i think its fair to judge it on a case by case basis

what are you using ai for, is it to automate routine tasks? that's one thing, but its feels misguided to use it to generate architecture models in a film about an architect. even the vocal filter s*** is nonsense to me, like where is this standard of robotic perfection coming from, i think a film dealing with humanity should be fine with some human flaws in a hungarian accent whatever that may be.

ill also admit that brady just be rubbing me the wrong way since ive seen this movie lmao, he giving off wannabe hack vibes and i cant help it

buddy said watching a dcp projection is like a giant laptop, like give me a break

I’m sure people didn’t think this at the time, but cgi is still labourer over by people who’ve devoted their careers to the artform, those are crafted images by underpaid and overworked artists who’s craft, tastes and detail went into making what we see

Typing in ‘create post war architectural style drawings’ into a generative ai program and using it for your movie isn’t the same

I do think this stuff is going to become common place and scoffing/writing off entire movies and directors who use it is going to seem silly in a few years. But there’s no point likening it to cgi.

I hate the ai vocals = autotune argument in music too but that probably had more credence than ai = cgi

i even get that theres a process to like tweaking the ai generations to your liking, but its still inherently generated from this weird inhuman place that we don't even have a real understanding of. the human brain is a portal to infinite creativity (shout out to lynch) and we over here "experimenting with ai" its a cop out no matter which angle you approach it from lol.

I agree with all of this. Brady definitely gave me off vibes too in some interviews I watched as if he’s buying the bullshit he spews.

But the scary thing is if it wasn’t announced AI was used, would any of us have known? No. So it’s fair to dislike the fact AI was used, but me personally it doesn’t change my opinion on the movie because I f***ed with it before having any knowledge of any of that.

Now if while watching something seemed “off” then that’s one thing. But the s*** had me fooled, I thought that was straight Adrien accent and voice 100%.

But end of the day art is subjective, the use of AI will be subjective, same as using CGI or stock footage is subjective. I just personally hope those “entirely made by AI” movies doesn’t become a thing :/ …if it’s implemented here and there and I can’t tell, then whatever

It’s not saying “AI is the same as CGI” it’s more so saying the way CGI was frowned upon when that became a thing, but now it’s normal will probably be the case with AI.

The development of society has always been based around making s*** easier for humans. Niggas don’t have to drive to a blockbuster anymore to rent a movie they can just do it straight from their tv

It's a different thing entirely. The ethics of CG were never questioned on a grand scale.

i get this as well, and yeah i didn't know there was any AI used when watching, i had my own issues with the movie outside of that. but just because i didn't catch something upon first watch, doesn't mean that on a subtle level it didn't affect the humanity of the piece. like whose to say what that ai filter actually does to brody's voice, like is there a thin layer of artificiality now muddying the humanity of the tone? i'd say that's likely. and then its a question of integrity at the end of it all. why is taking shortcuts because of money and time acceptable, when you're creating your grand american epic to go down in history, wouldn't it make sense to sacrifice some more time and money. i think a lot of people have been feeling the sentiment of brady wanting to have his cake and eat it too and it's no coincidence that this whole debacle is representative of that, no matter on how subtle of a level. imo.

It 100% was are you serious? Barry Jenkins is over here crying feeling like a sell out because he just made an entire CGI movie.

Let’s remove Brady for a second because it seems we both have sour opinions about him.

Taking shortcuts will always be apart of some peoples process. That’s why some choose to build sets rather than shoot on location. In which you have those purist who argue against studio sets and are die hard “on location” people and consider anything else inauthentic and fake.

So anyway that it’s argued, it’s GREAT points being made, that I agree with, but it’s not anything new to Hollywood. Hollywood will always have the artist who try and create the most believable product possibly the quickest and easiest way they can.

I think the best part of what you said is the humanity part. Because yes to this movie specifically it does come across hypocritical that a movie based around humanity is implementing non-human devices to create “humanity”.

Jenkins tried to make a movie that is reliant entirely on CGI, and found he didn't like it. Like many, he prefers practical filmmaking. He also admitted to underestimating the difficulties of working entirely within a CG world.

That is not a statement on the ethics of CG.

So you’re really arguing that no artist have argued against CGI and its place in Hollywood? So years ago CGI came about and everyone was just like “yayyy thank you we needed this”

yeah, listen, while i have a firm distaste for ai in any capacity. i understand that it is going to become more of a norm in our society, i mean s*** i am a business operator and ai has become widely implemented across all operation systems, im a rare outlier in not utilizing it due to my personal values. but that's why i'm stressing the fact that it depends on the particular case and utilization where i may be more critical of it. am i gonna give a s*** when marvel is widely using it? i could care less lol.

You gotta understand how slippery of a slope that is though.

At first it's "they only used it for a few scenes" and "I couldn't even tell," and before you know it you've become so used to it and accepting of it that those "entirely made by AI" films won't even bother you. This is how the world works now. You give them an inch, they take a mile. It's the same thing with the TikTok ban. If you roll over and die because you don't care about the app or you didn't use it anyway, it gives them power and eventually they will come for something you do use and care about.

We need to be vehemently against any and all use of generative AI in art. Full stop. It doesn't matter what it's used for or to what extent. It has no place in art.

to be fair thats not what hes saying at all, he's referring to the ethics of it and the scale of the outrage. anyone with any actual knowledge of the machanics of cgi wouldn't question its ethics. now on a "purist" level of preference that's its own thing.

Word that’s a fact. It’s case by case like you said. Marvel using AI doesn’t hit as hard like a character study “human” film does.

Well yeah outrage is always gonna look bigger now a days with social media and everything being voiced online. It still doesn’t change that the ethics of CGI wasn’t judged at one point.

Kind of late to the conversation but I think we have to stop looking at ai as something that has any possibility of not being used anymore and take a step back and ask if it was used in a way that did not detriment someone else. Using someone else’s likeness or voice without their permission for example, or stealing someone’s artwork to make something with AI. But if it’s being used in a way that has the blessing of the person who it’s being used for or for minute tasks then I just can’t imagine writing off an entire production, especially one as massive as this film. Do I think movies that don’t use ai are more impressive? Sure. But if it’s being used in a way like this or like how Dune 2 did? I genuinely don’t feel it affects my viewing

ETHICS BROTHER

ETHICS

WE'RE TALKING ETHICS

The worth of CGI has always been debated, argued and dismissed by many, whether it be the general public or those who would be in a position to use it, but I don't know why you're acting as if the argument that surrounds AI is the same one that surrounds CGI.

It isn't, it never has been.

The MAIN concern when it comes to implementing AI in art is that it is taking away the human element. Instructors, craftsmen, and obviously, artists, etc. who up until this point have been integral to the overall process of making a movie, may soon be obsolete with further implementation of AI.

There is still a human element to making computer imagery. Plus, practical effects and building still exists, it's not as if CG has eliminated the use for it. It is still widely used on even the most artificial looking movies. Set designers, builders, prop makers, etc. all of these jobs in film still exist, in abundance, and often they work WITH the graphics department. AI threatens to eliminate both, and much more.

Most saying it’s not the same but it’s still a thing even as of recent, like the use of deaging with cgi rather than casting a younger actor. Or even more controversial, using a dead actors likeness with CGI

There is a difference that CGI has to be created from scratch, while AI pulls from other sources.

I am talking ethics with you, whether you believe it or not there was a point when the ethics of CGI was questioned. Yes that was a long time ago but it doesn’t change how people use to view it. You don’t gotta take AI and CGI as a literal comparison. I was just asking if there’s a line and pointed out at one point the line was CGI. At one point the line was using stock footage. That doesn’t mean the “stock footage” line and AI line is the same or represent the exact same thing.

I agree with everyone’s idea of “we need to take a stance against AI” as @Unity said. But that will bring forth the question of “is there rules when it comes to art?”…saying “no AI” is technically now a rule, even if I 100% agree, it’s still a rule. Which also leads to a slippery slope of Pro-AI users to now questioning “well what else should be eliminated from art then”

Exactly brother. That’s why I keep asking “is there rules with art?” Because I’ve seen every angle argued against CGI as well as AI.

Using CGI to create dead actors is prolly the best example of CGI’s ethics being questioned as of recently. And debating on whether it’s morally acceptable or not.

I do think something like ai is similar to cgi where it should be looked at in a case to case basis

Something like Late Night with the Devil, where they took a shortcut and used generative AI to create images is hard to argue for. Lazy at the very least

But in a case like this where ai was only used to tweak their annunciations but it’s still 100% their performance, and where ai was initially used for the drawings but they were redrawn by an actual artist? It doesn’t feel as egregious to me