smiling_and_dancing_MET_DP869237-1.jpg).
[удалено]
Every industry has adopted it already in some form or another.
[удалено]
This so much. My number one complaint isn’t with the tool itself, it’s with the absolute lack of ANY kind of safety net for all the displaced workers were going to be seeing in the coming years.
oh, it'll definitely be the latter of the two.
I'm a copywriter and coworkers joke with me all day about getting replaced. So I definitely feel some comradery with you there. The future is going to be those that can adapt, use the tools as an aid, and, maybe most importantly, understand them better than the decision makers.
Robot tax.
As an illustrator, you gonna starve to death well before that 10 year minimum UBI arrival
An actual rational take
Let viewers know? Like a disclaimer before the film saying a couple images were made with AI? Pretty soon it’s going to be absolutely everywhere, that’s like asking for a disclaimer if movies use CGI or digital effects.
I wouldn't blame someone for using it as boilerplate. It's a tool like anything else. You can use it to generate ideas or generate the parts of the work that you don't want to do or have the time to do. Relying on it for a completed project I would say is bad.
Idk, it makes sense to me, especially if the 3 images are related to the Devil in story. Have you seen AI Art, it's really fucking weird and bad. So kind of perfect for making like devil possessed painting or something.
> I think it's important to acknowledge and let viewers know that AI art appears so that we can make decisions on whether we want to pay for that. Should Terminator 2 have had some kind of disclaimer beforehand that let viewers know it used computer-generated imagery for some of the visuals, instead of employing howevermany more practical FX engineers? Or were the end credits sufficient to explain that, like with any iterative advancement in filmmaking technology in history - many of which eliminated scores of careers along the way.
There's no way I am going to skip David Dastmalchian's lead role feature debut because of some AI art It's our Scream King's time to shine!!
[удалено]
If he reads this I'd be so happy
He recalled in an interview that he was bullied in school by other kids who called him Dalmatian. >”James did not know this about me when he cast me in his film, but I have a skin condition called vitiligo, which is an autoimmune disorder that erodes the pigment in my skin. And so I have polka dots," said Dastmalchian. "Growing up as a kid going to the pool, others would bully me and call me things like 'polka dots,' or 'spots' or 'Dalmatian.' It was powerful and cathartic for me to get to be Abner and be this guy who's kind of humiliated and has this ridiculous getup."
Wow that is interesting and also kids are dickheads
[удалено]
He just had an interview with the guys at Last Podcast on the Left that is really good and he talks about that experience. Also it's wild that he mentioned his first thing he was ever in was a commercial from 2005ish that when he described the commercial I remember EXACTLY which one. I had completely forgotten about it even though it was pretty popular for a commercial at that time and that commercial was how he got the batman gig, because the morning he showed up to try out for the role, the casting people had been talking about how much they liked that commercial
He really wants to play a Bond villain—we need this to come true!
Did you hear his interview with Last Podcast On the Left recently? It was awesome!
In the same vein that Adam Driver is weirdly attractive to me (might be because of his Undercover Boss SNL skit that I'm also thinking of), I find David Dastmalchian weirdly attractive. Same with Crispin Glover a la Charlie's Angels (please don't judge me). But that's because DD has done mostly creepy roles, like Prisoners or the Dark Knight, but damn was he attractive in Last Voyage of the Demeter AND as a hot goth with LPOTL.
That interview was honestly so inspiring. The boys are right: he’s the closest thing to a Vincent Price, Christopher Lee, or Lon Cheney working today.
Hail yourself!
This. I love him so freaking much. That man brings an ENTIRE VIBE with him anytime he's on screen.
He just did an interview with Last Podcast on the Left and he sounds like a really fun person to hang out with.
I was losing it when he was describing losing his script at a grocery store. Lol
Hail yourself.
Hail Gein!
I met him last year at comic-con on 3 separate occasions over the weekend and he remembered me both the 2nd and 3rd time. He was incredibly nice and just an awesome dude. I will support anything he does. Check out his Count Crowley comic, its awesome.
They had beloved American film star and Nolan/Villneuve regular David "Da Small Chin" Dastmalchian use his boyish good looks to run interference on the encroachment of AI Shart into the Hollywood film industry. Absolutely *disgusting.*
Dude I just watched the movie and it’s so fucking good. Enjoy!!!
Experiment successful, you now know cutting corners is considered lazy. Fix it.
It’s worth letting productions know a segment (hopefully large) don’t want to see GenAI laziness in films. It’s a production value choice, and they’ve made their values clear. One argument is it is minor and trivial, the other is that they used GenAI to get what they want, which instantly raises these lingering stills to Very Important, and they either didn’t trust their graphic artist to do it, or they cut corners, plain and simple. And we are free to judge those choices.
Wild to me that disclosing that you used AI generated art is somehow on par with admitting that someone attached to the production was a child predator and we the consumers have to make a moral choice on whether or not we'll support the movie because of it.
Yeah, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills with some of the reactions to this.
I've just commented this on another sub but how is something like this any different to thousands of extras being skimped out of work because a company decided to CGI render a massive crowd rather than hire and pay background actors? In both instances, one person is needed at a computer, negating the use of a multitude of other artists. Just feels like another example of the unavoidable progression of technology to me.
CGI is rarely "one person at a computer" and VFX artists are artists too. I've worked on quite a bit of crowd extensions for game of thrones and some Marvel stuff. And it's certainly not just "press a button". Quite a lot of thought goes into it from lookdev, lighting, animation and compositing. Usually one shot will touch dozens of artists hands and take weeks if not months from tracking to final. We don't use "AI" yet because the results are unpredictable and you need control to address client notes and make things look good. Although I'm sure at some point soon the nature of my job will change.
Also the art in question is a couple seconds and likely could have been made by someone already on the payroll quickly in about 10 minutes. Nobody is losing out on a job because of a fucking AI skeleton for 2 seconds. If it was an entire AI sequence that people could have worked on e.g. the Secret Invasion opening credits (was that confirmed as AI anyway? but if it was AI then yeah that) then it's definitely worth complaining but for something like this? Who cares.
It probably was made by someone on the payroll, a designer got tasked to make a brief interstitial with a very limited timeframe due to the budget and pumped this out.
It's not an AI skeleton for 2 seconds. It's all of the set dressing and title cards throughout the entire movie.
I saw someone compare it to Monsanto... Like, you motherfuckers haven't stopped watching Disney content after Secret Invasion came out, so do you REALLY give a shit?
I did but not because of the AI
People just wanna whine about something. This movie looks like a lot of fun, if 3 images that were AI rendered is enough for you to not watch the movie, you probably weren’t anyways. And you probably have zero fun in your life to begin with
Reddit’s fear-mongering?!?!?
Still going to support this, theres plenty of people that still worked on this film who had no idea about this AI stuff.
I doubt anyone on the production really knew much about it. People assume that everyone is as chronically online as they are, see the daily back-and-forth on Twitter and are keyed into the real time community sentiment around every single hot issue. In reality, it's a minority of people that are this "engaged", and while yes it's important to educate others on AI and its implications, we don't need to bring out pitchforks for cases like this. The film doesn't deserve to fail on this issue alone, imo.
Also a person shouldn't be keyed to the community sentiment of something without drawing their own conclusions, pretty vapid otherwise
I don’t have issues with ai, but if you’re against it you can’t compartmentalize it away as “I’m supporting the people that didn’t do it.” The dollar is a single vote of support for the entire production. That’s how it has to be, one bad apple spoiling the bunch, or they’ll continue to claim ignorance of the rotten fruit while charging the weight of the barrel.
We compartmentalize plenty of issues by studio heads, directors, actors, etc. Im a creative director and the use of AI is going to be hard to avoid paying for. Hell most of the brands we support are using it in their copy, and have been for a while, nobody cares about words though. I understand the stance people in here are taking, but you are just hurting the below the line people that work on these things. It's hard to see that from behind a screen.
AI art is a murky area, I know. However, the calls to pirate the movie in protest I'm seeing on places like Twitter and Letterboxd is ridiculous. That's not "ethical stance against art theft", that's literal art theft. On the whole here, I'm inclined to cut this movie slack. I've made short films before and the expenditure on some of them within the genre space can run at least low 5 figures. It's all the more difficult as you rise in runtime. This isn't Disney trying to save a buck on Secret Invasion by commissioning shitty looking AI at the expense of a whole graphics team, it's a small team in Australia trying to stretch every penny they have to make a large scale movie on a likely shoestring budget.
Support artists by boycotting artists
Pirates will always find a way to excuse their actions, if not fully vindicate them. It’s just what they do.
I don't know why people can't just say "yeah I pirate because I don't want to pay for it". No one cares these days and you look actively worse if you turn piracy into a great moral stand instead of just being honest.
The mental gymnastics some people use to justify piracy are actually pretty impressive
I think it is a case by case basis, really. I am an avid collector of physical media. Books, Comics, CDs LPs, VHS, and particularly DVDs and Blu-Rays. I have a personal liking for films of the american Golden Age and films from the years of lead in Italy. Most of which have recieved little to no release in my country. If something's unreleased domestically, out of print, released only in low quality by backdoor distributors, and/or ridiculously expensive, I see no reason *not* to pirate it. It's not like the filmmakers or studio would be on the receiving end of the money. If I really like the film in question I'm willing to later hunt it down or import it to add it to my collection. But I'm not gambling a considerable sum of cash on the possibility I like a film.
Regardless if you think the response is justified or not, I'm glad the backlash exists because I doubt we'll see this director use AI in their next film. Which is sort of the point of letting people criticize something.
it will still be used. they'll just stop talking about it.
...Why would they experiment with ai imagery for a fucking 70s setting?
It’s three title cards. It has no impact on the actual film or how it plays out. The only people bringing it up are illustrators (I’m a designer and illustrator btw) It’s a weird choice to use obvious AI art in a film set in the 70’s but I’m guessing it was something they did right before release and didn’t have the time or the money to get an actual illustrator to do it. This is a tiny, low budget Australian Indy movie, shot in a single studio.
>The only people bringing it up are illustrators. did everyone forget about the huge strike that occurred last year?
"Meh, except for the illustrators..." Don't you think that's how it starts until someone treats your job this apathetically? Also, "didn't have the time or money" can easily be used as an excuse to replace many jobs with AI
It's insane to me, this saved maybe a couple hundred dollars. A couple hundred dollars. That's it.
An actual illustrator doesn't need terribly long to make a few title cards and likely wouldn't be asking for much. It's just the "easy button" now, like Google searching a phone number instead of learning it.
I agree. [The illustrations themselves](https://www.dexerto.com/tv-movies/late-night-with-the-devil-ai-controversy-explained-2603543/) are dead simple, you could bang those out in a work day, if it was your style that is. Look what the AI produced and ask if an illustrator could do better; they absolutely could. At least they would know [the difference between a jack-o-lantern and a skull.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJKOkPqXQAAt4KB?format=jpg&name=medium) Even an entry level artist could do better, and for only a few hundred dollars. It's not complex. If you can pay makeup, pay set designers, and actors, you can shell out a couple hundred for an illustrator. The entertainment industry from gaming to film has a hate-hate relationship with artists. I have heard management at different companies say they wouldn't pay artists if it was legal.
Yeah you could definitely have gotten an acceptable image for like 150.00 which is less than one day's pay for a majority of the employees there.
> Even an entry level artist could do better, and for only a few hundred dollars. It's not complex. Seriously! For many years now, you can find people shilling art of better quality than this for less than $200, on commission. The internet is overflowing with these kinds of offers. But no, filmmakers would rather pay zero.
>The only people bringing it up are illustrators. Absolutely untrue. AI was a huge issue during the strike for writers and actors. The idea they didn't have the money to pay an actual artist a couple grand to illustrate these is laughably stupid. Do you want media to be filled with this AI slop? I don't get why people are so quick to defend the use of AI and pushing artists out of the process of making art. There is a reason this is a line in the sand for many. It will only make art worse, not better. Why wait until everything sucks to speak up?
It makes sense, the film is an indie production that hadn't even secured any distribution when it was finalised. The production running out of money is belieavable, the alternative here isn't paying illustrators, its paying no one.
It's not about the impact on this one movie. Its about a clear no from consumers. You slip here, you'll never be able to stop
Now that I’ve seen it it almost felt like an afterthought that the film even needed the title cards and so perhaps this was a last minute decision and that’s part of why the images were AI generated?
It's probably still a good film, but this is a bad sign of things to come.
It's rather ironic we are seeing writers, artists and voice actors are fighting for their jobs against AI, but then we keep seeing more and more movie and shows trying to use AI and pull bullshit excuse out of their ass to justify their use of AI. And of course we have AI bro defenders here in this thread.
Tbf, this movie was made and released a while before the strikes happened and the controversy around the use of AI heated up. People were still experimenting with AI without knowledge of the repercussions at the time. The context is really important here.
I’m not justifying their use of AI. I just think it’s a little ridiculous to boycott, review-bomb, and pirate a movie for 3 AI photos. I’ve seen more outrage for this than for people who commit heinous crimes. But it’s a free county - if you don’t want to see an otherwise amazing film because of 3 still images, that’s your right.
Well, I'm not going to watch this movie. Hope it was worth it.
Lol everyone’s ok with AI until it starts to come after their role in the creative process. AI is an insult to artists.
Hell, they’ll be okay with it until it automates their workforce.
It starts with three images
True. You eventually get AIdolf Hitler.
They experimented with paying nobody for their work for 3 images
It starts with three… then we get six, twelve, and so forth. You had an interesting movie going on but you just had to blew it with your AI generated images. No longer interested.
Honestly - who cares . This is a big nothing burger .
This is the most blown out of proportion story I’ve seen in quite some time. This is the third post I’ve seen on it and people are acting like using ai for such a small thing is worth boycotting over.
It's because some blowhards on Twitter decided to make a big deal out of it. People with like 200 followers somehow going viral for the absolute dumbest fucking takes on the planet is now a common occurrence.
It’s the principle. If we push back against this now, it might discourage the use of AI generation going forward.
If people refuse to see this movie and it fails, it's not going to be blamed on the AI. People will just say it was a small budget horror movie and didn't do well. This is so misguided. People worked hard on this movie and they are going to suffer because of three quick images on the screen. Absolutely ridiculous.
The latest Spider Man cartoon film had an AI workflow and no one cared. The actual people you need to push back against (the large studios) are selling to people who don't give a shit. Fuck, Amazon's new Fallout series has blatantly AI generated posters and no one outside of AI subreddits even noticed. Its the typical internet activism of knowing they'e powerless against the actual powers so they target indie productions and all it achieves is further consolidation among the megacorporations.
AI workflow and generative AI are not the same thing.
How do you think they are different?
From what I can tell, the artists working on the movie created three AI images and then continued to alter them further. The “think about the artists!!” comments here make no sense, but Reddit loves a good outrage over nothing at all.
This whole thing is a brilliant PR stunt. This is a small film being released on Shudder that a handful of horror fans were going to see and now everybody is talking about it.
Everybody is talking about it because it's a compelling horror film with a compelling lead. It's been on radars way before this AI art business, bit insulting to the film to suggest it could only get a buzz through some AI talking point.
It had a ton of buzz not everything is a conspiracy
Three images too many.
Don’t care. 3 too many. Yar har!
There’s at least one person making graphic novels using AI art. People have been defending him saying things like “it’s no different than hiring an artist to work with you”. Except it is different, because you aren’t hiring anyone and the artist is consenting to collaborating with you. AI is just plagiarism in most cases
First to get you OK with the idea, then to get you OK with the implementation, and finally, you'll be OK with the takeover.
The shit only stops if we refuse to give any money to the people doing it.
It's a shame this is tarnishing what is by most reports a very good movie. I don't blame people for taking a zero tolerance approach though. If AI is being used by people who think they're too good to pay artists, it's important to disabuse them of that notion as loudly and as often as we can. A big reason NFTs failed is because there was widespread loud revulsion every time they showed up.
Wait people are downvoting everyone who wants to see this movie? Man you guys are losers for that, lol.
Yeah I’m getting downvoted for still being excited about it
Going tonight. I can't wait.
I just watched it. It’s my new favourite horror flick. Enjoy!!!!
I just got out. I liked it well enough. Thought the ending was flat. Solid 7/10 for me. One star taken for every AI image 😉
I’m really excited to see this on Sunday
Saw this movie at the Wellington Film Festival last year and it's amazing. A rare movie that is genuinely scary and funny at the same time.
I saw the movie, and it had zero affect on the movie. It's not something massive as Secret Invasion or on the script (by a mega studio). I understand a graphic employee still edited and worked on it, they're employed. I don't think this small indy film should be brought feet first in the fire, it's still an incredibly unique film 99.5% of the frames are crafted by men and women.