• The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
    Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More
  • Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.

Disney making $1 billion investment in OpenAI, will allow characters on Sora AI video generator

flynnibus

Premium Member
Assuming we will stick to just creative uses of AI, can you show proof that new animators aren't being hired at all because of AI or significantly less?
Yes it is true - but again, it's about a disruption that comes with any transition. Some people over rotate, some think they know what the new roles that are needed (but will be wrong to a degree) and overtime the industry will re-calibrate and rebalance with the tools and needs they have.

The hype is "AI is destroying creativity and jobs" -- The reality is most businesses are thinking "AI will change how things are produced" and want to use tools to replace what could otherwise just be expensive human labor.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Animators don't know how to start a fire with sticks and stones either... because they don't need that skill anymore. The skills they do need, will still be learned.
Managing a fire is still a very important skill. People knowing how to start a fire but not have the proper skills to manage one cause huge amounts of devastation every year. That’s very much an issue of people being able to get an output without knowing the inputs.
 

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
I'm not doubting that. However you're argument, at least to my reading of it, seems to be making the case that it's catastrophic to the ending of human creativity.

My argument is that it is not catastrophic as you seem to phrase it. I will agree that it's incredibly disruptive and people will have to adapt to the new reality. But humans have been doing that for 1000s of years.
This is the “nothing ever happens,” argument - specifically, it’s the “if we make our view so broad and avoid any specifics at all everything is always the same,” version.

Of course, human creativity will exist as long as humans do, but it can be crushed to a microcosm of what it is now, marginal, individual, silenced, rare. The culture industries - film, tv, music, mass literature, comics, etc - the pop art that unites us, that spurs future cultural output, that sparks social change - that’s all under attack. Executives and media owners know it’s cheaper, quicker, simpler not to deal with creatives, to dismiss the entire idea of creativity. On a more immediate level, the entire idea that AI “artistic” output is anything other then slop is an assault on the idea that art is more then a series of lines or letters or colors, that humans put something meaningful into it.

“Hollywood is cooked,” he screams, as he prompts the AI to show Superman fighting Goku because he’s mad Wonder Man was race-swapped.

This all ignores, of course, the degree to which AI is replacing the writing and reading and researching and thinking that is the soil from which meaningful creativity grows.

“Hey Grok, why is Citizen Kane good?” she asks so she doesn’t have to watch it.
 

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
Yes it is true - but again, it's about a disruption that comes with any transition. Some people over rotate, some think they know what the new roles that are needed (but will be wrong to a degree) and overtime the industry will re-calibrate and rebalance with the tools and needs they have.

The hype is "AI is destroying creativity and jobs" -- The reality is most businesses are thinking "AI will change how things are produced" and want to use tools to replace what could otherwise just be expensive human labor.
Sure, the world will adapt. What will that adapted world look like?

“Guys, the cotton gin is just a tool, society will adapt!” [Plantation slavery is revitalized and intensified for the next 70 years, America suffers a terrible Civil War, much of the American south is still economically underdeveloped 230 years later.]
 

JD80

Well-Known Member
Managing a fire is still a very important skill. People knowing how to start a fire but not have the proper skills to manage one cause huge amounts of devastation every year. That’s very much an issue of people being able to get an output without knowing the inputs.

Again, I will point to the argument store to return this argument. You bought the wrong one.
 

JD80

Well-Known Member
This is the “nothing ever happens,” argument - specifically, it’s the “if we make our view so broad and avoid any specifics at all everything is always the same,” version.

Of course, human creativity will exist as long as humans do, but it can be crushed to a microcosm of what it is now, marginal, individual, silenced, rare. The culture industries - film, tv, music, mass literature, comics, etc - the pop art that unites us, that spurs future cultural output, that sparks social change - that’s all under attack. Executives and media owners know it’s cheaper, quicker, simpler not to deal with creatives, to dismiss the entire idea of creativity. On a more immediate level, the entire idea that AI “artistic” output is anything other then slop is an assault on the idea that art is more then a series of lines or letters or colors, that humans put something meaningful into it.

“Hollywood is cooked,” he screams, as he prompts the AI to show Superman fighting Goku because he’s mad Wonder Man was race-swapped.

This all ignores, of course, the degree to which AI is replacing the writing and reading and researching and thinking that is the soil from which meaningful creativity grows.

“Hey Grok, why is Citizen Kane good?” she asks so she doesn’t have to watch it.

I'm with you for like 60% of your argument but you take it too far. AI used in creative endeavors is just not "enter prompt and get a video".

AI replacing most writing on the internet is probably a good thing. Maybe we can get rid of the 10 pages of garbage people write before getting to the recipe.
 

Disstevefan1

Well-Known Member
Managing a fire is still a very important skill. People knowing how to start a fire but not have the proper skills to manage one cause huge amounts of devastation every year. That’s very much an issue of people being able to get an output without knowing the inputs.
I feel for the software developers who have just entered the field or who recently entered the field. Before AI, coders had to code and debug.

Today type in a prompt and poof it’s done. If they are lucky a human does a code review and that could be the one and only time the code is actually looked at by a human.

Even now, code review can be done by AI and (hopefully) a human looks it before it’s merged.
 

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
I'm with you for like 60% of your argument but you take it too far. AI used in creative endeavors is just not "enter prompt and get a video".

AI replacing most writing on the internet is probably a good thing. Maybe we can get rid of the 10 pages of garbage people write before getting to the recipe.
That’s not a good thing! That nonsense before the recipe is human creativity! It’s usually creativity producing something bad and uninteresting, but it’s still creativity, and some small portion of it may be a precursor to the production of good, meaningful work. Quite a few great writers began doing technical writing or other “meaningless” work - ask AI for examples! (And then check whatever it says). Even for some of the writers who never grow and mature, that writing often still means something to them, enriches them in some way that matters.

I never, ever want to read work produced by AI. I don’t care if it’s just an e-mail apologizing for clogging the toilet, I want to hear a human.
 

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
I feel for the software developers who have just entered the field or who recently entered the field. Before AI, coders had to code and debug.

Today type in a prompt and poof it’s done. If they are lucky a human does a code review and that could be the one and only time the code is actually looked at by a human.

Even now, code review can be done by AI and (hopefully) a human looks it before it’s merged.
Do we want Skynet? Because this is how you get Skynet.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
My kid (the actual animator) still studied 2D, drew by hand, and learned from others... all after no one drew by hand in their professional output, computers did all the inking and rendering, etc.

Just because 3d modeling and rendering replaced all the prior work did not mean he did not learn the subject and what makes something good or not.

People are still going to be taught english and grammar - even though many will use AI to create written content for them. Because, as long as they are the gatekeeper, they will be responsible for the quality of the content.

Just like how my generation was still taught physics and calculus while computer simulations actually did the bulk of the heavy lifting to execute and evaluate scenarios.
 

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
Yes, new ways of learning will happen.

Just like people born after the dotcom still learned how to do research.. and they still learned how to stay warm.
Making sources more accessible is not the same as using technology that reads, interprets, and writes conclusions about those sources (without the ability to create any truly new ideas). In the first case we lost the ability to read microfiche, use the Dewey Decimal system, etc. What abilities do we lose in the second?
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
I'm with you for like 60% of your argument but you take it too far. AI used in creative endeavors is just not "enter prompt and get a video".

AI replacing most writing on the internet is probably a good thing. Maybe we can get rid of the 10 pages of garbage people write before getting to the recipe.

Most of the AI writing currently on the Internet is even worse about this -- it'll spend 10+ paragraphs repeating the same thing over and over again.

LLMs are a technological dead end, though, at least in terms of trying to create true artificial intelligence. That's something people don't talk about as much as they probably should in terms of AI investment, the bubble, etc.; any company that wants to move towards creating an actual AGI (which is often the stated end goal) has to go elsewhere and the work put in to LLMs isn't going to be very useful (if at all).
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom