www.forbes.com: The AI-creation is not an actress, or even the animated avatar of a voice actor, but simply an output of generative AI that resembles a young, conventionally attractive woman.
AI is responsible for flooding the web with content-slop and dopamine-drivel every single day, but the way Tilly was introduced rubbed commentators the wrong way.
4 comments:
AI in this industry in general just serious is a smack in the face to most of the artists that work incredibly hard to get where they are. It's just so disappointing that the work that we as artists put in is being pushed aside by a machine. In the same way that when the AI "Upscaling" revolution was occurring it typically ruins the whole entire point of the initial work of the artist. Theses upscaling to a higher frame rate, were made without a proper understanding of the frame rates and they were sure "Smoother" the pieces that were upscaled and "improved" weren't meant to be that way. Animated movies are 24FPS because that is a cinematic frame rate, they don't choose that frame rate arbitrarily. It's set that way for a reason, not a we don't have the technology to push these frames or the time to draw more frames, it's a better look.
I have commented on this topic before but on a different article. On the other article I went in on the fact that an AI can not create art like a human can, and that would mean that an AI actress could not approach the artistry that is required to create a character in a movie without copying someone else. Though there is an image of a social media post that caught my eye in this article which is that the AI character itself is in fact a work of art. Which then brings to question is art allowed / able to make art, and in actuality the answer must be yes. For example in theater a single show is a collection of many different pieces of art that work together to make a bigger more complex piece of art. So by that train of thought an AI which is a piece of art could then be an element in a movie or show in order to create a bigger piece of art. Which is true on paper, but the issue is that by having an AI as an actor in a show the AI is then removing the chance for an actor to show their ability in the work that the AI is a part of.
The concept of having AI ‘actors’ is ridiculous to me. Much like the use of AI to create visual arts, attempting to use a collection of glorified lines of code as an actor is absurd and misses the point of art in the first place. One of the most crucial aspects of human artwork is the innate human ‘creative spark,’ which can’t be replicated by any AI model, no matter how advanced. Furthermore, the AI’s ‘acting’ has no internal emotion behind it at all, unlike real actors, who actually feel emotions and can put that into their performances. The discourse around AI in the arts has been extremely frustrating to me, largely due to the fact that so many people across the world are embracing AI art as real art, when in reality it is just the average of everything that it’s even been trained on. I fear that if the general public continues to move in the direction of legitimizing AI in the world of art, it will be very difficult for artistic industries to thrive as we now know them.
Calling a generative AI model a work of art is like calling garbage art. It is the uniqueness and ephemerality that makes art valuable and inspiring. Garbage can be made into art because of its unique hand and the story that it tells. If you pump out garbage and try to still call it art it loses its value. Generative AI is great at pumping out whatever it needs to keep you occupied while it may or (more likely not) be true. Even thinking of the argument that the AI model was made by human hands is a flawed argument. AI has been long made and has been unexplainable as to why it does certain things even by the people who have made it. This is even without the fraught nature of being in full control of an entity that looks and acts like an underage actress for an audience to do whatever they want with.
Post a Comment