A certain artist once said: I want AI to clean my house, do the dishes so I can do art. No the other way around.
Not suprised, Miyazaki’s art is deeply concerned with what it means to be human, and the beauty to be found there.
The art style is an superficial aesthetic of that beauty, not the heart of it.
And none of that heart is in ai generated images. They’re souless immitations that ape the substance of his works without having any. Like how hallmark pretends to depict “love” with paper thin characters and sanitizes it of any real substance or meaning
It’s striking isn’t it how the debate around generative AI is essentially drawn along the line that separates good taste from bad. To win the debate we’re going to need really good art.
It’s a fundamental issue understanding what art is for sure. People who could really draw well could already copy his style perfectly, but just because you can perfectly copy it doesn’t make it original, and thus have the same value. It’s not that it has no value, just considerably less value than his films.
It’s that total lack of originality with AI slavishly copying a style like this that shows its lack of creative value. It’s like pressing play on a keyboard programmed with 20 top tunes of the 80s and randomly pressing the high hat key.
Sure, it enables someone who can’t play the piano to “play” a song, but not really. It’s the same getting AI to copy by rote someone else’s style they developed, it requires no effort or application of originality.
I think you’re barking up the right tree, but the way I’d put it is this: it gives people the ability to imitate an aesthetic without ever engaging with the thinking that underlies that aesthetic. It’s almost inherently anti intellectual, in that way.
Ghibli’s art comes from a profound love for liveliness, wonder, nature, and beauty that also respects the pain endured by its subjects. People talk shit on Ghibli as “the Disney of anime” but it’s a backhanded compliment at worst because I think they’re obliquely referring to how well Miyazaki executes on those feelings.
Or a lot of irish car bombs, and I don’t mean the drink
It definitely tracks that this same post in Reddit is overwhelmed with people supporting OpenAI on the matter.
I think the show Arcane is one of the best examples of commercially released art in recent decades; interestingly, what happened is people actually accused it of using AI where there was none. Also Variety et al did a whole round of balking that anyone would invest in something so frivolous as serious animation for adults
There’s always gonna be Capitalists who try and commodify art, but fundamentally humans are the the only ones who can make NEW insights that resonate with people RIGHT NOW. If AI IS ever able to observe the world and reflect on it and offer something new, in the way humans are, it would still be from their own perspective, not ours.
And much like that line, people confuse their personal taste for some kind of universal Truth that has to apply to everyone.
I’ll take that L if you find me one professional artist who uses genAI and not ironically.
I know a graphics designer personally (from work) who used an AI generated video clip as part of a proposed background video for the landing page of a marketing-style website that was getting a refresh on one of our projects. That one ultimately didn’t end up getting used – not because it looked bad, but because of other branding considerations. Frankly, I’m glad that he didn’t have to put much effort into making something that ended up getting canned.
There’s a LOT of art out there that’s functional. Few people stop and pay attention to it as art in itself – and it rarely lasts more than a few years before getting swapped out for something else in rebranding – but someone with design sense still needs to make it or a product will be less appealing.
There were images created, in part, by generative AI in some recent Call of Duty game. The person who created the piece was employed professionally by the studio that makes the game.
Grimes, shared AI that copy her voice, claim to use AI: https://time.com/7212502/grimes-ai-art-interview/
I think we can do better than Grimes.
…unless you’re lookin’ to warm up that chrome.
I’m feeling safe unless you got any artists who managed not to fuck Elon Musk
Arent you moving goalpost, you asked one professional artist.
Here another one: Jess MacCormackThat’ll do. I’ll take this L but I’m still with Miyazaki on this one. Art opinions on Lemmy always getting me into trouble.
I owe you a non-joke answer. It’s not just a matter of personal taste here. Art is fundamentally the study of choice. A product that entails no actual choices is not art, even if you have a salable product that happens to be pretty. All genAI lacks the underlying meanings that evoke thought.
The premise here is that AI is generating art. That’s simply not true. People make art. AI is a tool not an artist. ‘AI art’ is art made by people using AI tools. The paintbrush doesn’t understand underlying meaning, it is a tool used by a person to create art. A diffusion model doesn’t understand meaning, but it also doesn’t create anything by itself. it is a tool that a person chooses to use.
The person chooses what to generate, what to manually create and how to mix those elements to create a composition that they, a human person, decide is what they want.
It’s no different than using Krita or Photoshop, with their various plugins and image manipulation capabilities (which also don’t understand meaning), to create art.
It’s just a tool, there is no ‘AI art’, it is all created by people.
If I throw a bucket of paint on a canvas and call it art. You can say that it is bad art, but saying that it is not art because the bucket of paint doesn’t understand art is nonsense. The same is true of any other tool that a person chooses to use to make art.
Well, there’s a word for art that was made by someone using tools: art.
This has mainly not been what people use it for, and far more importantly such people aren’t even the target market. It’s exceedingly poor form to pretend otherwise.
People use Photoshop to create cat memes and manipulate pictures of Vice President J. D. Vance but that doesn’t mean that the use of Photoshop disqualifies the output from being considered art. Even the cat pictures are art.
If a person decides they want to create an image in the style of a film that they love and they make something that fits their vision then who are we to say that it isn’t art? Do we have the right to examine their entire process to determine that they used only the tools that we approve of and only the methods that we approve of? Are they disqualified for using generative fill to fix some complex shading?
What if they generate a tree, is the rest of the piece now ‘Not Art’ because they used an AI tool?
That’s why this position against generative art doesn’t make any sense. The line you choose to draw between ‘Real Art’ and ‘Not Art’ is always going to be arbitrary and no two people will have the same definition.
I think this is a great example of people confusing their personal tastes with some universal truth about the world. "I don’t like art generated with AI tools’ is perfectly valid. But to simply declare that my personal taste is THE Definition of Art is hubris.
Fuck this
The clip is from a documentary where Miyazaki works on a 3DCG short film (something completely unheard of). You can watch the documentary here. I do like the point he makes:
(Suzuki) “So, what’s your goal?”
(Guy) “Well, we would like to build a machine that can draw pictures like humans do.”
(Miyazaki) “We humans are losing faith in ourselves.”
Miyazaki seems to be concerned about the loss of humans, because after comparing their display with his friend with a disability. He says he finds this Disgusting calling that creators of this stuff has no idea of pain whatsoever. That he would not incorporate this technology into his work at all.
ok, but what he says next is very important, I believe that it is at the heart of the meaning behind his statements. He says that he feels that this is an insult to life itself. and then right at the very end of the video, he says humans are losing faith in themselves.
This is very telling, with ai as a whole because ai is made to be able to replicate with humans can. I think he has a fear of a newer upper life, made virtually will replace humans in the making of arts. (probably not exclusively just the arts, but in this case.) Which includes anime and video games.
Dayum, bro was crying. Being shut dow by Miyazaki like that must’ve felt like your soul being eviscerated.
Its heartbreaking for him, but i’ve never seen such pathetic animation in my life. At the end of the day, they needed to be sized down, because all that GenAI is doing is melting every creative endeavor to slop. The spirit of humanity, exploited by a prompt.
And the feature has already been plugged by Open AI. It won’t do Ghibli style reimagining anymore
That’s sad
I can absolutely understand why he’d say that.
It’s a tough thing, complex. Human beings can be (creative) hacks too, copying something without any soul. But humans only have two hands and need to sleep and eat. An AI just needs a power supply and an Internet connection.
You are a processing unit with a chassis that converts stored energy into chemical energy of the type your processing unit can use. You require, and have, means to interact with your environment.
AI systems are a processing unit with a chassis that converts available energy into energy of the type it’s processing unit can use. It requires, and has, a means to interact with it’s environment, the internet.
I’m at a loss for why anyone in this thread thinks humans are special. Our processing units have more capacity for evil and hallucinations, but we don’t get extra credit for that.
If that is your true view on what it means to be human, I’m truly sad for you. An AI system can’t experience joy, loss, sadness or happiness. There’s few animals around that can do this consciously. Humans are one of them. There is so much more to life than just chemical processes in your brain (that haven’t even been shown to happen before the thought happens or their connection to thought in general). Life is shared in a community and experienced together, humans aren’t meant to be solitary processing units, they’re group animals and that experience creates something not replicable with emotionless systems.
This is also why AI art fails. It doesn’t know how to connect to others and take input from experiences, because it doesn’t experience. It’s solipsist in its nature.
A perfectly modernist take.
The problem is that modernism is wrong. The universe cannot be explained through that outdated mode of thinking, it just leads to totalitarianism and human suffering.
You are special, like it or not :)
I agree! AI art is an affront to humanity. People should be ashamed to even use AI for art, but in the age of hypercapitalism it’s all about money or clout for most people. It’s just one more reason why as time goes on I trend more and more towards misanthropy.
That miyazaki quote’s out of context . It’s not referencing genAI , it’s used to liken his disabled friend to a cgi monster . Shouldn’t have to explain how fucked that is . If you’re gonna criticise AI in art , don’t spread misinfo
I just watched the video in question, and this is an entirely backwards take. Miyazaki is saying the animation is an insult to the pain of those with disablities like his friend, not disparaging people with disabilities.
It isn’t specifically about generative ai, but he is talking about art (animations) made through machine-learning being a cold mimicry of real human efforts. I think the comparison is pretty fair and it applies in both instances.
If you lꝏk at a monster and 1st thing comes to your brain’s disabled person , there’s some thing wrong with you
Let’s not take every thing miyazaki says at face value . Ffs he compared swiping gestures on ipads to masturbation . This tendency he seems to have with every new technology being The Worst Thing Ever , ⦅bogus|overly hyperbolic) comparisons|catastrophising (“end of times” in reference to desire to create genAI art technology⦆ , think the disability comparison definitely qualifies
You’re still missing the point Miyazaki is making. His point is that such a crude depiction of an organism with thoughts and feelings is an insult to actual living thinking beings. The animation might not be alive or sentient, but it still represents a life form that is sentient, and creating such animations that depict sentient beings as incapable as the animation might evoke undesirable feelings in somebody watching that animation, even if they know that it is merely a 2D digital animation composed of bits and pixels that does not have any psychological traits.
Miyazaki, says something about how the people making the ai don’t have feelings of suffering or whatever. Then after that in the video, he says that humans are losing faith in themselves, that we’re heading near the end of times.
I believe that he’s saying that anyone making ai, isn’t thinking about people affected such as real artists.
While this can be seen as context of the disabled friend he mentioned, he says this right before he mentions humans losing faith in themselves in the video. Now, Idk about some of you, but I feel that everything he said is connected in some way. It isn’t going to be laid out in front of you (although in his case it kinda was.)
You got to carefully look at what is stated, the context, and look for connection between the different statements that were said. Oh and look for that one statement that might hold the whole point of the entirety of that is being said. Out of all the statements throughout the video.
That isn’t really what he means though. Miyazaki knew this was AI generated and knows what it means. They explain the machine which they sought to create art like humans do ‘learned’ how to move and that ‘it doesn’t feel pain’ and called it ‘dancing’. Then they say it is creepy and could be used for a zombie game.
Miyazaki then states ‘whoever creates this stuff has no idea what pain is’.
That is the criticism he appears to be levelling. The demonstration of such horror without an understanding pain robs it of human connection.
I wonder if he would pass the Turing test. He seems like he’s just a Luddite (yes yes luddites were the good guys, I’m using the current meaning)
It’s completely in context. We have the complete context. It’s in response to an AI generated walk cycle, and he specifically called out the technology as something he never wants to work with. The people he spoke to said they wanted to make an AI that can draw like humans do, which is how generative AI is described.
Yeah he is just being a huge asshole in this presentation, basically shitting on all art that plays on reactions of horror to uncanny movements, there’s no meaningful commentary on technology here.
