 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I admit to not knowing how A.I "works." Going by the freebie fun apps I've used, I feel like it's "type in what you want and hit the generate button" sort of thing. I have to believe it's more involved than that, but someone with more knowledge can chime in there.
Other than potentially taking work away from animators, I don't have a problem with A.I. generated commercials. Ads are disposable snippets designed to get you to want to purchase the products. I find little difference between a poorly rendered A.I. spot or a badly rendered commercial designed by CGI artists. And as much as "taking jobs away from CGI animators" sucks in principle, I do note with some amused irony since CGI took jobs away from model makers and traditional animators. "The wheel turns, does it not?"
The "I Love Lucy" clip bothers me more because they trusted the A.I. program enough to skip the QC of the final result. However, over time the tech will improve to probably make it a more consistent tool. And if it does work well enough and saves time and money for old film restoration, maybe it will make releasing of classic films and TV more cost effective.
But damn, they have some bugs to work out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The old rule was, if you love something, buy the physical release on DVD or Bluray. That way, when the studios censor or adulterate the content for streaming, you'll still own the original version.
With this latest I Love Lucy Bluray, the situation is even worse than I thought: the phony A.I. faces aren't even motivated by political ideology. They're just a mindless, unintentional vandalism inflicted by the lazy use of computer tools.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
