So I came across this new dudesy video titled "George Carlin: I'm Glad I'm Dead" and it put me down a weird rabbit hole. I'm not a Carlin super fan but I know some of his famous bits and respect his work and maybe that's the perfect setup for watching this because... I'm honestly blown away. I planned on listening to 3 minutes of it to make fun of stupid AI but ended up letting it run for the entire hour and actually laughed quite a bit. It all makes sense. It does sound like him. I don't know how much editing went into it, how much prompting and discarded material. I especially don't know if it just dug up old jokes somewhere else and copied them. But still.

It feels like we just had awkward AI-wordsalad experiments and things like the infinite Seinfeld stream which was fun in a so-bad-it's-good kinda way but... I mean, it obviously was bad. The funny part was that it was unpredictably bad.

But only a year later we're having some uncanny valley shit. I looked it up and apparently this started with a comedy podcast with an AI co-host which produced a clip for a fictional Tom Brady standup routine which turned out popular enough to get them sued, apparently.

There's this part in the fake Carlin special where he talks about the future of entertainment being 24-hour streams where an AI comedian comments on daily news events in real time or something and I can't say I wouldn't watch that. Just to see what it's like. But I also get people calling it disgusting. It kinda is. I get [his daughter says "machine will ever replace his genius"](machine will ever replace his genius), she's right of course. But that video got close IMO.

You can still point at little flaws here and there with AI generated content but with this trend, it will be 3 or 5 years before we get perfectly polished content machines that don't trip over any of the easy and obvious stuff. What place would such content have in the entertainment industry?

What do you guys think?

Almost 6 months ago Corridor Crew released an AI-drawn anime short (ANIME ROCK, PAPER, SCISSORS) with an accomppanying making-of video ( Did We Just Change Animation Forever?). It got... mixed reception. Some loved the new era of "democratizing animation" (meaning you don't anymore need a team of hundreds of animators which in turn means it's possible for smaller creative teams to make their visions come to life), others really hated it for blatantly just ripping off an existing anime (Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust, 2000) and general disrespect over animation as a job and art form -- or at least that's how (some) animators felt. Having heard them talking about drawing each frame with such a passion (on Corridor's show!), I can understand the ire.

Now, almost half a year later, comes the sequel (ANIME ROCK, PAPER, SCISSORS 2) also with an accomppanying making-of (Did We Just Change Animation Forever... Again?). Things... have changed. Basically Corridor realized that stealing art is bad, so they hired a real artist to draw a model sheet as a base for the AI to draw from (instead of stealing others' work). They also hired a person to write a theme song and a team of online artists to touch up every frame of the anime (watch the making-of if you're interested in the details, they go through them very well).

Next, some personal opinions of mine, starting with the first anime. I liked it. It was a nice and funny short with an interesting, smooth style that comes with the territory when there are more frames crammed into a second. Overall, it was the goofy concept of rock paper scissors combined with the over-the-top life and death drama that was fun. Visual style on the other hand, nowhere near ready. The warping and "worming" between each frame were really distracting and it wasn't ready for more than a tech demo (or for some relatively out-there story where that stuff ties into the film, not as a distraction). But I was able to look past those problems because it was a pretty good video.

Most of all, I didn't like them using artists' work without permission (and not saying anything about it).

Now to the sequel. It's... basically same? Same problems, less warping but for example king's crown was changing its color like it was having some sort of multistage chemical burn, and the visual style wasn't as strong and at times more clunky than on the first one. Maybe that's due the fact that the AI style guidebook was a lot smaller or that they were only willing to spent X amount of hours and money working on this while aiming for the anime episode lenght -- I don't know. But the story and the writing were still the best parts. Interestingly also I think direction was a bit weaker and they used too many "cool moment" tricks which made it visually messy. It basically got in the way of the story.

(Also I really dislike that Niko still wasn't taking responsibility for stealing art from others, bit of a bummer since most of us knew better six months ago already.)

What they proved with the second anime is that AI is still not close to replacing actual artists and it's a lot of work to make them even this way -- even if the AI part worked smoothly! But most of all what matters is the content, the creativity and how it's translated to the screen. Not the AI. It's a tool, not a revolution.

Edit. For clarity and some additional thoughts.

I will be participating in a panel discussion about the intersection of art and Artificial intelligence next week, and I am curious how fellow creatives feel about Artificial intelligence.

Have you used AI before in the creative process? If so, what services have you used/prefer?

What do you think the role of AI is in the creative process?

Does AI enhance creativity or limit originality?

What are the ethical implications of using AI to create art?

It's been six months since ChatGPT launched and about three months since I started posting these. I think it's getting harder to find new things to post about about AI, but here's another one anyway.

Here's the previous thread.