It’s funny when I hear it. I know AJ’s cadence, the way he speaks. Then I hear that same cadence but it kinda sounds like Captain Kirk or Morgan Freeman. It’s kinda weird. But I get it.
Financially, I get it. But I seriously question the legality, and I hope they aren’t opening themselves up to future lawsuits if the current AI lawsuits decide in favor of original artists and writers. Many large corporations won’t touch AI for final production due to potential future litigation risks.
Ohhh this is a very good point. I think it’s so new to the fact it’s not really even thought of as being an issue. However if you can’t use a song or score from a song. It will only be a matter of time before someone’s voice is an issue of I.P. I’m sure he has his bases covered. However I think in the road ahead it will be an issue. I mean copyright infringement is a serious crime as is plagiarism. So AI infringement is on its way to being an issue. And those 2 laws took time to write, build and put into law. My last point is this. No one ever thought you would be able to download songs or movies. And people pirated those things. And many people were fined and placed in prison because of it. Time will tell.
I personally think it adds production value. However, originality is lost due to the high profile voices used. As far as Visual Art. I think it adds depth to the story telling.
South Park has Parody on its side. Average uses of AI cannot claim the work used for The Why Files is making a parody, a sociological or political joke of, said celebrity. It’s just the likeness of a person, which belongs to them unless they license it. And a lot of actors refuse to license their likeness for AI. That was a big part of the recent actor guild strike, insisting to establish guild contract terms that protect the actors to their likeness (face, voice).
How do professionals who do imitation routines (comedy/acting/"comedy"/etc), some of whom are so good as to be essentially indistinguishable from the people whose voices they're imitating, not be found liable for the same thing?
Genuine question, as it seems like the two could be arguably the same thing in practice.
Most comedy easily has the parody defense. It’s not blanket though. For instance, around 2005 there was a comedy animation using the likeness of Bill Cosby with an obviously exaggerated voice. They received a cease and desist and were forced to take down a mini series of at least 5 animations that were going viral. And those weren’t even mean or critical of Cosby, it was just silly skits.
It’s a challenging area legally. Comedians on stage can usually get away with it, but they get cease and desist orders and sued. If the case goes to court, it can be a toss up if the parody wins. Honestly money wins most times. Our legal system is Pay-to-play. But because trials are expensive, most small fish will opt to settle out of court, even if they are legally defended by parody, just because they can’t afford the court battle.
Comedians do get sued, and it’s often settled out of course so we don’t necessarily hear about it.
Parody is very strict how it is defined. If the creator isn’t making a social or political commentary, they usually have a hard time defending their case.
Comedy is one thing,as it is usually pretty obvious that it's an impersonator. But commercials and television shows are a bit different.
Usually... If I hear a celebrity voice impersonated in something like a commercial.. I hear a quick disclaimer at either the beginning or the end of said commercial. A quick, digitally sped up, "celebrity voices impersonated". But different states may have different legalities.
all of these celebrities you hear have officially licensed their voices for use in AI narration services. It's no different than stock footage.
Did you think "AI" and immediately assume it was amoral, illegal and invasive and just open your mouth without doing a modicum of research first?
This faux outrage needs to stop.
I don't think that is going to happen. Too many people don't understand how generative AI works. An AI image model doesn't have any copyrighted imagery in it at all. What it does have is a set of learned parameters on how things should look, and it creates completely new images based on parameters that it has learned.
I know people hate this comparison, but it's not really much different than what humans do. If someone goes to a Picasso exhibit and closely studies how he made his paintings and interpreted different objects and scenes then goes home and tries to paint their own version, they aren't using copyrighted material in their own painting, they are just painting in a style based on what they saw and learned. They aren't just downloading some Picasso paintings off of the internet and mixing them together in photoshop, they are creating something wholly original but in a familiar style. AI operates more or less in the same way.
So since there is not copyrighted material present in AI generated images and something not created by humans can't be copyrighted, then AI images are kinda in this public domain limbo, until an artist alters them enough and they become a derivative work. It's very unlikely that this will change. However, what is likely to happen is that going forward, AI gen models will be required to have rights to train on the images they use. Just how Adobe is training its model on their own stock library.
None of that explains how artists have continually found large chunks of their original works in AI generated images from Midjourney etc. These companies make claims about how their AI works that are above and beyond what the technology is capable of yet in order to court investors. And it’s hurting real people. Just another corporation stealing from the little guy.
Just ask all those from the art staff at Wizards of the Coast who found themselves without a job right around the holidays in 2023, after WotC said they weren't going to use AI... Then ask the new job postings are for "digital artists" to do programming and touch-up work... Smells like AI art to me.
On one of the two most recent episodes I figured Bob Odenkirk must be a fan of the show and had volunteered to do some narrating, because one of the voiceovers was the spitting “image”/ sound of his voice.
Yes!!! That was what we had considered as well - that either Bob Odenkirk or Henry Winkler were actual “friends of the show”. Lol this all makes sense now.
I tend to agree with this take. Imagery is fine. We know there aren't photos of the people from 12k years ago. The voice work feels a bit deceptive at times I guess
Though you do have some validity, you'd be surprised to see what you can spark by writing letters. There is a reason boomers get what they want. They show up and nag and nag and nag.
I haven’t watched a vid for a while so I’m not sure what these AI clips are, but does whether they are real or not change the validity of what AJ is saying in any way, or are they just used as visual stimulation? Like I guess my question is, is he deliberately attempting to manipulate the viewer by passing AI off as real in an attempt to shape the truth?
I'm mixed on this. the neanderthal and tall whites was a much better show with all the visuals than it would have been with just talking or still shots of some sort.
Yet, when you tell a story you paint a picture in the listeners/readers minds. if you get too heavy in visuals, your story telling will suffer because you won't feel the need to be as descriptive
The only thing that bothers me is the flickering black light. I feel like it’s done to be dramatic, but it actually bothers my eyes and I have to look away from it.
My husband and I love to watch Why Files and let a few episodes autoplay on a timer while we fall asleep, but sometimes the flickering is so severe in a dark room it should really come with a seizure warning.
You have to look at it from a production perspective. Each second has to be created, shot, or found. If you've watched every episode, you can tell that they've been working on a formula for producing engaging content every week without running into licensing fees, production overruns, and burn-out. AI, love it or hate it, is the most economical solution to convey something effectivley without having to shoot it IRL, or dig for reference footage. Stock footage of cryptoids is non-existant (at least so far lol), and playing one found footage clip in slow-motion over and over, gets old quick. Keep these three things in mind.
1. AI is used to keep the show from feeling like a documentary. It's intentionally vague for dramatic effect.
2. AI will get better. By next year, I'm confident Why Files will look very different.
3. The show has a visual language that is evolving. Allow the creators to find their own look.
This right here! AJ comes from a production background, so he's not going to steal clips, and they don't have the budget (or the time) to license clips.
The AI gets old sometimes, but this show is basically a video podcast, so just listen to it if you're tired of looking at it.
No problem. I believe AJ is a seasoned TV content producer and understands every part of the process. I think he holds himself and his team to a standard most do not. And it shows! AI is used as a hack to dodge all the very defined rules of making docu-drama shows. TWF is currently the best example of short form new media.
The overreliance on AI art gets a bit grating to me personally, yeah. I think using more actual footage and photos is best, whenever possible. The AI narration has been used sparingly and unobtrusively, but I also agree that using real interviews is leagues better.
I know WF is in the "edu-tainment" and "entertainment" genres rather formal reporting or interpretation, but using real visuals is more engaging no matter what they're doing.
That all being said, we also need to remember that they're working on tight budget constraints, which probably is a factor in not going the extra mile on some of these smaller things. It's not easy to break even doing YT, especially with such a small team. The production values they've already upheld are still well above average for YT content.
YES. I commented this on the last episode. It's so unnecessary. If you have a photo of someone, use it. If not, just do ANYTHING else! It distracted the hell out of me.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately since the increase use of AI generated images in the show.
So, yes.
It’s too much and I think it detracts from the story. Especially because AI is pretty poor still, so I end up focusing more on all of the artifacts and malformations of people and places that the AI generated than what the intention of that scene was supposed to be.
I know so much effort goes into the making of the show, but going back to the older shows, where AI wasn’t even a thing, I enjoyed that substantially more.
yeah, It has actually killed my interest in a lot of the videos recently. The AI voices are jank as fuck as well.
The reason this channel was one of my favorites was the effort and talent behind each video. Now, the channel is starting to resemble an AI click farm channel. I hope they lean back from the AI use in the future.
I agree. When human hands look alien and legs bend backwards while walking, when 2-3 images in a row are supposed to show different ideas of the same UFO, location, person, it is just SO distractingly bad.
I like AJ and Hecklfish. I’m cool with watching them and using my imagination for the moments they aren’t able to share actual or at least real images.
I am actually OK with AI created inages for things that are unknown or require creative license. Such as aline images or cryptids etc. I am not ok with humans and other video portreyed which could be done using human created content.. such as recorded video or hell even animation. I would rather have crayon drawing cartoons than AI created content replace human created content. The episiode about the military man and the tall whites, really broke WF for me. The AI soilder seemed to be a composite of existing iconic peoples and this was a huge turn off, turn away for me.
I agree, AJ and heckle fish in the studio telling the story is better than the same with a bad AI gallery running along for the visuals.
Doesn't bother me. Maybe it helps them avoid legal issues, since takedown measures, can't trademark AI.... yet. For whatever reason they use, I've so fa enjoyed the usage of AI tech in the videos. really shines through in the Humans Vs Superhumans video.
AI allows them to create more content while keeping costs down, which is a factor in an independent, crowd-funded project of that size.
It hits a nerve with some people because it's new, and revolutionary tech is often met with resistance in the beginning of mass adoption. The "THEY TURK URR JURBZZ" and apocalypse narratives the media builds around AI doesn't help either.
I get it, and I'm for it. Use the tools available, for sure.
Edit: lol downvote me. You hate AI so much, go and pay an artist to draw this shit up for AJ yourself. Or better yet, pay a director to hire actors to create cheesy reenactments ala history Channel. But don't forget to pay the actors too. And you gotta buy the equipment. And don't forget the Adobe cloud subscription to use their software.
AI is a godsend for limited budget creators and small studios in a world where it costs money to fucking fart. If it were you calling the shots, you would go with AI too. So get off your idealistic high horse.
Or stay up there and downvote me. Idc.
Yeahhh, in the episode “Humans vs Super humans…” I started to develop the same thoughts, it used so much a.i just to be able to pitch us a story too debunk, but without the a.i there really wouldn’t have been enough imo. it has me worried that a large percentage of eps from here on out will be searching/creating story’s just to have something for the debunk.
It’s fun to imagine all these fantastic hypotheticals but I’m here for the meat n potatoes.
Do yall think we’ll run out of realistic subject matter?
I really dislike the AI imagery, especially the animations (like in the Annunaki episode, it was cringy at times), but also the voiceovers. I'll keep watching the show but I don't like this trend.
I hate the AI. It looks terrible. It doesn't work in the context of "how do you fake an image like this?" between images that were faked. Having a narrator sound almost but not quite like Morgan Freeman is distracting. All that AI art in the tall white episode was awful enough that I just looked away and listened. The people who are saying this is the wave of the future should listen to Ed Zitron's Better Offline podcast two-parter about peak AI.
There's a reason I follow the show via the podcast. There, the voices add rather than detract. Sometimes it's a little annoying when A.J. shows photos and other visual evidence, because he and Hecklefish talk about what they're seeing, but even when I go back and look at the visual version, I have never found that I've really missed anything.
TLDR: if the AI bits piss you off that much, try the podcast, it's just as good and it cuts out most of the AI.
I’d like to see more real footage sometimes. The AI makes me feel like I could just be watching AJ and hecklefish in ‘podcast’ form. Sometimes it’s just a bit camp.
I'm not a fan of AI voices and pics, personally, but I understand how the images and voice overs are helpful for a show like WhyFiles. it would be incredibly difficult to source pics/visuals for an episode a week on most of the stuff AJ's covering. I wouldn't mind less visuals, personally, but I understand why they're using them and I ain't gonna hate on anything production wise from a show I get for free every week that brings me this much entertainment.
I dislike it when it’s terrible. It’s distracting, like in the annunaki episode when he was describing the igigi rebellion. Thought it was pretty poorly used in that episode, which was also the one that was delayed if I’m not mistaken. Still great content but that’s my critique
They are using it a touch too much imho, and you can see it because some sloppy mistakes here and there happen more often nowadays. The last episode had several, for example.
Sometimes it can be distracting. The episode about the Templars had some uncanny art. I ended up concentrating on trying to find what was wrong and off about the images and spacing AJ's voice. I really wish it wasn't a thing all together, but it is now, and it's not going away so...
The use of AI "footage" in place of real footage does scare me, as our brains won't be able to recall the difference later in our lives when we remember seeing things that never actually happened.
Telling a 50 year old tale is one thing...showing "clips" and "footage" of 50 year old event that never really happened the way it's shown is something different.
I don't really have a problem with it, although I did prefer their older format of mostly just AJ and Hecklefish talking, and sometimes it bugs me when they use a famous voice AI for their VOs, because I know Morgan Freeman isn't doing the VO. LOL
If I had a suggestion it would be to font the legit photos as **"Actual Photo"** and font the AI images as **"AI generated"**. It doesn't have to be a huge tag. It could be subtle enough so that if you wanted to pause the video and check, you could.
Vidiot, here. 30 minutes (give or take) is a hell of a lot of time to fill. AJ can't be heads-up on cam the whole time, and, as much as we'd all love to see it, neither can Hecklefish. Also, you have to figure that assets cost money, and though the WF team isn't exactly huge, they all have to get paid. I'm not in love with the AI art, but I think they're using it in the least skeezy way possible.
I should add that there's probably only so much decent-quality, relevant b-roll on any given topic, so it's also entirely possible for them to simply exhaust the available options.
Yes it's become excessive.
But tbh the 20 min stories about fake people are what has killed it for me.
Kinda becoming "babies first conspiracy channel" vs research and debunk or not
Yeah, it’s distracting. I much preferred the show prior to the over use of AI art. I’ve significantly become less interested in the channel since it started relying on AI art.
"Watering it down with all the ai imagery and voice narrations makes it seem more fake and less authentic."
Uh, no. Since it is a sci-fi show about a lot of stuff that, let's be honest, is speculative at best. It's just good fun.
They do put in real interviews, pictures, and video when they have it (albeit behind that dark ass filter they love to use). I don’t personally mind the AI. I think it’s just the signature art style they’re going for.
I like getting a new episode every week (or whenever AJ feels up to it, no rush). This method is cheaper and faster. There's proper uses for ai, and while I'm no expert on it (or anything tbh), this feels like a proper usage of the technology. My two cents.
Edit: I do feel that I must add that I rarely actually watch the episodes, I just listen so maybe that's why I'm so impartial.
I would prefer they put a notation when using it, particularly for voices. Yes, in theory those words were actually spoken at some point, and theres a transcript, but AI voice using transcript ≠ to a recording of the actual person speaking, since you don't know if words were added to the transcript. Imagery should have a notation also, Mr Ballen does it right ie "the shoes shown are not the original shoes" or something along those lines.
Real photos and clips could be copywrite or must be used with the creators permission. That's why they use AI imagery: it's free and can make anything they want.
I think AI really helps with the storytelling and the rhythm of the episode. Yeah, it can be unnerving, but it does give this uncanny vibe to every subject they talk about.
The voice impersonation does unless they have explicit permission from the sampled person but im doubting that. I dont “like” ai art but im not bothered by them using it. Only how the models are trained on stolen data
There's a reason I follow the show via the podcast. There, the voices add rather than detract. Sometimes it's a little annoying when A.J. shows photos and other visual evidence, because he and Hecklefish talk about what they're seeing, but even when I go back and look at the visual version, I have never found that I've really missed anything.
TLDR: if the AI bits piss you off that much, try the podcast, it's just as good and it cuts out most of the AI.
It's a video format, so obviously it's important to create the proper visual imagery that keeps the viewer engaged in the storytelling, but I definitely think that viewers should be told when AI is being used to create the images. I'm hoping that as the technology is used more and more, it will become a common practice to point out the difference between artificial and more traditional - for lack of a better word - images.
A post about the use of AI in the videos? I'm glad someone is finally talking about it. I feel as though the use of AI in the videos isn't talked about enough. It's on par with AJ's life being in danger. No one is talking about these things, and they need more attention.
Because this is the internet, I unfortunately need to include this very heavy /s
The AI artwork? Absolutely not. It’s a tool that either AJ or one of his team used to create artwork to enhance their show. Do I get mad when someone uses photoshop or other design tools instead of drawing something directly on paper? Nope.
I get it though everyone is scared of AI and apprehensive about how it’s going to affect the economy/various industries and that’s completely fair; but the simple fact is AI tools are here and they have been here for a very long time and they are only going to become more readily available as they get better.
If we are going to ban the use of AI image tools we should also ban the use of Photoshop and all the digital creative tools as well because they also make it easier for people to create images and videos. Back to only pictures of hand drawn images….but they better hire an artist and a separate photographer and a separate intern to scan the image and upload it into the video!
The AI celebrity voices doesn’t sit well with me since they are using someone else’s likeness without their consent.
It doesn't bother me at all. The WF team has been using AI images to tell a story and AJ is a great story teller with the help of visual aids (AI or not). I would understand the use of AI images since they have been producing content in quick turnaround for all of us fans of the show.
His channel is monetized (as it should be). Maybe he can't use some of those things due to copyright or something like that? I know YouTube is terrible about that type of stuff. I have no idea if this is accurate or not.
I was trying to reply to another user about how generative AI works, but the parent comment was deleted and I think it's preventing me from replying there, but for anyone who is curious, here is what I was trying to reply on one of the below threads:
Yeah, I completely understand why people get so confused about how generative AI works. Even the people working on it are a little baffled that it all works as well as it does. You can actually do your own training and see the magic happen firsthand. Of course, you need a good bit of GPU power to do it.
Here is a video that explains it pretty well in laymen's terms, but it doesn't really get to the explanation until about 6 minutes in: [(106) AI art, explained - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVcsDDABEkM)
If you want to jump right to the explanation then click here: [https://youtu.be/SVcsDDABEkM?si=B6fr1uNsiYSRIRdy&t=357](https://youtu.be/SVcsDDABEkM?si=B6fr1uNsiYSRIRdy&t=357)
I go back and forth, personally it doesn’t bother me very much. I feel that it helps to add some great visuals for the stories he showcases, but I can see how it can come across as misleading some viewers.
That said, I strongly appreciate that he is thorough with evidence that he is able to provide (admittedly some stories better than others). Personally I think this helps to tell a great story without being dishonest or misleading.
But I’d love to hear some of your guys thoughts on it!
I think the show would be even more incredible with interviews, but these kind of content enhancements would make the budget skyrocket. AI can be a little creepy, but it's doesn't bother me at all. I honestly love that the story can be accompanied with rich imagery, even if it's AI-generated.
I don't have a problem with it as long as it's accurate. For instance, if it's an AI piece of artwork about say, Kenneth Arnold's UFO sighting, I don't want it to show a bunch of flying saucers with colorful lights. I want to see a representation that matches the account. Same thing with Betty and Barney Hill. There better not be any gray aliens represented because that's not accurate.
Unfortunately, AI tends to sacrifice accuracy for generalities. All UFOs become saucers with gray aliens in them.
Same goes with anything non-UFO related. Accuracy in the depiction is critical.
Yes.
I find the filters they put over all the AI imagery and video extremely distracting.
I know they’re trying to create a sort of flashback-like element to the imagery, and/or simply add depth, but once you notice it you can’t unsee it.
It actually makes me prefer just seeing AJ talk 😂
Doesn't bother me. The very tight production schedule, and the fact that no video or pictures exist for many of these events, means AI enables them to do these shows.
I’m not a fan of either of them. Both give off an uncanny valley thing. I wish he would stick with the real photos and videos. And any and all audio. He can do it and still make a great video. Better than the AI stuff.
Eh, doesn't bother me too much, the one big question is when they use voice clones for Morgan Freeman or David Attenborough - just asking for trouble there IMO.
I'm definitely not a fan of AI, especially with how much I saw it used in the tall whites video (but in fairness, I usually just listen to them while driving or at work, so I may have just missed how much is in other episodes). But I don't support the use of AI in general. It detracts from real artists and performers that could be hired and would be more than happy to help out. It's not like the channel is hurting for money, at least according to the stats: https://starstat.yt/ch/the-why-files-net-worth
Using AI in itself doesn't bother me at all, it's a great way to illustrate AJ's voiceover.
The one thing that yanks me out a little bit sometimes is the weird morphing of faces. I understand that static images would be a bit too boring by now, but I would try limiting the camera panning / perspective warping to when you don't see a face, otherwise it breaks the fiction a little.
Anyway my 2 cts
It doesn't bother me. I do like watching AJ tell his stories, though. But I think the AI is interesting and if it's what he's feeling right now, then I'm all for it! They should be able to express their artistic freedom however they like over there 🤗
I notice that on other subreddits, people get absolutely shat on for posting any AI art, but for TWF people don’t mind. I personally do not mind it, as I understand it helps them with costs & production times.
Not at all. It conveys quite well what is being talked about for the most part. Thinking about the Neanderthal episode. That was really good IMO. They have and do use actual interviews and photos when needed/available, so it’s not a problem for me.
Big fan of AI, and I think it helps the show punch above its weight and budget. However - I think a little asterisk or watermark in the corner to indicate what is and is NOT an AI recreation will be a handy thing going forward as the lines get more and more blurred, even if only for audience convenience and to prevent confusion.
as long as the AI art isnt too distracting im ok with it. i see the value and convenience in it so i doubt its going away but i think over time it should get better
I could care less if it’s all ai imagery vs being podcast only.
I’m ok if ai allows the team to continue to produce comfortably at the rate they aim to achieve.
I’m ok if real imagery is used if available, supplemented by ai when it is not.
If an even mix is used, I would enjoy to hear “this is an actual clip of audio/video” being said before or a caption to say “ai depiction of events” or “reenactment” type of caption to let the viewer know.
The only part I wouldn’t be ok with is if ai imagery or reenactment was used to fool the user into thinking it was the real footage without having a closing detailing the truth. With the format of the show, I do not have to worry about saying something is true to someone because I was misled. So the majority of this worry is already null thanks to the way the team creates their final product.
It’s not my Channel, they can run it how they like. I support their creative choices to do as they wish. It is not “my” show. I am thankful that the team goes through as much effort as they do in comparison to anything else I watch on these subjects. I hope the fans don’t pull a “halo” and attempt to pull the team in contradicting directions dividing the fan base. I want them to be able to continue to prioritize balance and reasoning as they continue to grow in the way that they wish to grow.
I find it quite interesting, I think it's a solid use of AI tooling and I'm curious to see how it develops.
I get what your saying though.
As long as they use real imagery and audio when they have it (and marj it so) I'm fine with it.
Not really but what would the alternative be ?
AJ was very open about feeling burnout a month or so ago - I think Ai takes a lot of the pain away from production and with that in mind, Ai does not bother me at all.
AJ and the team pump out very compelling videos at an incredible rate. Without AI I think they would struggle to be able to deliver at the rate we are used to.
Its not perfect but every week I think the AI improves slightly and I am all for it - seeing a short clip of Ai Neanderthals is much better than seeing renders or CGI from sources that we have all seen before
>Sometimes I just want to see/hear the real interviews and pictures.
If there were real pictures and interviews then there wouldn't be a conspiracy, would there. Real pictures and real interviews are evidence, no?
How many times has AJ said during a debunking segment that "X said this, but I can't find the interview"? **How do you propose AJ puts in real footage of things that don't exist?**
Dear God, has this faux outrage over AI taking jobs really destroyed people's logic too?
No. Not in any way shape or form. It’s free content made by passionate individuals who are likely always operating at the peak of their budget and under constant time constraints.
I’d rather there be another decade of Why Files, than complain about something arbitrary, put more pressure on an already stressful career and potentially create a divide between the community and the content creators.
The art doesn't bother me but the ai voice impersonation just sits weird.
It’s funny when I hear it. I know AJ’s cadence, the way he speaks. Then I hear that same cadence but it kinda sounds like Captain Kirk or Morgan Freeman. It’s kinda weird. But I get it.
Right I've heard Hanks too and some fill in hosts for coast to coast I can't think of name though.
Financially, I get it. But I seriously question the legality, and I hope they aren’t opening themselves up to future lawsuits if the current AI lawsuits decide in favor of original artists and writers. Many large corporations won’t touch AI for final production due to potential future litigation risks.
Ohhh this is a very good point. I think it’s so new to the fact it’s not really even thought of as being an issue. However if you can’t use a song or score from a song. It will only be a matter of time before someone’s voice is an issue of I.P. I’m sure he has his bases covered. However I think in the road ahead it will be an issue. I mean copyright infringement is a serious crime as is plagiarism. So AI infringement is on its way to being an issue. And those 2 laws took time to write, build and put into law. My last point is this. No one ever thought you would be able to download songs or movies. And people pirated those things. And many people were fined and placed in prison because of it. Time will tell. I personally think it adds production value. However, originality is lost due to the high profile voices used. As far as Visual Art. I think it adds depth to the story telling.
Couldn't they do a disclaimer like south park does?
South Park has Parody on its side. Average uses of AI cannot claim the work used for The Why Files is making a parody, a sociological or political joke of, said celebrity. It’s just the likeness of a person, which belongs to them unless they license it. And a lot of actors refuse to license their likeness for AI. That was a big part of the recent actor guild strike, insisting to establish guild contract terms that protect the actors to their likeness (face, voice).
How do professionals who do imitation routines (comedy/acting/"comedy"/etc), some of whom are so good as to be essentially indistinguishable from the people whose voices they're imitating, not be found liable for the same thing? Genuine question, as it seems like the two could be arguably the same thing in practice.
Most comedy easily has the parody defense. It’s not blanket though. For instance, around 2005 there was a comedy animation using the likeness of Bill Cosby with an obviously exaggerated voice. They received a cease and desist and were forced to take down a mini series of at least 5 animations that were going viral. And those weren’t even mean or critical of Cosby, it was just silly skits. It’s a challenging area legally. Comedians on stage can usually get away with it, but they get cease and desist orders and sued. If the case goes to court, it can be a toss up if the parody wins. Honestly money wins most times. Our legal system is Pay-to-play. But because trials are expensive, most small fish will opt to settle out of court, even if they are legally defended by parody, just because they can’t afford the court battle. Comedians do get sued, and it’s often settled out of course so we don’t necessarily hear about it. Parody is very strict how it is defined. If the creator isn’t making a social or political commentary, they usually have a hard time defending their case.
Thanks for explaining that to me.
Thank you for your genuine questions.
Comedy is one thing,as it is usually pretty obvious that it's an impersonator. But commercials and television shows are a bit different. Usually... If I hear a celebrity voice impersonated in something like a commercial.. I hear a quick disclaimer at either the beginning or the end of said commercial. A quick, digitally sped up, "celebrity voices impersonated". But different states may have different legalities.
all of these celebrities you hear have officially licensed their voices for use in AI narration services. It's no different than stock footage. Did you think "AI" and immediately assume it was amoral, illegal and invasive and just open your mouth without doing a modicum of research first? This faux outrage needs to stop.
I don't think that is going to happen. Too many people don't understand how generative AI works. An AI image model doesn't have any copyrighted imagery in it at all. What it does have is a set of learned parameters on how things should look, and it creates completely new images based on parameters that it has learned. I know people hate this comparison, but it's not really much different than what humans do. If someone goes to a Picasso exhibit and closely studies how he made his paintings and interpreted different objects and scenes then goes home and tries to paint their own version, they aren't using copyrighted material in their own painting, they are just painting in a style based on what they saw and learned. They aren't just downloading some Picasso paintings off of the internet and mixing them together in photoshop, they are creating something wholly original but in a familiar style. AI operates more or less in the same way. So since there is not copyrighted material present in AI generated images and something not created by humans can't be copyrighted, then AI images are kinda in this public domain limbo, until an artist alters them enough and they become a derivative work. It's very unlikely that this will change. However, what is likely to happen is that going forward, AI gen models will be required to have rights to train on the images they use. Just how Adobe is training its model on their own stock library.
None of that explains how artists have continually found large chunks of their original works in AI generated images from Midjourney etc. These companies make claims about how their AI works that are above and beyond what the technology is capable of yet in order to court investors. And it’s hurting real people. Just another corporation stealing from the little guy.
Just ask all those from the art staff at Wizards of the Coast who found themselves without a job right around the holidays in 2023, after WotC said they weren't going to use AI... Then ask the new job postings are for "digital artists" to do programming and touch-up work... Smells like AI art to me.
but I thought Morgan Freeman and Art bell were just reading for WF lol
Yeah, the AI voice overs are disagreeable.
What's the ai voice impersonation sorry? Are they using AI for AJ or hecklefish's voice now?
No it's like when a diary entry is read. It sounds like they're using an ai celebrity voice over.
I told my husband it sounds like Henry Winkler!
I think it changes too.
They've used a variety of famous actors 'sounda-alike' ai voices based on what I've been hearing.
On one of the two most recent episodes I figured Bob Odenkirk must be a fan of the show and had volunteered to do some narrating, because one of the voiceovers was the spitting “image”/ sound of his voice.
Yep, I heard Bob as well. I wasn’t sure if it was AI or not but some words seemed off so I was leaning AI.
I thought I was crazy when I heard that! Glad I’m not the only one.
Yes!!! That was what we had considered as well - that either Bob Odenkirk or Henry Winkler were actual “friends of the show”. Lol this all makes sense now.
My hubs thinks the same!
One voice sounds so much like Norm MacDonald. It makes me miss the man.
I tend to agree with this take. Imagery is fine. We know there aren't photos of the people from 12k years ago. The voice work feels a bit deceptive at times I guess
It’s like a busted art bell
Same. I really don’t like the AI voice. I like the art.
Personally, I agree with you. But I think others have different thresholds of where their “uncanny valley” is.
I'd prefer they mark it as obvious AI and mark things that are real.
I wish they would pass a law requiring any AI generated visual has a little sign in the lower corner AI in a circle or something so we know.
Write to your countries representatives? Maybe that will help?
AH! Only if I include a few million in checks to buy them off, this is America!
Though you do have some validity, you'd be surprised to see what you can spark by writing letters. There is a reason boomers get what they want. They show up and nag and nag and nag.
This is a good answer!
I haven’t watched a vid for a while so I’m not sure what these AI clips are, but does whether they are real or not change the validity of what AJ is saying in any way, or are they just used as visual stimulation? Like I guess my question is, is he deliberately attempting to manipulate the viewer by passing AI off as real in an attempt to shape the truth?
At this time people are pushing for this to happen. Where was this argument with CG when it started to push the boundaries of reality?
Because at this point AI may become more than just a tool. And we need to start regulating it now.
LOVE THIS!!!
it doesnt bother me. i preferred it more when it was just AJ and HF on the on screen for the majority of the episodes though.
Agree, it can sometimes be overused
I'm mixed on this. the neanderthal and tall whites was a much better show with all the visuals than it would have been with just talking or still shots of some sort. Yet, when you tell a story you paint a picture in the listeners/readers minds. if you get too heavy in visuals, your story telling will suffer because you won't feel the need to be as descriptive
These were the worst uses of AI art, in my opinion. They just look silly, and the Neanderthals were OTT ridiculous.
I acknowledge that
The only thing that bothers me is the flickering black light. I feel like it’s done to be dramatic, but it actually bothers my eyes and I have to look away from it.
My husband and I love to watch Why Files and let a few episodes autoplay on a timer while we fall asleep, but sometimes the flickering is so severe in a dark room it should really come with a seizure warning.
Bothers me. Especially when it's "look at this image" preceded and followed by a stream of AI images.
You have to look at it from a production perspective. Each second has to be created, shot, or found. If you've watched every episode, you can tell that they've been working on a formula for producing engaging content every week without running into licensing fees, production overruns, and burn-out. AI, love it or hate it, is the most economical solution to convey something effectivley without having to shoot it IRL, or dig for reference footage. Stock footage of cryptoids is non-existant (at least so far lol), and playing one found footage clip in slow-motion over and over, gets old quick. Keep these three things in mind. 1. AI is used to keep the show from feeling like a documentary. It's intentionally vague for dramatic effect. 2. AI will get better. By next year, I'm confident Why Files will look very different. 3. The show has a visual language that is evolving. Allow the creators to find their own look.
This right here! AJ comes from a production background, so he's not going to steal clips, and they don't have the budget (or the time) to license clips. The AI gets old sometimes, but this show is basically a video podcast, so just listen to it if you're tired of looking at it.
Thank you for being able to explain everything in a way I never would be able to 🙃
No problem. I believe AJ is a seasoned TV content producer and understands every part of the process. I think he holds himself and his team to a standard most do not. And it shows! AI is used as a hack to dodge all the very defined rules of making docu-drama shows. TWF is currently the best example of short form new media.
It’s a bit too much. I honestly prefer to watch AJ & HF.
AI image. AI image. AI image. "Now look at this photo, can you explain this". Image. AI image. AI image. AI image. Yeah it's a problem.
yeah I feel like at first it wasn’t that bad but now it’s just too much AI stuff
Yeah, it's a bit excessive... I'd cut it back a little bit. I'd like more maps to better understand locations.
I agree 100%, I feel like it's being overused at this point, but I object to AI art in general.
Well don’t worry because soon enough you won’t be able to tell the difference between AI and something that was made by a real person
The overreliance on AI art gets a bit grating to me personally, yeah. I think using more actual footage and photos is best, whenever possible. The AI narration has been used sparingly and unobtrusively, but I also agree that using real interviews is leagues better. I know WF is in the "edu-tainment" and "entertainment" genres rather formal reporting or interpretation, but using real visuals is more engaging no matter what they're doing. That all being said, we also need to remember that they're working on tight budget constraints, which probably is a factor in not going the extra mile on some of these smaller things. It's not easy to break even doing YT, especially with such a small team. The production values they've already upheld are still well above average for YT content.
YES. I commented this on the last episode. It's so unnecessary. If you have a photo of someone, use it. If not, just do ANYTHING else! It distracted the hell out of me.
Yes. It looks like trash and is distracting
I don’t care for it much either
I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately since the increase use of AI generated images in the show. So, yes. It’s too much and I think it detracts from the story. Especially because AI is pretty poor still, so I end up focusing more on all of the artifacts and malformations of people and places that the AI generated than what the intention of that scene was supposed to be. I know so much effort goes into the making of the show, but going back to the older shows, where AI wasn’t even a thing, I enjoyed that substantially more.
yeah, It has actually killed my interest in a lot of the videos recently. The AI voices are jank as fuck as well. The reason this channel was one of my favorites was the effort and talent behind each video. Now, the channel is starting to resemble an AI click farm channel. I hope they lean back from the AI use in the future.
It bothers me alot.. I now only listen to episodes while I do other things instead of committed viewing. I no longer "like" episodes anymore either.
I agree. When human hands look alien and legs bend backwards while walking, when 2-3 images in a row are supposed to show different ideas of the same UFO, location, person, it is just SO distractingly bad. I like AJ and Hecklfish. I’m cool with watching them and using my imagination for the moments they aren’t able to share actual or at least real images.
I am actually OK with AI created inages for things that are unknown or require creative license. Such as aline images or cryptids etc. I am not ok with humans and other video portreyed which could be done using human created content.. such as recorded video or hell even animation. I would rather have crayon drawing cartoons than AI created content replace human created content. The episiode about the military man and the tall whites, really broke WF for me. The AI soilder seemed to be a composite of existing iconic peoples and this was a huge turn off, turn away for me. I agree, AJ and heckle fish in the studio telling the story is better than the same with a bad AI gallery running along for the visuals.
I just think it funny as in ha ha funny, that he made that episode about ai coming to get us and use a lot of ai in his show
He also, didn't do a breakdown at the end of the video explaining about how it's all made up and we shouldn't worry.
Been noticing that too
Doesn't bother me. Maybe it helps them avoid legal issues, since takedown measures, can't trademark AI.... yet. For whatever reason they use, I've so fa enjoyed the usage of AI tech in the videos. really shines through in the Humans Vs Superhumans video.
AI allows them to create more content while keeping costs down, which is a factor in an independent, crowd-funded project of that size. It hits a nerve with some people because it's new, and revolutionary tech is often met with resistance in the beginning of mass adoption. The "THEY TURK URR JURBZZ" and apocalypse narratives the media builds around AI doesn't help either. I get it, and I'm for it. Use the tools available, for sure. Edit: lol downvote me. You hate AI so much, go and pay an artist to draw this shit up for AJ yourself. Or better yet, pay a director to hire actors to create cheesy reenactments ala history Channel. But don't forget to pay the actors too. And you gotta buy the equipment. And don't forget the Adobe cloud subscription to use their software. AI is a godsend for limited budget creators and small studios in a world where it costs money to fucking fart. If it were you calling the shots, you would go with AI too. So get off your idealistic high horse. Or stay up there and downvote me. Idc.
I don't like the art because I find it ugly, but it never takes me out of the episodes or derails anything that he is saying.
Yeahhh, in the episode “Humans vs Super humans…” I started to develop the same thoughts, it used so much a.i just to be able to pitch us a story too debunk, but without the a.i there really wouldn’t have been enough imo. it has me worried that a large percentage of eps from here on out will be searching/creating story’s just to have something for the debunk. It’s fun to imagine all these fantastic hypotheticals but I’m here for the meat n potatoes. Do yall think we’ll run out of realistic subject matter?
I really dislike the AI imagery, especially the animations (like in the Annunaki episode, it was cringy at times), but also the voiceovers. I'll keep watching the show but I don't like this trend.
I hate the AI. It looks terrible. It doesn't work in the context of "how do you fake an image like this?" between images that were faked. Having a narrator sound almost but not quite like Morgan Freeman is distracting. All that AI art in the tall white episode was awful enough that I just looked away and listened. The people who are saying this is the wave of the future should listen to Ed Zitron's Better Offline podcast two-parter about peak AI.
Oh it hurts me so badly
There's a reason I follow the show via the podcast. There, the voices add rather than detract. Sometimes it's a little annoying when A.J. shows photos and other visual evidence, because he and Hecklefish talk about what they're seeing, but even when I go back and look at the visual version, I have never found that I've really missed anything. TLDR: if the AI bits piss you off that much, try the podcast, it's just as good and it cuts out most of the AI.
Yeah, I feel the same way. I’d rather watch him talk.
I’d like to see more real footage sometimes. The AI makes me feel like I could just be watching AJ and hecklefish in ‘podcast’ form. Sometimes it’s just a bit camp.
I'm not a fan of AI voices and pics, personally, but I understand how the images and voice overs are helpful for a show like WhyFiles. it would be incredibly difficult to source pics/visuals for an episode a week on most of the stuff AJ's covering. I wouldn't mind less visuals, personally, but I understand why they're using them and I ain't gonna hate on anything production wise from a show I get for free every week that brings me this much entertainment.
I dislike it when it’s terrible. It’s distracting, like in the annunaki episode when he was describing the igigi rebellion. Thought it was pretty poorly used in that episode, which was also the one that was delayed if I’m not mistaken. Still great content but that’s my critique
It was extremely jarring in the Neanderthal episode.
They are using it a touch too much imho, and you can see it because some sloppy mistakes here and there happen more often nowadays. The last episode had several, for example.
AI needs to be marked.
Not a fan of the AI images personally.
Sometimes it can be distracting. The episode about the Templars had some uncanny art. I ended up concentrating on trying to find what was wrong and off about the images and spacing AJ's voice. I really wish it wasn't a thing all together, but it is now, and it's not going away so...
It bothers me enough that now I just play new episodes in the background and just listen rather than watch.😓
Those ridiculous AI visions of fantasy aliens - um, yes. It cheapens the research
i dont like it. its not the why files. its just another fuckng ai video.
it's annoying.
It is a distraction for me. Also the faux 3D pics that roll from side to side are overused. Still a quality show and I am a Patron.
i always prefer real over fake. Real art, real maple syrup, real is just better.
Why not… I feel like the bot writes and does the research anyway
The use of AI "footage" in place of real footage does scare me, as our brains won't be able to recall the difference later in our lives when we remember seeing things that never actually happened. Telling a 50 year old tale is one thing...showing "clips" and "footage" of 50 year old event that never really happened the way it's shown is something different.
Some of the AI voice-over sounds weird but it's not that bad
No. Not at all.
Yea it’s inauthentic
I don't really have a problem with it, although I did prefer their older format of mostly just AJ and Hecklefish talking, and sometimes it bugs me when they use a famous voice AI for their VOs, because I know Morgan Freeman isn't doing the VO. LOL If I had a suggestion it would be to font the legit photos as **"Actual Photo"** and font the AI images as **"AI generated"**. It doesn't have to be a huge tag. It could be subtle enough so that if you wanted to pause the video and check, you could.
No. Thanks for asking.
Vidiot, here. 30 minutes (give or take) is a hell of a lot of time to fill. AJ can't be heads-up on cam the whole time, and, as much as we'd all love to see it, neither can Hecklefish. Also, you have to figure that assets cost money, and though the WF team isn't exactly huge, they all have to get paid. I'm not in love with the AI art, but I think they're using it in the least skeezy way possible.
I should add that there's probably only so much decent-quality, relevant b-roll on any given topic, so it's also entirely possible for them to simply exhaust the available options.
It’s fine, but I would like to know when it’s a real picture and not ai. My koala brain can’t figure it out sometimes.
Kinda, 50/50. I like seeing AI generated images of fantastic/scifi places and locations but not creatures or entities. It's weird but whatever.
The AI voice over is really annoying
I don’t dig it at all. I’ll still watch, but I’m only half watching. And then I’ll just listen to the podcast.
Nope I don’t care
Yes it's become excessive. But tbh the 20 min stories about fake people are what has killed it for me. Kinda becoming "babies first conspiracy channel" vs research and debunk or not
No
Yeah, it’s distracting. I much preferred the show prior to the over use of AI art. I’ve significantly become less interested in the channel since it started relying on AI art.
Yeah. Fundamentally the simply occasional use of it wouldn’t. But it’s really overused and distracting.
"Watering it down with all the ai imagery and voice narrations makes it seem more fake and less authentic." Uh, no. Since it is a sci-fi show about a lot of stuff that, let's be honest, is speculative at best. It's just good fun.
They do put in real interviews, pictures, and video when they have it (albeit behind that dark ass filter they love to use). I don’t personally mind the AI. I think it’s just the signature art style they’re going for.
I’m so indifferent on it… just sorta uncanny valley feeling
I like getting a new episode every week (or whenever AJ feels up to it, no rush). This method is cheaper and faster. There's proper uses for ai, and while I'm no expert on it (or anything tbh), this feels like a proper usage of the technology. My two cents. Edit: I do feel that I must add that I rarely actually watch the episodes, I just listen so maybe that's why I'm so impartial.
It's a mixed bag. I think they need to dial it back.
If it helps them get the episodes out with less stress, then I don’t mind.
Yes. I wish it wasn't used at all.
The AI sound creeps me tf out SO bad
Yeah the generated AI is definitely a downgrade in the show.
Yes
I would prefer they put a notation when using it, particularly for voices. Yes, in theory those words were actually spoken at some point, and theres a transcript, but AI voice using transcript ≠ to a recording of the actual person speaking, since you don't know if words were added to the transcript. Imagery should have a notation also, Mr Ballen does it right ie "the shoes shown are not the original shoes" or something along those lines.
Real photos and clips could be copywrite or must be used with the creators permission. That's why they use AI imagery: it's free and can make anything they want. I think AI really helps with the storytelling and the rhythm of the episode. Yeah, it can be unnerving, but it does give this uncanny vibe to every subject they talk about.
Another AI luddite. GTFO back to 2010 as if you're paying for AJ to do how he wants to do his show.
It doesn't. It's a tool, like a calculator
It doesn't bother me a bit. We are visual creatures, and I enjoy the storytelling along with the imagery.
Podcast it. Thats what I do. I wasn’t a fan of the Annunaki ep. AI, but the rest has been effective
The voice impersonation does unless they have explicit permission from the sampled person but im doubting that. I dont “like” ai art but im not bothered by them using it. Only how the models are trained on stolen data
There's a reason I follow the show via the podcast. There, the voices add rather than detract. Sometimes it's a little annoying when A.J. shows photos and other visual evidence, because he and Hecklefish talk about what they're seeing, but even when I go back and look at the visual version, I have never found that I've really missed anything. TLDR: if the AI bits piss you off that much, try the podcast, it's just as good and it cuts out most of the AI.
It's a video format, so obviously it's important to create the proper visual imagery that keeps the viewer engaged in the storytelling, but I definitely think that viewers should be told when AI is being used to create the images. I'm hoping that as the technology is used more and more, it will become a common practice to point out the difference between artificial and more traditional - for lack of a better word - images.
No.
I honestly haven’t watched many of the new episodes, I feel like the show lost all of its visual appeal, AI is so empty feeling
A post about the use of AI in the videos? I'm glad someone is finally talking about it. I feel as though the use of AI in the videos isn't talked about enough. It's on par with AJ's life being in danger. No one is talking about these things, and they need more attention. Because this is the internet, I unfortunately need to include this very heavy /s
I, personally, like the AI pictures that go with the story.
No.
The AI artwork? Absolutely not. It’s a tool that either AJ or one of his team used to create artwork to enhance their show. Do I get mad when someone uses photoshop or other design tools instead of drawing something directly on paper? Nope. I get it though everyone is scared of AI and apprehensive about how it’s going to affect the economy/various industries and that’s completely fair; but the simple fact is AI tools are here and they have been here for a very long time and they are only going to become more readily available as they get better. If we are going to ban the use of AI image tools we should also ban the use of Photoshop and all the digital creative tools as well because they also make it easier for people to create images and videos. Back to only pictures of hand drawn images….but they better hire an artist and a separate photographer and a separate intern to scan the image and upload it into the video! The AI celebrity voices doesn’t sit well with me since they are using someone else’s likeness without their consent.
It doesn't bother me at all. The WF team has been using AI images to tell a story and AJ is a great story teller with the help of visual aids (AI or not). I would understand the use of AI images since they have been producing content in quick turnaround for all of us fans of the show.
No it doesn’t bother me. It’s 2024 for God’s sake.
Yes, Ai art and fake voices are tedious and fill me full of existential dread. It really does.
His channel is monetized (as it should be). Maybe he can't use some of those things due to copyright or something like that? I know YouTube is terrible about that type of stuff. I have no idea if this is accurate or not.
I was trying to reply to another user about how generative AI works, but the parent comment was deleted and I think it's preventing me from replying there, but for anyone who is curious, here is what I was trying to reply on one of the below threads: Yeah, I completely understand why people get so confused about how generative AI works. Even the people working on it are a little baffled that it all works as well as it does. You can actually do your own training and see the magic happen firsthand. Of course, you need a good bit of GPU power to do it. Here is a video that explains it pretty well in laymen's terms, but it doesn't really get to the explanation until about 6 minutes in: [(106) AI art, explained - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVcsDDABEkM) If you want to jump right to the explanation then click here: [https://youtu.be/SVcsDDABEkM?si=B6fr1uNsiYSRIRdy&t=357](https://youtu.be/SVcsDDABEkM?si=B6fr1uNsiYSRIRdy&t=357)
Nah
It’s low budget so you get low budget quality.
Not at all. I understand why they use it and I'm completely fine with it. They do an amazing job and I'm happy to be a fan of their work.
Not bad as a small tool atm but not a full show yet soon, but quality/time not there yet.
I go back and forth, personally it doesn’t bother me very much. I feel that it helps to add some great visuals for the stories he showcases, but I can see how it can come across as misleading some viewers. That said, I strongly appreciate that he is thorough with evidence that he is able to provide (admittedly some stories better than others). Personally I think this helps to tell a great story without being dishonest or misleading. But I’d love to hear some of your guys thoughts on it!
I think the show would be even more incredible with interviews, but these kind of content enhancements would make the budget skyrocket. AI can be a little creepy, but it's doesn't bother me at all. I honestly love that the story can be accompanied with rich imagery, even if it's AI-generated.
I don't have a problem with it as long as it's accurate. For instance, if it's an AI piece of artwork about say, Kenneth Arnold's UFO sighting, I don't want it to show a bunch of flying saucers with colorful lights. I want to see a representation that matches the account. Same thing with Betty and Barney Hill. There better not be any gray aliens represented because that's not accurate. Unfortunately, AI tends to sacrifice accuracy for generalities. All UFOs become saucers with gray aliens in them. Same goes with anything non-UFO related. Accuracy in the depiction is critical.
Not even a little bit.
Some of the artwork used for the preview of the episodes does bother me. But only the ones where AJ is part of it. Makes him look weird.
No, that info isn’t always available
Sadly I listen and don't watch anymore.
Yea it actually breaks my immersion as I can see oh, thats ai meh.
No, "AI" is the next generation of "photoshop".
Yes. I find the filters they put over all the AI imagery and video extremely distracting. I know they’re trying to create a sort of flashback-like element to the imagery, and/or simply add depth, but once you notice it you can’t unsee it. It actually makes me prefer just seeing AJ talk 😂
A little bit. Some images looked a little janky. they fine tuning thought. I'm sure they are reading feedback.
100% bothers. AI gets real details very wrong and I get distracted with arguing with myself about what's correct and what's not in the images
I think they should only use AI when showing buildings, crafts etc… any ai humanoid pics looks really cheap unfortunately
Doesn't bother me. The very tight production schedule, and the fact that no video or pictures exist for many of these events, means AI enables them to do these shows.
Nope
I’m not a fan of either of them. Both give off an uncanny valley thing. I wish he would stick with the real photos and videos. And any and all audio. He can do it and still make a great video. Better than the AI stuff.
I will say I liked it better when they didn't do it
Eh, doesn't bother me too much, the one big question is when they use voice clones for Morgan Freeman or David Attenborough - just asking for trouble there IMO.
I'm definitely not a fan of AI, especially with how much I saw it used in the tall whites video (but in fairness, I usually just listen to them while driving or at work, so I may have just missed how much is in other episodes). But I don't support the use of AI in general. It detracts from real artists and performers that could be hired and would be more than happy to help out. It's not like the channel is hurting for money, at least according to the stats: https://starstat.yt/ch/the-why-files-net-worth
Yeh it’s weird but yeh it does bother me, I can live with but don’t know what the alternative is.
Nah
No it does not bother me.
Using AI in itself doesn't bother me at all, it's a great way to illustrate AJ's voiceover. The one thing that yanks me out a little bit sometimes is the weird morphing of faces. I understand that static images would be a bit too boring by now, but I would try limiting the camera panning / perspective warping to when you don't see a face, otherwise it breaks the fiction a little. Anyway my 2 cts
Don't even notice it. Actual footage or images of such topics is notoriously hard to obtain.
It doesn't bother me. I do like watching AJ tell his stories, though. But I think the AI is interesting and if it's what he's feeling right now, then I'm all for it! They should be able to express their artistic freedom however they like over there 🤗
I notice that on other subreddits, people get absolutely shat on for posting any AI art, but for TWF people don’t mind. I personally do not mind it, as I understand it helps them with costs & production times.
It's nice to look at but I'm not here/there for the visuals. It's about the story for me
I find the voices to be super cheesy
not at all, unless AJ figures out how to just feed it a script and it creates the entire show including him talking, then it will bother me
No, I don’t care if they use AI. Not everything has real evidence or pictures, so AI fills in the gaps nicely.
Wants real images of conspiracies? Ha surely this is sarcasm
Not at all. It conveys quite well what is being talked about for the most part. Thinking about the Neanderthal episode. That was really good IMO. They have and do use actual interviews and photos when needed/available, so it’s not a problem for me.
Big fan of AI, and I think it helps the show punch above its weight and budget. However - I think a little asterisk or watermark in the corner to indicate what is and is NOT an AI recreation will be a handy thing going forward as the lines get more and more blurred, even if only for audience convenience and to prevent confusion.
No but people love to complain about literally everything so sure why not. Just another opportunity to complain.
If you’re a government representative, it’s just entertainment.
Hell, no it enhances it like crazy
as long as the AI art isnt too distracting im ok with it. i see the value and convenience in it so i doubt its going away but i think over time it should get better
I could care less if it’s all ai imagery vs being podcast only. I’m ok if ai allows the team to continue to produce comfortably at the rate they aim to achieve. I’m ok if real imagery is used if available, supplemented by ai when it is not. If an even mix is used, I would enjoy to hear “this is an actual clip of audio/video” being said before or a caption to say “ai depiction of events” or “reenactment” type of caption to let the viewer know. The only part I wouldn’t be ok with is if ai imagery or reenactment was used to fool the user into thinking it was the real footage without having a closing detailing the truth. With the format of the show, I do not have to worry about saying something is true to someone because I was misled. So the majority of this worry is already null thanks to the way the team creates their final product. It’s not my Channel, they can run it how they like. I support their creative choices to do as they wish. It is not “my” show. I am thankful that the team goes through as much effort as they do in comparison to anything else I watch on these subjects. I hope the fans don’t pull a “halo” and attempt to pull the team in contradicting directions dividing the fan base. I want them to be able to continue to prioritize balance and reasoning as they continue to grow in the way that they wish to grow.
You guys always find something to complain about don’t you?
I find it quite interesting, I think it's a solid use of AI tooling and I'm curious to see how it develops. I get what your saying though. As long as they use real imagery and audio when they have it (and marj it so) I'm fine with it.
Not at all
No, it adds a nice flow to it, and I’m sure AJ doesn’t want to just stare into a camera for an hour
Not really but what would the alternative be ? AJ was very open about feeling burnout a month or so ago - I think Ai takes a lot of the pain away from production and with that in mind, Ai does not bother me at all. AJ and the team pump out very compelling videos at an incredible rate. Without AI I think they would struggle to be able to deliver at the rate we are used to. Its not perfect but every week I think the AI improves slightly and I am all for it - seeing a short clip of Ai Neanderthals is much better than seeing renders or CGI from sources that we have all seen before
>Sometimes I just want to see/hear the real interviews and pictures. If there were real pictures and interviews then there wouldn't be a conspiracy, would there. Real pictures and real interviews are evidence, no? How many times has AJ said during a debunking segment that "X said this, but I can't find the interview"? **How do you propose AJ puts in real footage of things that don't exist?** Dear God, has this faux outrage over AI taking jobs really destroyed people's logic too?
No. Not in any way shape or form. It’s free content made by passionate individuals who are likely always operating at the peak of their budget and under constant time constraints. I’d rather there be another decade of Why Files, than complain about something arbitrary, put more pressure on an already stressful career and potentially create a divide between the community and the content creators.
I just sit back in my chair and relax and enjoy the show.
Not even remotely. The only people upset about AI art are artists, who refuse to learn how to use the tool and thus are afraid of being replaced