Techbros try to demonstrate AI rotoscoping animation, get dragged by Ralph Bakshi

[Jman]

 

If 84 year old Ralph Baskhi emerges to clown on your AI's attempt at rotoscoping, you fucked up.

Edited March 2, 2023 by Jman

[PokeNirvash]

I don't think this board is the right discussion for this. Could've at least drawn a comparison to Miyazaki.

[Jman]

1 hour ago, PokeNirvash said:

I don't think this board is the right discussion for this. Could've at least drawn a comparison to Miyazaki.

They specifically described what they made as anime. 

[PokeNirvash]

Huh. Must've missed that. The Western artstyle and Ralph Bakshi being the quote-tweeter threw me off.

[Jman]

44 minutes ago, PokeNirvash said:

Huh. Must've missed that. The Western artstyle and Ralph Bakshi being the quote-tweeter threw me off.

Apparently said techbros used Vampire Hunter D Bloodlust as their art style to train the AI on.  But since Bakshi is one of the best known rotoscoping animators, his opinion is especially valid (and hilarious).

[naraku360]

I don't know why y'all are so down on this. This isn't much, if at all, different from an algorithmic randomly generated filter for video.

There's still a lot of work that would have to go into making this regardless of the use of AI. If it were just  a case of AI made the animation, it would be nonsense considering our AI capacities right now are still fairly limited.

[matrixman124]

"why is this such a big deal"

It sets a precedent and encourages companies to start supplementing animation with AI tools. This is going to make it a lot tougher to be an animator in the industry

https://youtu.be/GOwxXj1EIXM

 

Edited March 4, 2023 by matrixman124

[naraku360]

4 hours ago, matrixman124 said:

"why is this such a big deal"

It sets a precedent and encourages companies to start supplementing animation with AI tools. This is going to make it a lot tougher to be an animator in the industry

https://youtu.be/GOwxXj1EIXM

 

I know what the argument is. I'm saying this doesn't actually learn and you have to still input in data. What was made clearly has significant human input since AI can't write a script and AI generated videos are nonsense.

It's a complicated Instagram filter. Whose to say it cannot be implemented in creative, artistic ways? What about people who want to make animation but disabilities prevent it? Couldn't this help that?

I'm not saying there are no valid concerns, but an algorithmic camera filter isn't one for me. You still need actors like rotoscoping, you still need to go in and change stuff. It doesn't create new work. My phone can turn photos into drawings, but if I took a cool picture and used a filter to make it look drawn, is that automatically a worse photo purely because a filter was put on it? Is it impossible for the filtered version to enhance the original in a meaningful way?

What people are freaking out over would require the program to actually learn and create its own thing. Animating on its own is useless if the data being input is created poorly, or if the creator is bad at writing or choreography or directing. You have to have an original to rotoscope in the first place.

Edited March 4, 2023 by naraku360

[DragonSinger]

7 hours ago, naraku360 said:

I know what the argument is. I'm saying this doesn't actually learn and you have to still input in data. What was made clearly has significant human input since AI can't write a script and AI generated videos are nonsense.

It's a complicated Instagram filter. Whose to say it cannot be implemented in creative, artistic ways? What about people who want to make animation but disabilities prevent it? Couldn't this help that?

I'm not saying there are no valid concerns, but an algorithmic camera filter isn't one for me. You still need actors like rotoscoping, you still need to go in and change stuff. It doesn't create new work. My phone can turn photos into drawings, but if I took a cool picture and used a filter to make it look drawn, is that automatically a worse photo purely because a filter was put on it? Is it impossible for the filtered version to enhance the original in a meaningful way?

What people are freaking out over would require the program to actually learn and create its own thing. Animating on its own is useless if the data being input is created poorly, or if the creator is bad at writing or choreography or directing. You have to have an original to rotoscope in the first place.

It's more that people are annoyed that they keep trying to make a big deal out of their shitty work in order to get headpats, and folks would just like for them to shut the fuck up and stay in their circle of tech bros killing off whatever useful parts of humanity that they can.

[Lemming]

Ralph Bakshi? My mom told me about him and I later came to indirectly appreciate his likeness. Wonder if any of his cohorts were based in visual media as well, seeing as nearly every cleverer artist would have a backlog of self referential material in which they would create and star caricatures of themselves.

Edited March 5, 2023 by Lemming

[matrixman124]

18 hours ago, naraku360 said:

I know what the argument is. I'm saying this doesn't actually learn and you have to still input in data. What was made clearly has significant human input since AI can't write a script and AI generated videos are nonsense.

It's a complicated Instagram filter. Whose to say it cannot be implemented in creative, artistic ways? What about people who want to make animation but disabilities prevent it? Couldn't this help that?

I'm not saying there are no valid concerns, but an algorithmic camera filter isn't one for me. You still need actors like rotoscoping, you still need to go in and change stuff. It doesn't create new work. My phone can turn photos into drawings, but if I took a cool picture and used a filter to make it look drawn, is that automatically a worse photo purely because a filter was put on it? Is it impossible for the filtered version to enhance the original in a meaningful way?

What people are freaking out over would require the program to actually learn and create its own thing. Animating on its own is useless if the data being input is created poorly, or if the creator is bad at writing or choreography or directing. You have to have an original to rotoscope in the first place.

I think it's very easy to talk about the quality now, but this is going to be a much bigger problem when it gets good enough that it's indistinguishable from human art. There needs to be regulations laid out for how this technology can be used.

Using it as a tool to bolster a disabled person's work isn't the same as Disney developing in-house tools to keep up with production during an animator strike.

It has a lot of potential to be useful, but right now, we need to be wary of these tech bros because they are pushing the most unethical use of the tech to have it replaced actual artistic labor. If we can curb that, then we can have that conversation about using it as an artists tool and not just a replacement for labor.

[naraku360]

On 3/5/2023 at 5:54 AM, matrixman124 said:

I think it's very easy to talk about the quality now, but this is going to be a much bigger problem when it gets good enough that it's indistinguishable from human art. There needs to be regulations laid out for how this technology can be used.

Using it as a tool to bolster a disabled person's work isn't the same as Disney developing in-house tools to keep up with production during an animator strike.

It has a lot of potential to be useful, but right now, we need to be wary of these tech bros because they are pushing the most unethical use of the tech to have it replaced actual artistic labor. If we can curb that, then we can have that conversation about using it as an artists tool and not just a replacement for labor.

Okay, so, for what reason might a corporation fire people in favor of AI production?

Because you need fewer resources and it's cheaper to make a product with it.

Okay, okay. They can make it with fewer resources, you know who else can?

That's right, the people who got fired!

It's almost like this means a wider number of people can produce and sell their own art without needing the funding of monopolies. As a result, you get a new form of art unlike any we've seen before: high budget blockbusters made by whoever felt like making and/or selling it without having Disney to doublefist them at every opportunity.

In turn, all the competent people now can make their own stuff their own way and the techbro dumbfucks you're talking about are left with lazy morons who think a fancy filter can do the job itself just because it's cheaper.

AI art is the path to an art renaissance by way of stripping away the fabric of commodified art as it stands.

Not to mention that, need I remind you, it's not artificial intelligence when it's not intelligent.

 

[Chapinator_X]

I imagine people kept crawling up to him about this because he rotoscoped the LotR, but forget that he didn’t rely on rotoscope for  art theft purposes like with AI bros.

People will just shout “corner-cutting” towards both rotoscoping and AI as if there wasn’t an egregious reason why AI is more hated.

[naraku360]

3 hours ago, Chapinator_X said:

I imagine people kept crawling up to him about this because he rotoscoped the LotR, but forget that he didn’t rely on rotoscope for  art theft purposes like with AI bros.

People will just shout “corner-cutting” towards both rotoscoping and AI as if there wasn’t an egregious reason why AI is more hated.

Define "art theft."

Is fan art "art theft"?

At what point does something become theft rather than an inspiration or reference?

If the argument is that using someone else's art to create your own is theft, does that mean all fan projects that use existing IPs should also be considered violations of fair use?

Edited April 19, 2023 by naraku360

[naraku360]

On 3/4/2023 at 7:41 PM, DragonSinger said:

It's more that people are annoyed that they keep trying to make a big deal out of their shitty work in order to get headpats, and folks would just like for them to shut the fuck up and stay in their circle of tech bros killing off whatever useful parts of humanity that they can.

So, you want people to not enjoy and share their art when it's the wrong kind of art?

What makes it "shitty"? Headpats from whom?

What "useful part" of humanity does this "kill off"?

Does this not have "useful parts"?

Edited April 19, 2023 by naraku360

[Chapinator_X]

On 4/19/2023 at 12:06 PM, naraku360 said:

Define "art theft."

Is fan art "art theft"?

At what point does something become theft rather than an inspiration or reference?

If the argument is that using someone else's art to create your own is theft, does that mean all fan projects that use existing IPs should also be considered violations of fair use?

Most AI that’s used by AI artists is a Frankenstein of pre-existing artwork, effectively plagiarizing large swathes of artists.

Like I’d get using pre-existing characters for fanart, but to take a dozen images of fanart to create your own fanart is highly unethical, if not very underhanded.

It’s even worse if you are using dozens of images of fanart to try to make your own art and pass it off as your own hard work.

For instance, the AI that made the Rock, Paper, Scissors anime in this thread was trained using stills from Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust.

Edited April 22, 2023 by Chapinator_X

[naraku360]

3 hours ago, Chapinator_X said:

Most AI that’s used by AI artists is a Frankenstein of pre-existing artwork, effectively plagiarizing large swathes of artists.

Like I’d get using pre-existing characters for fanart, but to take a dozen images of fanart to create your own fanart is highly unethical, if not very underhanded.

It’s even worse if you are using dozens of images of fanart to try to make your own art and pass it off as your own hard work.

For instance, the AI that made the Rock, Paper, Scissors anime in this thread was trained using stills from Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust.

That's not plagiarism, nor theft. If the image is being altered substantially, that would fall under Fair Use.

If we are to maintain this stance, one would also have to oppose all use of copyrighted material in, for example, a Youtube video.

For plagiarism or "art theft" to occur, you have to be claiming an unaltered original as your work. What prevents a Youtuber from being legally liable is the use of material in a transformative way. Whether or not Youtube adheres to that is another story.

If this is acceptable, for what reason might a mixture of images - quite literally altering the work - be less so?

Ironically, selling fanart is actually a real violation of copyright law.

[DragonSinger]

On 4/19/2023 at 12:41 PM, naraku360 said:

So, you want people to not enjoy and share their art when it's the wrong kind of art?

What makes it "shitty"? Headpats from whom?

What "useful part" of humanity does this "kill off"?

Does this not have "useful parts"?

I would like people to shut the fuck up if they think they're replacing artists in some meaningful way. Just because you want to play obtuse for whatever reason, doesn't change that this is stealing other people's work and claiming it as your own. Some of that art is shitty because it's a mishmash of parts with no actual thought into how they go together. Maybe it was Sponges who posted that hedgehog lady, but there was a jewelry piece that you could spot like 5 different parts of images jumbled together that just made it look ugly. Different shading, different lighting, different types of jewelry, and it just looked like a mess. These new A.I. art programs could have been done in a way that actually supported artists, but instead was thrown into the world by a bunch of assholes who think their 'democratizing' art. 

[naraku360]

5 hours ago, DragonSinger said:

I would like people to shut the fuck up if they think they're replacing artists in some meaningful way. Just because you want to play obtuse for whatever reason, doesn't change that this is stealing other people's work and claiming it as your own. Some of that art is shitty because it's a mishmash of parts with no actual thought into how they go together. Maybe it was Sponges who posted that hedgehog lady, but there was a jewelry piece that you could spot like 5 different parts of images jumbled together that just made it look ugly. Different shading, different lighting, different types of jewelry, and it just looked like a mess. These new A.I. art programs could have been done in a way that actually supported artists, but instead was thrown into the world by a bunch of assholes who think their 'democratizing' art. 

When TV became a thing, did it replace authors? Did books replace spoken stories/plays? Do artists get "replaced" just because a new method of creation emerged?

How much thought is required for art? Is there a metric?

Is asking you questions to further understand your argument "being obtuse?" Or is that just what you think anyone who disagrees with you is doing?

Again, this is a standard you would not place on any other medium. Is the Mother's Basement video that was posted in this thread which CLEARLY SHOWS ART HE DID NOT CREATE also "stealing art?" Why not?

Perhaps the reason I'm defending it is because I would like to make art but I don't have good eyesight and have a busted back. Perhaps this is a means by which I can create what I want without destroying my body. Would it make me less of an artist purely because I don't make already difficult limitations worse?

Edited April 24, 2023 by naraku360

[DragonSinger]

10 hours ago, naraku360 said:

When TV became a thing, did it replace authors? Did books replace spoken stories/plays? Do artists get "replaced" just because a new method of creation emerged?

How much thought is required for art? Is there a metric?

Is asking you questions to further understand your argument "being obtuse?" Or is that just what you think anyone who disagrees with you is doing?

Again, this is a standard you would not place on any other medium. Is the Mother's Basement video that was posted in this thread which CLEARLY SHOWS ART HE DID NOT CREATE also "stealing art?" Why not?

Perhaps the reason I'm defending it is because I would like to make art but I don't have good eyesight and have a busted back. Perhaps this is a means by which I can create what I want without destroying my body. Would it make me less of an artist purely because I don't make already difficult limitations worse?

I use obtuse for anyone like you and Sponges who are stuck in fantasy land thinking that everything is hunky dory and stick your fingers in your ears when anyone tries to show you how this is realistically affecting people. And just because stealing art from people who have a lot more disabled among them than you think(there are artist memes about how broken their bodies have become over the years) makes it convenient for folks with health issues to make the art they want, that doesn't make it okay either. Artists already get shafted in pay, unhealthy work hours, disdain towards their work, and longterm health issues. They did not deserve to get screwed like this either.

Edited April 24, 2023 by DragonSinger

[naraku360]

2 hours ago, DragonSinger said:

I use obtuse for anyone like you and Sponges who are stuck in fantasy land thinking that everything is hunky dory and stick your fingers in your ears when anyone tries to show you how this is realistically affecting people. And just because stealing art from people who have a lot more disabled among them than you think(there are artist memes about how broken their bodies have become over the years) makes it convenient for folks with health issues to make the art they want, that doesn't make it okay either. Artists already get shafted in pay, unhealthy work hours, disdain towards their work, and longterm health issues. They did not deserve to get screwed like this either.

So you're going to ignore the valid questions?

I see at least 2 images MB didn't create! Art theft!

It's acceptable because it's transformative.

How. Is. This. Different?

Should we get rid of Fair Use because you're offended that the art is too shitty?

Answer the question, sorce. What's different about it?

It's okay for him to literally profit off other people's work but memes aren't okay. It's okay for people to make fan art of copyrighted works to sell, but watch out for the horrible memes!

Fucking absurd. You won't even acknowledge the question.

 

As for the disability thing, I have no idea what you're trying to say. I'm saying it's an art form that can help people, like myself, with severe disabilities.

Edited April 24, 2023 by naraku360

[DragonSinger]

On 4/24/2023 at 9:39 AM, naraku360 said:

So you're going to ignore the valid questions?

I see at least 2 images MB didn't create! Art theft!

It's acceptable because it's transformative.

How. Is. This. Different?

Should we get rid of Fair Use because you're offended that the art is too shitty?

Answer the question, sorce. What's different about it?

It's okay for him to literally profit off other people's work but memes aren't okay. It's okay for people to make fan art of copyrighted works to sell, but watch out for the horrible memes!

Fucking absurd. You won't even acknowledge the question.

 

As for the disability thing, I have no idea what you're trying to say. I'm saying it's an art form that can help people, like myself, with severe disabilities.

NOPE.

[naraku360]

57 minutes ago, DragonSinger said:

NOPE.

You know, sorce, this is really disappointing.

I assumed you were operating with some kind of argument in mind because I was working under the assumption that you're an intelligent person.

You've repeatedly made it clear you do not have interest in treating others with the same dignity.

It's classic egotism. You don't care about art as a concept. You care about people being blindly convinced your farts don't stink.

You don't really believe what you're saying or you'd be able to defend it. This is a clearcut case of sorce doesn't want to be wrong and is too full over herself to own up to it.

Edited April 25, 2023 by naraku360

[DragonSinger]

On 4/25/2023 at 12:07 PM, naraku360 said:

You know, sorce, this is really disappointing.

I assumed you were operating with some kind of argument in mind because I was working under the assumption that you're an intelligent person.

You've repeatedly made it clear you do not have interest in treating others with the same dignity.

It's classic egotism. You don't care about art as a concept. You care about people being blindly convinced your farts don't stink.

You don't really believe what you're saying or you'd be able to defend it. This is a clearcut case of sorce doesn't want to be wrong and is too full over herself to own up to it.

Because like everyone else in creative fields, I ain't got time for nonsense. You got thoughtful replies and whined. So I no longer give a fuck. 🤷🏾‍♀️

[naraku360]

1 hour ago, DragonSinger said:

Because like everyone else in creative fields, I ain't got time for nonsense. You got thoughtful replies and whined. So I no longer give a fuck. 🤷🏾‍♀️

You didn't respond to, like, any question.

How is asking to distinguish between two things that meet the criteria you're complaining about "whining"?

You immediately went to calling me obtuse, refused to answer some basic questions, berated me for being "delusional," and can't even define the terms you used to make your claims. It isn't my fault your side is predicated on vague hyperbole you can't so much as be bothered to elaborate on.

Gesturing loosely at wrongdoing amd calling it nonsense like "killing off useful parts of humanity," whatever that means, doesn’t say anything. I don't know what that means. I don't know what "replacing artists" means when it's technology that those same artists will, in the coming years, simply adapt to using new technology. Art is about creativity and if your opinion is that being creative is fundamentally bad because AI was involved, than I'm simply not going to agree unless you give me something more concrete to work with.

Yes, automation means people lose jobs. That's inevitable. It was always going to happen. Artists adapt. It's technology those very people can use to make things they could not have dreamed of making before without support of multibillion dollar corporations.

Do you like Disney having a monopoly on media? I certainly don't.

Edited April 28, 2023 by naraku360