Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

strvgglecity t1_j1nadqf wrote

The creators of South Park have already done this. They just announced a $20 million funding round. Idk why you think this will benefit animators though. All it means is animators won't even be needed beyond sketching a few samples to feed to the AI.

39

Jaded_Prompt_15 t1_j1nc3ex wrote

Yep.

South Park went back and had AI change all their early episodes to wide screen, and it did an amazing job.

But it just means less animators.

Hell, you could have it randomly generated characters in a specific style, then either pick or let the AI choose based on what's popular.

Eventually AI will just be making shows completely on its own. Zero input from a person and can crank out a new one everyday.

11

Mattdonlan1 t1_j1nel36 wrote

Unfortunately, it’s going to lead to an echo chamber of ideas. AI, so far, just recreates combinations of existing ideas and styles. We’re already in an age of no new (or very few new) ideas. With so much formulaic media, we can only assume that AI will just keep churning out the same old stuff every time. AI art is already showing this to be true. It already has a “look” that is recognizable.

5

Jaded_Prompt_15 t1_j1nfq4l wrote

You're forgetting how fast it could make them.

Churn out 10 episodes, throw it in your streaming site. If people dont like it, stop making it. If it takes people 3 years to like it, roll out season 2.

It would be the "shotgun approach". Throw out 20 shows and see what works.

1

[deleted] OP t1_j1ncdt1 wrote

[deleted]

−10

JayGotcha t1_j1ncr4a wrote

That doesn’t make any sense. Why would a studio hire a 3rd party when they can do it all in house?

9

jellicle t1_j1nd9uc wrote

Can you also put it on TV and get the revenue for it yourself?

6

[deleted] OP t1_j1ne1er wrote

[deleted]

0

Gumbyizzle t1_j1nee2m wrote

More likely scenario based on this justification would be Google using AI to create more YT content that they own so they don’t have to deal with creators as much.

4

TheConboy22 t1_j1nerbc wrote

Using AI that was taught how to do it by using other peoples content. Since no new actual content is being created and a program is basically just rehashing their stuff. This should be plagiarism. Going to be a very interesting few years.

4

MannItUp t1_j1nfk1u wrote

It's going to saturate the market with tons of videos of AI produced animations that will make finding actual quality stuff difficult and breaking through as an emerging artist nearly impossible. Video game streaming is a prime example of this.

2

Jaded_Prompt_15 t1_j1ncsqd wrote

Why would providers pay for that instead of doing it themselves? The AI would already be scouring the internet to see what it should make. If anything gains traction it would just make its own.

And why do you think the AI will be cheap enough that any random person can use it?

If it's available for "free" it's because they need people to train it.

I'm starting to think you have no idea what you're talking about

5

strvgglecity t1_j1nfkcg wrote

Sure they can! It's possible it would make animation more accessible. That does not mean it would allow more people to earn a living creating animated content, or earn more money. More content simply devalues the content. Also, how many people (artists, animators) can afford to spend the time to develop a fully finished product without any pre-arranged distribution or guaranteed value?

1

unfalln t1_j1nf4nl wrote

I can see where you're going with this. The argument most people have is that AI will reduce the need for humans but they fail to consider the possibility that instead it might instead simply increase the output of humans.

So far, in my line of work as a Web programmer, AI already plays a role in allowing me to create more code in less time. In practice this makes me feel more productive rather than redundant.

When applied to animation, I imagine this will allow both the amateur to produce more (the memes will get better) and the production capacity of professionals will increase (more TV, movies, etc). Extrapolating that, I fear for the writing room because they're going to have one hell of a job making sure the machine produces anything more valuable than complete nonsense :p

0

goawaybating t1_j1nci59 wrote

I agree that this will more not benefit animators. Big companies will game the funding, hardware and data sets to get the advantage. Amazon could use Alexa to determine our level of emotional response (especially if you have a smart device that measures vital signs). The AI could then write the next series or episode/commercial. Independent film makers would be at a disadvantage.

2

Username463679 t1_j1nesgq wrote

I suppose in that case, reading responses, it could literally tailor the entertainment to each individual.

2

Emotional-Dust-1367 t1_j1ncm4u wrote

There’s a lot more to animating than being told what to do. It’s a field that’s over a hundred years old and has many techniques you have to master to make an effective animation.

All an AI can hope for is to randomly string together these techniques and get something that to a lay person would look like animation, but isn’t.

If an unknowing art director will just fall back on an AI for this, what they’ll get is a shitty movie.

Now what this does mean however is that animators will be able to do a heck of a lot more. In fact I think we’ll start to see a breakdown of specific art roles. Someone who’s interested in characters will be able to handle the entire character from beginning to end. The modeling, rigging, animation, everything.

This is extremely powerful and as an artist I can’t wait!

2

strvgglecity t1_j1neplr wrote

Those techniques will undoubtedly be taught to the AI. I get that it could reduce overall labor needs, but how is that a positive? Are you assuming that being responsible for more of the end product will result in higher wages?

2

Emotional-Dust-1367 t1_j1nfzxi wrote

Those techniques have already been taught to the AI. I’m using such tools right now. It’s still rough, but I have no doubt they’ll improve them greatly soon. We’re not quite at the point I’m describing but I think it’s coming soon.

I think what you’re missing is how do you drive the AI? It’s still a tool. A piece of software. You have to tell it what to do. And in order to tell it what to do, you need to know what you’re looking for.

Like technically speaking anyone can paint. Just take a brush and some oils and spread it on the canvas. But that won’t be very good. So you need to spend decades learning all sorts of art topics.

Now, an AI already knows that stuff. So you could technically tell it to just make you a painting. And for sure it’ll spit out a better painting than what you as an unskilled person can produce. And I’m sure it’ll look awesome to you. But how will you gauge if it’s actually good? You don’t know anything about painting. For all you know this could be trash.

Now if all you’re doing is making stuff for self-expression and just to make stuff then who cares. Knock yourself out.

But if you’re making a movie, or a video-game, or a comic book, etc, then it has to actually be good. People need to want to watch it. If you don’t know what you’re doing then all you’ll get is a messy pile that nobody wants to watch.

This happens all the time now too. They take some random director and producer that don’t know wtf they’re doing, give them a budget, and they make some POS movie that looks nice but falls completely flat. Then it fails at the box office, and they complain that the “haters” ruined it. No, they made a shit movie/game/whatever.

It’ll be the same thing here.

1

[deleted] OP t1_j1ndry0 wrote

[deleted]

1

Emotional-Dust-1367 t1_j1ne3d7 wrote

I’m not sure what you mean by this exactly.

What I’m saying is that eventually you’ll get tools powerful enough that an artist would be able to do several jobs. Instead of the job being so tedious that you need a separate artist for each part, one artist will be able to tackle the whole thing.

1

[deleted] OP t1_j1nbug3 wrote

[deleted]

−1

headless_bear t1_j1ndvr1 wrote

What do you mean "work for themselves"? Who is paying these animators using the AI? By this logic there will be infinite amounts of AI animation dumped on youtube competing for views. And an animator is made completely unnecessary in this equation.

1

[deleted] OP t1_j1ne70u wrote

[deleted]

1

headless_bear t1_j1nf9cm wrote

As an aritst in animation working at a union studio that sounds fucking terrible. Instead of doing my specialized craft and getting a union wage for it with benefits. I'll now need to compete against ALL OF YOUTUBE using AI to fill in the gaps and dump it on youtube.

​

Majority of content creators don't make anything with the few we know of making millions. There are thousands of animation artists just in LA making good wages.

3

fasamelon t1_j1nec6c wrote

Just because you are a good animator it doesn't mean you just as good as a director or screenwriter, etc. When a product stops being produced by professionals the quality and pay goes down, so no no anyone can create a show that is good.

1

override367 t1_j1ne0zn wrote

I think the art community will succeed in getting restrictions placed on ai art due to copyright law changes, and then only multinational corporations will be able to afford to make and develop these tools to their full potential legally.

4

Disaster191919 t1_j1neggg wrote

Maybe. It will definitely allow people to speed up their process, but this may not be just for the better. The other side is that the market may become so over-saturated with media that no one except those large companies - who have the resources to amplify the market presence of their product through other means - will be able to find an audience and profit significantly from their work. This is already a problem for independent artists and I think AI probably doesn't help. There's also the facet of the issue where "spam" of AI-generated media devalues independent art in society's eyes and makes pursuing independent projects less attractive.

Just saying. Maybe everything will be beautiful and we can look forward to this "open" AI boom continuing into a glorious future. Maybe these companies with billions of dollars and huge incumbency advantage will just roll over and not use these tools to dominate the industry even more than they already do. I don't think that's likely given that these services are basically guaranteed to morph into tiered paid services with the most powerful packages only available to huge enterprises... Hey, optimism feels good. It's just that the potential repercussions for creative fields are so dire that we might want to think really, really hard about it and not get sucked into blind optimism.

3

cuates_un_sol t1_j1nf8r6 wrote

Or make the employers not need artists or animators.

Lots of artists have amazing talent, but their work ends there, because they don't have the corporate support or entrepreneurial skills to push it forward.

2

NotASuicidalRobot t1_j1ngovy wrote

Yes, but the employers pay for their food. You can argue about the failings of capitalism, and maybe i would agree on some points, but that isn't changing overnight, or even overdecade.

1

ForAGoodTimeCall911 t1_j1ni5j5 wrote

Studio executives are salivating over how much money they’re going to save once they cut people out of the equation. Imagine you’re the higher-ups at WB, this AI stuff, it’s not going to make anything new, but new stuff isn’t the game anymore, it hasn’t been for a long time.

How many years away are we from being able to type “Batman fights Poison Ivy” into a script generator, and then animating the scenes with an AI that has been fed all the other Batman shows and movies, and then voicing it with an AI that’s been fed all of Kevin Conroy’s dialogue, and then you get a couple humans to clean it up a bit, bam! Presto! New Batman the Animated Series episodes for audiences who don’t care whether real people make their stuff anymore, they just want content. I’m sure a lot of people will be fine with it. I’m not, but it’s not hard to see where the business incentives are going to push them. I hope I’m wrong, I hope audiences will reject this stuff. But uh, it’s hard to be optimistic.

1

jones1618 t1_j1njhm1 wrote

Unfortunately, that's not how the tech "arms race" has ever worked. Just because every wannabe 3D animator w/ a 3 yr old graphics card & Blender already has 1000x the horsepower & tools that Pixar had for Toy Story doesn't mean they'll all make landmark blockbusters. The same goes for AI.

Although, I'll predict that just like when 2nd-tier studios began to crank out Vietnamese sweatshop animation starting in the 80's, AI-assisted animation will bring titles to our screens cheaply that "the kids" will not mind but will have a distinctly lesser look that will tarnish what animation means to a generation.

That's not to say that "quality" studios won't also use the tech but they'll apply it in moderation to achieve their higher standards.

1

Wipperwill1 t1_j1ngltw wrote

The idea is nice but you forget, big studios have money. They can hire the best artists, voice actors and such. One guy in his studio apt isn't going to have the time and know-how to compete with that. A more modest, and I assume nimble idea, would be to get a tight gang of like 6 people, each with their own specialty.

0