ImmersiveAmbientModecolor: #ceafa7 (color 1)
Video Format : 22 (720p) openh264 ( https://github.com/cisco/openh264) mp4a.40.2 | 44100Hz
Audio Format: Opus - Normalized audio
PokeTubeEncryptID: b3c02c40f6c2d60233a41d73a5b3819bfb728a45ae9ef594a728df28fb3f4d775db56a08dc832abb1d4729b3a8990e43
Proxy : eu-proxy.poketube.fun - refresh the page to change the proxy location
Date : 1716201424969 - unknown on Apple WebKit
Mystery text : YV9fMVVCOVFQOVkgaSAgbG92ICB1IGV1LXByb3h5LnBva2V0dWJlLmZ1bg==
143 : true
70,080 Views ⢠Mar 27, 2024 ⢠Click to toggle off description
Intro 00:00
AI & Film Discussion 00:40
My Review 09:15
BUY MY MERCH | www.bonfire.com/store/possess...
FOLLOW MY HORROR INSTAGRAM | www.instagram.com/possessedbyhorroryt/?hl=en
twitter | twitter.com/#!/sarahmhawkinson
instagram | www.instagram.com/possessedbyhorroryt/
email | sarahhawkinson@gmail.com
lifestyle | youtube.com/user/sarahhawkinson
Views : 70,080
Genre: People & Blogs
Date of upload: Mar 27, 2024 ^^
Rating : 4.227 (835/3,488 LTDR)
RYD date created : 2024-05-20T08:39:39.331432Z
See in json
YouTube Comments - 893 Comments
Top Comments of this video!! :3
The problem with the argument of "using AI only for 3 images" is that this is how this starts. Studios will test the waters by adding it little by little, and eventually it will become difficult to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable. This is done on purpose and it's important that we as the consumers show the studios that we will not accept it, even in small amounts.
361 |
In my opinion, a couple basic stills in a low budget film are kind of whatever. But I do think it sets a dangerous precedent. We'll have a nuanced conversation in relation to a small niche film, but when a massive corporation sees you can use a lil AI and still have a successful run they're going to exploit it for blockbusters and all nuanced conversation will be lost.
334 |
This oneâs really tough. I have a degree in digital art and design, so my eye instantly picked up on the ai images, maybe more so than someone who doesnât have a background in art. I donât think itâs something we should so quickly and readily brush under the rug and say itâs not a big deal overall, because thatâs what supporters and creators of ai software want. They want us to accept it little by little, so they can keep pushing the goal posts so that eventually down the line movies will be written, directed, created, produced, and edited by ai, and the only people making money will be the shareholders and CEOs of film studios, regardless of how indie the film is.
There are countless graphic artists who would take super low pay just to have the chance to design for a film and have their name in the credits, not to mention those images could be created in one sitting using photoshop and illustrator. The text-to-image pipeline that current ai has granted us feels so lazy and disingenuous, regardless of it saving money, time, etc.
Storytelling is a uniquely human trait, and removing the humanity from that feels so dystopian.
502 |
Visual ai wouldn't exist without all the artwork from artists that it was trained on and now it's being used to take jobs from those same artists. That is so evil and that's why people are against it. Visual ai is a parasite that would be nothing without actual artists and until it is made etchically (using source material that is not copyrighted) it should not be accepted.
338 |
Sorry about the super long comment. But some insight from within the industry here. As someone who knows how it works on the inside I can assure you that AI is used in other movies too. Big blockbuster movies even. It's just that some people do it better and fix the image before using it so it's more convincing and you'll never know about it. In case people don't know, every single image used in movies needs to go through the clearance department in order to be legally allowed to be used. Also every name, address, leaflet, phone number...EVERYTHING, no exaggeration. So if AI has been used, the legal, clearance and production teams KNOW about it because they keep a record of everything used in a movie and how it was made and where it came from. It's called a clearance report. If it's a stock image, it says on their report it's a stock image with the reference number. If it's original, it says it's original. If it's AI, some productions and legal teams DO NOT allow it. Some do but only for very difficult large designs that would take ages to do and there is no possible time to do it with an artist, because they can't postpone filming to wait for something to be designed and made when they are paying $100.000 a day renting studio stages. In the case of LNWTD, all the images could have been easily created with an iStock account. Many things could have happened here. Maybe this movie was made when the concerns around AI images were not on people's minds as they are now. Everyone was playing with it and just having fun. Maybe they did not want to pay for a stock images account or an artist so they went the cheap route. Maybe they were made in post production when the graphics department had already left and the director or producer took it upon themselves to create the images with AI to avoid paying 250 a day for a graphics person. Many possibilities here, and all of them could have been avoided, specially since these are some really basic flat designs and not some intricate 15ft x 15ft tapestry. I feel like AI can be incorporated into the workflow if done correctly, for example, looking for inspiration or ideas. But the elements in those images could have been taken straight out of iStock, be composited together and voila. Job done. And the original artists would be getting paid for it too.
187 |
funny how last years prevalent discussion about ai in writing and tv/film seemingly hasnât transitioned into understanding discussions about artists who work for these productions? Something tells me people will act surprised when all aspects of the creative process are removed for the sake of saving a quick buck. If AI is curating your film, itâs shit. If you want it to be written, designed or produced by AI then what is the point of film at all?
236 |
the thing i find iffy about it is that it's cutting corners by using AI which steals others work. them saving time and money comes at the expense of artists in general and the artists who's artwork was stolen to create the image
72 |
The thing about them using AI, for even just these 3 images, is now ANYONE can use those 3 images for WHATEVER they want. Those images arenât protected under copyright laws because they were artificially created, so no one can claim ownership of them. That means that technically anyone can make merch for this movie, using those 3 specific images, and the creators of the movie have absolutely no legal right to stop them. They might have thought this would save them a few hundred dollars in the beginning, but it could cost them thousands of dollars in the long run because they canât come for people making unlicensed merch, because they donât have a right to license those 3 images. Especially the TV show logo they used AI to create. They donât have any legal authority to stop anyone from using it in future projects, on fan made merch, or for their own personal and commercial purposes.
75 |
I'm surprised that the horror fans have been so dismissive of the criticism for use of AI.
Horror fans are usually the ones who champion artists and practical effects. Look at a movie like Terrifier. Not the best, but it's use of practical effects has had a huge factor into why it's so popular among horror fans.
The Thing prequel, would be more loved if it had actually used the practical effects instead of CGI. Because at least you can enjoy what the artists have created.
People say that it does not matter. But it does. This tiny use could lead to a larger problem. Most already hate the use of CGI over practical in horror movies.
Do we really need AI blood effects and gore, how about instead of applying the make up for art the clown, they just use AI. It would save money and time.
But it would lead to many artists losing jobs.
It's very odd, because horror fans celebrate the artists the most, but are saying it's okay they used AI instead of someone's actual art?
Tom Savini, Gregg Nicotero and people like them won't emerge again in the future if we let AI take over.
169 |
My issue with AI is that it feels cheap, if you don't care enough about your film to pay for some illustrations why should I care about your film as well? It doesn't take much away from the experience of watching a movie, but it's like supporting someone who makes a movie just for the money of it.
398 |
I don't think people realize how inexpensive custom art from artists can be, like it wouldn't have made much of a dent in the budget. Unfortunately artists tend to underpay themselves, I am certain this images could have been done for $200-300 USD each. But instead they used a tool that steals art from artists to create 'new' pieces. I think that is what everyone is upset about. Also that if we say okay to this, than what will we allow later on.
That being said I watched a screener for this film and really enjoyed it, I didn't pick up on the AI art probably because it was on a smaller monitor, but it was disappointing to find out.
60 |
I disagree, the black and white scenes felt like i was watching a behind the scenes type of footage at times.
24 |
"We edited these images" editing was just adding the logo
68 |
the problem is they could have hired an artist for little money compared to the budget of the movie to make these images instead of having this mediocre AI, it sours the experience for me
111 |
Quick note about the black and white footage: It's explained quickly in the intro bit that there were behind the scenes cameras filming and that those scenes were put in between the footage that aired as part of the documentary, so those scenes are - from what I recall - also footage in-universe.
Thank you so much for the explanation at the start about the AI use, I didn't know when I saw the film!
7 |
I think weâre going to look back at this when movies are 100% AI and say, âWe shouldâve stopped it then.â
26 |
The use of technology is inevitable but it needs to be use in am ethical way, imo the way this production uses it is unethical, simply because there are still no laws protecting the intelectual property of visual artists and there for all generative AI is violating their intellectual properties and threatening their livehood, I think is ok and fair not to support any production that does not respect all artists, yes they are filmakers but just because they exploit another area of art does not make it ok, just because it doesn't affect them directly (yet)
36 |
Iâm of two minds on this.
Itâs inevitable on one hand considering how far weâre advancing in technology. A.I is, and SHOULD BE, a tool for ethical uses to lighten the workload as long as we donât get lazy. Sure, it wouldâve been better to get an actual artist to do it but the fact that it stayed strictly on those transitions and nothing else shows these guys have some restraint.
But it doesnât become any less disappointing to know after all those months of striking to prevent this kind of thing from becoming more common, it all feels like a waste, especially when you consider how well they recreated the rest of the sets and atmosphere. So when you realize that, the question becomes âWhat for?â
(Personally, the filmâs an 8/10 for me)
58 |
Oh god, no wonder the images looked so dull! As an artist, AI generated art always looks lackluster and off. I wonât boycott this movie because of it, the movie as a whole was great and I want more like this compared to the big blumhouse disasters we keep getting. The AI definitely a little lazy though because it isnât that hard to make a simple logo from Photoshop or even Canva, you donât need anything crazyđ
24 |
@dogseasgod6013
1 month ago
I think my issue is that there are thousands no millions of artists that would have killlleedddd for this opportunity and probably would have even done it for free. It just doesnât make sense
393 |