Wondering how this will affect the hiring of character artists, should we try to incorporate these tools to improve our portfolio's and stand out? It does seem that the focus of this software is vtubing, like exporting content into unreal 5 doesn't seem to be possible.
@NikhilR that was pretty bad lip sync. Looked like terrible overdub from the ol" chop suey days!
Also, his facial expressions do not, in any way, mesh with the words that he's saying. To say nothing of his gestures. IS THIS THE BEST THE ROBOTS CAN DO?!
Wondering how this will affect the hiring of character artists, should we try to incorporate these tools to improve our portfolio's and stand out? It does seem that the focus of this software is vtubing, like exporting content into unreal 5 doesn't seem to be possible.
I checked out their website and it seems the only thing the AI does is generate scripts and maybe the voices? Which others have pointed out, are not great, the comedian youtube video could be funny, but it is so completely flat. There is no emphasis on anything, it's a step above being monotonously and evenly told. The rest is just making their own character creator, which can work great for some things, but it will run into limitations. As a character artist there is a lot you can gain from working on a modular character system or building your own, however using an existing tool like this? Nah, it's not that much different that opening up Dragon's Dogma character creator and saying your a character artist. Which hey, I love opening up character creators, messing around with them and seeing what they do well and what they don't, it's a good thing to learn from, but using it alone doesn't make you a character artist. In studios they will invest in their own thing that fits the needs of the studio, a catch all thing like this will usually be poorly optimized and the walls will be quickly run up against.
Even for a potential target audience: V-tubers, I don't see a whole lot there. 3D v-tubers are generally not as popular and something this poorly synced kind of shows why, they have a much harder time getting past the uncanny valley than 2d v-tubers. Especially since the anime look is very popular. There is a lot of emphasis on self-expression for v-tubers, so while they would maybe use this to start, they will quickly ditch it in favor of getting their own custom model commissioned from an actual artist that does exactly everything they want. Which on it's own is scene that is becoming a viable path for some freelance artists to take.
lol. An over-generalization to be sure, but it does have a decent ring of truth to it.
I am particularly amazed at former colleagues of mine who constantly use and trumpet generative ai on social media (like LinkedIn) even though I know they are skilled 3d artists in their own right.
I get that they want to stay on top of the curve of tech, and get eyeballs. But the myopia is still bizarre. I can’t help but see them as being a bit low on their ethics.
A youtuber sharing his experience buying an art/drawing book he then suspects is made up of AI generated content (reasonably so, I think). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anAiRrra1lk&t=1s Sorry if it was already shared here. Got this sent by a friend and found it curious/fascinating.
Well, to add insult to injury his own brother seems to be a delusional AIart-apologist. I can't imagine how saddening this must feel considering how much time and effort Jazza has put into spreading art knowledge and education over the years, and always in the most wholesome way.
Nvidia went from making 40% of its revenue from datacenters and AI to to 80% within the last 2 years. I don't really trust their vision if they are just seeing green.
This is what I said at the top of page 9, you heard it on Polycount first.
Even if that becomes possible, what's the point? For me, I don't see the point in media that's just crapped out by a robot. Not to mention their complete inability to understand humans because they're glorified autocorrects that can't understand anything.
My concern is this.....Most people don't actually care whether or not something has art in it. They don't care about human intent, emotions, or expression. They have appetite. They want something to temporarily make them feel better, distract them from their shitty, boring, mundane, routine, unsatisfying lives. They won't care whether humans are replaced to make the product, as long as they get the product.
"I think with almost almost everything in technology, the S curve is not longer than a decade once it becomes true, once it becomes practical and better. And, of course, ChatGPT is not only practical; in most cases, it's better. I think it's less than ten years away. In ten year's time you're at the other end of that S curve. In five years from now, you're probably right in the middle where everything is changing in real-time, and everybody's going, 'Oh, look at that, this is happening.' And so you just got to decide, are we two years into it, into that ten years? Probably, we're probably already two years into it. And so I would say that within the next five to ten years, somewhere in between, it's largely the case."
a vague waffle of a statement if you ask me. Basically reads like this, "will your company do all the cool things and make all the money?" "Well, historically things go like this, and then you have to ask, is this like that? And ya know, things historically go like that, so we think that yes, we definitely, all the good things will happen, and it could be two, three, five years? Everybody is saying that."
Sounds like a kid making up something to say on the spot when they forgot to actually do the book report. I know people tend to think that CEO's and people in positions like this are a few steps above a kid who forgot to do book report.... but they often times are not. It's a jobs program for the upper class, not a meritocracy. I doubt he has much of a clue, just gets some reports and pours money into whatever his gut tells him to, or what the people delivering reports succeed in impressing him with. And of course they all have their own selfish motives.
Well, to add insult to injury his own brother seems to be a delusional AIart-apologist. I can't imagine how saddening this must feel considering how much time and effort Jazza has put into spreading art knowledge and education over the years, and always in the most wholesome way.
The AI apologist brother has some deep seated issues with his artist brother. I'm thinking only one was breast fed, the other got an iv drip.
This is what I said at the top of page 9, you heard it on Polycount first.
Jensen is a delusion sales guy. People on linkedin were comparing his presentation with Steve Jobs, but the robots in the background were a digital billboard. I thought they would fly or something like in Iron Man 2. Instead he brought the disney BD1 rip offs that waddled around for lols. Utterly useless.
What I think is, current business owners will simply use AI to make the decisions, however they'll still want their cut of millions of dollars. This will continue to drive poor decision making, and the basic pleb will see no benefit whatsoever. It's to be expected that new tech, regardless of positive potential, is exploited to the maximum in order to intentionally cause the most amount of harm in order to vastly benefit a select number of people. This is the way, and has always been the course of human history.
Do you think Jensen cares about what artists have to say on Polycount? We're replaceable nothings - noisy, unwashed serfs to these people.
They will say and do anything to make their money, regardless of what others think. It's just business.
Does anybody use anything AI in actual game content production currently?
I just wonder because I am trying for quite a while. Ai textures >> total crap. Except very limited number of subjects in Sampler maybe and I still prefer Substance Designer nevertheless . Ai models are a polygon mess . AI lods , no much of a difference over decimate modifier in Blender . Ai remeshing, well works sometimes aka Zbrush remesher. Content aware fill in Photoshop >> total crap when it works for height channel but still usable to fix photogrammetry sometimes . Generative AI is indeed nice but doesn't do anything useful for gamedev pipeline . Nor even able to extend material to bigger cover , neither in Sampler too. Don't understand me at all when I ask to remove visible repeating pattern or does just typical hipass with halos. Depth AI reconstruction In Photoshop is blurry as hell.
I never tried AI in animation so not sure, not my field. So maybe.
For a while we had been subscribed to Art rage Unity engine but then my opinion was it gives you nothing extra over what you can achive in Photoshop or SubDesigner in a more convenient way .
The only AI so far I really use is not the one that creates art but solemnly ChatGPT to write python scripts for Blender . Here it does work quite well eliminating routine and writing addons. Tried Chat for 3d MAx and Designer and nothing ever worked .
So If somebody really benefit form some AI working in gamedev field I am curious to learn about.
ps Tried to find AI keywording soft /subscribtion to keyword my assets for better and easier search and reusing form huge stack of my backup hard drives. Didn't find a single one that would recognize what models and textures are . They all make a mess of totally useless keywords .
Same here - when I saw that email I couldn't help but wonder about the side effects this might have for their content makers (if it works as advertised). Don't DAZ have a huge marketplace where the users have to buy basically every single item to kit out the default character models? To me this looks like it would eat massively into that market or even wipe it out for the most part.
Their 3D package seems pretty complex and retro as it is. Always saw it as really quite complicated to use for a non-CG-artist to make pretty pictures with. Almost looks like they are now pivoting away from that in favour of generative AI?
What I think is, current business owners will simply use AI to make the decisions, however they'll still want their cut of millions of dollars. This will continue to drive poor decision making, and the basic pleb will see no benefit whatsoever. It's to be expected that new tech, regardless of positive potential, is exploited to the maximum in order to intentionally cause the most amount of harm in order to vastly benefit a select number of people. This is the way, and has always been the course of human history.
Do you think Jensen cares about what artists have to say on Polycount? We're replaceable nothings - noisy, unwashed serfs to these people.
They will say and do anything to make their money, regardless of what others think. It's just business.
Pretty much this, the people at the top who push this technology are glorified idea guys who buy into the hype on how it could change everything. I have friends in other tech fields where their bosses and managers try to push this stuff because it will make things so much easier and better somehow. Then when they are asked "ok how?" which is the most minor of push back they have no answer, they have just bought into it without any understanding of how it could actually improve things.
Which applies to game art and dev too, as soon as you ask basic questions like why or how it can make things better and easier things fall apart real fast as soon as you're facing technical realities. We could feed meshes with decal planes into the machine all we want, the machine wouldn't understand why they are there. Machines won't understand why you orient your UVs a certain way, why something is triangulated a certain way, why cutoffs are at certain points on the model, but those are questions that we can answer, we can answer how those decisions affect things down the pipeline. As early as when I'm sculpting, I'm also thinking about the low poly mesh, the UVs, any special requirements this asset needs. We're starting to hit a stage where even gamers are noticing that models and textures are unoptimized and that is a reason why the game size is so huge or the game runs poorly. its easier than ever for them to datamine files and find out this information, and sometimes things go a little viral when they discover that something has a million triangles, when it probably shouldn't have a million triangles.
We could feed meshes with decal planes into the machine all we want, the machine wouldn't understand why they are there. Machines won't understand why you orient your UVs a certain way, why something is triangulated a certain way, why cutoffs are at certain points on the model, but those are questions that we can answer, we can answer how those decisions affect things down the pipeline. As early as when I'm sculpting, I'm also thinking about the low poly mesh, the UVs, any special requirements this asset needs. We're starting to hit a stage where even gamers are noticing that models and textures are unoptimized and that is a reason why the game size is so huge or the game runs poorly. its easier than ever for them to datamine files and find out this information, and sometimes things go a little viral when they discover that something has a million triangles, when it probably shouldn't have a million triangles.
I get the feeling this applies to the whole thing, really. It's why it's incredibly stupid when AI bros try to claim that these AI learn just like humans, as an excuse to try and suggest that artists learning from other artists is accepted, and therefore taking artists' work without consent to train AI should be.
Even if you feed it a lot of data, it's only ever going to be making a best guess based on the fact that X% of data fed into it did a thing, not because it understands how or why.
The problem still is though, even if it doesn't know that, it's passable enough that you can hand whatever it makes to a human who does understand to fix it, and then you don't have to pay them the same amount of hours as making it from scratch, or pay the same amount of people.
Looks like this Daz3d AI is just an image generator . One more. For cool looking pictures you would do what? Screenshot based "Find a thing" phone game ? Are they still profitable?
Midjourney can at least generates something interesting looking sometimes and this one would do indistinguishably same clones.
How Tech Giants Cut Corners to Harvest Data for A.I.
OpenAI, Google and Meta ignored corporate policies, altered their own rules and discussed skirting copyright law as they sought online information to train their newest artificial intelligence systems.
...
At Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, managers, lawyers and engineers ... conferred on gathering copyrighted data from across the internet, even if that meant facing lawsuits. Negotiating licenses with publishers, artists, musicians and the news industry would take too long, they said.
...
At least two employees raised concerns about using intellectual property and not paying authors and other artists fairly or at all, according to the recordings. One employee recounted a separate discussion about copyrighted data with senior executives including Chris Cox, Meta’s chief product officer, and said no one in that meeting considered the ethics of using people’s creative works.
Will the courts catch up with them, or will theft just become normalized?
Someone else said Uber & Airbnb aggressively broke the law until it just became normalized, and now it's just commonplace business practice. :,(
I wonder do people use AI generated illustrationst in games for real? Not some concept art for inside only usage to show at meetings but really for something in production ? Backgrounds maybe? I ask because whatever contracts I ever had it have always been: "original art" or "in case of 3d party work used a sub-contract with responsible artist shall be provided". My brother works for a software giant . Using any 3d party AI except their own is prohibited for legal reasons.
ps. I didn't do any concept art for a decade or two although . So wonder is it AI now? Looks like only field to use AI so far. To be honest I dropped it because once internet became global too many artists started to compete for a job with very same looking art style. Nothing truly original really. Lots of great art schools all over the world have emerged since the beginning of the millennium and it all started to turn into never ending visual information noise . The offer started to exceed the demand long before AI.
I've seen itch IO, Steam, and mobile games use AI generated art for various things like thumbnails, as a substitute for stock photos/assets, etc.
Yeah, I think i see something looking like Ai art in mobile games too. Not for sure just looking like Ai. in some music clips too. But not in big games production or movies . And not in actual content . I mean not simply icons and small pictures. My guess it's still legal reasons and too much at a stake. Wonder how long would it stop them.
Will the courts catch up with them, or will theft just become normalized?
Someone else said Uber & Airbnb aggressively broke the law until it just became normalized, and now it's just commonplace business practice. :,(
Since this technology is projected to wipe out jobs that tend to generate significant tax income (e.g. I read that plenty of middle management positions might well be on the cutting block within a few years time) I'm pretty sure the law will catch up with them. Lobbying - in my opinion - only goes so far if the very bottom line of a country's tax income is impacted.
Therefore in the medium term I expect as a first step they will be ordered to erase the training data they skimmed off the web. Which should do away with most of the AI generators that are being discussed here until those start to train on legimitately obtained data (and as a result their output becomes more niche, probably).
Likely more restrictions to come down the line as this whole saga plays out. If it was just artists being impacted, well - though luck. But across pretty much all industries? That's not going to go unnoticed.
I wonder do people use AI generated illustrations in games for real?
Since January 2024 it is mandatory on Steam to have an AI disclosure for anything you release, how you are using AI in the development and execution of your game as well as exposing (to Steam) guardrails to stop Live-Generated-AI output from creating illegal content.
AI GENERATED CONTENT DISCLOSURE
The developers describe how their game uses AI Generated Content like this:
We employ generative AI during the creation of some art assets. Typically, this will be to create synthetic reference photos for lighting, postures and generic detail. A small percentage of art assets include bits of generated content as collage. The generated content remains a small part of the total expression created by the artist
That explanation sounds very much like what ZackD wrote (probably for another case), Photobashing with blended in AI images.
The point which in my view voids the majority of AIs for Gamedevelopment is the following;
Under the Steam Distribution Agreement, you promise Valve that your game will not include illegal or infringing content Live-Generated: this comes with an additional requirement: in the Content Survey, you'll need to tell us what kind of guardrails you're putting on your AI to ensure it's not generating illegal content.
For the Live-Generated AI output, you need to hedge the capabilities of those systems, any closed source middleware solution fails flat unless you can easily forward the liability and lawsuits to the AI-producer(s). Depending on were your game is released, you not only need "common sense" on what to avoid but especially Lawyers well versed in every countries laws to know what that entails. Being able to bar AIs to give unwanted/false/illegal output is a big task. As long as customers of AI solutions can´t see into the used Pretraining Data, you are essentially playing Russian roulette.
Depending on how much you let AI overtake your artistic vision and human output, the more you fill the magazine of the loaded gun.
Using AI is playing Hot Potato. Brand damage, leaking internal data etc is serious and companies wise up on those AI fiascos and some have already included stipulations in their B2B agreements to ensure AI is not used for internal - as well as external usage.
'You're not allowed to use AI of any kind, without prior authorization,'" an anonymous ad agency CEO told Ad Age. "So, that even means they don't want us to use AI to help work on concepts, not just anything that goes out the door."
I wonder do people use AI generated illustrations in games for real?
Since January 2024 it is mandatory on Steam to have an AI disclosure for anything you release, how you are using AI in the development and execution of your game as well as exposing (to Steam) guardrails to stop Live-Generated-AI output from creating illegal content.
AI GENERATED CONTENT DISCLOSURE
The developers describe how their game uses AI Generated Content like this:
We employ generative AI during the creation of some art assets. Typically, this will be to create synthetic reference photos for lighting, postures and generic detail. A small percentage of art assets include bits of generated content as collage. The generated content remains a small part of the total expression created by the artist
That explanation sounds very much like what ZackD wrote (probably for another case), Photobashing with blended in AI images.
The point which in my view voids the majority of AIs for Gamedevelopment is the following;
Under the Steam Distribution Agreement, you promise Valve that your game will not include illegal or infringing content Live-Generated: this comes with an additional requirement: in the Content Survey, you'll need to tell us what kind of guardrails you're putting on your AI to ensure it's not generating illegal content.
For the Live-Generated AI output, you need to hedge the capabilities of those systems, any closed source middleware solution fails flat unless you can easily forward the liability and lawsuits to the AI-producer(s). Depending on were your game is released, you not only need "common sense" on what to avoid but especially Lawyers well versed in every countries laws to know what that entails. Being able to bar AIs to give unwanted/false/illegal output is a big task. As long as customers of AI solutions can´t see into the used Pretraining Data, you are essentially playing Russian roulette.
Depending on how much you let AI overtake your artistic vision and human output, the more you fill the magazine of the loaded gun.
Using AI is playing Hot Potato. Brand damage, leaking internal data etc is serious and companies wise up on those AI fiascos and some have already included stipulations in their B2B agreements to ensure AI is not used for internal - as well as external usage.
'You're not allowed to use AI of any kind, without prior authorization,'" an anonymous ad agency CEO told Ad Age. "So, that even means they don't want us to use AI to help work on concepts, not just anything that goes out the door."
It's basically what I am talking about . I have been a contractor as individual or business owner most of a time and " all the content shall be original art" gone nowhere from contracts and I very much doubt it ever will untill it's low risks small businesses that care not that much about someone other rights just because going bankrupt is not an end of life for them. But they never infiltrate big game because insurance would be huge my guess when you use AI. I recall a customer company once asked me to provide a proof I am insured with 3mil cover if I cause any law suite against them. I tried to obtain one and quickly realized it wouldn't be even financially sounding.
What creates real pressure on job market is the offer exceeding demand and availability of any sort of artist anytime anywhere. It happened years ago already and countless of great art schools continue to produce artists all over the world. We couldn't do anything but adapt . Nothing to complain about it.
I personally regret that my education was too focused around useless free arts only. Wish I learned math more. At least on a level what architects do.
Truly gave me chills! Regardless of the nonsense about what race mermaids are if we get an option to revisit characters as we remember them in live action movies, I would welcome it and certainly be great if the ethics issue with AI was resolved.
Also makes me wonder if it would have been best to have the live actions be stylized 3D remakes, like in the AI video the AI overlay isn't consistent and certainly looks idealized, but it is because of this idealized look that it feels closer to the animated cartoon version and evokes feelings that the live action with Hailey Bailey didn't seem to.
The music does, but Hailey Bailey tends to throw it off, so maybe the approach to live action should be casting live actors and then create visually accurate overlays, kinda like how they did the Navi in Avatar
In this way there wouldn't be an issue with Ariel being played by a actress who doesn't match the version portrayed in the animated film, but the final release would be more accurate to the animated film.
This is basically similar to what they're doing with Kay Vess in Star wars Outlaws, where they modified a scan to look distinct from the actor, though it didn't really get the reception they thought it would. This does, as you can see from the positive comments responding to the video
I feel so happy to see this and feel those chills again, when I watched the Hailey Bailey version I laughed at the end of the song because of how ridiculous it felt. Like she sings well, but having been brought up on the animated little mermaid by brain was mostly confused, like "who is this person?" Hailey Bailey does provide the right performance for a CG version overlay which AI provides, the inconsistency also makes it appear dreamlike and even the water feels more believable.
I hope the AI user does the whole film so I can finally watch it without decompression sickness.
Artstation kpop-music-video Ariel-- I personally don't see the appeal. It's quite possibly the most generic looking thing I've lately seen. A cool enough thought experiment, but that's the extent of it to my mind.
If you like the look of the original, watch the original.
Be honest, your problem with that woman is nothing to do with her performance. You just don't like her because she doesn't look like the original one. You dislike her because her appearance doesn't match, and you're colouring your entire perception back from that point to pretend, like they all do, that you merely have concerns about the quality of her performance, of how well she fits with the character, etc. It's barely even on-topic; you're bordering on trying to hijack the thread.
Artstation kpop-music-video Ariel-- I personally don't see the appeal. It's quite possibly the most generic looking thing I've lately seen. A cool enough thought experiment, but that's the extent of it to my mind.
If you like the look of the original, watch the original.
I think the idealized face does compliment the disney style *which is also idealized for appeal" As for why they are korean, the AI user mostly focuses on Kpop videos so the training data set he uses is full of it.
I do watch the original, but when I saw the trailers for he live action, I did approach it from a nostalgic perspective. Like if I closed my eyes and listened to hailey Bailey singing, I see the cartoon Ariel. She has a great singing voice, but she doesn't look like the Ariel I know at all. (the rest of the cast oddly enough do, This AI version meant I could open them again.
Lol, I don't think I ever really grew up, it was a blissful time though and I hope children of future generations are introduced to more than just the live action versions.
Be honest, your problem with that woman is nothing to do with her performance. You just don't like her because she doesn't look like the original one. You dislike her because her appearance doesn't match, and you're colouring your entire perception back from that point to pretend, like they all do, that you merely have concerns about the quality of her performance, of how well she fits with the character, etc. It's barely even on-topic; you're bordering on trying to hijack the thread.
Actually it has everything to do with Hailey Baileys perfomance, which is excellent. She is the perfect template for a CG overlay of the Ariel character from the cartoon.
I am curious if Disney would have actually considered doing this, or it would have been seen as controversial because of Hailey Bailey's race. Its mentioned that Hailey Bailey was selected over 400 other Ariel candidates and her singing voice was a big factor in her winning the role.
So suppose they make a remake of princess and the frog and choose a white actor for princess Tiana, what would the reception to such a decision be like? The CG overlay approach means that anyone can be the actor for the overlay regardless of their race, all that matters is their performance.
For example, when the lion king remake came out, my brain was jumping between seeing the disney version and a series I loved growing up called Untamed Africa. It wasn't a problem, but then someone put CG deepfakes on the realistic CG animals and we got this,
I think Disney are attempting this with Snow White and the seven Dwarves since Peter Dinklage got upset about portraying real people who have Dwarfism in that role and Disney attempted to experiment with other alternatives.
Which was widely ridiculed, So this is what they have now.
Interestingly during my school days in an all boys school, they had us take part in a Snow White school play and I was the top choice for snow white since I was considered the the cutest little boy to play a girl (second shortest in my grade, and more feminine facial features)
But they chose a much fairer kid and I got lady in waiting #1. I have a picture somewhere.
Being an all boys school we were all comfortable with theatrical cross dressing for pantomimes upto the 10th grade. Given how popular Allo Allo was (we all watched it growing up) where there is a lot of this, we looked forward to our school plays. Thinking back I'm not sure it was a good thing lol and this is in south asia
Also we didnt have any people with dwarfism among the 3rd graders, so they went with wrestlers instead using the chubbier kids. It was snow white and the 7 WWF wrestlers lol
So I'm no stranger to diversity in productions, though in school they didn't see it as DEI and we had to all wear a lot of lipstick and makeup.
Now, I haven't seen much of The Princess and The Frog, but wasn't the fact that the protagonist is black kind of important in that film? Like, her being a black woman is a huge part of why she's in the socioeconomic position she's in? If I'm remembering rightly, then it's quite disingenuous to make such a comparison. It never mattered what colour Ariel was. You can't compare that to stories where the character's race informs their circumstances or story arcs.
Aww man, please don't derail this thread and risk closing it down.
So you have an axe to grind with dei...ok, fine.
This thread isn't about that. Thanks.
I really don't have an issue with DEI but I do feel that I should share my perspective on it if it came up in conversation. I actually benefit from it since I'm a visible minority, but I don't really feel good about it since there are others more diverse than me that could really use the initiatives, for example people with physical disabilities and autism who do get left behind.
But my post on Ariel wasn't about DEI, it was to support the premise that with the technology perfected and sourced/implemented ethically any actor capable of giving a convincing performance can become a base for a virtual overlay that is more true to the recreation of an original work.
The Ariel in that example evokes the original not just because she's fairer skinned, Hailey Bailey's voice adds to the illusion and in that sense the actress is represented in this performance. Its not a total replacement for her, all its doing is making it more true to the original cartoon though with the data set the user applied, she's 80% korean and 10% caucasian. It's how they did the Navi in Avatar, each Navi is super idealised and James Cameron was quite clear on his intent, https://www.cracked.com/article_33832_reminder-james-cameron-was-thirsty-for-avatars-navi.html
I don't necessarily agree with his approach, but atleast he's honest.
The AI's inconsistency adds some mysticism and makes the undersea environment more convincing which is really interesting. Mermaids are fantasy, so this felt dreamlike and the nostalgia I felt wasn't something I could fully experience with Hailey Bailey's performance as is, unless I imagined the cartoon Ariel in her place with her voice and the musical score. Even the environment felt flat, like she was floating in a void, not in water.
So far for the films I've watched, only Avatar has done the underwater setting in a way that felt really convincing when it comes to movies.
I just wish that AI was developed ethically so its use could be justified.
Now, I haven't seen much of The Princess and The Frog, but wasn't the fact that the protagonist is black kind of important in that film? Like, her being a black woman is a huge part of why she's in the socioeconomic position she's in? If I'm remembering rightly, then it's quite disingenuous to make such a comparison. It never mattered what colour Ariel was. You can't compare that to stories where the character's race informs their circumstances or story arcs.
But again, that's off-topic.
i meant that with this technology we could have actors as a base for several fantastical demographics depending on story contraints. Like suppose it was hyper tentacled space princess and the 5th dimensional super frog based on planet zolton, the entire acting cast could be black or any race, and the technology can overlay whatever the studio wants on their performance. Just like Navi from Avatar.
I can imagine a princess and the frog as a stylized animation set in a trailer park where the demographic is largely white, and black actors or other racially unrepresented demographics in media could play the performances emphasizing greater representation among their racial demographic, even though the resulting output authentically replicates the demographic in a North American trailer park. I really would be interested to know how this would be received.
Trailer Park Boys is one of my favorite Canadian comedies and while I wasn't disappointed that there are no south asians in the show, if I could play a part and they overlayed a caucasian person on top of me, I would be cool with it. Actually it would really hilarious. That's actually pretty big in Indian where everyone wants to be more fairer.
This could also apply if I wanted to play in part in the chinese period drama Story of Yanxi Palace. I'd be thrilled to play someone like Yuan Chunwang "A low-ranking handsome eunuch with a mysterious past."
AI in a odd way democraticizes race at its most superficial level which is pretty wild in my opinion.
Personally I'm all for more original stories and I liked what they did with Princess and the Frog, the character was inspired by famed New Orleans chef Leah Chase and they did have to make several changes after receiving feedback to their initial concepts from African-American critics and media.
Maddy the chamber maid changed to Tiana the waitress, and while the prince was decided to be from Maldonia (possibly around Monaco, so maybe middle eastern person, Naveen is an indian name) there was criticism that he wasn't black like Tiana and she should not have fallen in love with a non Black prince. https://www.essence.com/news/critics-dispute-princess-and-the-frog/
Though given the premise of the film they were both overlayed with frogs and while I'm not sure what it is like to be attracted to an amphibian, forgive my speciesm but it feels rather icky. I'm more comfortable with Madagascar's premise where a Giraffe falls in love with a Hippo.
@NikhilR did your read those articles or just the headlines?
first article looks and reads like clickbait, so i went to the link it cited as being the source for a concept artist claiming that director was a weirdo about the characters.
ctrl+f search doesnt bring up the directors name or the term director in the article. I also skimmed it over to double check and read the paragraphs specific about the design process. No mention of the director. It is mentioned that because the film is a love story with human falling in love with the alien, they asked male staff if they'd want to do (have sex with) the alien or not. In other words, they wanted to ensure it was not so alien as to lose sympathy from the audience.
also, just think about the likelihood of a professional concept artist who is working under James Cameron spilling the beans about directors kinks to the internet. Doesn't seem likely unless it was like part of some "oh yeah thirty years ago that dick was raping everyone" type of documentary.
It might be worth double checking what you read because tons of online "news" content is generated for clicks, not for truth. I think there is common bias they often exploit. They put in the links such that there is veneer of credibility, knowing that most people will only read the headline and take a cursory glance at the actual article. Because really it's just there to display ads.
@NikhilR did your read those articles or just the headlines?
first article looks and reads like clickbait, so i went to the link it cited as being the source for a concept artist claiming that director was a weirdo about the characters.
ctrl+f search doesnt bring up the directors name or the term director in the article. I also skimmed it over to double check and read the paragraphs specific about the design process. No mention of the director. It is mentioned that because the film is a love story with human falling in love with the alien, they asked male staff if they'd want to do (have sex with) the alien or not. In other words, they wanted to ensure it was not so alien as to lose sympathy from the audience.
also, just think about the likelihood of a professional concept artist who is working under James Cameron spilling the beans about directors kinks to the internet. Doesn't seem likely unless it was like part of some "oh yeah thirty years ago that dick was raping everyone" type of documentary.
It might be worth double checking what you read because tons of online "news" content is generated for clicks, not for truth. I think there is common bias they often exploit. They put in the links such that there is veneer of credibility, knowing that most people will only read the headline and take a cursory glance at the actual article. Because really it's just there to display ads.
Yes I read the linked article where James Cameron goes into the design of the Navi and says, "the more alien we make them in the design phase, we just kept asking ourselves — basically, the crude version is: "Well, would you wanna do it?" And our all-male crew of artists would basically say, "Nope, take the gills out." It was pretty simple, but then taken in a very specific degree."
so he's definitely looking at sexual appeal, and it does matter to the story or atleast it did to Jake Sully.
While I don't think the cracked article embellishes what was said, its a short targeted article, but does link to some referenced articles. What it didn't do was link to the playboy interview which has more information on his philosophy, perspective and design process.
The concept artists didn't have to spill the beans, the director did it himself, he's pretty straighforward and a lot of what he says in the playboy interview can come across as controversial.
Here is the playboy article that they reference, and James is pretty candid about how he feels about women. Its safe for work when it comes to visual media. (what James says is another matter)
- AI in its current form is still unethical vomit/litteral art and identity theft. So even if it can look appealing nothing justifies it.
- Writer-directors can do anything they want and don't have to explain themselves if they want a character of any ethnicity and any sex-appeal.
- There's a reason why "DEI" in hiring is quite literally illegal in civilized places outside of the US. I think a lot of the toxicity around this topic is a logical consequence of the US of A being (perhaps willingly ?) blind to the fact that they are lagging about 60+ years behind the rest of the world on this topic, and are making it worse everyday - while still believing that they are a shining light of progressivism. Hiring (or not hiring) people based on skin color or genitalia according to some kind of magical quota is about as moronic as it gets ; and adults unable to project themselves into a character that doesn't look like them or doesn't do the same kind of bed stuff they do (or even worse : *requesting* characters looking like them and doing the same kind of bed stuff they do) aren't adults IMHO.
- If you want an actual good story about alien people (and also sexy fishpoeple, and human/fish sex without any magical intervention turning one character into the race of the other) and with awesome good old human art that didn't require datacenters worth or processing power to produce, I'd highly recommend the Aquablue comics. They are about 10x more interesting than Avatar and the Little Mermaid combined, and they certainly don't suffer from endless design by committee.
my reading of the cracked article is that they are really stretching to justify the title. The quotes are taken out of context (big surprise). For example his talk about male viewers not being able to control themselves is part of a conversation where he reflects on the male id. So it's not like he is fucking creep getting off on his characters - he is a commercial director making a movie and understanding its appeal to different audiences. most commercial entertainment is targeted to teenagers and kids. same reason in nature predators attack the weak - less risk, more profit.
He is talking to playboy which by itself is probably enough to get some people all worked up, but it's besides the point.
Main thing is just that you link references to support a point and then its a rabbit hole of this linking to that and each layer down you go, its getting further from the apparent truth. So then you have to back up and consider the original conclusion because it seems to be on top of faulty premise.
There is a lot of that with your recent post and given that a large chunk of the references come from obvious far right rage bait sources and the fact that you don't provide some clear hypothesis what you are working towards it seems trollish rather than productive.
So far the only point I've taken away here is that because AI may allow disgruntled adult disney fans to remake some characters as they see fit, that is good? But really what I see is that culture war terrorist use the tool as a way to radicalize people.
my reading of the cracked article is that they are really stretching to justify the title. The quotes are taken out of context (big surprise). For example his talk about male viewers not being able to control themselves is part of a conversation where he reflects on the male id. So it's not like he is fucking creep getting off on his characters - he is a commercial director making a movie and understanding its appeal to different audiences. most commercial entertainment is targeted to teenagers and kids. same reason in nature predators attack the weak - less risk, more profit.
He is talking to playboy which by itself is probably enough to get some people all worked up, but it's besides the point.
Main thing is just that you link references to support a point and then its a rabbit hole of this linking to that and each layer down you go, its getting further from the apparent truth. So then you have to back up and consider the original conclusion because it seems to be on top of faulty premise.
There is a lot of that with your recent post and given that a large chunk of the references come from obvious far right rage bait sources and the fact that you don't provide some clear hypothesis what you are working towards it seems trollish rather than productive.
So far the only point I've taken away here is that because AI may allow disgruntled adult disney fans to remake some characters as they see fit, that is good? But really what I see is that culture war terrorist use the tool as a way to radicalize people.
The hypothesis I was working towards was that this tech or rather a more consistent perfected ethical version could become the closest to a star trek like holodeck. Anyone regardless of their race or ethnicity can portray anybody. The focus then would be on telling stories and being creative.
Aleast that's what the more alturistic proponents of AGI seem to believe which includes many creative professionals that are against AI in its current form.
So unless we can see meaning its not very useful as it is.
In the little mermaid's case compared to the live action, I felt the AI version was meaningful, the AI overlay brought it closer to the cartoon which is what I had expected in the live action which does do justice in the audio atleast.
Also the references I use are a mix of perspectives, I do read them and together they do give a well rounded understanding of the matter. I find that media like Kotaku are more selective and biased depending on the controversy generated, I try to stay neutral as much as possible.
- AI in its current form is still unethical vomit/litteral art and identity theft. So even if it can look appealing nothing justifies it.
- Writer-directors can do anything they want and don't have to explain themselves if they want a character of any ethnicity and any sex-appeal.
- There's a reason why "DEI" in hiring is quite literally illegal in civilized places outside of the US. I think a lot of the toxicity around this topic is a logical consequence of the US of A being (perhaps willingly ?) blind to the fact that they are lagging about 60+ years behind the rest of the world on this topic, and are making it worse everyday - while still believing that they are a shining light of progressivism. Hiring (or not hiring) people based on skin color or genitalia according to some kind of magical quota is about as moronic as it gets ; and adults unable to project themselves into a character that doesn't look like them or doesn't do the same kind of bed stuff they do (or even worse : *requesting* characters looking like them and doing the same kind of bed stuff they do) aren't adults IMHO.
- If you want an actual good story about alien people (and also sexy fishes, and human/fish sex without any magical intervention turning one character into the race of the other) and with awesome good old human art that didn't require datacenters worth or processing power to produce, I'd highly recommend the Aquablue comics. They are about 10x more interesting than Avatar and the Little Mermaid combined, and they certainly don't suffer from endless design by committee.
Gills can be sexy !
Much the rest of the world doesn't need to care about DEI because of homogenity and general acceptance of the way things are. Like diversity and racism in India is a way of life and has been for centuries. We have massive affirmative action initiatives far greater than the western world and every DEI category has a sub category and sub sub category to dole out all kinds of favors. Its also hugely political and this aspect doesn't do us any favors as far as sustainability goes.
North america's issue is more in implementation and atleast from a media perspective it feels very superficial.
Like with princess and the frog, there was criticism from both sides, one said that the concept was a DEI conspiracy, the other that it wasn't racially black enough. Its important to have a more balanced perspective i.e Disney will do what it likes and we can decide through our buying power about what we want to see.
Ai seems to be offering a kind of alternative by eliminating the prospect of race entirely but its unethical approach to development is very concerning. Thanks for sharing those comics, I will check them out!
I've seen controversies in American voice acting a few times where characters who were PoC were voiced by white people. In recent years, there's been efforts to replace those VAs with people matching the ethnicity of their characters, or at least closer than some random white person. That's not something I really agree with, because it's just a voice, and I think that most of the time, the actor's personal experience isn't going to have a lot of relevance unless, for example, they need to speak accurately in a certain accent the average white American wouldn't have, or a language, etc. It's all very grey; I don't like the black and white (no pun intended, urk) approach some have taken with it, because there's just a lot to consider.
But when it comes to using someone of one race to capture a performance and then using AI to replace them with someone of another.....I really don't think that's going to end well. Historically, blackface, yellowface, etc, have been a big problem; I don't see how digital _____face tools would do anything but exacerbate it. Considering there's racism, both conscious and subconscious, when it comes casting and hiring, I think if it were normalising to hire people "race blind" knowing you could just "recast" them via AI, all it would do is push already marginalised groups out entirely.
It's kind of the problem with AI in general; just like art AI and writing AI, it would be appropriating from people - most likely oppressed minorities - to give to their oppressors.
Also, I think in a full physical performance, there are nuances that come with the race, gender, etc of the performer that matter. I'm pale as fresh snow, so I can't really say, but I am a minority, and I'd bet money that oppressed ethnic groups have eyes in the back of their head just like I do. You get used to having to scan every room you walk into. You ask yourself, are those person's contempt-filled eyes just a little too hateful? Do they look like they want an excuse to fight? You walk like you need to be prepared; you probably don't put your hands in your pockets too much, or perhaps you try to walk taller or affect more confidence in your movement so people will think better of picking on you. If you have to take a seat, you pick the one where you can see them coming, or perhaps closest to the exit. If someone abruptly starts a conversation, you straighten up a little without thinking about it; you're wary.
What do you think that does to the way you move? To the way you react to things? I think it probably changes a lot. Subtly, maybe, but they're there, and I think you'll get a more accurate, authentic performance out of someone who actually experiences that than someone who doesn't and is just pretending.
You also run the risk of perpetuating stereotypes. For example, there are white people who, if told "act like you're a black guy" would start doing a grossly exaggerated swagger. Can you be sure all traces of that would be purged? Wouldn't it be better to just not take the risk?
Beyond just considering the people you're exploiting by using their likenesses in your AI without actually representing them in casting, what about the person you're exploiting as your stand-in? They do all that work, and what will they get? Their face won't be on it. They won't be recognised. Do you really think, for example, that David Tennant would have the same profile he has now if when he played the main character in Doctor Who he'd been AI'd over with some random other face? And if all you're bringing to the table is a base over which they'll put an AI, the main character can be anyone - you can't demand the pay you're worth because your bargaining posture is weak as fuck. It only advantages those already in power - it weakens the working class. Of course, that goes for voice acting in general, which, as I understand it, is part of the reason it's not as popular a field for actors as stage or TV, and I'd think is a reason they tend to have to work so hard on self-promotion and going to cons and stuff to put their face out there.
Also, the AI doesn't know anything. Can it really translate the nuances of any performance that well? To draw or sculpt an expression requires studying and understanding how the face moves, why it looks the way it does; this technology isn't capable of understanding that, so I doubt it can replicate it well enough. The video shown above demonstrates that; there's barely any actual face movement, and it looks kind of.....floaty and strange. It gives me the same feeling as when you see 3D models with blend shapes for A,E,I,O,U and they animate speech by just lerping between them.
That aside.....I don't know of anyone who actually cares enough to want to use AI to change the appearance of characters in films and games except three groups. One, men who are completely porn-fried and out of touch with what real women look like, or so messed up they reject real women and don't want to look at any that haven't been filtered and sugeried to hell and back. Two, racists who don't want to have to acknowledge the existence of (usually) non-white people. Three. People who are using this tech to deepfake their favourite actors in as a petty "what if" novelty; there's no mileage in that.
At the end of the day, I would rather see a human performance every time. Even janky 3D animation is at least intentional; even the ones that aren't that well done, or shoddy motion capture. I think people make art because they want to say something, and people look at art - yes, partly just because they want to be entertained - but also because they want to communicate, too. They want to feel something, think something, have something expressed to them by another person. Not by a heartless machine that's only imitating our expressions and feelings.
TL;DR: Overall, I just don't see that benefiting anyone. It's janky, it looks unnatural, you inherently lack control over the appearance and expressiveness of the resulting fake-person, you're most likely performing a hideous amount of appropriation to do it, you risk perpetuating racist hiring practices and stereotypes about appearance or behaviour, you'll devalue the working class - the actors - whose faces, whose identifiability are just as much their brand, their financial worth as their skills are, and most people who are really into those have highly impure motives.
Replies
I don't think you can import custom models just yet, or export content for fine tuning.
Heres a new AI chatbot feature in a development build
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/luc-schurgers-1965063_aichatbot-replikant-digitalinnovation-activity-7173651192147820545-46iq?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop
They also have one with trump and biden models
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7175554111424098304?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop
Wondering how this will affect the hiring of character artists, should we try to incorporate these tools to improve our portfolio's and stand out?
It does seem that the focus of this software is vtubing, like exporting content into unreal 5 doesn't seem to be possible.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/g_8vgFRULdY
https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1bowvhn/me_and_the_current_state_of_ai/
If anything AI models are widely appreciated by anime pornographers, so maybe there is hope for humanity yet lol
I get that they want to stay on top of the curve of tech, and get eyeballs. But the myopia is still bizarre. I can’t help but see them as being a bit low on their ethics.
Sorry if it was already shared here. Got this sent by a friend and found it curious/fascinating.
This looks like it’s more than just a fake AI tutorial book, as at least a few parts shown in the video are lifted from a Loomis book.
"Fully AI-generated games in 5-10 years says Mr RTX Nvidia Jensen".
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/gpus/rtx-off-ai-on-jensen-says-well-see-fully-ai-generated-games-in-5-10-years?lid=c2mxkcbxpyi9
This is what I said at the top of page 9, you heard it on Polycount first.
"I think with almost almost everything in technology, the S curve is not longer than a decade once it becomes true, once it becomes practical and better. And, of course, ChatGPT is not only practical; in most cases, it's better. I think it's less than ten years away. In ten year's time you're at the other end of that S curve. In five years from now, you're probably right in the middle where everything is changing in real-time, and everybody's going, 'Oh, look at that, this is happening.' And so you just got to decide, are we two years into it, into that ten years? Probably, we're probably already two years into it. And so I would say that within the next five to ten years, somewhere in between, it's largely the case."
a vague waffle of a statement if you ask me. Basically reads like this, "will your company do all the cool things and make all the money?"
"Well, historically things go like this, and then you have to ask, is this like that? And ya know, things historically go like that, so we think that yes, we definitely, all the good things will happen, and it could be two, three, five years? Everybody is saying that."
Sounds like a kid making up something to say on the spot when they forgot to actually do the book report. I know people tend to think that CEO's and people in positions like this are a few steps above a kid who forgot to do book report.... but they often times are not. It's a jobs program for the upper class, not a meritocracy. I doubt he has much of a clue, just gets some reports and pours money into whatever his gut tells him to, or what the people delivering reports succeed in impressing him with. And of course they all have their own selfish motives.
I'm thinking only one was breast fed, the other got an iv drip.
Jensen is a delusion sales guy.
People on linkedin were comparing his presentation with Steve Jobs, but the robots in the background were a digital billboard.
I thought they would fly or something like in Iron Man 2.
Instead he brought the disney BD1 rip offs that waddled around for lols.
Utterly useless.
Do you think Jensen cares about what artists have to say on Polycount? We're replaceable nothings - noisy, unwashed serfs to these people.
They will say and do anything to make their money, regardless of what others think. It's just business.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/06/technology/tech-giants-harvest-data-artificial-intelligence.html
How Tech Giants Cut Corners to Harvest Data for A.I.
OpenAI, Google and Meta ignored corporate policies, altered their own rules and discussed skirting copyright law as they sought online information to train their newest artificial intelligence systems.
...
At Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, managers, lawyers and engineers ... conferred on gathering copyrighted data from across the internet, even if that meant facing lawsuits. Negotiating licenses with publishers, artists, musicians and the news industry would take too long, they said.
...
At least two employees raised concerns about using intellectual property and not paying authors and other artists fairly or at all, according to the recordings. One employee recounted a separate discussion about copyrighted data with senior executives including Chris Cox, Meta’s chief product officer, and said no one in that meeting considered the ethics of using people’s creative works.
Someone else said Uber & Airbnb aggressively broke the law until it just became normalized, and now it's just commonplace business practice. :,(
https://store.steampowered.com/news/group/4145017/view/3862463747997849618
One such AI Disclosure on a real product (a DLC) on Steam is the following;
The point which in my view voids the majority of AIs for Gamedevelopment is the following;
Live-Generated: this comes with an additional requirement: in the Content Survey, you'll need to tell us what kind of guardrails you're putting on your AI to ensure it's not generating illegal content.
For the Live-Generated AI output, you need to hedge the capabilities of those systems, any closed source middleware solution fails flat unless you can easily forward the liability and lawsuits to the AI-producer(s).
Depending on were your game is released, you not only need "common sense" on what to avoid but especially Lawyers well versed in every countries laws to know what that entails.
Being able to bar AIs to give unwanted/false/illegal output is a big task.
As long as customers of AI solutions can´t see into the used Pretraining Data, you are essentially playing Russian roulette.
Using AI is playing Hot Potato.
Brand damage, leaking internal data etc is serious and companies wise up on those AI fiascos and some have already included stipulations in their B2B agreements to ensure AI is not used for internal - as well as external usage.
For the Live-Generated AI output, you need to hedge the capabilities of those systems, any closed source middleware solution fails flat unless you can easily forward the liability and lawsuits to the AI-producer(s).
Depending on were your game is released, you not only need "common sense" on what to avoid but especially Lawyers well versed in every countries laws to know what that entails.
Being able to bar AIs to give unwanted/false/illegal output is a big task.
As long as customers of AI solutions can´t see into the used Pretraining Data, you are essentially playing Russian roulette.
Using AI is playing Hot Potato.
Brand damage, leaking internal data etc is serious and companies wise up on those AI fiascos and some have already included stipulations in their B2B agreements to ensure AI is not used for internal - as well as external usage.
Truly gave me chills!
Regardless of the nonsense about what race mermaids are if we get an option to revisit characters as we remember them in live action movies, I would welcome it and certainly be great if the ethics issue with AI was resolved.
Also makes me wonder if it would have been best to have the live actions be stylized 3D remakes, like in the AI video the AI overlay isn't consistent and certainly looks idealized, but it is because of this idealized look that it feels closer to the animated cartoon version and evokes feelings that the live action with Hailey Bailey didn't seem to.
The music does, but Hailey Bailey tends to throw it off, so maybe the approach to live action should be casting live actors and then create visually accurate overlays, kinda like how they did the Navi in Avatar
In this way there wouldn't be an issue with Ariel being played by a actress who doesn't match the version portrayed in the animated film, but the final release would be more accurate to the animated film.
This is basically similar to what they're doing with Kay Vess in Star wars Outlaws, where they modified a scan to look distinct from the actor, though it didn't really get the reception they thought it would.
This does, as you can see from the positive comments responding to the video
I feel so happy to see this and feel those chills again, when I watched the Hailey Bailey version I laughed at the end of the song because of how ridiculous it felt.
Like she sings well, but having been brought up on the animated little mermaid by brain was mostly confused, like "who is this person?"
Hailey Bailey does provide the right performance for a CG version overlay which AI provides, the inconsistency also makes it appear dreamlike and even the water feels more believable.
I hope the AI user does the whole film so I can finally watch it without decompression sickness.
Bonus video,
If you like the look of the original, watch the original.
As for why they are korean, the AI user mostly focuses on Kpop videos so the training data set he uses is full of it.
I do watch the original, but when I saw the trailers for he live action, I did approach it from a nostalgic perspective.
Like if I closed my eyes and listened to hailey Bailey singing, I see the cartoon Ariel.
She has a great singing voice, but she doesn't look like the Ariel I know at all. (the rest of the cast oddly enough do,
This AI version meant I could open them again.
Lol, I don't think I ever really grew up, it was a blissful time though and I hope children of future generations are introduced to more than just the live action versions.
Actually it has everything to do with Hailey Baileys perfomance, which is excellent.
She is the perfect template for a CG overlay of the Ariel character from the cartoon.
I am curious if Disney would have actually considered doing this, or it would have been seen as controversial because of Hailey Bailey's race.
Its mentioned that Hailey Bailey was selected over 400 other Ariel candidates and her singing voice was a big factor in her winning the role.
So suppose they make a remake of princess and the frog and choose a white actor for princess Tiana, what would the reception to such a decision be like?
The CG overlay approach means that anyone can be the actor for the overlay regardless of their race, all that matters is their performance.
For example, when the lion king remake came out, my brain was jumping between seeing the disney version and a series I loved growing up called Untamed Africa.
It wasn't a problem, but then someone put CG deepfakes on the realistic CG animals and we got this,
This looks way more faithful and balanced.
I think Disney are attempting this with Snow White and the seven Dwarves since Peter Dinklage got upset about portraying real people who have Dwarfism in that role and Disney attempted to experiment with other alternatives.
Which was widely ridiculed,
So this is what they have now.
Interestingly during my school days in an all boys school, they had us take part in a Snow White school play and I was the top choice for snow white since I was considered the the cutest little boy to play a girl (second shortest in my grade, and more feminine facial features)
it was basically this,
But they chose a much fairer kid and I got lady in waiting #1. I have a picture somewhere.
Being an all boys school we were all comfortable with theatrical cross dressing for pantomimes upto the 10th grade.
Given how popular Allo Allo was (we all watched it growing up) where there is a lot of this, we looked forward to our school plays.
Thinking back I'm not sure it was a good thing lol and this is in south asia
Also we didnt have any people with dwarfism among the 3rd graders, so they went with wrestlers instead using the chubbier kids.
It was snow white and the 7 WWF wrestlers lol
So I'm no stranger to diversity in productions, though in school they didn't see it as DEI and we had to all wear a lot of lipstick and makeup.
I actually benefit from it since I'm a visible minority, but I don't really feel good about it since there are others more diverse than me that could really use the initiatives, for example people with physical disabilities and autism who do get left behind.
But my post on Ariel wasn't about DEI, it was to support the premise that with the technology perfected and sourced/implemented ethically any actor capable of giving a convincing performance can become a base for a virtual overlay that is more true to the recreation of an original work.
The Ariel in that example evokes the original not just because she's fairer skinned, Hailey Bailey's voice adds to the illusion and in that sense the actress is represented in this performance.
Its not a total replacement for her, all its doing is making it more true to the original cartoon though with the data set the user applied, she's 80% korean and 10% caucasian.
It's how they did the Navi in Avatar, each Navi is super idealised and James Cameron was quite clear on his intent,
https://www.cracked.com/article_33832_reminder-james-cameron-was-thirsty-for-avatars-navi.html
I don't necessarily agree with his approach, but atleast he's honest.
The AI's inconsistency adds some mysticism and makes the undersea environment more convincing which is really interesting.
Mermaids are fantasy, so this felt dreamlike and the nostalgia I felt wasn't something I could fully experience with Hailey Bailey's performance as is, unless I imagined the cartoon Ariel in her place with her voice and the musical score.
Even the environment felt flat, like she was floating in a void, not in water.
So far for the films I've watched, only Avatar has done the underwater setting in a way that felt really convincing when it comes to movies.
I just wish that AI was developed ethically so its use could be justified.
i meant that with this technology we could have actors as a base for several fantastical demographics depending on story contraints.
Like suppose it was hyper tentacled space princess and the 5th dimensional super frog based on planet zolton, the entire acting cast could be black or any race, and the technology can overlay whatever the studio wants on their performance.
Just like Navi from Avatar.
I can imagine a princess and the frog as a stylized animation set in a trailer park where the demographic is largely white, and black actors or other racially unrepresented demographics in media could play the performances emphasizing greater representation among their racial demographic, even though the resulting output authentically replicates the demographic in a North American trailer park.
I really would be interested to know how this would be received.
Trailer Park Boys is one of my favorite Canadian comedies and while I wasn't disappointed that there are no south asians in the show, if I could play a part and they overlayed a caucasian person on top of me, I would be cool with it. Actually it would really hilarious.
That's actually pretty big in Indian where everyone wants to be more fairer.
This could also apply if I wanted to play in part in the chinese period drama Story of Yanxi Palace. I'd be thrilled to play someone like Yuan Chunwang "A low-ranking handsome eunuch with a mysterious past."
AI in a odd way democraticizes race at its most superficial level which is pretty wild in my opinion.
Personally I'm all for more original stories and I liked what they did with Princess and the Frog, the character was inspired by famed New Orleans chef Leah Chase and they did have to make several changes after receiving feedback to their initial concepts from African-American critics and media.
Maddy the chamber maid changed to Tiana the waitress, and while the prince was decided to be from Maldonia (possibly around Monaco, so maybe middle eastern person, Naveen is an indian name) there was criticism that he wasn't black like Tiana and she should not have fallen in love with a non Black prince.
https://www.essence.com/news/critics-dispute-princess-and-the-frog/
Though given the premise of the film they were both overlayed with frogs and while I'm not sure what it is like to be attracted to an amphibian, forgive my speciesm but it feels rather icky.
I'm more comfortable with Madagascar's premise where a Giraffe falls in love with a Hippo.
did your read those articles or just the headlines?
first article looks and reads like clickbait, so i went to the link it cited as being the source for a concept artist claiming that director was a weirdo about the characters.
ctrl+f search doesnt bring up the directors name or the term director in the article. I also skimmed it over to double check and read the paragraphs specific about the design process. No mention of the director. It is mentioned that because the film is a love story with human falling in love with the alien, they asked male staff if they'd want to do (have sex with) the alien or not. In other words, they wanted to ensure it was not so alien as to lose sympathy from the audience.
also, just think about the likelihood of a professional concept artist who is working under James Cameron spilling the beans about directors kinks to the internet. Doesn't seem likely unless it was like part of some "oh yeah thirty years ago that dick was raping everyone" type of documentary.
It might be worth double checking what you read because tons of online "news" content is generated for clicks, not for truth. I think there is common bias they often exploit. They put in the links such that there is veneer of credibility, knowing that most people will only read the headline and take a cursory glance at the actual article. Because really it's just there to display ads.
"the more alien we make them in the design phase, we just kept asking ourselves — basically, the crude version is: "Well, would you wanna do it?" And our all-male crew of artists would basically say, "Nope, take the gills out." It was pretty simple, but then taken in a very specific degree."
so he's definitely looking at sexual appeal, and it does matter to the story or atleast it did to Jake Sully.
While I don't think the cracked article embellishes what was said, its a short targeted article, but does link to some referenced articles.
What it didn't do was link to the playboy interview which has more information on his philosophy, perspective and design process.
The concept artists didn't have to spill the beans, the director did it himself, he's pretty straighforward and a lot of what he says in the playboy interview can come across as controversial.
Here is the playboy article that they reference, and James is pretty candid about how he feels about women.
Its safe for work when it comes to visual media. (what James says is another matter)
SFW (visual)
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f220b3b33a01e74a27f09bc/t/5f3f04ce1b57185954492e07/1597965584159/James+Cameron+-+Playboy.pdf
The specific comments are on page 2,
starting with playboy's question,
- AI in its current form is still unethical vomit/litteral art and identity theft. So even if it can look appealing nothing justifies it.
- Writer-directors can do anything they want and don't have to explain themselves if they want a character of any ethnicity and any sex-appeal.
- There's a reason why "DEI" in hiring is quite literally illegal in civilized places outside of the US. I think a lot of the toxicity around this topic is a logical consequence of the US of A being (perhaps willingly ?) blind to the fact that they are lagging about 60+ years behind the rest of the world on this topic, and are making it worse everyday - while still believing that they are a shining light of progressivism. Hiring (or not hiring) people based on skin color or genitalia according to some kind of magical quota is about as moronic as it gets ; and adults unable to project themselves into a character that doesn't look like them or doesn't do the same kind of bed stuff they do (or even worse : *requesting* characters looking like them and doing the same kind of bed stuff they do) aren't adults IMHO.
- If you want an actual good story about alien people (and also sexy fishpoeple, and human/fish sex without any magical intervention turning one character into the race of the other) and with awesome good old human art that didn't require datacenters worth or processing power to produce, I'd highly recommend the Aquablue comics. They are about 10x more interesting than Avatar and the Little Mermaid combined, and they certainly don't suffer from endless design by committee.
Gills can be sexy !
He is talking to playboy which by itself is probably enough to get some people all worked up, but it's besides the point.
Main thing is just that you link references to support a point and then its a rabbit hole of this linking to that and each layer down you go, its getting further from the apparent truth. So then you have to back up and consider the original conclusion because it seems to be on top of faulty premise.
There is a lot of that with your recent post and given that a large chunk of the references come from obvious far right rage bait sources and the fact that you don't provide some clear hypothesis what you are working towards it seems trollish rather than productive.
So far the only point I've taken away here is that because AI may allow disgruntled adult disney fans to remake some characters as they see fit, that is good? But really what I see is that culture war terrorist use the tool as a way to radicalize people.
Anyone regardless of their race or ethnicity can portray anybody.
The focus then would be on telling stories and being creative.
Aleast that's what the more alturistic proponents of AGI seem to believe which includes many creative professionals that are against AI in its current form.
I feel that the results are too inconsistent and offer very little control to actually use to create anything truly meaningful and sustainable.
Like Googles gemini
https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/21/24079371/google-ai-gemini-generative-inaccurate-historical
So unless we can see meaning its not very useful as it is.
In the little mermaid's case compared to the live action, I felt the AI version was meaningful, the AI overlay brought it closer to the cartoon which is what I had expected in the live action which does do justice in the audio atleast.
Also the references I use are a mix of perspectives, I do read them and together they do give a well rounded understanding of the matter.
I find that media like Kotaku are more selective and biased depending on the controversy generated, I try to stay neutral as much as possible.
Much the rest of the world doesn't need to care about DEI because of homogenity and general acceptance of the way things are.
Like diversity and racism in India is a way of life and has been for centuries.
We have massive affirmative action initiatives far greater than the western world and every DEI category has a sub category and sub sub category to dole out all kinds of favors.
Its also hugely political and this aspect doesn't do us any favors as far as sustainability goes.
North america's issue is more in implementation and atleast from a media perspective it feels very superficial.
Like with princess and the frog, there was criticism from both sides, one said that the concept was a DEI conspiracy, the other that it wasn't racially black enough.
Its important to have a more balanced perspective i.e Disney will do what it likes and we can decide through our buying power about what we want to see.
Ai seems to be offering a kind of alternative by eliminating the prospect of race entirely but its unethical approach to development is very concerning.
Thanks for sharing those comics, I will check them out!