Google’s recent ad controversy brings up key questions about the preservation of human skills, and the ethical and social implications of integrating generative AI tools into everyday tasks.
What if only the intro fanfare was created with AI?
What if only one creature in the film is created with AI and everything else was done using pre-AI tech?
What if certain body parts of that creature were generated with AI, but the rest was then created/merged normally?
What if an overall shape was initially created with AI, but then the artist just used this as a base to start from and spent more time reworking it to their intended vision and no part was left untouched?
What if a green screen was used, and then AI was used to touch up the edges around the subject and the background?
What if AI was used to help brainstorm some ideas by the writer (as in they didn’t just copy/paste the output from the LLM)?
I guess they did bother to create something, although with minimum effort. It comes across as insincere most of the time.
Where does the line get drawn though.
Does using AI to replace stock footage instantly take the video from being a masterpiece to garbage?
In my opinion, yes. If it has telltale signs of being AI generated, it’s garbage.
You can take that line even further,
What if only the intro fanfare was created with AI?
What if only one creature in the film is created with AI and everything else was done using pre-AI tech?
What if certain body parts of that creature were generated with AI, but the rest was then created/merged normally?
What if an overall shape was initially created with AI, but then the artist just used this as a base to start from and spent more time reworking it to their intended vision and no part was left untouched?
What if a green screen was used, and then AI was used to touch up the edges around the subject and the background?
What if AI was used to help brainstorm some ideas by the writer (as in they didn’t just copy/paste the output from the LLM)?