alt.hn

3/31/2025 at 9:44:54 PM

Everything is Ghibli

 https://carly.substack.com/p/everything-is-ghibli

by ghuntley

4/1/2025 at 12:15:03 AM

Ghibli art is famous because ghibli art means ghibli movies. It is more beautiful in motion than still, the beauty is in part due to the emotion evoked by the story.

There were a million Doom clones, none of which were as good as Doom. The same will be true of AI art copycats.

This, however, is not the first time ghibli has had competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_and_the_Witch's_Flower in fact they have a whole studio dedicated to copying ghibli: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_Ponoc

Yes they used to work at ghibli, but so too did john romero work at id, and yet daikatana was not a quake-killer.

This doesn't devalue ghibli at all, I think

(In fact, I think AI will always have the fundamental problem that most people have no taste or sense or introspection, they don't know why good things are good, and can't see that crap things are crap, so they are predestined to only be able to produce garbage. Nod to Ted Sturgeon.)

by PostOnce

4/1/2025 at 9:07:18 AM

>This, however, is not the first time ghibli has had competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_and_the_Witch's_Flower in fact they have a whole studio dedicated to copying ghibli: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_Ponoc

It is not "competition" and "copying", it is the fact that Ghibli almost closed for good several times, so some employees created their own studio.

>On August 3, 2014, Toshio Suzuki announced that Studio Ghibli would take a "brief pause" to re-evaluate and restructure in the wake of Miyazaki's retirement. He stated some concerns about where the company would go in the future. This led to speculation that Studio Ghibli will never produce another feature film again. On November 7, 2014, Miyazaki stated, "That was not my intention, though. All I did was announce that I would be retiring and not making any more features."[40] Lead producer Yoshiaki Nishimura among several other staffers from Ghibli, such as director Hiromasa Yonebayashi, left to found Studio Ponoc in April 2015, working on the film Mary and the Witch's Flower.

by aredox

4/1/2025 at 9:35:35 AM

> There were a million Doom clones, none of which were as good as Doom.

Sorry to take this on a tangent, but the problem with Doom clones isn't that they aren't as good as Doom, it is that Doom already exists and is known to the audience. If you've had your mind blown by Doom, playing a 10% better version of Doom isn't going to blow your mind again, it is going to merely be a fun experience. Many people won't even bother to try that 10% better Doom clone, since all they'll see is a clone of something they already tried.

by Adverblessly

4/1/2025 at 12:27:32 PM

To add, cloning is one thing, but a lot of games - including id's own games - iterated on the formula, leading to the genre of first-person shooters like Quake, Unreal, Half-Life, Medal of Honor, Halo, Bioshock, etc.

That is, clones rarely work, but evolutions do. Stardew Valley on the surface can be considered a Harvest Moon clone, but it iterated on the formula, leading to a lot of attempts at casual farm games from many different competitors. Minecraft was an Infiniminer clone (or inspired by?) and iterated on the idea. Fortnite was a PUBG clone which was a DayZ clone.

by Cthulhu_

4/1/2025 at 12:31:34 PM

Minecraft is the most successful Doom clone because you don't even realize it's a Doom clone.

by Kye

4/1/2025 at 2:01:55 PM

huh.

by f33d5173

4/1/2025 at 3:09:59 PM

this is your brain on boomer nostalgia

by googlehater

4/1/2025 at 2:09:55 AM

The wrongdoing here isn't in devaluing somebody's work, it is about enriching oneself by openly repurposing their IP without compensation and dodging any kind of repercussions whatsoever. It was bad when Chinese companies did it, OpenAI using legal sleight of hand to indemnify their actions isn't any less galling.

by rchaud

4/1/2025 at 1:12:59 PM

I personally think the line should be mostly output based. You should be able to train on any copyrighted work by having a single reader license (e.x. purchasing a book or e-book) for that work and no other special licenses. You shouldn't be able to download pirated works for training but you shouldn't need special licenses to train instead of read.

But if your model produces outputs that too closely match their inputs and a company can show it that is a copyright violation and you can be sued for it.

by TimPC

4/1/2025 at 8:16:32 AM

I doubt anyone is enriching themselves with AI memes, at best it slightly devalues their brand by reducing scarcity.

by moffkalast

4/1/2025 at 11:36:34 AM

OpenAI definitely is, as apparently image generation is, for the time being, not available in the free tier, so the only way to keep up with the fad is to upgrade.

by Tade0

4/1/2025 at 12:43:18 PM

It's there on my free account with the new generator.

by Kye

4/1/2025 at 1:01:32 PM

People pay to get more images generated, you can make money even if you have a free version.

by Jensson

4/1/2025 at 8:32:50 PM

OpenAI had a publicity cycle around how tuned their image generator is for this particular style in the same week that google released a major rev for Gemini. That kind of social media dominance against a major competitor is incredibly valuable.

by awkward

4/1/2025 at 8:44:15 AM

Utter bullshit. Or more politely - wrong take. OpenAI embeds itself further in public consciousness, arguably attracting more users therefore profiting.

Enabling mass-production of Ghibli style without permission or monetary compensation is theft.

by freetinker

4/1/2025 at 1:16:20 PM

Styles are notoriously hard to copy. It's not like Ghibli style being copied is anything new. For example, Studio Ponoc where former Ghibli employees did the copying. As long as they aren't literally generating copyrighted works styles can't be owned.

Would the world be better off if Picasso's heirs owned Cubism and any artist wanting to produce works in that style had to buy a license?

by TimPC

4/1/2025 at 5:43:09 PM

Studio Ponoc had Miyazaki's blessing. I doubt the same can be said for OpenAI. OpenAI doing this without even asking might not be illegal, but it comes across like an act of incredible disrespect for the very creators that these memes are masquerading as an homage to.

“When we opened the new studio, Studio Ponoc, I went to report this to Mr. Miyazaki,” he went on, “and he gave his blessing and said, ‘You really need to have the conviction to go create a new film studio and the conviction to show children worthwhile films. And every film you make, you’ll have to realize that has to be a film that is worthy to show to children’.[1]

[1]: https://www.themarysue.com/studio-ponoc-interview/

by mitthrowaway2

4/1/2025 at 8:57:21 AM

Theft of what? There was no market for "memes in ghibli style commissioned by the original studio" which would probably cost hundreds if not thousands if hand-drawn. Nobody was going to pay for that. When it became freely available and instantly reproducible, that's the new market.

by pearjuice

4/1/2025 at 10:53:41 AM

It's not truly free though, it's a loss leader for the near-trillion dollar AI industry. If we're asking where the stolen value ends up, I think you can answer "in the NVIDIA share price".

by pjc50

4/1/2025 at 5:08:56 PM

It doesn't seem hard to imagine 2-5 years from now when "memes in Ghibli style" turns into "pay us 25 cents and we'll send you a 30 minute cartoon in Ghibli style".

by WhyOhWhyQ

4/1/2025 at 3:49:46 PM

Excellent points both. I need to ponder this…

by freetinker

4/1/2025 at 3:15:02 PM

>Nobody was going to pay for that.

Japanese artists exist.

by melagonster

4/1/2025 at 11:00:19 AM

Theft of copyrighted data (movies/art), which OAI used for developing their LLM.

by Yizahi

4/1/2025 at 11:07:07 AM

Oh, you mean copyright infringement, not theft

by mavhc

4/1/2025 at 12:57:15 PM

Unless you live in some anarcho-capitalist society, it is theft, in very simple terms. And I wonder, just where are all those highly successful libertarian societies? The ones who don't need to enforce copyright and where every member of society is creating his own creative art content, movies, songs, games etc. Oh, they have all failed miserably to scammers? Poor people, how I pity them (not).

by Yizahi

4/1/2025 at 12:16:00 PM

I see the neo-Silicon Valley spirit of "regulatory arbitrage as a service" is unwavering.

It's promotion for OpenAI's product, without any of the appropriate licensing. 3D printing companies don't provide Lego schematics to sell their products. There's also the small matter of their ex-employee turned copyright whistleblower, who ended up dead:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd0el3r2nlko

by rchaud

4/1/2025 at 10:54:31 AM

Your argument is an example of survivor bias. Just because one very wealthy corporation wasn't affected (too much) when their intellectual property was stolen, doesn't mean that smaller and less wealthy or less important companies/people aren't affected by IP theft by LLM porch pirates.

And even in Ghibly studio case it's not quite clear, if they won't be affected long term.

by Yizahi

4/2/2025 at 11:47:41 PM

The people who founded Ponoc seemed to have creative differences with Miyazaki. They wanted to make a movie [1] that they felt Ghibli won't greenlight [2] - but there seems to have been no deep seated animosity or desire to rip-off. Incidentally I just borrowed this movie from the local library a few hour ago because the cover art reminded me of Ghibli but I noticed it wasn't a Ghibli production. Some searching online led me to the cited article.

[1] Mary and the Witch’s Flower https://imdb.com/title/tt6336356/

[2] https://otakuusamagazine.com/hayao-miyazaki-says-he-wont-see...

by abhgh

4/1/2025 at 10:50:30 AM

Don Bluth worked at Disney, and poached some of the animators to make his own independent studio, and produced quite a few Disney-like feature films that stood pretty well on their own.

by jasonjayr

4/1/2025 at 10:13:22 AM

This is looking for silver lining: so, someone copied Ghibli style, which is plagiarism, which is bad, but it turns out that by plagiarizing the offender also made the original work more famous and more valuable in some ways... OK. But plagiarizing is still bad. Even if it had some positive effects.

by crabbone

4/1/2025 at 8:37:53 PM

Gee, whatever would Ghibli have done without this publicity boost.

It’s always the already-popular artist’s identity giving clout to the model, not the other way around.

And if the artist’s style is not well known, their identity is obfuscated because the model/LORA/“finetune”-peddler can get away with it. And they’re all peddlers, if it’s not OpenAI it’s grifters with Patreons to fund their “hard work” of tagging people’s work and throwing it at rental GPU compute.

by blargey

4/1/2025 at 10:45:44 AM

> There were a million Doom clones, none of which were as good as Doom

Sure, but there were some "Doomlikes" I would still rate as better than doom; like Build Engine games Duke Nukem and Blood/Blood 2 and other IdTech based games like Hexen.

by z3phyr

4/1/2025 at 1:03:06 PM

Also Marathon and its sequels by Bungie.

by Tycho

4/1/2025 at 12:53:21 PM

> ... that most people have no taste or sense or introspection, they don't know why good things are good

Is this an exaggeration? Or do some people literally have no introspection?

by blueflow

4/1/2025 at 9:27:04 AM

> There were a million Doom clones, none of which were as good as Doom. The same will be true of AI art copycats.

True, but this was also during a time when it was incredibly hard to make a video game. It wasn't like anyone could spin up a Doom clone in 2 minutes. Competition vs. commoditization at massive scale are different things.

by FinnLobsien

4/1/2025 at 1:17:46 PM

I'd argue many of the clones were better but not enough better. Doom was the first to do X and once you already played a game that did X the next game needed to do 2X not 1.2X.

by TimPC

4/1/2025 at 12:32:29 PM

Yeah, the concept of a commercial / off the shelf game engine wasn't that much of a thing until Doom, but with Doom and especially its successors Quake and Unreal from Epic it did. Quake's engine spawned Half-Life's, Unreal became one of the biggest game engines anywhere.

by Cthulhu_

4/1/2025 at 1:59:19 PM

The question is how much that first-mover advantage still means. I guess with video games and movies (Doom and Ghibli), there's a massive difference between telling ChatGPT to make your selfie look like Ghibli.

But for illustrators and graphic artists? What's now keeping me from downloading an illustrator's portfolio and telling ChatGPT to make me something in that style, but for my company?

Is there still value in that illustrator pioneering her unique style? It used to be a client magnet, now a good portfolio might take your potential clients away.

I guess the other side of this is that the more a style/idea/media spreads, the more comesw back to the original creator, but I'm doubtful this is true in AI.

by FinnLobsien

4/1/2025 at 7:02:05 PM

Imagine what classical realists artist though about early photography and how it shaped in history. Painters abandon achievement for replicate reality (all kind of *ism come later) or use new technology (photography) to improve creative process (Mucha).

AI is just another tool for artist. AI by itself never generate "art". It cannot by definition.

by t0bia_s

4/1/2025 at 4:07:28 AM

I’ve never seen these ghibli movies and I think they’re beautiful.

by ljlolel

4/1/2025 at 8:49:34 PM

Like when Don Bluth left disney. He did have a good run though.

by Gothmog69

4/1/2025 at 5:47:17 AM

Read on Reddit that people love AI because it's "democratizing creativity". Let that sink in. People want to be dropped on the top of the mountain and be called an alpinist.

by thefz

4/1/2025 at 8:34:16 AM

I think it’s more like people want to enjoy the view without having to learn how to climb, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to want, even if it cheapens the experience somewhat.

by emblaegh

4/1/2025 at 9:20:26 AM

The cheapening of the experience is the whole point though. People are robbing themselves of the joy that can only come from putting yourself through hardship in pursuit of a goal.

It’s not a moral judgement, that’s just how humans are wired. The lows make the highs higher.

by bspammer

4/1/2025 at 12:27:43 PM

What's better, seeing a beautiful view from the mountain after being driven up, or never seeing the view at all?

by mgfist

4/1/2025 at 12:53:47 PM

Maybe torturing the metaphor, but building a road up the mountain often ruins the view.

by going_north

4/1/2025 at 3:52:38 PM

To continue this metaphor, a while back my girlfriend and I went to Machu Picchu. We were taking a bus to the summit, but there was a landslide near the bottom of the mountain so everybody had to climb most of the way up. This led to it being eerily empty until people started trickling in, which certainly made it a better experience than the normal tourist swarm would have been.

I can imagine AI art having a similar effect (creating a glut of images/logos/whatever that devalues ones made with care) but am hopeful that we'll get better at filtering the cream of the crop. In 5 years tons of things will have AI logos that would have been made by a graphic designer (or simply not made) in the past. That sucks for graphic designers who are out of a job, is good for people who get cheaper logos, and TBD for overall society who now has lots more "custom" logos etc to wade through.

by mrWiz

4/2/2025 at 12:37:46 AM

This discussion reminds me of Edward Abbey in Desert Solitaire advocating for not building roads in national parks to preserve the experience of true wilderness.

Obviously having roads is a great boon to a park's accessibility, and the ability of people with different mobility needs to appreciate nature. But it also made me thoughtful to imagine the feeling of wonder at seeing bridalveil fall after hiking for days into a roadless yosemite valley; how much more special and impressive it would seem after that journey?

This metaphorical tangent is pretty far removed from the original discussion, but how do you weigh the accessibility of a thing against how that accessibility changes its nature?

by augzodia

4/1/2025 at 3:49:10 PM

> People are robbing themselves of the joy that can only come from putting yourself through hardship in pursuit of a goal.

This is such an old man “I used to walk uphill both ways” take.

Not everybody has the TIME COST to pursue being an expert in art or code or whatever. But if they have an amazing idea and can now use AI to produce the idea then that is a beautiful thing!

For example: Having an idea for a cartoon used to be a dead end. It would die in your head because most people cannot stop their life and dedicate a substantial amount of time, effort, and sacrifice to produce the single cartoon idea.

by eric_cc

4/1/2025 at 6:32:21 PM

>Having an idea for a cartoon used to be a dead end.

What's the point in having an idea for a cartoon in your head if an LLM can just write an infinite amount of cartoon ideas in a heartbeat, and probably a better one than you came up with.

by SirMaster

4/1/2025 at 9:53:49 PM

Because it's your own? And previously that creativity of yours was hamstrung by your lack of ability in another domain (drawing), that the AI can help you with.

by elevatedastalt

4/2/2025 at 11:23:14 AM

>> Having an idea for a cartoon used to be a dead end

But drawning a cartoon isn't very challenging. Most of my peers could draw someone from South Park in a junior school.

The hardship in making cartoons is the amount of choices you need to make and the amount of knowledge how those choices would impact a viewer. If you delegate all of that, the cartoon wouldn't be simply blunt, it would be self-contradicting. And we already had a way of making cartoons, that allow your writing to shine through bland animation – since flash, actually. It might actually be even faster then using generative AI

by lesostep

4/1/2025 at 4:35:50 PM

I agree. Toil itself is not valuable or noble. We, as a society, should work towards reducing the training, skill level, and manual effort needed to achieve things. There is no need to artificially gatekeep activities behind needless toil.

This kind of mentality would ban Star Trek replicators, should they be invented one day. "In my day, you had to actually make things, we didn't get to replicate them, so we shouldn't, even if it's possible!"

by ryandrake

4/1/2025 at 9:00:49 PM

I cannot draw for the life of me. I would however like a ghibli version of my D&D character. Am I a bad person?

by Gothmog69

4/2/2025 at 9:18:37 AM

I agree. You should hunt every bit of meat that you consume. Otherwise the experience is cheapened.

by scotty79

4/1/2025 at 4:47:48 PM

What cheapens the experience is the insistence of being called a "mountaineer" when a helicopter dropped you at the peak. This goes for "AI artists" and "astronauts" on commercial launches who glom on to unearned titles whose prestige was forged by countless professionals working very hard.

by overfeed

4/1/2025 at 11:26:40 PM

I think people who are using these models and trying to claim they are artists for clout are not a very large group. Have you really seen a significant number of people doing this? Otherwise it just feels like you're nutpicking

by dnissley

4/2/2025 at 12:22:56 AM

Tale as old as time... today's "bakers" are nothing like the bakers of 100 years ago. With their digital temperature gauges, global recipe and ingredient sourcing, cold storage, and more advanced food science.

Today's musicians have far greater access to lessons, recording equipment, inspirational material than 100 years ago.

Mountain biking (80s single speed with no gears, suspension, etc.) versus modern e-bikes with radial tires and hydraulic brakes.

Who cares? Value your own experience as you do. The less we all think about prestige, the more it will go away.

by mc3301

4/2/2025 at 2:37:35 AM

I actually disagree completely. Mastering the piano is different from mastering digital synthesis no doubt, but there are also distinctive commonalities that make and mark a master in both. A disproportionate investment of time or the effortlessness with which one can generate sounds imagined or perceived, as though the machine were a part of one’s own body, are attributes shared by both. Certainly someone could spend thousands of hours mastering different digital synthesis techniques, and I don’t think that’s easier than mastering the piano. There’s a fundamental competitive aspect to things like music that keeps mastery difficult to attain. If it weren’t difficult then it wouldn’t be as valuable and scarce. Once things become common and accessible, they quickly become boring and new genres are invented.

by BriggyDwiggs42

4/2/2025 at 2:30:08 PM

People thought "canned music" (aka prerecorded music) would be the death of music, and art in general

>The time is coming fast when the only living thing around a motion picture house will be the person who sells you your ticket. Everything else will be mechanical. Canned drama, canned music, canned vaudeville. We think the public will tire of mechanical music and will want the real thing. We are not against scientific development of any kind, but it must not come at the expense of art. We are not opposing industrial progress. We are not even opposing mechanical music except where it is used as a profiteering instrument for artistic debasement.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/musicians-wage-war-ag...

by alickz

4/2/2025 at 8:53:27 PM

It kinda was the death of music - reasonably-skilled musicians used to make money performing live, and now they can't. The market got eaten up by recordings of really good artists, who, ironically, treat music more as industry than art.

by sdwr

4/1/2025 at 5:07:51 PM

Such is technological progress.

AI generated images are only an extension of what e.g. photography has experienced in the last decades. We’ve had film cameras, then digital cameras, then smartphones, each of these commoditized image creation by a then-unthinkable factor.

It’s an ongoing process, even if this leap seems especially big.

by thih9

4/1/2025 at 11:08:22 PM

Technological progress does not directly result in posers. As you noted, smartphones allowed anyone to record videos, but I'm yet to see any influencer or YouTuber call themselves a director or cinematographer.

I suspect the wannabees exist in the narrow window when technology has expanded enough for non-professionals, but hasn't seen wide enough adoption that the man on the street will recognize the pretentious self-aggrandizement.

by overfeed

4/2/2025 at 6:37:00 AM

> As you noted, smartphones allowed anyone to record videos,

No, I was talking about photography - and people replacing a digital camera with a smartphone. For most this substitution works very well; and the whole digital camera industry has shrunk significantly[1].

The photography community has been discussing wannabe photographers ever since my uncle bought a dslr and started taking photos at family weddings.

[1]: https://petapixel.com/2024/08/22/the-rise-and-crash-of-the-c...

by thih9

4/2/2025 at 12:34:41 AM

> I'm yet to see any influencer or YouTuber call themselves a director or cinematographer

You must not be looking very hard. There are many youtubers or influencers making indie films or shows.

NigaHiga, Annoying Orange and Shane Dawson all made movies. Freddie Wong started out as a Youtuber and created Video Game High School.

by jakefromstatecs

4/2/2025 at 4:07:36 AM

Also look at the production quality that a single person can achieve today.

Go to Amazon and drop a few grand on mics, lights, cameras and lenses. The result is production quality beating any 90s talk show, which would have taken a whole team to do.

by fy20

4/2/2025 at 1:48:01 AM

Not everyone who engages in AI-assisted creative work is patting themselves on the back and being tone deaf and denigrating people that actually have creative skill... but some certainly are. While I don't support a moral absolutism when it comes to the use of GenAI, I do support putting these idiots in their place.

by lotyrin

4/1/2025 at 9:16:04 AM

I'm afraid that in time people will forget that it's all about learning to climb.

by dxuh

4/1/2025 at 9:42:29 AM

That thinking is time honoured and never found much traction. For example, pretty much nobody knows how to grow their own food, make their own clothes, carve their own furniture or even drive a manual car. Hordes of tourists circle the globe bringing disrepute to all sorts of time honoured monuments of history's greatest. Skills and challenges which aren't needed get forgotten and are generally not missed.

by roenxi

4/1/2025 at 10:48:08 AM

None of those things you mention have been forgotten. Many people do all of those things not because they have to but because it is incredibly rewarding to learn and grow these skills. Convenience doesn't bring happiness. People will actively seek out challenges even when they seemingly have none.

The trouble with things like climbing is there are only so many mountains to go around. We already can't walk in many places because of cars. I don't look forward to the day that similar vehicles can go up mountains. The existence of mass-produced clothing doesn't affect your ability to do your own knitting, though.

by globular-toast

4/1/2025 at 10:59:27 AM

I'm replying almost solely to observe that inconvenience also doesn't bring happiness. Happiness is achieved precisely by feeling happy in the setting that you find yourself in. People can train themselves to only feel happy when inconvenienced but that is doing a major disservice to themselves and those immediately around them. But that is something of a tangent and so I have a cover story for why I'm typing!

> The trouble with things like climbing is there are only so many mountains to go around.

This is taking the metaphor far too far. Nobody is literally taking mountains away from people.

by roenxi

4/1/2025 at 12:11:51 PM

I think the majority of people still know how to grow their own food. We only passed 50% of the population living in cities a few years ago. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS says 43% of the population is still rural, and I'm guessing about 80% of that 43% (32%) knows how to grow their own food. So do all the people who have moved from the country to the city over the last 40 years.

There's a big gap between "pretty much nobody" and the reality, which is somewhere between one third and two thirds of everybody. You might want to reflect on exactly how your perception diverged so radically from reality.

Do people in cities suffer from not being able to grow their own food and make their own clothes? I don't know for sure, but official statistics claim that, even today, they commit suicide at much higher rates despite having much less material scarcity. Robinsonades have been a popular genre of fiction for centuries, suggesting that people long for that kind of autonomy. Today, we also have zombie apocalypse fiction, RPGs, and preppers.

From another angle, sports consist entirely of skills and challenges which aren't needed and never have been, suggesting that they don't get forgotten. Hobbies also consist of skills and challenges which aren't needed.

by kragen

4/1/2025 at 10:08:12 AM

"It is not the mountain we conquer but ourselves." - Edmund Hillary.

It's not about climbing.

by s_dev

4/1/2025 at 10:36:06 AM

Um, no, that quotation means literally the opposite: it is about the climbing, it's not about getting to the top of any particular mountain. What Hillary was getting at is we get satisfaction from learning, training, overcoming difficulties and limitations, and ultimately pushing ourselves to our limits. His limit was Everest, your limit might be Snowdon, but it's climbing it that matters, not just taking the train to the top and taking a selfie.

by globular-toast

4/2/2025 at 9:06:53 PM

He's saying that you can substitute any activity that combines danger, skill, and willpower for the mountain. It's literally not about the mountain, it's about how far you push yourself to reach a goal.

by sdwr

4/1/2025 at 11:09:20 AM

Should we ban people from taking the train? They get a different experience, but they still get an experience

by mavhc

4/1/2025 at 4:57:12 PM

No, but we should mercilessly laugh at them for calling themselves mountaineers when they are train-riders.

by overfeed

4/2/2025 at 4:10:41 AM

I wonder if explorers from a few hundred years ago would say the same thing.

by fy20

4/1/2025 at 10:40:37 AM

It cheapens the experience a lot, but oh well, at least the experience is still there for the people who want it.

by creata

4/1/2025 at 3:54:37 PM

Does it though? We are all constrained by the time cost of everything we do. Not everybody with a quick creative spark cares enough to sacrifice opportunities, dedicate time, skip sleep or whatever it may take to gain the skills needed to act on the creative spark. AI empowering the output is a beautiful thing.

by eric_cc

4/2/2025 at 2:34:36 PM

is art being cheap really such a problem?

is it a net negative to society if the average person could produce so much art that it becomes post-scarce?

by alickz

4/1/2025 at 9:25:13 AM

People want to take a selfie at the top. No one is "enjoying the view" anymore - certainly not the shallow masses.

It is enshittification.

by aredox

4/1/2025 at 10:45:45 AM

Let them do it.

We have no right to tell people they have to learn to climb to get to top of the Everest.

I can't draw but I want to create my Art using AI. What I now see is a bunch of people who associate their self worth with a rare talent and don't want others to join the party. I want to resolve the issues around copyright for training, but once this is out of the way I want to draw exclusively through AI because it's the only way I can do it. And I LIKE IT.

I'm a skilled pianist. The funny thing is that I heard similar criticisms about computer music a couple decades ago. "No playing skill needed". Despite knowing how to play, I'd rather do computer music nowadays anyway. Please stop telling me what I can and can't do!

by glimshe

4/1/2025 at 11:09:53 AM

I'm not disagreeing with "let them do it", but the comparison with computer music isn't really fair.

Computer music, as it existed a couple decades ago, still played exactly what you asked it to, and it wasn't filling areas where you underspecified the music with a statistical model of trillions of existing songs. And that's the difference, for me: the ability to underspecify, and have the details be filled in and added in a way that to the audience will be perceived as intentful, but which is not.

by creata

4/1/2025 at 11:42:50 AM

Agreed - computer music compared to live music is what, say, Adobe Illustrator is to drawing. Or a Wacom drawing table, but definitely not prompting AI to draw for you.

Whether drawing (writing etc.) through AI counts as drawing (as making art) is a debate we have to resolve in the upcoming future.

by gombosg

4/1/2025 at 1:53:22 PM

Tell that to guitar effects, electronic music and anything that has any amount of randomness added

As soon as we get more control over AI output, those arguments will finally die their well deserved death

To those that AI art offend: don't think of people as artists, but simply as art directors dealing with stubborn artists that won't ever work to spec

by d0100

4/1/2025 at 11:47:58 AM

It is possible to very critical of something without "not allowing people to do it".

Dismissing the argument that we are losing something in this "democratization of creativity" by fighting a strawman that says you are not allowed to participate instead is a bit lazy

by mola

4/1/2025 at 1:11:07 PM

>We have no right to tell people they have to learn to climb to get to top of the Everest.

My, my, you really took the worst example to defend your point. The Everest is now an overcrowded dumping ground full of cadavers, shit and trash, with idiots putting not only themselves but their sherpas and other mountaineers in danger due to their arrogance, lack of ability and shittiness.

>What I now see is a bunch of people who associate their self worth with a rare talent and don't want others to join the party.

What I see is a bunch of people creating digital doubles of existing artists without their consent and using it to make money.

>Please stop telling me what I can and can't do!

Oh the irony...

by aredox

4/1/2025 at 11:47:47 AM

In someone's mind, you are part of the shallow mass.

You're just not shallow in the parts of reality that you care about.

Don't feel superior for you are not.

by jeffhuys

4/1/2025 at 1:48:49 PM

Like you, I am ready to admit that one man's turd is another man's gem, and that cultural "prescriptors" and gatekeepers often got it wrong.

Unlike many, I am not going to follow along into caricatural post-modernism where nothing is good, nothing is bad anymore.

by aredox

4/1/2025 at 3:56:58 PM

> nothing is good, nothing is bad anymore

Explain to me why nihilism is factually incorrect?

Good and bad is all relative to the perceiver.

by eric_cc

4/2/2025 at 6:23:37 AM

I am sure your argument is well received at your code review.

by aredox

4/2/2025 at 1:14:27 PM

Haha fair but I was thinking more in a “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” way.

Code is a way of creating something that itself may or may not be good. But the actual code - I agree, it can be objectively bad.

The Nihilism concept, as I mean to use it here, is more about meaning, values, aesthetics. Concepts like Logic & Math, not so much.

by eric_cc

4/1/2025 at 10:39:12 AM

> enshittification

Tangentially, what does enshittification mean now? Quoting Wiktionary, at one point it meant "The phenomenon of online platforms gradually degrading the quality of their services, often by promoting advertisements and sponsored content, in order to increase profits" (coined by Doctorow), but now people seem to use it to mean... things becoming shit?

by creata

4/1/2025 at 2:14:22 PM

You are right. The grandparent post ironically uses word this in a cheapened, shallow way when they can use it freely in their own writing.

You could argue this is the very sort of activity they were criticising when they posted! We are all vulnerable.

by hangsi

4/2/2025 at 12:36:17 PM

See: https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/14/pearl-clutching/#this-toi...

> Second: the fact that a neologism is sometimes decoupled from its theoretical underpinnings and is used colloquially is a feature, not a bug. Many people apply the term "enshittification" very loosely indeed, to mean "something that is bad," without bothering to learn – or apply – the theoretical framework. This is good. This is what it means for a term to enter the lexicon: it takes on a life of its own. If 10,000,000 people use "enshittification" loosely and inspire 10% of their number to look up the longer, more theoretical work I've done on it, that is one million normies who have been sucked into a discourse that used to live exclusively in the world of the most wonkish and obscure practitioners. The only way to maintain a precise, theoretically grounded use of a term is to confine its usage to a small group of largely irrelevant insiders. Policing the use of "enshittification" is worse than a self-limiting move – it would be a self-inflicted wound.

by cdoctorow

4/1/2025 at 1:24:19 PM

Things turning to shit? The word coined by Doctorow is new, but the phenomenon itself isn't (just talk to any car enthousiast).

by aredox

4/1/2025 at 10:23:49 AM

There was a very similar discussion when photography was made easily accessible. Baudelaire thought that photography was the killer of art by allowing non-artists to crate something that was very much like art, mechanistically, without having a good insight into what they were doing.

And, in some ways he was right... but also not. What eventually happened is that art education that would be required for any aristocrat or an aspiring aristocrat became optional. Most intellectual elite today would be unable to draw much beyond a stick figure diagram. Art, at least where it concerns drawing or painting became a narrowly specialized field. And so, most people today don't understand and don't appreciate art.

But, art didn't die. Instead, artists started asking themselves more questions about the nature and philosophy of art, figuring out which aspects are essential, experimenting more. In retrospect, it's sad that fewer people today have decent access or understanding of art, but while more common before, the understanding was often very superficial anyways.

by crabbone

4/1/2025 at 9:48:18 AM

I can't really speak for other people, but I think the "democratizing creativity" part comes in in places where the specific creative part that the AI replaces is not a core part of the creative experience.

Take a look at Super Auto Pets, a pretty successful and fun auto-battler game. It literally uses a free emoji pack for its core art. It doesn't really matter that they didn't hire an artist for those (though I think they did hire an artist after finding success) since a free emoji pack was enough for the creative product they wanted to create. If they had AI generated emoji instead, it wouldn't have really mattered much for the final result (creatively at least, I assume audiences would respond poorly due to GenAI's reputation). At the same time, the ability to create their product without paying a lot of money for artists was critical to make it in the first place.

This is what it means to me to "democratize creativity", to allow creatives to realize their creative ambitions in an area they are proficient at (e.g. video games) without requiring a lot of creative skill in adjacent areas that aren't critical to the experience they are trying to make.

by Adverblessly

4/1/2025 at 10:59:11 AM

I think there's a reason people would respond more poorly to generated art than to emojis: the contentlessness of emojis is broadly understood. We look at an emoji and we know what it is intended to signify. With "AI" art, there is an ambiguity: which aspects of the artwork are intentional, and which aspects are the creator accepting whatever the "AI" churned out?

If the art isn't critical to the game, then use simple art. It doesn't matter if the simple art is or isn't AI generated, what matters (in my opinion) is that it doesn't lead us into looking for meaning that isn't there.

by creata

4/2/2025 at 12:44:32 AM

> If the art isn't critical to the game, then use simple art.

However, complex art is needed to fit with genre tropes to attract the expected audience. It's like Apple shoving AI into their products needlessly—not a core part of the experience, but needed so Wall Street doesn't throw a hissy.

> looking for meaning when none is there

Or you generate your own meaning. Art is analysis for the audience.

by BeFlatXIII

4/1/2025 at 10:00:32 AM

> People want to be dropped on the top of the mountain and be called an alpinist.

No, people want to see their ideas come to life, previously this required effort in mastering a skill, now... it takes less and/or different amount of work.

by baq

4/1/2025 at 11:29:04 AM

So everything is cheap, nothing has value.

by thefz

4/1/2025 at 11:50:36 AM

If it has value to them, what do you care? Does the value in your mind of <artpiece> drop when somebody creates <artpiece 2 in the style of artpiece>? If so, you might benefit from focussing more on your own life. I mean this lovingly, as I myself am going through the same thing right now; I realize I'll never be happy if I stay grumpy like this. You can't protect the world from itself.

by jeffhuys

4/1/2025 at 1:44:28 PM

> If it has value to them, what do you care? Does the value in your mind of <artpiece> drop when somebody creates <artpiece 2 in the style of artpiece>?

That is the whole point of copyright, yes.

by thefz

4/1/2025 at 2:18:45 PM

I believe you can't copyright a _style_ of art.

> no, you cannot copyright the Studio Ghibli art style itself. Copyright law doesn’t protect styles, techniques, or general aesthetics—like the hand-drawn, watercolor-inspired look with soft colors, detailed natural backgrounds, and whimsical vibes that Studio Ghibli is known for. It only protects specific, original works, like an individual film frame or character design from Spirited Away or My Neighbor Totoro.

And your answer... Doesn't seem to cover my question, I think. So the point of copyright is that the value of the style doesn't degrade?

by jeffhuys

4/1/2025 at 4:31:34 PM

Copyright is also just an outright fabricated concept intended to protect interest of authors. It can be expanded or removed as needed.

It's just like an API. The very definition can be changed upstream by patches. People seem to miss that.

by numpad0

4/1/2025 at 4:43:04 PM

Yes, of course! By all means, update the law. I don’t think anyone misses that part of being a human. Any concept we think of is fabricated.

But here’s the real meat of the issue I guess, how far do we wanna go? At what point SHOULD something be un-copyrightable? What describes a certain “style”? My style is black&white, can I copyright that?

What would your diff be? :)

by jeffhuys

4/2/2025 at 1:52:49 AM

Intellectual property is a consequence of capitalism, a sometimes necessary evil that is used to compel the consumers of intellectual output to pay into a system which produces it but which doesn't have any mechanism for compensating people for things that are not scarce in any way.

If we valued and supported artists without just seeing them as laborers, we could have a remix culture where no one really owns anything and no rights are reserved.

by lotyrin

4/1/2025 at 12:13:35 PM

Because it discourages people from trying. It's hard enough to survive as an artist, and now there is even less sense in trying to start. This will hurt art, and humanity.

It's like pupils using an LLM to do their homework. They get the grade, but Idiocracy is awaiting.

by tgv

4/1/2025 at 1:08:46 PM

Disagree. I think many people will actually be encouraged to try as the barrier to creating art has dropped and some of those people will decide to become more proficient at art.

by pizzly

4/1/2025 at 2:34:16 PM

It's photoshop all over again. It's computers all over again. It's camera's all over again. It's the paintbrush all over again. It's...

by jeffhuys

4/2/2025 at 6:38:46 AM

Wow. I've pointed this out before - but this is just a TERRIBLE take.

Comparing systems like DALL-E 3 and Midjourney to modern illustration software is a fool's errand. Even with advanced graphic design tools like Photoshop you still have to employ the same artistic skills that have been handed down for generations: 3-point perspective, shading, basic poses, and sketching, etc.

If you can't draw, the fanciest graphic manipulation software isn't going be of much help to you.

As opposed to some doofus who has the ability to type in the words "3D", "trending on artstation", "hyper-realistic,", and "4K" and then proceed to churn out thousands of images in a single day. Stable diffusion is more like the equivalent of having your own personal artist on permanent retainer.

by vunderba

4/2/2025 at 12:05:54 PM

More like having a photocopy machine with a noise function.

by skydhash

4/1/2025 at 4:45:21 PM

I agree with parent but not to this one. AI "art" has significantly lower quality and performance ceiling compared to all existing means.

AI image generation is a gateway drug. You quickly grow resistance, and you will face withdrawal, too.

by numpad0

4/2/2025 at 1:20:16 AM

And photography initially had lower quality and performance ceilings compared to portraitists and artists of the day. And today, photographers win awards for their work.

New tools and techniques that lower the barrier to entry always get over used, over hyped and bring in masses of people making everything from impressive new things to absolute cheap garbage. And then people learn the limitations, the tools get better and a lot of people stop using the tools because they realize there are still skills that go into the process and they aren’t interested in learning those skills. The tools find their place, and new masters rise into the new world. And then a new tool is created and we start the process all over again.

by tpmoney

4/1/2025 at 4:01:14 PM

“Starving artist” trope.

I bet a LOT of people would be an artist if there was money in it. Most don’t attempt because of the poor risk/reward of that profession.

by eric_cc

4/1/2025 at 6:12:47 PM

Well, there's less money in it now, since production and consumption of whatever you think you want to see or hear is easier and cheaper than ever. So there will be less attempting. QED, I suppose.

by tgv

4/1/2025 at 2:22:20 PM

Well, it's a Pandora's Box. It's irreversible, so we as humanity should learn to cope with it. That's just reality. What's the alternative? Banning LLMs? Good luck because I have a few on my hard disk. And even if you make it illegal, how would you detect it? I could've used an LLM to write this comment, would you know?

I agree though that schools are even more in trouble now. But my point still stands: we have NO CHOICE. We must adapt, or Idiocracy awaits ;)

by jeffhuys

4/1/2025 at 11:38:56 AM

Universe is a prison.

by baq

4/2/2025 at 12:41:20 AM

That's a good thing.

by BeFlatXIII

4/1/2025 at 1:40:44 PM

It is now possible for people to value "doing the dishes" over "producing art of a high enough quality" and still get results. If people care more about doing the dishes than spending the hours required to make an equivalent piece by hand, then people will choose doing the dishes and leave the rest to AI. Now that the tech is out there, reducing the effort required to a button press, it has become a matter of people's priorities.

In my view, the people who want to be dropped off at the apex of the mountain the most always dreamed of this outcome for a long time, even if only a little bit. They dreamed of the day they would be freed from the toil of having to study for years and years to produce art that satisfied their tastes, because they would not lower their tastes to make the process less stressful, or had other priorities so could not devote time to practice.

Now the market has innovated and their dream has come true. To people not serious about coming manual artists, there is nothing wrong with this picture. The market need is being fulfilled.

We have to ask where this market need to produce art at such a low level of effort comes from.

In your view, these people have always been cheapskates up in their minds, we just didn't realize it until their preferences were revealed by AI becoming available. If it hadn't, they just wouldn't be artists of any kind and we'd never understand they had any artistic ambitions at all.

At the end of the day, for whatever reason, these people want art they can call their own - it's just a matter of how much effort is required to realize their ambitions.

If these people are to reject AI, yet still care enough about creating art of some kind for a sustained period of time, you basically have to convince them that learning a hard artistic skill is more important than "doing the dishes"/whatever else occupies the rest of their time instead. Maybe a grueling 9-5 work schedule, for example. That is simply how the nature of practice/10000 hours-type advice works out.

If people for some reason just don't want to put in the time, but still want to produce quality art, then they'll choose AI. These two desires are no longer contradicting. They would have been 10 years ago, when you could just retort with "you're going to have to put in the effort, there's no other way." It's clear that that virtue of work-ethic being one's only path to results has been obliterated by AI, and to the new converts it sounds like gatekeeping in hindsight.

Cultivating new interest in learning a skill when it doesn't already exist is way harder than it seems. That gets into mental well-being and existentialist issues that many people in today's society find difficult to reflect about deeply.

by doright

4/2/2025 at 1:49:33 AM

Is something only valuable when it's difficult? I think there is both value in the destination and the journey, not only one or the other.

I think capitalism has really done a number on people.

by lotyrin

4/2/2025 at 2:36:15 PM

if the labour theory of value was true then Sisyphus would've been a trillionaire

by alickz

4/1/2025 at 3:34:16 PM

We all say "they have no _idea_ what they're doing" in English. Creativity basically equals skill. Those with less skills has less to express.

I mean, everyone knows it takes a programmer to spec an app. The "different" skill needed for vibe coding is regular old coding skillset. Only difference with image AI is that it doesn't do "vibe drawing" well.

AI art experiment is over. It's been long over, like camera based self driving was by the time some large orgs started embracing the technology. And it's taking longer for some to understand that it's over, just like that time.

by numpad0

4/1/2025 at 12:35:31 PM

I heard a good one. AI isn't art, AI is content. People don't want to create art per se, they want to generate images for e.g. memes or filler / illustrative images on their blog, replacing or being an addition to stock images.

No shade on stock photographers / illustrators, but that's where I see image generation end up at. And you could already get custom illustrations made for cheap on sites like fiverr. The real long term question will be whether an AI generated image can compete with services like that. (my guess: probably, AI images are higher resolution/quality and generated faster, but I don't know the real total cost of them nor that of cheap illustrators or stock images)

by Cthulhu_

4/1/2025 at 9:09:36 AM

Hasn't that been true since the dawn of mass media? A book does not demand you share your own stories, the radio does not require you carry a tune

by j-bos

4/1/2025 at 9:40:11 AM

Didn't know that before books and radios you had to share your own stories and carry your own tunes

by aredox

4/1/2025 at 10:57:18 AM

People kind of did. Before the radio it was much, much more common for middle class and even fairly poor homes to have musical instruments, pubs to have pianos and so on. There were whole traditions of self-entertainment of which only fragments survive now.

I don't think that rises to the level of "mass media has made the world worse", but it certainly has made it different and lost a few things.

by pjc50

4/1/2025 at 1:03:26 PM

>it was much, much more common for middle class and even fairly poor homes to have musical instruments, pubs to have pianos and so on

That's exagerrated by movies. There were folk songs, but instruments - and players - have always been rare, and played by those who had enough time to learn to play - the poorest of the poor, the crippled and the blinds...

Note that at that time, either there was already a copyright to protect musical partitions, or if learning by ear the teachers had total discretion on who they taught and for how much. There were still barriers to knowledge.

And outside of Europe, any ceremonial/religious music was only taught to the initiated and played on rare occasions (there are interesting stories of Americans, etno-musicologists or even just musicians looking for new musical construction in the vein of Steve Reich, in the 60s, going to Africa to learn rythms with e.g. Nigerians, staying there for years, fully integrated - or so they thought - and bam! for a rare ceremony their hosts suddenly play something they never showed them before and refuse to discuss it afterwards)

by aredox

4/1/2025 at 9:31:37 PM

It's more difficult today, but if you get a chance, try visiting an impoverished rural area and hanging out with the locals during casual sit-down, dinner, outing, etc. People will sing, people will dance. And not just those who are good at it.

by j-bos

4/2/2025 at 12:15:56 PM

There are instruments that can be made cheaply and there are those that can master them enough to be called music. No need to have a grand piano and years of teaching to be able to produce music.

by skydhash

4/1/2025 at 3:45:55 PM

People want to express their creativity stuck in their head without having the skill or training (privilege of the training) to be a legit artist. I think it’s awesome that this removes the barrier and empowers people to be creative in ways that they previously could not.

by eric_cc

4/1/2025 at 3:56:49 PM

Your definition of creativity is flawed. Imagining something is a small part of the process. Developing the skill and technique to express that imagination is the most important part.

by mostlysimilar

4/1/2025 at 3:58:52 PM

So if I have a great idea for a cartoon, but my life is filled to the brim and I can’t spend months or years to learn the craft, the idea should die in my head? All because of some idealist opinion?

by eric_cc

4/1/2025 at 4:30:39 PM

Come on, you're a tech person aren't you? Maybe a programmer? How many times have you had an idea guy come to you with a "great idea for an app" if only they could find someone to program it for them?

Sorry, but most ideas aren't great. It's the painful process of refinement, hard work, and iteration that results in something great.

by mostlysimilar

4/1/2025 at 6:32:50 PM

> How many times have you had an idea guy come to you with a "great idea for an app" if only they could find someone to program it for them?

Many. And I love it when those people code something up with Scratch, Matlab, or even Excel. Even though I personally would dislike the aesthetics of the result, I’m much happier to see other people enjoying computers the same way I enjoy them (i.e., by using them to solve interesting problems) than if I insisted everyone do so using my preferred “real” programming languages.

by bentley

4/2/2025 at 12:45:17 AM

[flagged]

by BeFlatXIII

4/2/2025 at 2:12:56 AM

This is ableism. A big part of this 'democratization' is that people unable to develop the skill and techniques can now express that imagination. There are physical, mental and financial impediments. They may never be a traditional craftsman, but they can certainly be artists (and not just conceptual artists).

by stubish

4/2/2025 at 2:37:28 PM

>Developing the skill and technique to express that imagination is the most important part.

Regardless of the tool used?

by alickz

4/2/2025 at 12:17:26 AM

The definition of creativity seems to change everytime someone tries to define it.

by bobsmooth

4/1/2025 at 11:20:30 AM

Do you also object to people paying money to have other people's art in their homes? Is the moral damage from getting an artwork in your home that you didn't create inversely proportional to your monetary investment?

by chthonicdaemon

4/1/2025 at 11:25:02 AM

If something else created it for you, is that your art?

by thefz

4/3/2025 at 5:12:54 AM

I notice you say "something" and not "someone". With humans, contribution varies. I could commission a piece and have a great deal of input on the final result, or I could just have exercised judgement to choose the piece. Many people descibe their clothing choices or home decor choices as "creative" or "creative expression".

by chthonicdaemon

4/1/2025 at 11:32:08 AM

Yes in the sense of ownership, no in the sense of authorship.

by Jedd

4/1/2025 at 2:27:17 PM

What exactly is creative about buying art? Nonsensical comparison, unsurprising for HN though.

by vhantz

4/2/2025 at 2:08:55 AM

Artists' main objection to AI seems to be that they think that people who use it are posers who are trying to claim that they're just as good as Rembrandt because they can type "beautiful painting, style of Rembrandt" into Midjourney.

I don't think this is very true, I don't often see anyone bragging about their skills and demanding their outputs get put in a gallery and judged on equal merits as the old masters.

I'm not much of an artist and whenever I use an image generator to generate something, I don't do it to show off my artistic talent or whatever - if I was to do it before AI I would've commissioned an artist for it (which I probably wouldn't have done because it was too expensive, so I would forgo it) - the work the artist does would actually have even less of my own input than the AI's, since I'm giving them less description to go off - it's all the artist's, based on their own experiences.

by joegibbs

4/1/2025 at 10:36:55 AM

I don't know where you hang out on Reddit but on my subs people are almost invariably hostile to AI. AI art, even stuff that looks great, gets down voted to oblivion.

by glimshe

4/1/2025 at 11:33:19 AM

The comment was in /r/chatgpt.

by thefz

4/1/2025 at 10:36:40 AM

Or get a book without having to wait for a Monk to copy one

by TiredOfLife

4/1/2025 at 12:54:15 PM

I wonder if when commercial airplanes were invented, someone like you thought that the magic of traveling had been lost to technology.

by salomonk_mur

4/1/2025 at 8:59:49 PM

The real problem is not the effort (or lack thereof), it’s the perception that modern AI is dropping them off at the peak of Everest, when in reality they’re being stood on a plastic-molded crag at a sea-level tourist trap.

Creative vision is not being realized, it’s being stunted.

by blargey

4/1/2025 at 9:22:46 AM

I've been suspecting the subtext of that was "take back anime from Japanese", except what they made was a death trap welded stuck in reverse. Now they must climb with what they have, for that they are closer to the top from there than to where they came from.

by numpad0

4/1/2025 at 1:19:39 PM

I think it's less about wanting to be called an artist and more about wanting to be able to get the results of making things more easily. And there is a good case that we can have a successful boom from this sort of thing.

by TimPC

4/1/2025 at 10:42:58 AM

People want to write Java code and have a compiler translate it into machine code and be called a programmer.

People want to run marathons on shoes with padded soles and be called an athlete.

by leokennis

4/1/2025 at 11:27:16 AM

This equates more to being carried to the finish line by car, doing the last three steps and call it a marathon.

Anyway plenty of people can't even finish 1K, so 42.2K in padded shoes is still impressive.

by thefz

4/1/2025 at 11:50:48 AM

I disagree. I don’t care about a “marathon” I just need to cover 42.2k. If you wanna make a game out of it and run that distance that’s fine, but I have errands to do and just need to cover the distance.

If you wanna draw for the feeling of creative satisfaction that’s great. I just need an image on a page in service of something else.

by _aavaa_

4/2/2025 at 4:10:50 AM

Sure, just don't go around telling people you ran a marathon

by noitpmeder

4/2/2025 at 12:12:54 PM

Can I go around telling people I program if I don’t write directly in binary?

by _aavaa_

4/2/2025 at 12:20:12 PM

Yes? But you can't tell them you "programmed it directly in binary", even if that's the delivery mechanism they're interacting with.

by noitpmeder

4/2/2025 at 1:23:43 PM

Sure, but mostly people doing or using AI art are also not saying they drew every line, they say “I made this” in the same way I say “I coded this” even though I wrote it in a high level language and got the interpreter and compiler to do a lot of work.

by _aavaa_

4/1/2025 at 10:53:57 AM

A slope has two ends, even when it's slippery. People want to claim submarines swim, but they do not.

by z3phyr

4/1/2025 at 1:25:59 PM

If you hold a strong opinion about whether or not submarines swim, you might want to look up the source quote and think about it a second?

by fenomas

4/2/2025 at 9:15:54 AM

People don't click buttons on Guitar Hero controller to be called musicians. They do it to briefly feel how they imagine a musician might feel sometimes.

There's nothing wrong with that.

by scotty79

4/1/2025 at 12:36:15 PM

> we’re exiting the scarcity economy of visuals & entering something weirder—where aesthetics become ambient infrastructure, like wifi.

AI is democratizing _execution_, not creativity. The advent of the smartphone camera era allowed for the average person to take vastly more photos than ever before, and yet the photos I personally find noteworthy are either remarkable in their context or aesthetic quality (e.g. [0]) or personally meaningful.

Alternatively put, "culture" values a proof-of-work that is creativity + execution. Taking a photo of a lunar eclipse setting over a crater has global value, because of the effort in planning and taking the shot (read [0], it's great). Me shitposting a meme for my game night groupchat neatly summarizing what happened in our last session of Pandemic: Legacy has local value, because of the creativity in adapting a meme format to our particular context and the execution of the edit, but nobody besides us would find it as funny.

(Interesting aside — I personally think that the photo in [0] is more impressive than someone going all that way to _paint_ the same scene en plein air, because of the split-second precision of the execution. Even though photography may have devalued a lot of the technical execution of capturing a scene, it has opened up new ways in which said execution can be valuable.)

So AI decouples creativity and execution in a way that is, like every innovation before, unlike every innovation before. The Ghibli aesthetic is the soft pastels of the color palette [1] and the comfortable, nostalgic character design [2] but also the restful rhythm of "ma" [3] and the detail lovingly lavished to background characters [4]. GPT-4o devalues some of those things, but it another sense it just re-weights our cultural proof-of-work valuations back towards human effort.

[0] https://lrtimelapse.com/news/total-lunar-eclipse-over-teide-...

[1] https://designmadeinjapan.com/magazine/graphic-design/the-ri...

[2] https://stylecircle.org/2020/09/the-studio-ghibli-closet/

[3] https://screencraft.org/blog/hayao-miyazaki-says-ma-is-an-es...

[4] https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-spirited-away...

by jcalx

4/1/2025 at 1:42:14 PM

What if the transcendence of a unique style into a commodity is inevitable for all greatly influential styles, and a mark of greatness not of debasement or dilution. What if instead of the "impurity" of the commons polluting the "purity" of the pure form, the pure form has evolved into a memetic virus that has infected everything and reproduced itself in many forms, beyond even the power of its creator? The creator's grief at, in part, loss of control is understandable but perhaps is a tribute to how what they created transcended them into a thing with a life of its own, one of the truest tributes to creative genius, no?

What if a distinct style is not owned by one artist, even if they are most associated with it, but in reality, in art historical reality, is most commonly explored by a group of more and less famous creators, all as part of a movement, at a time? What influences did Ghibli draw on?

Buddhism says all things are essentially empty of their own existence but are merely conditions resulting from other causes, and so on, in a chain unending. Like this.

The pointillism[0] of Impressionism that ended up spread to the masses by countless including Bob Ross is one example of the memetic evolution and transcendent influence of "high art". Greatness can filter down but it doesn't mean it's not great.

An iPhone is still a masterpiece even if you hold it in the ghetto. Does the ghetto pollute it or does it lift the ghetto? Maybe there's cross pollination, but I think it's infected with its greatness.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointillism

by keepamovin

4/1/2025 at 12:06:03 AM

I wonder how Hideo Miyazaki feels about this, the fact that machines are able to recreate his style seems to go against the whimsy he creates in his art. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a possible lawsuit considering how strongly that style is tied to him, and that the model surely used his films as data.

If it was me I would feel horrible that what I gave to the public and dedicated my life to was contorted in this manner.

by knowknow

4/1/2025 at 12:13:40 AM

"An insult to life itself" [1]

[1] https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/hayao-miyazaki-ar...

by lowq

4/1/2025 at 12:14:30 AM

> After seeing a brief demo of a grotesque zombie-esque creature

Reacting to an animation where a gross critter "learned to walk using AI" instead of being animated by a person 8+ years ago, and ended up using its head as a leg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngZ0K3lWKRc

It has nothing to do with the current image generation topic beyond the "AI" label being stuck on both of them

Which is not to say I expect he's thrilled about ChatGPT cloning the art style on a mass scale, but that quote that everyone keeps reposting doesn't have anything to do with it

by wlesieutre

4/1/2025 at 1:22:18 AM

Guilty as charged. I don't think the leap was far but there was certainly a logical leap. Thanks for pointing that out.

by lowq

4/1/2025 at 1:29:38 PM

If you continue the quote, he says: "I would never wish to incorporate this technology into my work at all. I strongly feel that this is an insult to life itself."

He was pretty clearly talking about AI, at least to me.

by gilbetron

4/1/2025 at 1:43:20 PM

Not at all - he was talking about a CG demo he'd just seen of a wriggling 3D model, which didn't bear any technical or visual resemblance to generative AI.

I mean, the quote might very well reflect his actual views about generative AI, but that's definitely not what he was talking about.

by fenomas

4/1/2025 at 2:50:33 PM

The purpose of that demo was to create a machine that can draw like humans can, as the creators explained. His objection was that whatever produced this had no concept of pain, and that’s what makes it grotesque. He called out that he had no objection to creating horror if that’s what the authors wanted to do.

That complaint is just as applicable to current Gen AI models. He wasn’t simply reacting with his gut to a gross looking video but to the concept of a thing with no concept of pain creating and animating artwork of living things. He understood the technology was about Gen AI, as “deep learning” is written on the whiteboard. He deserves some credit.

by golly_ned

4/1/2025 at 3:37:21 PM

> The purpose of that demo was to create a machine that can draw like humans can, as the creators explained

Watch the video - the purpose of the demo, as the creators explained it, was to train a creature to move quickly. Since the AI model didn't simulate pain it used its head like a foot, and since the result was creepy they thought it could be used for a zombie game. That's what they presented to Miyazaki, and that's what he commented on. Then Suzuki asked where they eventually wanted to end up, and a different presenter said the thing about machines that can draw.

> That complaint is just as applicable to current Gen AI models

If you like, but that's not what Miyazaki applied it to.

by fenomas

4/3/2025 at 5:13:09 AM 

  Watch the video
Back at you. Watch the video until the end where they say this explicitly.

  the purpose of the demo, as the creators explained it, was to train a creature to move quickly
That's an extremely narrow and literal conception of the demo and the response. They're not children.

- "Here, Mr. Miyazaki -- we have made a fast-moving zombie!"

- "I don't like the zombie you have made!"

by golly_ned

4/1/2025 at 9:42:56 AM

His last comment in the video "we humans are losing faith in ourselves" clearly about the overall concept and not just the particular creature though

by zerreh50

4/1/2025 at 3:19:58 PM

It is really depressing to see how people universally don't even understand what he's talking about, and stick to non-explanations.

Art is humane. It tells humans how to be humans. A thought about an ill person in pain is worthy of being told as a story. Not only that animation automation thing is of no use to someone trying to express those thoughts, its authors — just like many, many others — have no idea what humans do with their lives, and which tools artists may need to show it. They've made a toy, and were told that it's just useless wanking, together with the whole genres of pointless amusement that introduced such images into pop culture.

“An insult to life itself” is not just a phrase. There is life, and there are people who deliberately ignore it, and enjoy the sights painted on cardboards.

by ogurechny

4/1/2025 at 12:35:14 AM

The article you link to directly quotes him:

"After seeing a brief demo of a grotesque zombie-esque creature, Miyazaki pauses and says that it reminds him of a friend of his with a disability so severe he can’t even high five. “Thinking of him, I can’t watch this stuff and find [it] interesting. Whoever creates this stuff has no idea what pain is whatsoever. I am utterly disgusted. If you really want to make creepy stuff, you can go ahead and do it. I would never wish to incorporate this technology into my work at all. I strongly feel that this is an insult to life itself.”

He's disgusted by the creature, not the computer based technique. While he's on record as disapproving of CGI, Earwig and the Witch, directed by his son, used CGI so his disapproval isn't absolute.

by ThrowawayR2

4/1/2025 at 1:36:14 AM

"Whoever creates this stuff has no idea what pain is whatsoever."

I think it's clear that he is specifically responding to the the overall soullessness of the technique - to animate without a human understanding of what is being animated. But as others have pointed out this is well before modern AI image gen and I have been corrected in that aspect.

by lowq

4/1/2025 at 12:44:08 AM

Let's look at the context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngZ0K3lWKRc

Presenters: "This is a presentation of an artificial intelligence model which learned certain movements [...] It's moving by using its head. It doesn't feel any pain, and has no concept of protecting its head. It uses its head like a leg. This movement is so creepy, and could be applied to zombie video games. An artificial intelligence could present us grotesque movements which we humans can't imagine."

The screen shows some Silent Hill looking vaguely humanoid, crawling blob. As the presenters say, it's pretty creepy looking.

Miyazaki: "I am utterly disgusted [...] I would never wish to incorporate this technology into my work at all"

IMHO saying Miyazaki outright hates AI is putting words into his mouth. All the clip shows is that a dude that doesn't make zombie horror films doesn't need a zombie horror generator thank you very much.

So yeah, he clearly rejects the product pitch. But judging from Kiki's Delivery Service and My Neighbor Totoro I don't see why you'd pitch him that product.

by michaelt

4/1/2025 at 1:32:01 AM

"Well, we would like to build a machine that can draw pictures like humans do"

"Would you?"

"Yes"

Awkward silence

From this I don't think it's difficult to extrapolate his feelings about modern AI image gen. But you are correct in that this is not a direct assessment. Appreciate the correction, thanks.

by lowq

4/1/2025 at 2:37:30 AM

The relevant title would be Grave of the Fireflies, his opus about the nature of human suffering.

by conartist6

4/1/2025 at 11:38:39 AM

What's with the narrator's voice in that clip? Unwatchable

by ted_bunny

4/2/2025 at 2:40:02 PM

>I wonder how Hideo Miyazaki feels about this, the fact that machines are able to recreate his style seems to go against the whimsy he creates in his art.

How much of it is _his_ style and _his_ art?

How many people work on the frames and animation?

by alickz

4/1/2025 at 1:35:27 AM

Hideo? You mean Hayao right?

by jaredklewis

4/1/2025 at 4:27:26 PM

Supposedly, you have a working internet connection. In no time, you can check the name of Hayao Miyazaki. You can see how he draws his manga, in a style which would be really hard to animate. You can see how he designs his characters. Well, maybe the colour palette can be attributed to “his style” in some works. Still, you can learn that Ghibli had famous background artists and art directors like Nizo Yamamoto and Kazuo Oga. You can compare characters drawn by Yoshifumi Kondou and Katsuya Kondou with Miyazaki's, and guess who was responsible for what in different works. You can learn how in the era when everyone waited for computers to make economical marvel of “three dee” real, Isao Takahata used computers to transfer pen and brush strokes to animation in “The Yamadas” and “Princess Mononoke”.

But you don't want any of that. You want to have a familiar pop cultural label (“Miyazaki”) that produces a familiar reaction (“Oooh!”). Purely decorative, symbolic objects. Stories, ideas, hard work? Eh, don't bother me with that nonsense.

There is nothing new or “cutting edge” in ignorance. And AI companies know perfectly well that they work for exactly that audience. Despite all the talk, they don't create the next genius artist, they want to be a next “enhancement filter” in TVs, something that no one uses, but everyone has to add to impress the public. That's just parasitism on lack of ability to discern.

by ogurechny

4/1/2025 at 2:58:40 AM 

    and that the model surely used his films as data.
While I don't doubt it's true, this could be challenging to prove, because Studio Ponoc (ex-Ghibli) has produced work that uh, hews rather closely to Miyazaki's style. Were the models trained on Ghibli, Ponoc, both, something else, etc?

I mean, I have no doubts. But proving it seems tough!

by JohnBooty

4/1/2025 at 9:46:22 AM

Ponoc is made of former Ghibli employees who founded a new home when Ghibli's future was uncertain. I am sure they are on friendly terms, if not family, with Ghibli: they worked together for years. People like them can have a gentleman's agreement.

What is OpenAI in all this, if not a greedy, sloppy, soulless outsider stealing their Art and effort for financial gain without ever asking for permission?

by aredox

4/2/2025 at 6:33:44 PM

I don't disagree with anything you said, but it doesn't seem to follow from what I wrote.

I pointed out a reason why litigation could be difficult. I'm quite sure nothing I wrote could have been seen as defending OpenAI. Just that I felt litigation would be tricky.

by JohnBooty

4/1/2025 at 9:26:44 AM

Well they then stole from Ponoc, too, right?

by leoh

4/1/2025 at 10:39:06 AM

Also hope he goes against all the artists who demanded payment for copying his style before

by TiredOfLife

4/1/2025 at 12:28:52 AM

>I wonder how Hideo Miyazaki feels about this

It's in the article

by crawsome

4/1/2025 at 12:36:04 AM

Hopefully he's wise enough to realize that it's the ultimate compliment.

by baggy_trough

4/1/2025 at 1:07:01 AM

Truly, every artist hopes their distinctive style will be taken by a multi-billion-dollar corporation and used by the White House to make a jeering depiction of crying deportees. It's the ultimate compliment.

by michaelt

4/1/2025 at 3:10:45 AM

That could be the worst thing that happened, but it's exceedingly far from the only thing that happened.

by baggy_trough

4/1/2025 at 9:45:44 AM

Art becomes tainted by association.

The USSR had some absolutely incredible art used on their propaganda posters. But if you use that for anything outside of ironic Russian themes (e.g. a goofy game set in that era, some silly snack that claims to be Russian-inspired), people will think you're an unironic communist and you instantly turn away loads of people.

When a dominant political force uses AI "art" for everything they do and the style becomes apparent, anything that looks similar to that instantly disgusts loads of people. You can argue "well that's their fault for being disgusted", but pattern recognition and being conditioned to associate certain images with "bad" goes far deeper than the conscious and it's a base instinct in animals.

by forgotoldacc

4/1/2025 at 11:58:49 AM

If you think Ghibli is now tainted by association with Trump based on this image, I don't know what to tell you. That sounds preposterous in the extreme.

by baggy_trough

4/1/2025 at 1:24:12 PM

More like "AI art in the style of ____" will be tainted by association. I can almost hear the complaints to the editor to every boutique indie blog post and company listicle with AI filler at the top. For me at least it cheapens the feeling of the blog post itself - "if the author couldn't be arsed to get any real art/pay for a stock image, what about the rest of the content?"

by doright

4/3/2025 at 5:31:44 AM

Now, no. In a few months, yes.

People know the "NFT style", and when people see any sort of image like that, they instantly think "annoying crypto scammer."

There's now the "AI image" style, which people are becoming more aware of. And people associate that with scammers, very confused old people, weird porn, and the right.

Most of the ghiblified stuff is from AI/cryptobros and right wing movements (with heavy overlap on those groups). People possess pattern recognition and will become aware of the pattern each time they see these images.

by forgotoldacc

4/2/2025 at 12:20:40 AM

That crying deportee was a fentanyl trafficker btw.

by bobsmooth

4/1/2025 at 12:32:31 AM

If it was me, I would feel great that my work has been extended to give joy at such a large scale. (Not that it’s invalid if he has a different opinion.)

by seizethecheese

3/31/2025 at 11:42:23 PM

> Google dropped their biggest upgrade ever & ghibli core completely hijacked the zeitgeist.

On twitter maybe but on places like localllama google Gemini got way more airtime than this drama

by Havoc

4/1/2025 at 12:02:45 AM

Right — which is to say, the vast, vast majority of people heard about Ghibli and not Gemini.

by ketzo

4/1/2025 at 12:04:18 AM

The vast majority of people are consumers, not AI developers. Of course viral moments will be more consumer-oriented. It's easier to digest and reshare a Ghiblified-caricature than a research paper. But the content of that research paper will lead to the next viral moment years down the line.

by paxys

4/1/2025 at 12:06:54 AM

I feel like you underestimate the degree to which AI developers are influenced in just the same ways as everybody else.

Capturing mindshare matters no matter how you do it. I would bet my life savings that more people will join OpenAI to work on their models as a result of the Ghibli moment than will join Google as a result of this particular (incredibly impressive!) Gemini iteration.

Because we’re humans! And we’re all pretty easily impressed, even those of us who actually build these dang things.

by ketzo

4/1/2025 at 4:40:38 AM

> I feel like you underestimate the degree to which AI developers are influenced in just the same ways as everybody else.

I feel like you're overestimating that. I work every day on developing LLM-based products, use them a lot while developing those, and have been doing so since November 2022 (beta release of GPT 3.5). So I should be a prime representative of the demographic you're talking about.

When a new frontier model is released, I run a series of tests, play around with it, and decide whether or not to use it based on that. Anything else would be ridiculously stupid, leaving either cost savings, product quality improvements, or development velocity increases on the table. We're not talking about databases or cloud VMs where there's a big switching cost. It's changing a model string and provider, so frictionless that it's a no-brainer.

We actually have some data that's on my side. Take a look at OpenRouter's model usage statistics. Note how OpenAI mmodels make up a tiny share on there, despite having more general mindshare on social media than all other model providers combined. Their data also shows people are very quick to switch when improvements to price/performance are released.

It's a bit like how vacuum cleaner specialists never use Dysons despite them having the most mindshare and overwhelming marketing budget. Regardless of vacuum cleaner specialists also just being normal people. Even if this one doesn't hold in your region, there's countless of these examples.

by jjani

4/1/2025 at 8:51:55 AM

> It's a bit like how vacuum cleaner specialists never use Dysons despite them having the most mindshare and overwhelming marketing budget. Regardless of vacuum cleaner specialists also just being normal people.

Yes, but Dyson still crushes the market because it has the mindshare with non-specialists. That’s OPs point, uninformed people (the vast majority) will be impacted more by the “ghibli-core” memetic moment, and have a greater impact on future events than specialists who appreciate the Gemini 2.5 release

by rablackburn

4/1/2025 at 9:28:19 AM

Back up the thread it was about the whole market, but then we started talking about AI developers (=the vacuum salesmen) and how much they're affected by the mindshare, which is also the part I quoted. The average consumer, absolutely, they all currently use GPT as the data shows, and are indeed led by Ghibli memes - though there's still plenty of time to change that by the huge players, á la Chrome eating all other browsers despite Microsoft's IE monopoly. AI developers though? Much less so.

by jjani

4/1/2025 at 12:41:22 AM

the people who are qualified to work on the frontier of AI research are people with PhDs from leading universities who spend 80% of their day on arxiv reading CS papers, they don't learn about AI from Ghibli art on twitter. That's bread and circus for the masses. There's no correlation between who consumes that stuff and who builds the technology, if anything, the opposite. Leading edge chip designers at TSMC didn't end up there because they ended up playing graphic intensive video games

by Barrin92

4/1/2025 at 1:13:37 AM

I just think you’re totally wrong about that, to be honest. It’s very strange to me to paint every AI researcher as an unfeeling robot who does nothing but read PDFs, who’s not remotely interested in how their work will ever be used by real people.

No, frontier model researchers are not learning about the concept of AI from Twitter.

But it’s one more piece of visibility, one more sense of “hey this company is actually doing stuff with their models,” that absolutely contributes to where these insanely in-demand people choose to do their work.

> Leading edge chip designers at TSMC didn't end up there because they ended up playing graphic intensive video games

What a baffling and wrong example! I mean, I guess I don’t know about TSMC specifically, but tons and tons of technologists have an origin story that rhymes with “I was really into computer games, then got curious how they worked”

This is my whole point: engineers are real people, and real people are fascinated by the uses of AI!

by ketzo

4/1/2025 at 2:05:08 AM

That's the people who can be hired and get paid big bucks right now. The comment is referencing people who might be inspired to start learning this stuff seriously.

Leading edge chip designers at TSMC didn't end up there because they ended up playing graphic intensive video games

Kind of a large assumption. I find it quite plausible that enjoying video games as a kid might lead to someone studying engineering as opposed to medicine or finance.

by anigbrowl

4/1/2025 at 9:31:30 AM

The people who work at frontier AI labs are sending around Ghiblified pictures of themselves like everyone else (except on Signal).

by saagarjha

4/1/2025 at 1:10:31 AM

Chatgpt has 500mil users. Google with all it's distribution via Chrome, Android still probably doesn't have that many Gemini users

the fact that vast majority of people are consumers matter

by jatins

4/1/2025 at 12:04:07 AM

Exactly. New image models are always exciting for two weeks or so. New LLM models are useful until the next,. better model comes out.

Which probably is just a small integer multiple of two weeks, but hey!

by bla3

3/31/2025 at 9:51:29 PM

Massive, industrial scale copyright infringement

by ungreased0675

3/31/2025 at 11:39:34 PM

IANAL but artistic style is not copyrightable. Many many human artists have created images and animated films in the style of Ghibli or Disney or Pixar and there's no direct copyright issue there.

by falcor84

4/1/2025 at 12:12:36 AM

A friend of mine tried to create stock illustrations in Disney style on Etsy, got banned almost immediately for copyright infringement. I guess it depends.

by user432678

4/1/2025 at 12:25:23 AM

Etsy as a private platform banning it doesn't necessarily mean it was actually legally infringing. Like all the content hosting platforms, they would err super cautiously to avoid any possibility of anything even remotely resembling any legal case, even if they would virtually certainly be in the clear.

by vikingerik

4/1/2025 at 8:58:38 AM

Did your friend describe it as "Disney style"? In that case there would be a trademark infringement.

Also, Disney have deep pockets and Etsy would not want to argue it out with them if they got a complaint.

by graemep

4/1/2025 at 12:11:45 AM

Maaybe, but you'd also have to pass the three-prong test of fair use, and one of the prongs of the test is that your fair use of the material can't eliminate the market for the original material.

I fail to see how taking a distinctive artistic style that was incredibly difficult to produce and shitting out massive amounts of it everywhere as a super low quality commodity would pass the test of fair use.

by conartist6

4/1/2025 at 12:33:13 AM

>Maaybe, but you'd also have to pass the three-prong test of fair use, and one of the prongs of the test is that your fair use of the material can't eliminate the market for the original material.

"artistic style" is outright not copyrightable. Fair use doesn't play into it, any more than fair use doesn't play into whether a photo taken by a monkey can be redistributed[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...

by gruez

4/2/2025 at 3:14:37 PM

It isn't the distribution here that's the usage, it's training the model. If I take a copyrighted work and train a model with it and there's no longer any demand for the original, training the model was not a fair use

by conartist6

4/1/2025 at 12:43:24 AM

It is complicated. Tom Waits won a case where a commercial imitated his style.

by jmount

4/1/2025 at 3:37:03 AM

> Tom Waits won a case where a commercial imitated his style.

Not under US copyright law, AFAICT. He's won cases where he sued over things like false endorsement - i.e. claiming that listeners would believe it was actually him, not just that the style was similar.

(Apparently he did win a similar case in Spain under their copyright law, but from skimming articles it sounds like the issue there also was impersonation, not just stylistic similarity.)

by fenomas

4/1/2025 at 12:51:47 PM

the laws for music are different & much stricter than images.

by spot

3/31/2025 at 11:48:30 PM

Yeah but humans aren't exactly fast at replicating any particular art style.

by iszomer

4/1/2025 at 12:08:07 AM

Speed of replication isn't a part of copyright law, is it?

by catach

4/1/2025 at 6:43:43 PM

No, but I have to wonder if the reason it isn't is because up until now it was so slow and time consuming etc to create a replication.

by SirMaster

4/1/2025 at 12:09:25 AM

Should I be concerned about my drawing speed lest it qualifies as copyright informant?

by throwuxiytayq

3/31/2025 at 11:46:56 PM

IMO, massive industrial scale indignation of humanity.

by TheRealQueequeg

3/31/2025 at 11:41:03 PM

Not a lawyer, but I don't think art styles are copyrightable, though maybe they could be in Japan.

by trealira

4/1/2025 at 12:22:08 AM

Unlikely since there's a studio led by a former ghibli lead that does visuals in the very same style.

by epolanski

4/1/2025 at 12:28:49 AM

That feels like an omission in the law. Previously it was simply impossible to "take" a style wholesale. You would at least have to become an artist versed in that style, and it in investing your life into that style you would also make it yours.

AI can take a whole style wholesale with no effort and no contribution. It is greivous theft in the moral sense if not the legal sense.

by conartist6

4/1/2025 at 1:27:33 PM

There were some AI training exceptions passed in Japan if I recall correctly, but with the copyright culture in Japan lacking anything resembling fair use, there was pretty much zero chance something like Stable Diffusion could have been built and proliferated in such a culture. Those AI laws seem pretty reactionary to the West's innovations to stay relevant in my view.

by doright

4/1/2025 at 11:58:22 AM

Style is not copyrightable.

Marvin Gaye estate tried to argue that style is copyrightable, and sued some artists as their songs use similar chord progressions as Marvin Gaye songs; they won one case (which I won't google) but they lost with Sheeran.

by karel-3d

4/1/2025 at 12:17:38 PM

In music, copyright is (relatively) clearly defined: it's the melody. You can't touch that. There are also reproduction rights, which protect the (recorded) performance, even if the music's copyright belongs to someone else.

by tgv

4/1/2025 at 12:40:52 PM

It's not copyright infringement / not illegal if it's legal and / or there's an exception for "information analysis": https://www.privacyworld.blog/2024/03/japans-new-draft-guide...

This is the tricky part; is it immoral? I think so, but that's a personal opinion. Is it illegal? Not by Japanese copyright laws.

by Cthulhu_

4/1/2025 at 1:59:27 PM

Infact it isn't the style which has been copyright infringed but the original works which had been fed into the Neuronal networks in order to learn how to produce such works. There is no consent from the authors. I'm not a fighter copyright but if someone makes money from someone others work than the author should be compensated. The AI industry is standing on the shoulders of giants and make a lot of money. If the authors had been asked beforehand if their works could be use to train NN than I'm sure this whole AI blubble is has burst long time ago.

by frankzander

4/2/2025 at 12:46:31 AM

Good. Down with intellectual "property." Ideas are gifts from the divine, meant for self-propagation.

by BeFlatXIII

3/31/2025 at 11:53:20 PM

...perhaps this is what it takes to finally end the farcical narrative of "intellectual property" and usher in an internet age where everybody can access the entire corpus of evolved knowledge.

by jMyles

3/31/2025 at 11:57:46 PM

The copyright infringement is on the part of the models being trained on Studio Ghibli's work without permission. There's no law against you "accessing the entire corpus of evolved knowledge" and doing the work yourself.

by krapp

4/1/2025 at 9:19:31 AM

Yeah, and culture will stagnate forever at the 2020 mark, as nobody in his right mind will create anything new only to be immediatly copied without anything in return.

>usher in an internet age where everybody can access the entire corpus of evolved knowledge

We have had that for decades and everything is going to shit. People now just reject facts.

by aredox

4/1/2025 at 10:33:39 AM

> culture will stagnate forever at the 2020 mark, as nobody in his right mind will create anything new only to be immediatly copied without anything in return.

right, because before copyright laws nobody ever created anything...

by anhner

4/1/2025 at 12:49:14 PM

Then why were copyright laws created immediately after the advent of the printing press? One wonders...

by aredox

4/1/2025 at 3:40:41 PM

Yes, immediately, just a short three hundred years later (printing press 1440, first copyright law 1710). And if you look into that law (Statute of Anne) then you will find that poor hardworking authors where not exactly on the receiving end of that protection.

by danielbln

4/2/2025 at 2:43:16 PM

>as nobody in his right mind will create anything new only to be immediatly copied without anything in return.

People consuming and copying your work means you are making a cultural impact

You think the only reason to create anything is to profit?

by alickz

4/2/2025 at 12:48:01 AM

Where is the problem here? There already exist multiple lifetimes of whatever creativity you enjoy.

by BeFlatXIII

4/2/2025 at 7:51:48 PM

> nobody in his right mind will create anything new only to be immediatly copied without anything in return

If this take is serious, I can confidently tell you: for many professional artists, it's incorrect.

I'm sure you didn't look at my profile and don't know my background, but I'm a professional bluegrass musician.

Believe me when I tell you: few of us believe that 'intellectual property' is designed to help us make a living. And we're happy to see it go. Copy my music all you want - that's half the point.

Creativity, especially in traditional arts, does not benefit from state intervention or shoehorning property concepts into our work.

by jMyles

3/31/2025 at 10:09:46 PM

Japanese firms take copyright pretty seriously, and Miyazaki is famously not a fan of CG or automation or indeed the US. I suspect lawsuits will not be long in coming.

by anigbrowl

3/31/2025 at 11:38:31 PM

Apparently current Japanese law allows models to be trained on copyrighted content.

https://www.deeplearning.ai/the-batch/japan-ai-data-laws-exp...

by pnw

3/31/2025 at 11:44:23 PM

Such a law doesn't automatically imply that everything a model outputs is automatically copyright free though, does it?

Otherwise: Meet my new and surprisingly performant new model, IdentityFunctionGPT! Oh, the weights? Sorry, trade secret.

by lxgr

4/1/2025 at 12:42:16 PM

I don't know, I'm no lawyer.

However, if I make a drawing in the style of Ghibli, I own the copyright because I made it. I don't know if in Japan, art style is copyrightable.

I don't know if copyright applies to generated content (of any sort) though. It probably does.

by Cthulhu_

4/1/2025 at 7:26:20 PM

The important question here isn't who owns the copyright in the output, but rather whether the output also infringes on somebody else's, and if so, who's liable for that: The company that trained the AI, the one that hosts it as a service, or the user that prompted it.

by lxgr

4/1/2025 at 12:19:49 AM

On the other hand, Japan pretty much ignores the amateur comics community using copyrighted works for their fan fiction. Even when they have big, well known, events where they sell the comics.

by hiccuphippo

4/1/2025 at 1:58:06 AM

There's an industry consensus to leave it alone in most* cases, since it is considered to expand the total manga market and generate new talent. Micro-publishers are very different from megacorporations, though.

* Unsurprisingly a famous exception involves Nintendo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon_doujinshi_inciden...

by anigbrowl

4/1/2025 at 3:20:55 PM

There's a unwritten framework regulating it, unwritten but enforced by selective C&D. I think that's how a lot of industries work anyway, see Oracle v. Google drama on use of Java in Android.

by numpad0

3/31/2025 at 11:52:42 PM

Great read. I particularly noted

   The takeaway? If you’re launching a consumer product, technical superiority doesn’t automatically translate to cultural impact. In the battle for attention, a memorable vibe often beats a better benchmark.

by keyle

4/1/2025 at 12:04:33 AM

Selling on benchmarks is like selling users a blender by telling them the efficiency % of the motor. No regular person cares.

by harrall

4/1/2025 at 9:44:24 AM

Not long ago cheap chinese phone included their benchmark score in advertisement

by mrheosuper

4/1/2025 at 12:21:32 PM

Exactly, I feel like AI was initially meant for "nerds" or at least tech enthusiasts so big numbers were great but when the market widens it becomes less relevant

by Miraltar

4/1/2025 at 12:20:50 AM

I don't know, eventually while this was cool and got lots of attention from internet at scale, it is largely irrelevant in $ terms.

by epolanski

4/1/2025 at 12:20:59 AM

The Ghibli stuff is really amusing but for me the best are the infographics - you can make amazing stuff with basically 0 2D CG know-how for e.g. a presentation, web page, documentation, blog, etc.

The biggest difference to what was previously available is the accuracy - especially the text. This opens up a plethora of possibilities.

by margorczynski

4/1/2025 at 1:14:14 PM

This is what I'm most excited about as well. Prior to 4o image generation, most GPTs I came across really struggled with this type of image generation. The only one that seemed to come close was Ideogram.

by smjburton

4/1/2025 at 11:59:57 AM

I like to create Corporate Memphis versions of pictures instead. It just seems way more dystopian.

by karel-3d

4/1/2025 at 12:12:10 AM

Seems like a fad where everyone looks basically the same after the conversion. You are gonna get a reaction for first 5 photos but I’ve grown past it and I just skip looking most of it on social media

by m3kw9

4/1/2025 at 10:14:20 AM

That's why it's called AI slop.

by imp0cat

4/1/2025 at 10:13:46 AM

The native image support of GPT-4o is really impressive, no model before was able to work so well in the joint space, just compare it to the Gemini 2.0 Flash model with native image support, the difference is massive, so I'm not too surprise that people focused more on the native image support of GPT-4o than the new SOTA by Google.

by GaggiX

4/2/2025 at 4:27:21 AM

I understand the criticisms presented here.

But seeing a beautiful, whimsical image of my baby daughter in the Ghibli style was pure joy and brought tears to my eyes.

I have no idea how I could have done this otherwise, and I hope it brings happiness to Miyazaki to know that it brought joy to someone.

by ambarp2

4/2/2025 at 8:51:08 AM

To offer a counter view, for me, I might enjoy having the photos rendered in the Ghibli style for a short period of time, but they will never be either timeless moments of my kids, or stills from a timeless animated film. I'm always going to find myself associating the images with a fairly low-effort attempt to do something 'cute' because I am hard pressed to feel that prompting an AI and feeding it an existing image is the appropriate effort on my part to create something memorable.

This is highly personal though, and if it works for you, then you have one of the best reasons for using this sort of image generation -- to create memories and experiences with your family.

by genocidicbunny

4/1/2025 at 10:41:14 AM

Where's this Ghiblification? I'm still getting real cat photos in my FB feed. At least I hope they're real.

Could it be that all the "AI" evangelists are in their own bubble and desperately trying to make money off each other?

Like when mobile free to play gambling apps ("games" they said) had ads, but only for other mobile free to play gambling apps.

by nottorp

4/1/2025 at 10:56:59 AM

Oh, well, here even the state communication director posted a ghibli-selfie...

by yazantapuz

4/1/2025 at 8:22:50 AM

The pronunciation of Ghibli is the next /ɡɪf/ versus /dʒɪf/

by hbarka

4/1/2025 at 9:05:02 AM

It's spelled ジブリ - "Djiburi" roughly - making this one pretty easy to settle.

by svara

4/1/2025 at 12:35:15 PM

Just as easily for GIF, whose inventor stated that it’s /dʒɪf/, but people still disagree (myself included).

With Ghibli there is the fact that the original Italian word is pronounced with a hard G. In fact, that’s why it has an “h”. We can treat this similar to Roma vs. Rome.

by layer8

4/1/2025 at 2:03:45 PM

ジブリ isn't the JP translation of an Italian word, it's a Japanese proper noun with an unambiguous pronunciation in the language it was coined in. The fact that it's derived from a word pronounced differently is neither here nor there - arguing that would be like arguing that English "origin" is ambiguous because the Latin derivation had a hard G.

by fenomas

4/1/2025 at 8:30:35 AM

/ɡɪblai/

by orthoxerox

4/1/2025 at 12:44:28 PM

It's pronounced /fish/

by internet_points

4/1/2025 at 12:01:48 AM

Here is a montage of many of the recent ghibli creations: https://0x0.st/82oM.webm

It's chocked full of memes, historical and political photos, and general pop culture.

by ranger_danger

4/1/2025 at 3:27:56 PM

The real movie was humanity all along.

by gradientsrneat

4/1/2025 at 4:10:36 PM

The obtuseness and the soullessness of the user excited by this trick is what is most sad about this situation. "Look at me, I'm a cartoon!" speaks of the arrested development and some kind of a consciousness stunted by some autistic juvenescence prevalent in modern people. This pupa is really excited about living, I suppose.

by greenhearth

3/31/2025 at 11:45:17 PM

tbh i think it's a good thing when people can make art in a style they love. most people make kitsch, that's ok. people who study will make stuff that reaches the emotional and intellectual heights of the best.

it does make me uneasy if OpenAI charges more than at-cost to help people do so though. it's the profiteering off others' work that is gross.

a quote from "The Communist Manifesto" about the nature of capitalism:

"Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind."

by tehjoker

3/31/2025 at 11:56:59 PM

> it does make me uneasy if OpenAI charges more than at-cost to help people do so though. it's the profiteering off others' work that is gross.

i think they shouldn't be able to sell anything at all. violation of copyright isn't a excuse to sell stuff at-cost, let alone feed Nvidia with trillions of USD by releasing open-source (if they ever release) technology

by luqtas

4/1/2025 at 1:19:20 AM

tbh i not a huge fan of copyright, but it is crazy that OpenAI is allowed to privatize the results of training on a significant fraction of media produced by humans let alone a technology that was produced over a long duration in great part through public funding

by tehjoker

4/1/2025 at 11:23:52 AM

Let them privatize, Id rather not subsidize the losses

by arealaccount

3/31/2025 at 11:51:57 PM

>tbh i think it's a good thing when people can make art in a style they love

I agree. But people aren't making art in a style they love, people are telling a machine to make an inferior copy of something resembling art in a style they claim to love.

I say "claim to" because I find it hard to believe someone could be a fan of Ghibli and treat the studio's work in a way that Miyazaki would despise. This isn't love so much as exploitation.

If people value the Ghibli style so much, they could learn the art of drawing and animation, and actually make art instead of insulting the studio's talent and legacy by avoiding the craft and seeking an endorphine high from AI slop. It doesn't have to be perfect or even good to be satisfying, but it will be yours.

by krapp

4/1/2025 at 1:54:50 AM

You can love an art style and want to create images in that style without wanting to be an artist.

My family and I absolutely love Ghibli films. I ran some family photos through 4o and my wife was thrilled. It made her day.

You can call it slop, you can say I'm not truly a fan, but I made my wife happy, and I can't see the harm.

How is it "insulting their legacy"? You think people writing Harry Potter fan fiction are insulting J.K. Rowling?

by SamPatt

4/1/2025 at 2:13:22 AM

The harm comes from AI "entrepreneurs" making a business out of cloning Miyazaki's style - and the styles of countless lesser known artists - and flooding the market with garbage that cheapens the value of the original work and undermines the market for human talent. And from the people in the AI community who are already claiming this is superior to the original and celebrating the death of human art. And from the likelihood that people will become dependent on this technology - which will be forced down our throats whether we want it or not - and consider themselves artists having never bothered to learn how to express themselves or develop their own talent, or even be allowed the tools to do so beyond the bounds of what an AI intermediary allows.

No one cares about your family photos. This isn't about you.

by krapp

4/1/2025 at 12:36:31 PM

>No one cares about your family photos. This isn't about you.

My wife cares. That was the point of my comment.

by SamPatt

4/1/2025 at 2:18:38 PM

The point of your comment was to imply that because you personally made some AI photos for your wife, and it made you happy, any argument that AI art could be harmful was null and void.

You're like the person who comes into threads about gun violence and says they don't see what the problem is, since they only shoot watermelons in their backyard.

Like, OK. You refuse to recognize the bigger issues at play, noted.

by krapp

4/1/2025 at 6:54:38 PM

What if the concept of art was like a gun?

by tehjoker

4/1/2025 at 8:35:41 AM

People writing harry potter fan fiction are not just pressing the "make fan fiction" button (or at least they weren't in the past, maybe some are with chatgpt these days)

by voidUpdate

4/2/2025 at 11:52:12 AM

I'd like to add that fanfiction is also generally disallowed to make any money, unless all of the original influence is removed from it.

And so the problem isn't with people who find joy in something they saw, but in people who make money from derivative work without explicit permission

by lesostep

4/1/2025 at 2:14:11 PM

The dopamine from an image edit like this is such a short term gain for all the long term effort that went into perfecting and performing a specific art style and it becoming a name and cultural _thing_. Groups of people staking their careers around something.

If the technology stays, the commercial incentives to produce art with such a depth and craftsmanship will cease to happen (unless perhaps new styles would be generated to feed an LLM as part of an art pipeline? Maybe? Wishful thinking most likely). You won't be able to stand up a company like Studio Ghibli in the new market. You'll have a harder time even standing up a career as an artist in general, let along getting enough to come together to form a studio. This will be the last time art creation like this happens. You may love Ghibli, but this will kill the process the allowed Ghibli to form.

---

Spread across all such art styles, art itself no longer signals any quality of the minds or depth of effort behind its creation. We will have to look elsewhere for things to love and that have meaning.

by cobertos

4/1/2025 at 12:58:01 AM

That's true, but you're basically just describing kitch. That's what most people make, and often they are happy with it. I agree that more effort and thought will produce a piece they will be happier with and feel a sense of ownership of.

by tehjoker

4/2/2025 at 12:50:13 AM

Why do variations of this rant get spammed every time AI art is discussed? No one cares for an argument that boils down to "git gud"

by BeFlatXIII

4/2/2025 at 1:15:58 AM

Six sentences can hardly be considered a "rant."

by Pulcinella

4/1/2025 at 9:05:37 PM

> people are telling a machine to make an inferior copy of something resembling art

So art ended when someone created a photo camera?

by owebmaster

4/1/2025 at 9:23:35 PM

No, obviously it didn't, and obviously LLMs are not "photo cameras."

by krapp

4/2/2025 at 12:49:39 AM

but cameras also allowed people to use a machine to make an inferior copy of something resembling art

by owebmaster

4/2/2025 at 11:08:35 AM

No, photography is actually art.

by krapp

4/2/2025 at 6:37:09 AM

When you realize that your imagined disappointment is a proxy for jealousy, some of the subtle seething whimpers delicately packed into your every reply on the topic might start to subside. You're upset that people wasted their time developing a specific skillset that is a useless unfruitful timesink for the vast majority was ultimately replaced by a simple to use tool at an extraordinarily faster rate. We never needed the 'ghibli artstyle' to tell ghibli stories, we needed the direction and tone and messaging his works created to be in a consumable format that captures people. Languishing on the experience being cheapened because the landscape of art presentation has changed is a regressive stance that has no basis in reality and many counterpoints.

Here's the oft repeated analogies that never have a proper response to hopefully help guide you out of your self created mental labyrinth, but trigger warning! (for people like you): photographers, printing press, classical music.

by zen928

4/2/2025 at 11:07:54 AM

Nope, sorry. I'm not whimpering and seething with jealousy.

Did you get ChatGPT to write this copypasta for you?

by krapp

4/1/2025 at 12:23:19 PM

> when people can make art in a style they love

It's not making, creating. It's consuming.

Wrt. the Communist Manifesto: it's precisely the bourgeoisie and the church who are responsible for the greatest art, and its development. As you say, the workers love kitsch.

by tgv

4/1/2025 at 5:09:17 PM

Lol, the bourgeoisie and the church pay for art because they have surplus cash and it is almost always workers that produce it.

by tehjoker

4/2/2025 at 9:02:47 PM

And what do you think artists are going to do when nobody pays them? Something that does pay the bills, obviously. It really is a danger to the continuation of the arts.

And let's be honest: communist art is generally rather poor. The state, or the avant-garde of the proletariat for that matter, does not have good taste, but does tend to towards nepotism.

by tgv

4/1/2025 at 6:59:34 PM

Pretentious.

by osti

4/1/2025 at 10:49:43 AM

I think AI is just leverage for whatever you want to do. How you use that leverage, and what you apply it to is what matters. It's just another tool for humanity.

by icu

4/1/2025 at 4:32:22 PM

The Miyazaki quote is always taken out of context, the disgust he utters has nothing to do with automation of grunt work and everything to do with the horror content he just witnessed. Miyazaki is not one who insists on everything Ghibli being hand drawn, his son even uses cartoonish CGI, which I think looks awful.

This type of quality is close to enabling a storyboarder like Miyazaki do an entire animation on their own. I have yet to hear him say he would not use such technology, despite him being rather opinionated.

by incrudible

4/1/2025 at 12:17:35 AM

[flagged]

by rufus_foreman

4/1/2025 at 12:20:15 AM

[dead]

by krapp

4/1/2025 at 2:15:14 AM

[flagged]

by anigbrowl

4/1/2025 at 2:25:24 AM

I read the article. I didn't find anything out.

by rufus_foreman

4/1/2025 at 3:33:06 AM

I don't believe you. The third paragraph stated 'Soon everyone ... was stylizing themselves, their kids, 9/11, and memes into the soft, pastel aesthetic of Japan’s beloved animation house,' with a link to the Wikipedia page about Studio Ghibli, along with pictorial examples.

by anigbrowl

3/31/2025 at 11:42:34 PM

Silicon Valley doesn’t care

They are like the Mafia.

“I don’t care, pay me”

by zombiwoof

4/1/2025 at 12:07:44 PM

AI stealing yet again.

by bfrog

3/31/2025 at 11:37:30 PM

Hayao Miyazaki is frying this kind of idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngZ0K3lWKRc

> I strongly feel that this is an insult to life itself

by shmerl

3/31/2025 at 11:43:55 PM

I can't help but feel that at least a significant part of his reaction is due to the subject matter of AI zombies crawling in what we imagine would be painful poses without feeling pain, rather than just the technology itself.

by falcor84

3/31/2025 at 11:47:15 PM

Likewise, I feel like the article presents a somewhat manufactured "quote" and misinterpretation of what was being referred to in the linked video.

Unfortunately I'm sure this sensationalised fake-quote will spread much more quickly than any context / checking.

by pixelpoet

4/1/2025 at 6:47:58 AM

I agree. They were clearly going for a bipedal gait and failed to produce anything in time. Then they swapped the model with a zombie to sweep their failure under the rug.

Hayao Miyazaki is just calling them out in a diplomatic way.

by imtringued

3/31/2025 at 11:48:38 PM

I don't see how. This kind of AI has no mind and can't feel anything, so it has no component that's needed for expressing feelings in art. That's his main point. That was true then, it's true today.

by shmerl

3/31/2025 at 11:51:05 PM

What was shown in the video seems to be something like Karl Sims' work[0], which is completely different (genetic algorithm for optimising black-box locomotion within a physics simulation framework) from AI image generation / what we're currently calling "Ghiblification".

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZtZia4ZkX8

by pixelpoet

4/1/2025 at 12:00:55 AM

I thought the same thing, it wasn't a quote about all AI, it was in direct response to what he saw which was a "person" like limbing on the floor in a creepy way.

by bl4ckneon

4/1/2025 at 1:33:41 PM

"I would never wish to incorporate this technology into my work at all. I strongly feel that this is an insult to life itself."

The "insult to life" is specifically about the tech, from my reading. Granted, if he had been shown something less grotesque, maybe he would've responded differently? I doubt it, the guy doesn't like CGI either.

by gilbetron

4/1/2025 at 12:17:24 AM

This video is shared a lot to represent Miyazaki's feelings on AI, but all I see is him reacting to one specific video on the screen - grotesque/bloody figures crawling on the floor in totally unnatural motions. He specifically says he doesn't like it because it seems to make light of the suffering of disabled people. There zero feedback on the AI whatsoever. Who knows what he would have said if the engineers had built something closer to the company's artistic vision.

by paxys

4/1/2025 at 12:01:12 AM

In all fairness, Hayao Miyazaki is famously grumpy about everything, especially when related to modern society. I wouldn't have expected anything less.

A common meme is to put him side to side with Junji Ito. Hayao Miyazaki as the grumpy old man whose work is cute and happy, and Junji Ito as the nice and cheerful guy whose work is the thing of nightmares.

Junji Ito's take on AI, is that he worries for his profession, but he thinks he still has something AIs can't replicate, at least for now. As expected, while both of them oppose AI, they do it in a way that couldn't be more different.

by GuB-42

4/1/2025 at 12:07:13 AM

Someone’s attitude shouldn’t prejudice you against their opinion

by zombiwoof

4/1/2025 at 1:09:31 AM

When someone who dislikes most things says he dislikes something, it carries less weight than when someone who is naturally enthusiastic does.

Hayao Miyazaki disliking AI is just Hayao Miyazaki being himself. Had he been enthusiastic about it, it would have been very noteworthy.

It can probably be modeled using Bayesian statistics or something.

by GuB-42

3/31/2025 at 11:43:27 PM

"I strongly feel that this is an insult to life itself"

I emphatically appreciate Miyazaki. Even if you take him as hyperbolic, or perhaps biased due to differences in intention between the engineer team and artistry he represents, it's very positive to have strongly opinionated voices in the room that can clearly articulate why. The anecdote about pain and stiffness is succinct but exactly what is necessary to communicate specifically what is missing from the animations at hand.

However, I'm curious what he would have thought about someone playing QWOP. I wonder if he would be more fully bought into such a concept (well outside his own work of course) if such technology might emphasize appreciation for life rather than trying to mimic/bastardize/reproduce it.

by facile3232

3/31/2025 at 11:44:51 PM

Crucially, this was before the transformer paper, "Attention is all you need", or any of the diffusion models had been released.

This just looks like some painful RL or evolutionary algorithms, at best.

by sva_

4/1/2025 at 10:33:01 AM

What he is criticising here is not AI or AI art. But instead of rather old machine learning trying to achieve some type of ambulation or human like gait. Which I think is some level cool. But also artistically is clearly grotesque and not something that should be widely presented.

Just think of using this type of movement or actions in media specially a film. That would be entirely unworkable and doomed idea. Disgust from most viewers would be similar.

by Ekaros