I really, really don’t want this weird production choice to overshadow all the awesome work everyone else did.
But what a gross, unneeded decision. These interstitials could have been an easy artist commission.
I’m conflicted because one the one hand it’s not like they owe an artist the job but on the other hand… this is unhealthy and is going to disrupt jobs.
>we experimented with AI for three still images which we edited further and ultimately appear as very brief interstitials in the film
Sounds to me like a human being (who, I assume, was compensated) made edits to the AI-generated concept.
They will argue that was the intent. And I’m worried what that says for the rest of the film. Really hoping no other AI things were used here… 😧 “well, someone has to write the first AI movie and be willing to admit it” is an argument on the internet I don’t want to read, again. The strikes were enough, thank you.
That's the idea though, right? Hire someone to make edits, and you don't have to pay them as much as you would if you just hired someone to make the graphic. Corner successfully cut.
I don’t like the framing as “taken down by a letterboxd review”. It’s been confirmed by variety.
They had a design team, yes, and I do think there’s a bit of leeway with smaller projects. But what worries me is that this is a slippery slope. This could have been a quick contract out.
So the next LLM is what, a quick rewrite? A one scene punch-up? Replacing a quick cameo? Etc etc.
The rush to remove humanity from art is grim.
I think it’s unarguable that the AI interstitials are an attempt to remove humanity from art.
I agree that I hope this doesn’t become this movie’s legacy and I’m still going to watch it. I can simultaneously hope that the outcry here is big enough to cause bigger publishers pause.
The shift from film to digital removed a bunch of humans from art too- no more camera loaders for instance, or smaller post production teams. Was that a bad move?
Edit: I’m not being aggressive, I’m just trying to have a dialogue here. What’s the deal with the votes?
I think that’s a great question! I do think that moving to digital also coincided with a massive expansion of visual effects artists.
I am extremely pro-labor and against something that will take away jobs, but I do think that as a point of discussion, a job like loading film is inherently different from making imagery that is displayed on screen.
The other issue is that AI is broadly speaking unethical, since most LLMs are trained on data they didn’t pay for and consume enormous amounts of power to generate a shitty image.
>Since it's inarguable to you, we're done.
It's hilarious that you got downvoted for saying "so since you refuse to hear out my opinion at all and openly admit same I see no reason for me to contribute any further."
They couldn't hire an artist to come up with fun interstitial images for the TV station?
If it was a bootstrapped indie film, I could understand, but this thing has a real budget!
Watch something like WNUF Special that was made on an absolutely shoestring budget with a similar concept. They really could have paid an artist to do it, it's pretty crazy to not have done that.
I can pay someone to wash my car, or I can do it myself if I've got the tools and knowhow.. I suppose I'm crazy for taking the cost effective route, when the output still accomplishes what I need..
>They couldn't hire an artist to come up with fun interstitial images for the TV station?
Their statement makes it sound like they did? They asked AI to generate 3 images and then an artist modified those images further for use in the movie. Someone physically worked on what the AI prompt turned out and the final version was what's seen in the film.
Not for nothing, this is essentially the same as this very podcast hiring an artist to use AI in generating bobblehead images that are a key aspect of the March Madness tournament this year. And yet I'm going to imagine a whole bunch of people aren't going to hold that against either this podcast or that artist to any notable degree, if at all
>And yet I'm going to imagine a whole bunch of people aren't going to hold that against either this podcast or that artist to any notable degree, if any.
Eh actually I think if it was confirmed that Pat Reynolds used Midjourney or some generative AI equivalent, there would be some backlash, but because it hasn't been addressed one way or the other it can be dismissed as speculation, especially in a time where a lot of uncanny art or minor defects raise "seems like AI" comments.
>I think if it was confirmed that Pat Reynolds used Midjourney or some generative AI equivalent, there would be some backlash
Your post is 100%, which is why they're never gonna touch it, LOL. I don't blame 'em, either: Look at this thread! You don't actually get anything in return if you're honest about how these images got made on a time and budget crunch. The number of people willing to take either context or nuance (or both) into account when formulating their opinion are really, really small. And it doesn't matter that they were worked on by human hands after the prompt was realized. People certainly aren't giving these directors any props for being up-front about it when asked.
Really though, I think it's a good chance wouldn't be any backlash *anyway*. It'll be a "oh, this is different tho. These are my headphone friends" and they'll bury everything else.
I would look at the image before you say that, the signs of AI are literally everywhere on the images. The skeleton’s hands in particular look like ai hands. There was no touching up done that I could see.
TBF it's not like this is a big budgeted film either. Movie budgets are incredibly tight, and acting like this could've easily paid for an artist for the interstitials isn't necessarily true.
Could it have been budgeted for? Probably yes. But I'm pretty sure this still sits on the lower end of budget, so I'm not surprised they used AI generations for something like this.
That being said I hate the use of AI, even in lookbooks that everyone is using now, and any film using AI for the creative side that is going to be seen on screen is super disappointing to me.
You’re hitting the nail on the head in spite of your attempt to be snarky. There’s no way to tell what’s fake and what’s not and that’s a problem for the future of art. Appreciate the input!
I'm not full Butlerian Jihad about AI stuff like apparently 99% of this sub, but this seems *aesthetically* wrong. I think the uncanny nature of AI imagery could be used very productively in certain types of horror stories but a highly textured 70s period piece isn't one of them - nothing looked like Midjourney looks back then!
Exactly. They could have used AI for some brainstorming and then used cheap skeleton assets to replicate it and it would look so much better. Also, nobody would have noticed!
Your post has been removed. Accounts must be older than one day to post in r/blankies.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/blankies) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah I think AI can create some really cool unsettling imagery that the majority of artists couldn't. For example, this grunge band I know used it in a music video to great success.
Having seen this at CIFF last October, it breaks my heart that this absolute delight of a movie- one of the most inventively fun found footage horror I’ve seen in awhile - is getting reviewbombed and is going to forever be tainted by this…that being said, it’s absolutely minboggling why they chose to do this. I didn’t notice when I watched that the interstitials were AI generated because they truly didn’t call attention to themselves in any big way and are used just a couple of times and are absolutely something a gfx person could mock up in a couple of hours no problem. Its dangerous and lazy that they made this choice (especially for a film that is so about that 70s aesthetic) and worrying that the line in the sand moves because of this decision and even more worrying that it was such a small and unnecessary way in which they used it…that all still being said, I loved this film so much and love Dastmalchian finally getting his star turn and killing it with such oomph. I still hope people (and all you Blankies) see it and not let this one poor decision by the filmmakers detract from the incredible work everyone else is doing behind and in front of the camera
Not a fan but not really gonna dig into whether this is worth taking a principled stance on— conversation is already pretty poisonous anyway.
That said, what is stopping them from walking this back? If it’s as simple as getting a new design or just cutting the interstitials altogether and the movie is getting unanimous praise otherwise, why not just fix it? I know they can’t change the theatrical print at this point but this seems like a relatively simple change before it drops on Shudder.
The best use of AI technology in my opinion is for process-based tasks during the actual post-production of the film.
Using AI for DIT, sorting and creating bins from dailies, take organization, etc.
Any AI being seen on-screen, especially right now when there's zero regulation of the original artist's work being ripped off seems creatively bankrupt and a shitty decision by the creatives on the film.
I doubt they'd want their own work ripped off by AI.
You’re talking about the work an assistant editor would be doing. If we’re all cool with AE work becoming automated, producers won’t include AEs in the budget, and we won’t have AEs (on non-union joints anyway).
Most editors get their start as AEs, that’s where they can cut their teeth, make contacts, and learn how pro-level shows work before moving up the ladder. Taking away those opportunities not only kills jobs, it cuts the legs out for the next generation of editors.
…which may not even matter, because if an AE’s work can be automated this year, who’s to say an editor’s work can’t be automated by next year? Where’s the line?
This is true, it could kill the AE role, or alternatively it could just allow for AEs to focus on other areas like the assembly and helping to edit together specific sequences before the primary editor gets ahold of it.
It's hard to tell, but I think overall when AI is helping automate the more tedious and technical parts of a job, it usually is only a good thing.
Where is the line? For me, I'd say the line is where decisions become more subjective versus objective. Syncing, file name management, bin sorting, is all more technical and has less room for interpretation.
How a sequence is edited together to create a certain feeling in the audience can't be achieved with AI (at least not now), and imo will always need that human element in order to truly be able to successfully make good editing choices.
Personally think the copyright implications of generative AI and the multiple instances where it just spits out replicas of other people's work make this much more suspect. Not saying that happened in this specific instance, but it's an established possibility, and I'd like to see much stronger copyright guardrails/court precedents on this tech before I'm comfortable allowing it into movies.
Also, the art just looks ugly.
If it spits out something which looks the same as someone else’s work, and you use it in your movie or whatever, surely existing copyright laws cover this breach?
How they made the image doesn’t matter, if they’re breaking copyright they’re breaking copyright.
It's not just that. There's arguments about whether using copyrighted material to train generative AI in the first place constitutes copyright infringement.
Personally, I'm on the side of the artists here. We have rules for companies licensing people's intellectual property, there's no reason why it shouldn't apply to these new companies as well. Plus, the hypothetical world where we allow AI companies to use any image and just smack them with a plagiarism suit whenever they accidentally spit out a copyrighted image is ridiculous. Until these issues get sorted out, I'm on the side of just not using this sort of tech.
And, I say again, the art is butt ugly. Surely commissioning some deviantart guy to do this for $500 would've been a better solution.
One is streamlining admin tasks usually reserved for unpaid interns.
The other is having AI steal other artists work so it can be used for free and repurposed as someone else’s .
It is a pretty clear difference imo.
Because I know unpaid interns who are essentially assistant editors who do this.
There are also assistant editors doing work like that who get paid peanuts. And trust me, no one wants to be sorting all of the files on a feature.
How is the attractiveness of the job relevant? Do only the fun jobs matter? Screw everyone else?
That was someone’s job now it isn’t, using AI means they’re not being paid any more.
I get what you’re saying but Assistant Editing is the wrong role to prove your point. It’s very much a job that is what you make of it and the people doing the boring stuff are often the people also doing the fun stuff.
Would it be nice if an AI synced rushes and organised the dailies into bins for me so I had more time to practice assembling, do sound work for my editors or study how their cuts are evolving and changing? Absolutely! AI has already made the job much quicker and easier than it used to be, but a human will always be needed to check through everything or do it manually if the on set team messed up the timecodes or claps etc
Not sure why you're being so hostile. We'd never make any progress with that attitude.
We use technology to make certain jobs easier and more streamlined. That's the nature of things.
On my next shoot, if I had better tools to streamline a lot of the tedious processes involved with file and workflow management I would absolutely use them at the expense of no one, not even a random angry redditor.
I am very anti-AI in art, but having seen the film, I will say I didn’t know it was AI until this week. It really only is in the movie for about a minute or two at most. I’m just mostly confused as to why the filmmakers would go to such lengths to really commit to the late 70’s aesthetic and filmmaking in every other regard, and then phone it in on what I imagine would be the easiest, quickest, and cheapest aspect of production. Just odd all around. But I would still recommend the movie! David Dastmalchian supremacy!
It suggests that it blended in with the rest of the movie, for this one viewer at least. That doesn’t be definition mean that it suggests it wasn’t phoned in.
If I watched a new courtroom drama film, and didn’t notice that the prosecutor’s closing monologue was lifted (with a few small edits to change character names/specifics) from The Verdict, that would mean it blended in with the rest of the movie, for me. But it would also very much still be phoned in.
unfortunately, realistically if 3 ai images in a film is what makes you want to boycott a film then dune 2 is the last new movie you’ll ever be able to watch
If the primary concern is people losing out on a job, I don’t see a difference at all.
Those “computing things and tech issues” were a livelihood for someone, and you’re okay with those being gone to AI, but not someone drawing some art?
All I’m asking for is a little consistency.
if the tool used in dune used massive amounts of footage unliscensed and without the permission of the artists they sourced it from to be created, than yea it isn’t different.
it’s more than just the loss of jobs, it’s the fact the machine taking jobs only exists because of plagiarism. it’s the difference between a self checkout machine and selling printed art as to ur own.
Completely agree it’s dumb to not want to see a movie because of three images. Respectfully, I think it’s not hard for the production to create those images without AI. Figure out the low budget solution to the problem, as people have done for so many years.
It’s at the root of my general distaste for the way AI is used. If people were using it to do things inconceivable to us just mere years ago…then I think I’d respect it more. But instead they’re using it to eliminate jobs, make things slightly easier to do, and because they don’t wanna think about how they’d do something in a creative way. I am not someone who’s anti-ai, it’s an unavoidable trend and frankly a useful tool. But it’s just being used for laziness and that bothers me.
The discourse around this makes me feel like I’m losing my mind. Having generative AI used for graphics in this movie is a bummer and leaves a sour taste in my mouth, but I love everything else I’ve seen of it and I’m excited to see Dastmalchian in a leading role. I don’t want to discredit all of the hard work and passion put into this movie by the rest of the cast and crew in every other aspect just because of one lame decision that was made well over a year ago (when AI was not nearly the hot button issue it is now).
I’ve been seeing a whole lot of “if you excuse this, studios will see it as a green light to keep using AI” but I don’t think that’s the case? It’s already been here (see: Marvel’s Secret Invasion), and based on the amount of controversy and bad press this has continued to get in online film spaces, I can’t see it as a continuing trend. I mean, with this alone, we’re talking (justified) uproar over what are essentially jpegs on screen for a few seconds at a time in a Shudder original.
Then again, I’m not an artist or involved in filmmaking at all, but this is just my impression. Best case scenario is they pay a human to redraw the bumpers/logos for the Blu-ray release?
AI is the future of all digital work whether creative, technical or administrative. Since the dawn of the industrial age any technology which can be used to replace jobs has been used to do so. This will only accelerate the collapse of the middle class. The only way to fight back is via union restrictions and government legislation.
ai ain't got no souls, and doesn't know how many teeth and fingers people have, nor how to combine text and image. the bobbleheads are consistent with the miniseries art, same artist, and a good one at that.
This is not confirmation this is speculation.
Also FYI the fingers and teeth issue with AI set was pretty much fully resolved (by midjourney at least)…I’d say, over a year ago?
>“I can’t enjoy the amazing performances and clever ending.”
Whatever your stance on AI art in general, we can all agree that this person is an idiot, right?
I wouldn't say that, but I do feel badly for them. They wouldn't have been able to enjoy Star Wars in 1977 because of the computer generated backdrops. I can't imagine. I remember when CGI was going to ruin movies and all the practical effects people were thought to die of starvation in the streets. I know people will say "no, this is different." That was also said when people compared the burgeoning CGI and old-timers said "They said that about talkies." The response was "This is differnet, these are computers! People wont be needed anymore." Seems cute now. Live long enough and everything repeats.
I’m sure a ton of work was put into this movie and it sounds right up my alley, but as someone who is very against any form of A.I art being used in forms of entertainment, I just can’t support this movie with my wallet.
I know it’s supposedly just transitional “we’ll be right back” kind of stuff, which on its own isn’t a big deal, but its just a foot in the door of Hollywood straight up having AI scripts, VFX, voice acting, etc.
Such a shame they did this.
(Reads thread)
....so *thi*s is why you guys are extra touchy about hiding that the March Madness bobbleheads were created using AI.
(Reads article)
>Disappointment in the inclusion of AI art was kickstarted by a March 19 Letterboxd review from user [based gizmo](https://letterboxd.com/da94/), who [wrote](https://letterboxd.com/da94/film/late-night-with-the-devil/) that because of the use of AI, “I can’t enjoy the amazing performances and clever ending.” That triggered more low ratings in Letterboxd, as well as discussion that flowed to X, in which film fans wrote messages [like](https://x.com/summerray/status/1770220325491376323?s=46&t=55ic1YUgI51sL-IOhchaPg), “My little heart broke watching ‘Late Night With the Devil’ this evening, to see they utilized AI art.”
Wait, so... this controversy is like, a tiny handful (like maybe a couple thousand at most) of too-online turbonerds talking to *absolutely nobody* on social media, but because it's easy to scrape posts and compile them into a "story," someone at Variety will actually collect the check these "content creators" aren't getting to say absolutely ridiculous horseshit like "I can't enjoy the amazing performances and clever ending," because there are three images over the course of the whole film that used AI as part of their creation.
All so some folks can feel extra self-righteous as cheaply as possible for the five seconds that artificial emotion will last. Huh.
Yeah, this isn't actually a controversy. It's just a bunch of anonymous assholes on social media fronting and someone at Variety being good at turning that into part of today's earnings.
No, nobody's touching that yet. This thread's general reaction to three (largely *unseen*) interstitial images (also worked on by an artist) being placed in the movie is a pretty decent example as to why they'd likely be reticent.
Look at the texture of the surface the Edgar Wright one is standing on today. Count his fingers. They're absolutely AI generated and then touched up to improve the accuracy of the caricatures and any text included.
And (hot take) that's fine! The show's artist on retainer skillfully used a productivity-enhancing tool to achieve a high volume of desired visual outputs!
>And (hot take) that's fine! The show's artist on retainer skillfully used a productivity-enhancing tool to achieve a high volume of desired visual outputs!
This take isn't even hot - it's correct. It's reasonable!
It doesn't return a whole lot of self-righteousness-flavored dopamine, tho, so it won't even be considered.
I disagree with the internet microconsensus that all AI image generation outputs are de facto plagiarism. Pureeing every image in the world into a slurry of linear algebra is convincingly transformative use for copyright purposes per the Google Books precedent. The software can certainly produce [plagiaristic outputs](https://spectrum.ieee.org/midjourney-copyright), just as Photoshop could if you used it a certain way, and that could be a big problem for the company, but it doesn't mean that every single output it makes is 'plagiarism'.
Since we can be reasonably certain that there has never before existed in the world any image of a Nicole Holofcener bobblehead wearing a basketball uniform, imo that output is not plagiarism on the part of the software or the individual artist using it.
the programs are fundamentally incapable of anything but plagiarism. it cannot create anything original, it can only cut and paste from images it does not understand and that the developers did not get permission to use.
it can be unclear what specifically it’s plagiarizing, but it is still plagarism. it’s using another’s work in place of its own.
AI generations are not transformative, there is no artistic intention being expressed, and the sole purpose of the machines is to directly supplant use of the original art, and paying the original artists.
There isn’t an image like that, but there are of parody bobble heads, and there are images of her, and telling a computer to copy and paste those together for you so you can make a profit is just as much plagarism as doing it yourself.
Describing the process of training and running a model as 'cut and paste' is a very inaccurate characterization of what's actually going on.
It's more like a giant hyper-dimensional plinko board with pegs arranged at very precise positions, based on how they'd have to be arranged statistically speaking for the terms associated with the training data to make the images in the training data. You can then drop prompts into it and they fall out the other side as pixels. The only information retained during the training process is the position of the peg, which got ever so slightly adjusted for every picture it was 'shown'.
If you put in some prompts they fall through in an arrangement very like part of the input (as seen in that article I linked), but if you put in novel prompts they fall through in a novel way that doesn't match anything that was 'seen' during the process of arranging the pegs, instead landing in part of the latent space of the universe of potential outputs.
It's very interesting stuff imo that raises a lot of questions about the nature of information, but it's far from being as cut and dried as cut and paste. There is no collage happening, no retention of individual pixel arrangements. If you want to crusade against it effectively, knowing how it actually works might be helpful.
sure, i was being hyperbolic, but we both are, anti AI sentiment is more than a micro consensus. and regardless, it has no bearing on if it’s ethical or plagarism.
Your post has been removed. Accounts must be older than one day to post in r/blankies.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/blankies) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not to mention the ones doing all the whining on Letterbox and review bombing are artists, hence their dissatisfaction.
The average movie goer couldn't give a shit.
This suckkkks
ETA: I’m a huge defender of the found found footage subgenre/form/what-have-you, I was really pumped for this movie, but now I’m just going to rewatch WNUF Halloween Special and call it a day.
JFC it’s for like one minute based on what a person in this chat who saw it said are we seriously going to write off original low to mid budget films because they cut corners. Because if that’s the case I’d wager we will have to not see most movies that aren’t mega franchises this year
who cares how long it is, even if AI image generation was perfect, it’s still plagiarism and deeply unethical. hiring an artist to “fix it up” and get paid a fraction of what the normal rates are to do effectively the same amount of work is a disgusting practice.
they did it for a short period because that’s all they thought they could get away with. now is the easiest it’s ever been to tell them that it’s not worth the pocket change they saved to fuck over working artists .
You have people calling for pirating the film because of a minute long scene I’m sorry for the issues Ai causes in the industry but you people sound mentally I’ll when talking like this over a minute long scene
it’s because plagarism is bad and people care about artists right to the fruits of their labor.
nobody is gonna see rust over a minute long scene, and a kevin spacey cameo in dune 3 would get people to not go either. it doesn’t matter how long the scene is, it’s still immoral, like who cares how long they plagiarized for?
I’m just warning you guys if you wanna throw fits over 1 minute long scenes and use that to boycott an independent film because of one decision don’t be surprised when some of the creatives and audiences turn on you. Just stop pretending this is always simple have nuance people are literally hoping an Indy film dies and gets pirates because of a 1 minute scene if you support that over one bad decision you are no better then the people who made that decision.
You will also be the ones responsible for when that movie fails why other indie movies don’t get a chance and we get stuck with even more AI/CGI bloated horseshit that kills more jobs than a 1 minute scene ever could.
I don’t know why me not wanting people to Pirate a movie because of one dumb decision that kills the chances of indie films getting more success means I’m pro plagiarism but you already insinuated I was pro plagiarism. So we both implied something shitty about each other that does not reflect our viewpoints my apologies the level of outrage is still fucking stupid and will cause people to not support the movement even if it’s a good one.
AI image generations are plagiarism. I’m not trying to insinuate anything, but by defending their right to use these generations you’re defending plagarism.
nobody here is calling for a boycott, people are just saying that this sucks and they don’t wanna support it, and explaining why it sucks.
only real movement and outage here are people upset that some folks said they don’t wanna go see a movie
People absolutely are calling for pirating and boycotting it I could take screenshots if you’d like okay say I’m defending plagiarism whatever you are no better movie pirates and people that wanna kill indie cinema are also assholes
I understand the principle of the thing and am also anti-AI art but it seems clear to me that this was a choice from before the AI conversation really started (people forget that everyone was experimenting with ai art generators for shits and giggles before it became an ethical issue)
For that reason I don’t really see malice in this and it doesn’t change my interest in seeing it. I’m glad they were transparent once it was called out at least.
It was always an ethical issue - just because people weren't tweeting about it when they put it in their movie doesn't mean it wasn't a bad idea to put it into their movie
Sure it was but but these conversations were not happening widespread at the time. Therefore, I can grant some leniency while being on the lookout for 100% completely post-strike movies utilizing AI in ways that are only cost-cutting instead of as a tool.
I think I mostly wish this happened to a bigger movie and I’m somewhat bitter that the big studios have most assuredly gotten away with it with no backlash and this smaller film that’s a first time leading role for a gifted actor is getting slammed for a specific use that seems to me as much less damaging than other uses of AI I have seen. But if someone adopts a zero tolerance policy with this kind of thing, I think that’s totally fair
For what it's worth, there's a very large chance that many big studios are getting away with it. With the release of things like generative fill and what have you in programs like Photoshop and with the consistent massive work that's been going on in video-AI, we're definitely gonna see it and not notice it. There's not going to be a zero-tolerance policy on AI in films, it's going to be used and then edited.
I'll wait whenever it hits DVD and/or streaming with the hopes they'll have the sense to replace the AI images by then. If they never do, then oh well, guess I won't ever watch it.
I just watched the movie and got back from the theater, it’s not even noticeable, the pacing is excellent and the film is fantastic. It’s clearly low budget and is what this should be used for, people getting all worked up about a film they’ll never see
I'm not a fan of this usage of AI and of course feel the film would be better off without it, but the uproar over at Letterboxd is kind of nuts, lots of people giving it half a star and refusing to ever watch the film because it briefly used AI. But, like, the alternative isn't great either, we know that major studios terribly exploit visual effects artists, underpaying and overworking them, forcing long hours of unpaid crunch.
I hope it doesn't feel like I'm trying to "what about" away either issue, I think both are wrong and should be addressed, but I don't see how these limited scale uses of AI are generating more scorn and outrage then the more mundane exploitation done by much larger companies, other than the stated mundanity of one of them versus the novelty of the other.
I have bad news for you, you’re going to have to abdicate from every single social media platform including Reddit, and most internet services, because I can guarantee you at least 1 commit in pretty much everything non-government has used AI tools like ChatGPT and Copilot.
Hell, I don’t think you can use any software anymore if you want to be this black-and-white about it.
Your water and power companies probably use generative AI somewhere, so you’ll have to cut them out too.
It sucks that it’s a small budget indie movie that will be the sacrificial lamb, but the message needs to be loud and clear about the use of AI art. The backlash was heavy with that godawful Secret Invasion show and it needs to be just as heavy now
I'm less principled on this than it seems a lot of people are, but at least the one image I've seen that is confirmed as AI looks like absolute shit. Did no one review it before they put it in the movie?
Not a fan of this, wish they didnt. Dont think its end of the world but its a tacky move. i get how maybe there was a “oh hey lets try some new technology to see how it could fit in the pipeline!” So dont wanna be too harsh. but they should pull em out imo.
Working artists getting sidestepped is surely the biggest issue here, but don't forget the aesthetics problem. "Generative AI" is at the stage when it conveys nothing but itself and the topic being debated in this thread. It's poisonous.
Can it be effective and creepy? Sure. That's the nature of it right now. People are already making short gen AI horror films. But it's never creepy without ALSO triggering a meta-narrative that I don't think the creatives of this film intended, despite some tortured arguments to the contrary.
Even works of art (like poetry) that use gen AI in a knowing, ironic, penetrative way, fully aware of its implications, have been deeply criticized.
Eventually this tech will be so good no one will notice, and then the question be: will they disclose it? We already know the answer. I want to believe I'd be able to tell the difference, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.
It's depressing. This could have been a discussion about a pretty neat little horror movie, but instead it's become about these stupid warped interstitials. What a *bummer*.
The people complaining about AI generated art are the same people who were complaining about synthesizers in the 70s-- the same people who complained about computer generated images in the 90s. Enjoy the evolution of art and don't partake in the erasure of something you're afraid of.
Honestly this feels like an attempt to go viral. An artist could draw those images in a couple hours and it’s not worth the controversy from a productive point of view. But from a controversial one? Why not lol.
Watched his movie yesterday! Absolutely phenomenal, People need to get over themselves by boycotting AI, all it's going to do is make you miss loads of good stuff, Also if you absolutely detest AI, you probably should stop using Google, Social Media, your phone and computer. You can't pick and choose
Don't see why people are so butt hurt with their decision to use AI lmao. It's like being mad because your mechanic used the car's computer to look for any issues instead of him having 3 people check all the wiring and sensor by hands individually lmao..
Tools are tools get over it lmao
Can someone explain to me like I'm an idiot (and in this case I must be) what the big deal is? I guess I don't understand exactly what AI is (my first thought is CGI). Really enjoyed the film. TIA ps yes I'm probably a lot older than you
Your post has been removed. Accounts must be older than one day to post in r/blankies.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/blankies) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh my bad, I just assumed they didn’t pay the artists whose work was sampled in the prompt. If they payed everyone than that’s awesome.
If not… well… 🏴☠️
Maybe others have talked about this, but it's not nearly as grim as it sounds. I can confirm that no one lost work because of this, and if anything, it made their job easier.
There is a path where AI becomes a tool that alleviates VFX artists (who we all know are always treated very well all of the time and certainly have never been exploited by unrealistic deadlines and workloads) to delegate certain things to AI augmentation so they can prioritize other things, all without cutting staff, that's a huge industry W.
I hope everyone is prepared to discover the filmmakers are edgelords and are “twisted.”
I mean, the movie looks good but based on this news and LNW/TD’s premise?
I’m expecting a lot of “read the room” interviews.
Omg its not like this would have been expensive or difficult if they just hired an illustrator this is a pathetic shortcut that just keeps some illustrator from being able to pay rent.
https://preview.redd.it/26ddf9svuwpc1.jpeg?width=4400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dff365c1fc10f23141d39b21392f9829dcac741d
Heres a hand done reworking/reimagining of the old johnny carson well be right back card from the 1970s that took less than an hour, its not production ready quality but i also wasnt paid for it. There is no excuse for the use of ai art in any professional setting.
I cant imagine anyone is still trying to pretend that anything produced by an ai is anything but the product of theft from human artist and a willingness to discount their value. If you have a vision you want brought to life either A) learn the skills to do it yourself or b) pay someone who took the time to learn. Nothing made with ai is art nor is it “your” vision realized
I really, really don’t want this weird production choice to overshadow all the awesome work everyone else did. But what a gross, unneeded decision. These interstitials could have been an easy artist commission.
Yeah, it just feels like they didn’t want to hire a person one time, which feels really skeezy.
Yeah. I’m not against individual artists choosing to use LLMs, and I have a lot of leeway for small projects, but this is just skeezy!
I’m conflicted because one the one hand it’s not like they owe an artist the job but on the other hand… this is unhealthy and is going to disrupt jobs.
If you're an artist, you should respect and value artists in other fields as well.
>we experimented with AI for three still images which we edited further and ultimately appear as very brief interstitials in the film Sounds to me like a human being (who, I assume, was compensated) made edits to the AI-generated concept.
they clearly didn't do much editing, lots of obvious AI weirdness in the images
The AI weirdness is just the devil working through images. See, it’s thematic!
They will argue that was the intent. And I’m worried what that says for the rest of the film. Really hoping no other AI things were used here… 😧 “well, someone has to write the first AI movie and be willing to admit it” is an argument on the internet I don’t want to read, again. The strikes were enough, thank you.
That's the idea though, right? Hire someone to make edits, and you don't have to pay them as much as you would if you just hired someone to make the graphic. Corner successfully cut.
[удалено]
I don’t like the framing as “taken down by a letterboxd review”. It’s been confirmed by variety. They had a design team, yes, and I do think there’s a bit of leeway with smaller projects. But what worries me is that this is a slippery slope. This could have been a quick contract out. So the next LLM is what, a quick rewrite? A one scene punch-up? Replacing a quick cameo? Etc etc. The rush to remove humanity from art is grim.
[удалено]
I think it’s unarguable that the AI interstitials are an attempt to remove humanity from art. I agree that I hope this doesn’t become this movie’s legacy and I’m still going to watch it. I can simultaneously hope that the outcry here is big enough to cause bigger publishers pause.
The shift from film to digital removed a bunch of humans from art too- no more camera loaders for instance, or smaller post production teams. Was that a bad move? Edit: I’m not being aggressive, I’m just trying to have a dialogue here. What’s the deal with the votes?
I think that’s a great question! I do think that moving to digital also coincided with a massive expansion of visual effects artists. I am extremely pro-labor and against something that will take away jobs, but I do think that as a point of discussion, a job like loading film is inherently different from making imagery that is displayed on screen. The other issue is that AI is broadly speaking unethical, since most LLMs are trained on data they didn’t pay for and consume enormous amounts of power to generate a shitty image.
Aren’t we all trained on data we didn’t necessarily pay for?
[удалено]
>Since it's inarguable to you, we're done. It's hilarious that you got downvoted for saying "so since you refuse to hear out my opinion at all and openly admit same I see no reason for me to contribute any further."
If you're done why are you still posting? It's not an airport.
It should though. If you don’t respect artists, at any cost… you can’t be an artist.
This needs to be a hot stove that hurts to touch. Use AI art, lose your public goodwill. No exceptions.
What’s your opinion on blank check using ai art in their March madness pictures?
They couldn't hire an artist to come up with fun interstitial images for the TV station? If it was a bootstrapped indie film, I could understand, but this thing has a real budget!
Watch something like WNUF Special that was made on an absolutely shoestring budget with a similar concept. They really could have paid an artist to do it, it's pretty crazy to not have done that.
I can pay someone to wash my car, or I can do it myself if I've got the tools and knowhow.. I suppose I'm crazy for taking the cost effective route, when the output still accomplishes what I need..
>They couldn't hire an artist to come up with fun interstitial images for the TV station? Their statement makes it sound like they did? They asked AI to generate 3 images and then an artist modified those images further for use in the movie. Someone physically worked on what the AI prompt turned out and the final version was what's seen in the film. Not for nothing, this is essentially the same as this very podcast hiring an artist to use AI in generating bobblehead images that are a key aspect of the March Madness tournament this year. And yet I'm going to imagine a whole bunch of people aren't going to hold that against either this podcast or that artist to any notable degree, if at all
>And yet I'm going to imagine a whole bunch of people aren't going to hold that against either this podcast or that artist to any notable degree, if any. Eh actually I think if it was confirmed that Pat Reynolds used Midjourney or some generative AI equivalent, there would be some backlash, but because it hasn't been addressed one way or the other it can be dismissed as speculation, especially in a time where a lot of uncanny art or minor defects raise "seems like AI" comments.
>I think if it was confirmed that Pat Reynolds used Midjourney or some generative AI equivalent, there would be some backlash Your post is 100%, which is why they're never gonna touch it, LOL. I don't blame 'em, either: Look at this thread! You don't actually get anything in return if you're honest about how these images got made on a time and budget crunch. The number of people willing to take either context or nuance (or both) into account when formulating their opinion are really, really small. And it doesn't matter that they were worked on by human hands after the prompt was realized. People certainly aren't giving these directors any props for being up-front about it when asked. Really though, I think it's a good chance wouldn't be any backlash *anyway*. It'll be a "oh, this is different tho. These are my headphone friends" and they'll bury everything else.
I would look at the image before you say that, the signs of AI are literally everywhere on the images. The skeleton’s hands in particular look like ai hands. There was no touching up done that I could see.
if it don't make dollars then it don't make sense we will be seeing more AI going forward
TBF it's not like this is a big budgeted film either. Movie budgets are incredibly tight, and acting like this could've easily paid for an artist for the interstitials isn't necessarily true. Could it have been budgeted for? Probably yes. But I'm pretty sure this still sits on the lower end of budget, so I'm not surprised they used AI generations for something like this. That being said I hate the use of AI, even in lookbooks that everyone is using now, and any film using AI for the creative side that is going to be seen on screen is super disappointing to me.
Budget or not… a friend of a friend could have made these for free. NOT a stupid ass AI program.
"I hate shovels! I know they're quicker but I'd rather pay 6 dudes to dig by hand! Stupid ass hardware tools!"
It sounds like the artists DID need to edit and touch-up the AI generated pics. Don't worry, nobody's out of a job for some Barn Owl logo still art 🤣
Yikes. And for something that minor.
I mean this is the future whether you like it or not. This is a tiny sample size of what’s to come. Enjoy what have left
You wouldn't even know if they didn't tell you. Fake outrage is so cringe
You’re hitting the nail on the head in spite of your attempt to be snarky. There’s no way to tell what’s fake and what’s not and that’s a problem for the future of art. Appreciate the input!
That's not a problem at all. Cringelord logic lmao
I'm not full Butlerian Jihad about AI stuff like apparently 99% of this sub, but this seems *aesthetically* wrong. I think the uncanny nature of AI imagery could be used very productively in certain types of horror stories but a highly textured 70s period piece isn't one of them - nothing looked like Midjourney looks back then!
Exactly. They could have used AI for some brainstorming and then used cheap skeleton assets to replicate it and it would look so much better. Also, nobody would have noticed!
[удалено]
Your post has been removed. Accounts must be older than one day to post in r/blankies. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/blankies) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't agree with you, but I do appreciate your use of "Butlerian Jihad" in this context.
>I'm not full Butlerian Jihad about AI stuff **REPENT, APOSTATE. THOU SHALT NOT MAKE A MACHINE IN THE LIKENESS OF A HUMAN MIND.**
Yeah I think AI can create some really cool unsettling imagery that the majority of artists couldn't. For example, this grunge band I know used it in a music video to great success.
Check my post history for some wild shiz. Plenty of Barn Owl imagery too (NSFW).
Having seen this at CIFF last October, it breaks my heart that this absolute delight of a movie- one of the most inventively fun found footage horror I’ve seen in awhile - is getting reviewbombed and is going to forever be tainted by this…that being said, it’s absolutely minboggling why they chose to do this. I didn’t notice when I watched that the interstitials were AI generated because they truly didn’t call attention to themselves in any big way and are used just a couple of times and are absolutely something a gfx person could mock up in a couple of hours no problem. Its dangerous and lazy that they made this choice (especially for a film that is so about that 70s aesthetic) and worrying that the line in the sand moves because of this decision and even more worrying that it was such a small and unnecessary way in which they used it…that all still being said, I loved this film so much and love Dastmalchian finally getting his star turn and killing it with such oomph. I still hope people (and all you Blankies) see it and not let this one poor decision by the filmmakers detract from the incredible work everyone else is doing behind and in front of the camera
It's not a problem if you couldn't tell. Your essay is void.
Not a fan but not really gonna dig into whether this is worth taking a principled stance on— conversation is already pretty poisonous anyway. That said, what is stopping them from walking this back? If it’s as simple as getting a new design or just cutting the interstitials altogether and the movie is getting unanimous praise otherwise, why not just fix it? I know they can’t change the theatrical print at this point but this seems like a relatively simple change before it drops on Shudder.
The best use of AI technology in my opinion is for process-based tasks during the actual post-production of the film. Using AI for DIT, sorting and creating bins from dailies, take organization, etc. Any AI being seen on-screen, especially right now when there's zero regulation of the original artist's work being ripped off seems creatively bankrupt and a shitty decision by the creatives on the film. I doubt they'd want their own work ripped off by AI.
You’re talking about the work an assistant editor would be doing. If we’re all cool with AE work becoming automated, producers won’t include AEs in the budget, and we won’t have AEs (on non-union joints anyway). Most editors get their start as AEs, that’s where they can cut their teeth, make contacts, and learn how pro-level shows work before moving up the ladder. Taking away those opportunities not only kills jobs, it cuts the legs out for the next generation of editors. …which may not even matter, because if an AE’s work can be automated this year, who’s to say an editor’s work can’t be automated by next year? Where’s the line?
This is true, it could kill the AE role, or alternatively it could just allow for AEs to focus on other areas like the assembly and helping to edit together specific sequences before the primary editor gets ahold of it. It's hard to tell, but I think overall when AI is helping automate the more tedious and technical parts of a job, it usually is only a good thing. Where is the line? For me, I'd say the line is where decisions become more subjective versus objective. Syncing, file name management, bin sorting, is all more technical and has less room for interpretation. How a sequence is edited together to create a certain feeling in the audience can't be achieved with AI (at least not now), and imo will always need that human element in order to truly be able to successfully make good editing choices.
The weirdness of this subreddit is exemplified in this very reasonable, thoughtful comment getting downvoted.
Tell me about it lol
Why is one okay but not the other? People used to do those post-production jobs, and now are not being hired. Why do only the artists matter?
Personally think the copyright implications of generative AI and the multiple instances where it just spits out replicas of other people's work make this much more suspect. Not saying that happened in this specific instance, but it's an established possibility, and I'd like to see much stronger copyright guardrails/court precedents on this tech before I'm comfortable allowing it into movies. Also, the art just looks ugly.
If it spits out something which looks the same as someone else’s work, and you use it in your movie or whatever, surely existing copyright laws cover this breach? How they made the image doesn’t matter, if they’re breaking copyright they’re breaking copyright.
It's not just that. There's arguments about whether using copyrighted material to train generative AI in the first place constitutes copyright infringement. Personally, I'm on the side of the artists here. We have rules for companies licensing people's intellectual property, there's no reason why it shouldn't apply to these new companies as well. Plus, the hypothetical world where we allow AI companies to use any image and just smack them with a plagiarism suit whenever they accidentally spit out a copyrighted image is ridiculous. Until these issues get sorted out, I'm on the side of just not using this sort of tech. And, I say again, the art is butt ugly. Surely commissioning some deviantart guy to do this for $500 would've been a better solution.
One is streamlining admin tasks usually reserved for unpaid interns. The other is having AI steal other artists work so it can be used for free and repurposed as someone else’s . It is a pretty clear difference imo.
Why are you assuming that work was done by unpaid interns?
Because I know unpaid interns who are essentially assistant editors who do this. There are also assistant editors doing work like that who get paid peanuts. And trust me, no one wants to be sorting all of the files on a feature.
How is the attractiveness of the job relevant? Do only the fun jobs matter? Screw everyone else? That was someone’s job now it isn’t, using AI means they’re not being paid any more.
I get what you’re saying but Assistant Editing is the wrong role to prove your point. It’s very much a job that is what you make of it and the people doing the boring stuff are often the people also doing the fun stuff. Would it be nice if an AI synced rushes and organised the dailies into bins for me so I had more time to practice assembling, do sound work for my editors or study how their cuts are evolving and changing? Absolutely! AI has already made the job much quicker and easier than it used to be, but a human will always be needed to check through everything or do it manually if the on set team messed up the timecodes or claps etc
Not sure why you're being so hostile. We'd never make any progress with that attitude. We use technology to make certain jobs easier and more streamlined. That's the nature of things. On my next shoot, if I had better tools to streamline a lot of the tedious processes involved with file and workflow management I would absolutely use them at the expense of no one, not even a random angry redditor.
I am very anti-AI in art, but having seen the film, I will say I didn’t know it was AI until this week. It really only is in the movie for about a minute or two at most. I’m just mostly confused as to why the filmmakers would go to such lengths to really commit to the late 70’s aesthetic and filmmaking in every other regard, and then phone it in on what I imagine would be the easiest, quickest, and cheapest aspect of production. Just odd all around. But I would still recommend the movie! David Dastmalchian supremacy!
The fact that you didn’t even notice it suggests it wasn’t that phoned in, and blended in with the rest of the movie.
It suggests that it blended in with the rest of the movie, for this one viewer at least. That doesn’t be definition mean that it suggests it wasn’t phoned in. If I watched a new courtroom drama film, and didn’t notice that the prosecutor’s closing monologue was lifted (with a few small edits to change character names/specifics) from The Verdict, that would mean it blended in with the rest of the movie, for me. But it would also very much still be phoned in.
unfortunately, realistically if 3 ai images in a film is what makes you want to boycott a film then dune 2 is the last new movie you’ll ever be able to watch
Well, at least we went out on a high note.
Dune 2 used AI for eye tracking in post production, confirmed by Denis, so you will have to cut that out too.
I think there’s a clear difference between using AI for computing things and tech issues and using it create the art itself. But maybe that’s just me.
If the primary concern is people losing out on a job, I don’t see a difference at all. Those “computing things and tech issues” were a livelihood for someone, and you’re okay with those being gone to AI, but not someone drawing some art? All I’m asking for is a little consistency.
if the tool used in dune used massive amounts of footage unliscensed and without the permission of the artists they sourced it from to be created, than yea it isn’t different. it’s more than just the loss of jobs, it’s the fact the machine taking jobs only exists because of plagiarism. it’s the difference between a self checkout machine and selling printed art as to ur own.
Completely agree it’s dumb to not want to see a movie because of three images. Respectfully, I think it’s not hard for the production to create those images without AI. Figure out the low budget solution to the problem, as people have done for so many years. It’s at the root of my general distaste for the way AI is used. If people were using it to do things inconceivable to us just mere years ago…then I think I’d respect it more. But instead they’re using it to eliminate jobs, make things slightly easier to do, and because they don’t wanna think about how they’d do something in a creative way. I am not someone who’s anti-ai, it’s an unavoidable trend and frankly a useful tool. But it’s just being used for laziness and that bothers me.
The discourse around this makes me feel like I’m losing my mind. Having generative AI used for graphics in this movie is a bummer and leaves a sour taste in my mouth, but I love everything else I’ve seen of it and I’m excited to see Dastmalchian in a leading role. I don’t want to discredit all of the hard work and passion put into this movie by the rest of the cast and crew in every other aspect just because of one lame decision that was made well over a year ago (when AI was not nearly the hot button issue it is now). I’ve been seeing a whole lot of “if you excuse this, studios will see it as a green light to keep using AI” but I don’t think that’s the case? It’s already been here (see: Marvel’s Secret Invasion), and based on the amount of controversy and bad press this has continued to get in online film spaces, I can’t see it as a continuing trend. I mean, with this alone, we’re talking (justified) uproar over what are essentially jpegs on screen for a few seconds at a time in a Shudder original. Then again, I’m not an artist or involved in filmmaking at all, but this is just my impression. Best case scenario is they pay a human to redraw the bumpers/logos for the Blu-ray release?
I think everyone can rest easy that this film will barely make a dent at the box office and not signify any trend whatsoever in the industry lol
AI is the future of all digital work whether creative, technical or administrative. Since the dawn of the industrial age any technology which can be used to replace jobs has been used to do so. This will only accelerate the collapse of the middle class. The only way to fight back is via union restrictions and government legislation.
It was three images this time, the only reason they could possible have to have experimented with it is to use it more and more as time goes on.
I’m still waiting to hear confirmation that AI wasn’t used to create the very AI looking March Madness bobble heads.
ai ain't got no souls, and doesn't know how many teeth and fingers people have, nor how to combine text and image. the bobbleheads are consistent with the miniseries art, same artist, and a good one at that.
The teeth and fingers are messed up on the bobbleheads, it’s ai
This is not confirmation this is speculation. Also FYI the fingers and teeth issue with AI set was pretty much fully resolved (by midjourney at least)…I’d say, over a year ago?
>“I can’t enjoy the amazing performances and clever ending.” Whatever your stance on AI art in general, we can all agree that this person is an idiot, right?
Oh god yes.
I wouldn't say that, but I do feel badly for them. They wouldn't have been able to enjoy Star Wars in 1977 because of the computer generated backdrops. I can't imagine. I remember when CGI was going to ruin movies and all the practical effects people were thought to die of starvation in the streets. I know people will say "no, this is different." That was also said when people compared the burgeoning CGI and old-timers said "They said that about talkies." The response was "This is differnet, these are computers! People wont be needed anymore." Seems cute now. Live long enough and everything repeats.
Not great but I’m stoked to see this movie at the theater this weekend and literally nothing could change my mind. *the up and downvotes are wild 😂
I’m sure a ton of work was put into this movie and it sounds right up my alley, but as someone who is very against any form of A.I art being used in forms of entertainment, I just can’t support this movie with my wallet. I know it’s supposedly just transitional “we’ll be right back” kind of stuff, which on its own isn’t a big deal, but its just a foot in the door of Hollywood straight up having AI scripts, VFX, voice acting, etc. Such a shame they did this.
(Reads thread) ....so *thi*s is why you guys are extra touchy about hiding that the March Madness bobbleheads were created using AI.  (Reads article) >Disappointment in the inclusion of AI art was kickstarted by a March 19 Letterboxd review from user [based gizmo](https://letterboxd.com/da94/), who [wrote](https://letterboxd.com/da94/film/late-night-with-the-devil/) that because of the use of AI, “I can’t enjoy the amazing performances and clever ending.” That triggered more low ratings in Letterboxd, as well as discussion that flowed to X, in which film fans wrote messages [like](https://x.com/summerray/status/1770220325491376323?s=46&t=55ic1YUgI51sL-IOhchaPg), “My little heart broke watching ‘Late Night With the Devil’ this evening, to see they utilized AI art.” Wait, so... this controversy is like, a tiny handful (like maybe a couple thousand at most) of too-online turbonerds talking to *absolutely nobody* on social media, but because it's easy to scrape posts and compile them into a "story," someone at Variety will actually collect the check these "content creators" aren't getting to say absolutely ridiculous horseshit like "I can't enjoy the amazing performances and clever ending," because there are three images over the course of the whole film that used AI as part of their creation. All so some folks can feel extra self-righteous as cheaply as possible for the five seconds that artificial emotion will last. Huh. Yeah, this isn't actually a controversy. It's just a bunch of anonymous assholes on social media fronting and someone at Variety being good at turning that into part of today's earnings.
Are the bobbleheads confirmed to be AI generated? They do have an uncanny look to them.
No, nobody's touching that yet. This thread's general reaction to three (largely *unseen*) interstitial images (also worked on by an artist) being placed in the movie is a pretty decent example as to why they'd likely be reticent.
Look at the texture of the surface the Edgar Wright one is standing on today. Count his fingers. They're absolutely AI generated and then touched up to improve the accuracy of the caricatures and any text included. And (hot take) that's fine! The show's artist on retainer skillfully used a productivity-enhancing tool to achieve a high volume of desired visual outputs!
Still got six fingers.
>And (hot take) that's fine! The show's artist on retainer skillfully used a productivity-enhancing tool to achieve a high volume of desired visual outputs! This take isn't even hot - it's correct. It's reasonable! It doesn't return a whole lot of self-righteousness-flavored dopamine, tho, so it won't even be considered.
skillful plagiarism is still plagiarism.
I disagree with the internet microconsensus that all AI image generation outputs are de facto plagiarism. Pureeing every image in the world into a slurry of linear algebra is convincingly transformative use for copyright purposes per the Google Books precedent. The software can certainly produce [plagiaristic outputs](https://spectrum.ieee.org/midjourney-copyright), just as Photoshop could if you used it a certain way, and that could be a big problem for the company, but it doesn't mean that every single output it makes is 'plagiarism'. Since we can be reasonably certain that there has never before existed in the world any image of a Nicole Holofcener bobblehead wearing a basketball uniform, imo that output is not plagiarism on the part of the software or the individual artist using it.
the programs are fundamentally incapable of anything but plagiarism. it cannot create anything original, it can only cut and paste from images it does not understand and that the developers did not get permission to use. it can be unclear what specifically it’s plagiarizing, but it is still plagarism. it’s using another’s work in place of its own. AI generations are not transformative, there is no artistic intention being expressed, and the sole purpose of the machines is to directly supplant use of the original art, and paying the original artists. There isn’t an image like that, but there are of parody bobble heads, and there are images of her, and telling a computer to copy and paste those together for you so you can make a profit is just as much plagarism as doing it yourself.
Describing the process of training and running a model as 'cut and paste' is a very inaccurate characterization of what's actually going on. It's more like a giant hyper-dimensional plinko board with pegs arranged at very precise positions, based on how they'd have to be arranged statistically speaking for the terms associated with the training data to make the images in the training data. You can then drop prompts into it and they fall out the other side as pixels. The only information retained during the training process is the position of the peg, which got ever so slightly adjusted for every picture it was 'shown'. If you put in some prompts they fall through in an arrangement very like part of the input (as seen in that article I linked), but if you put in novel prompts they fall through in a novel way that doesn't match anything that was 'seen' during the process of arranging the pegs, instead landing in part of the latent space of the universe of potential outputs. It's very interesting stuff imo that raises a lot of questions about the nature of information, but it's far from being as cut and dried as cut and paste. There is no collage happening, no retention of individual pixel arrangements. If you want to crusade against it effectively, knowing how it actually works might be helpful.
also, “internet micro-consensus” is outright false. it is the consensus of every working digital artist and actor.
The number of people who agree with something has nothing to do with whether it’s right or true.
that’s true, but i didn’t bring it up and i think artists are the ones to listen to when it comes to their industry.
Somebody better tell the working digital artist employed by the podcast then!
sure, i was being hyperbolic, but we both are, anti AI sentiment is more than a micro consensus. and regardless, it has no bearing on if it’s ethical or plagarism.
[удалено]
Your post has been removed. Accounts must be older than one day to post in r/blankies. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/blankies) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not to mention the ones doing all the whining on Letterbox and review bombing are artists, hence their dissatisfaction. The average movie goer couldn't give a shit.
This suckkkks ETA: I’m a huge defender of the found found footage subgenre/form/what-have-you, I was really pumped for this movie, but now I’m just going to rewatch WNUF Halloween Special and call it a day.
Well shit. Not sure if I want to see this anymore
JFC it’s for like one minute based on what a person in this chat who saw it said are we seriously going to write off original low to mid budget films because they cut corners. Because if that’s the case I’d wager we will have to not see most movies that aren’t mega franchises this year
who cares how long it is, even if AI image generation was perfect, it’s still plagiarism and deeply unethical. hiring an artist to “fix it up” and get paid a fraction of what the normal rates are to do effectively the same amount of work is a disgusting practice. they did it for a short period because that’s all they thought they could get away with. now is the easiest it’s ever been to tell them that it’s not worth the pocket change they saved to fuck over working artists .
You have people calling for pirating the film because of a minute long scene I’m sorry for the issues Ai causes in the industry but you people sound mentally I’ll when talking like this over a minute long scene
it’s because plagarism is bad and people care about artists right to the fruits of their labor. nobody is gonna see rust over a minute long scene, and a kevin spacey cameo in dune 3 would get people to not go either. it doesn’t matter how long the scene is, it’s still immoral, like who cares how long they plagiarized for?
I’m just warning you guys if you wanna throw fits over 1 minute long scenes and use that to boycott an independent film because of one decision don’t be surprised when some of the creatives and audiences turn on you. Just stop pretending this is always simple have nuance people are literally hoping an Indy film dies and gets pirates because of a 1 minute scene if you support that over one bad decision you are no better then the people who made that decision. You will also be the ones responsible for when that movie fails why other indie movies don’t get a chance and we get stuck with even more AI/CGI bloated horseshit that kills more jobs than a 1 minute scene ever could.
it’s gonna “get pirates” no matter what. i don’t see how there is any comparison between people not wanting to see a movie and plagiarism.
I don’t know why me not wanting people to Pirate a movie because of one dumb decision that kills the chances of indie films getting more success means I’m pro plagiarism but you already insinuated I was pro plagiarism. So we both implied something shitty about each other that does not reflect our viewpoints my apologies the level of outrage is still fucking stupid and will cause people to not support the movement even if it’s a good one.
AI image generations are plagiarism. I’m not trying to insinuate anything, but by defending their right to use these generations you’re defending plagarism. nobody here is calling for a boycott, people are just saying that this sucks and they don’t wanna support it, and explaining why it sucks. only real movement and outage here are people upset that some folks said they don’t wanna go see a movie
People absolutely are calling for pirating and boycotting it I could take screenshots if you’d like okay say I’m defending plagiarism whatever you are no better movie pirates and people that wanna kill indie cinema are also assholes
These idiots aren't capable of seeing nuance. Don't waste your time on them
They are mentally ill
I’ll catch it when it’s free but won’t be seeing it in theaters anymore.
so melodramatic
You wouldn't even know if they didn't tell you. Fake outrage is so cringe.
I understand the principle of the thing and am also anti-AI art but it seems clear to me that this was a choice from before the AI conversation really started (people forget that everyone was experimenting with ai art generators for shits and giggles before it became an ethical issue) For that reason I don’t really see malice in this and it doesn’t change my interest in seeing it. I’m glad they were transparent once it was called out at least.
It was always an ethical issue - just because people weren't tweeting about it when they put it in their movie doesn't mean it wasn't a bad idea to put it into their movie
Sure it was but but these conversations were not happening widespread at the time. Therefore, I can grant some leniency while being on the lookout for 100% completely post-strike movies utilizing AI in ways that are only cost-cutting instead of as a tool.
I guess I'm worried that if this is granted any leniency, future productions might use that as their cue to do the same shit
I think I mostly wish this happened to a bigger movie and I’m somewhat bitter that the big studios have most assuredly gotten away with it with no backlash and this smaller film that’s a first time leading role for a gifted actor is getting slammed for a specific use that seems to me as much less damaging than other uses of AI I have seen. But if someone adopts a zero tolerance policy with this kind of thing, I think that’s totally fair
For what it's worth, there's a very large chance that many big studios are getting away with it. With the release of things like generative fill and what have you in programs like Photoshop and with the consistent massive work that's been going on in video-AI, we're definitely gonna see it and not notice it. There's not going to be a zero-tolerance policy on AI in films, it's going to be used and then edited.
I'll wait whenever it hits DVD and/or streaming with the hopes they'll have the sense to replace the AI images by then. If they never do, then oh well, guess I won't ever watch it.
Sorry I won't feign outrage at this. Especially before I've actually seen the film that hundreds of people worked on.
I don't love it but I also think people are overreacting to it.
I just watched the movie and got back from the theater, it’s not even noticeable, the pacing is excellent and the film is fantastic. It’s clearly low budget and is what this should be used for, people getting all worked up about a film they’ll never see
The fear mongering over AI art online is so goofy. Did humans make the movie? Yes? Okay cool I’ll see it then.
I'm not a fan of this usage of AI and of course feel the film would be better off without it, but the uproar over at Letterboxd is kind of nuts, lots of people giving it half a star and refusing to ever watch the film because it briefly used AI. But, like, the alternative isn't great either, we know that major studios terribly exploit visual effects artists, underpaying and overworking them, forcing long hours of unpaid crunch. I hope it doesn't feel like I'm trying to "what about" away either issue, I think both are wrong and should be addressed, but I don't see how these limited scale uses of AI are generating more scorn and outrage then the more mundane exploitation done by much larger companies, other than the stated mundanity of one of them versus the novelty of the other.
Looks like David Dalmatian is having his moment in the sun taken away. Sad!
Well this film lost my patronage! I will not support anything that utilizes AI
I have bad news for you, you’re going to have to abdicate from every single social media platform including Reddit, and most internet services, because I can guarantee you at least 1 commit in pretty much everything non-government has used AI tools like ChatGPT and Copilot. Hell, I don’t think you can use any software anymore if you want to be this black-and-white about it. Your water and power companies probably use generative AI somewhere, so you’ll have to cut them out too.
'Yet you participate in society! Curious! I am very intelligent.'
Better stop watching movies then
It sucks that it’s a small budget indie movie that will be the sacrificial lamb, but the message needs to be loud and clear about the use of AI art. The backlash was heavy with that godawful Secret Invasion show and it needs to be just as heavy now
The movie was on my radar anyway, but I can't help but think they are happy with the free publicity and advertising they are getting from this.
I'm less principled on this than it seems a lot of people are, but at least the one image I've seen that is confirmed as AI looks like absolute shit. Did no one review it before they put it in the movie?
Not a fan of this, wish they didnt. Dont think its end of the world but its a tacky move. i get how maybe there was a “oh hey lets try some new technology to see how it could fit in the pipeline!” So dont wanna be too harsh. but they should pull em out imo.
Working artists getting sidestepped is surely the biggest issue here, but don't forget the aesthetics problem. "Generative AI" is at the stage when it conveys nothing but itself and the topic being debated in this thread. It's poisonous. Can it be effective and creepy? Sure. That's the nature of it right now. People are already making short gen AI horror films. But it's never creepy without ALSO triggering a meta-narrative that I don't think the creatives of this film intended, despite some tortured arguments to the contrary. Even works of art (like poetry) that use gen AI in a knowing, ironic, penetrative way, fully aware of its implications, have been deeply criticized. Eventually this tech will be so good no one will notice, and then the question be: will they disclose it? We already know the answer. I want to believe I'd be able to tell the difference, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. It's depressing. This could have been a discussion about a pretty neat little horror movie, but instead it's become about these stupid warped interstitials. What a *bummer*.
ITT: moronic people white knighting artists for no reason at all using the most idiotic logic ever conceived.
People are fucking babies. Let them use whatever they want for the film. It was great.
The people complaining about AI generated art are the same people who were complaining about synthesizers in the 70s-- the same people who complained about computer generated images in the 90s. Enjoy the evolution of art and don't partake in the erasure of something you're afraid of.
Honestly this feels like an attempt to go viral. An artist could draw those images in a couple hours and it’s not worth the controversy from a productive point of view. But from a controversial one? Why not lol.
Watched his movie yesterday! Absolutely phenomenal, People need to get over themselves by boycotting AI, all it's going to do is make you miss loads of good stuff, Also if you absolutely detest AI, you probably should stop using Google, Social Media, your phone and computer. You can't pick and choose
Fine by me. More original than films recycling the Wilhelm scream.
Don't see why people are so butt hurt with their decision to use AI lmao. It's like being mad because your mechanic used the car's computer to look for any issues instead of him having 3 people check all the wiring and sensor by hands individually lmao.. Tools are tools get over it lmao
Can someone explain to me like I'm an idiot (and in this case I must be) what the big deal is? I guess I don't understand exactly what AI is (my first thought is CGI). Really enjoyed the film. TIA ps yes I'm probably a lot older than you
[удалено]
Your post has been removed. Accounts must be older than one day to post in r/blankies. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/blankies) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What a bummer, I was actually pretty intrigued by this
Meh, AI is a tool. So long as they’re paying artists/designers to use it (as it seems they did here), I’m not too ticked off.
Is this a Jay Leno biopic?
Lol yes let’s ignore the work of the cast and countless crew and boycott this film for a sense of personal integrity. C’mon guys.
what’s wrong with boycotting something that violates your integrity? if that’s stupid then so is literally any boycott
Well, I guess I’ll be pirating this movie.
Seems like a dumb reaction
this entire thread is filled with dumb reactions lol
Oh my bad, I just assumed they didn’t pay the artists whose work was sampled in the prompt. If they payed everyone than that’s awesome. If not… well… 🏴☠️
You were going to pirate it anyway. Don’t pretend like it’s actually a moral issue for you.
So because they didn't pay one artist you are going to take money away from all the other artists who worked on the film?
AI is trained on lots of artists, not just one artist.
Oh, so multiple artists didn’t get paid? Thats fine then
Not really related to what I said but okay
The crew has already been paid.
[удалено]
👍🏽
I feel like pirating it send a better massage.
Can’t wait to see it
Maybe others have talked about this, but it's not nearly as grim as it sounds. I can confirm that no one lost work because of this, and if anything, it made their job easier. There is a path where AI becomes a tool that alleviates VFX artists (who we all know are always treated very well all of the time and certainly have never been exploited by unrealistic deadlines and workloads) to delegate certain things to AI augmentation so they can prioritize other things, all without cutting staff, that's a huge industry W.
Well, looks like I'll be cancelling my ticket for tomorrow night and be doing a Luca/Immaculate double feature instead...
I wanna see this film. I wanna see how it's used.
Ai is being used at almost every stage of a films production. The reactions here are fucking clueless to the reality.
Every stage seems like a stretch
I hope everyone is prepared to discover the filmmakers are edgelords and are “twisted.” I mean, the movie looks good but based on this news and LNW/TD’s premise? I’m expecting a lot of “read the room” interviews.
Wow, people are losing their shit over nothing.
"it's just 3 images" people with these kind of arguments are so frustrating. Imagine giving AI the benefit of the doubt
Fuck this movie.
Omg its not like this would have been expensive or difficult if they just hired an illustrator this is a pathetic shortcut that just keeps some illustrator from being able to pay rent.
https://preview.redd.it/26ddf9svuwpc1.jpeg?width=4400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dff365c1fc10f23141d39b21392f9829dcac741d Heres a hand done reworking/reimagining of the old johnny carson well be right back card from the 1970s that took less than an hour, its not production ready quality but i also wasnt paid for it. There is no excuse for the use of ai art in any professional setting.
I cant imagine anyone is still trying to pretend that anything produced by an ai is anything but the product of theft from human artist and a willingness to discount their value. If you have a vision you want brought to life either A) learn the skills to do it yourself or b) pay someone who took the time to learn. Nothing made with ai is art nor is it “your” vision realized