[HN Gopher] A full episode of South Park generated by AI
___________________________________________________________________
A full episode of South Park generated by AI
Author : gdcohen
Score : 73 points
Date : 2023-07-19 20:17 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (fablestudio.github.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (fablestudio.github.io)
| xivzgrev wrote:
| Wow that's actually better than I expected. The Seinfeld show was
| awkward and clearly AI.
|
| The scene with the pig was actually funny - the AI only tells
| racist jokes because it's trained on the internet.
|
| Assuming AI came up with that, that's amazing
| gdcohen wrote:
| What's amazing to me is that without reading (watching?) too
| much into it, and me not being a seasoned South Park viewer,
| this could easily pass as a real episode.
| latexr wrote:
| > this could easily pass as a real episode.
|
| Hard disagree. The animation, pacing, sound, everything is of
| considerable lower quality. You can watch full episodes on
| their website to compare.
|
| https://www.southparkstudios.com/seasons/south-park
| joe_the_user wrote:
| Skimming the video, 100% of the dialog was plodding, tedious,
| unfunny and predictable. I don't know South Park very well
| but I know snappy dialog is somewhat needed. Just as much,
| endless vacuous paragraphs on the potential and dangers of AI
| seems unlikely to be what sustains interest in show.
| hoten wrote:
| This is curated/guided, while the Seinfield stuff was not.
| cwkoss wrote:
| Weird watching south park with zero humor in it.
|
| Its giving 'pokemon go to the polls' energy - people using a
| random pop culture reference to flaccidly try to promote their
| ideological preference.
|
| I hated it, and was impressed until I realize how much manual
| human labor went into its construction. The editorial influence
| of the humans involved was far too heavy handed. I would have
| preferred something alien, weird and incoherent.
| mattl wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36781061
| hotdogscout wrote:
| GPT-4 is too politically correct to emulate South Park and it
| shows.
| Imnimo wrote:
| This paper rings a lot of alarm bells for me. It's rambling,
| written in a very odd style, and contains a lot of useless
| figures. Is this one of those fake paper pranks or something?
| CSMastermind wrote:
| Discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36782314
|
| I'll readd my comment from that thread:
|
| This isn't AI generated it was created with some assistance from
| AI.
|
| They used AI to generate character dialog and voices (easily the
| worst parts of the video) while the humans guided the plot and
| picked the lines of dialog that would be used.
|
| The backgrounds were AI generated in collaboration with humans
| iterating on the prompt and hand selecting the results. The
| characters were animated traditionally including the intro.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| The dialogue seems obviously terrible and especially terrible
| for what's supposed to be a show with a "dark, surreal humor
| that satirizes a large range of subject matter". 80% of the
| discussion involved earnest regurgitation of for-and-against
| arguments for the use of AI. I presume if AI hadn't been the
| topic then it would have the characters talk about the merits
| and drawbacks of mid-range jets for small airlines or similarly
| exciting topics.
| bryancoxwell wrote:
| Sounds like more work than making an episode without AI to be
| honest.
| all2 wrote:
| There's a dead comment here that mentions the political
| correctness of the model used to generate the episode. I think
| this is valid criticism, especially because efforts to "clean"
| training data of limiting ideologies has shown some fruit.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| Yeah, all of my previous jailbreaks like my Andrew Dice Clay
| one stopped working.
|
| I use to be able to get it to say crazy stuff about either
| Obama or Trump. But I can't break it anymore.
|
| On the other hand "PC" is usually used by the Right. I couldn't
| get it to say anything that's not neutral.
| RajT88 wrote:
| In its current form, it was adopted by the right.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
|
| For my money, I've yet to get a coherent answer as to why a
| simple ask regarding common courtesy ("don't be a dick to
| people who aren't like you") is a bad thing. People
| immediately shoot off on tangents about freedom of speech,
| and "Cultural Marxism" (lol) and what-have-you.
| tekla wrote:
| Well, many people getting offended when you take the lords
| name in vain or swear, but I doubt people actually care on
| the left that much about being dicks to them. So do you
| actually care about being a dick to people not like you?
|
| I certainly swear alot and don't care that much.
| hotdogscout wrote:
| [flagged]
| hotdogscout wrote:
| It's mine and no, it wasn't valid criticism! I was exhibiting
| offensive behavior but now I know better not to doubt my peers
| judgement but always accept it wholeheartedly.
| Ycombigatorz wrote:
| [dead]
| binkHN wrote:
| Oh dear. I see a wave of horrible AI-generated cartoon videos
| targeting kids coming to a YouTube near you soon...
| postsantum wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsagate
| RyanAdamas wrote:
| So much for the writers strike; also love how Cartman's voice is
| becoming more like the others given AI has to track Parker's
| voice changes over the years.
| jeron wrote:
| if you showed this to the studios and told them that it would
| only get better from here, I think the strike may never end -
| the promise of infinitely generated TV ready writing is
| something studios would find irresistible
| ars wrote:
| The studios know about this, and yes, that's what they are
| expecting.
|
| But I expect the AI will always require adjustments from
| humans, not AI on its own. And that's what the studio's want:
| AI output, with edits from humans, including both writers
| _and_ actors.
|
| And that's exactly what the union doesn't want, and they are
| right, this will mean a significant change in their jobs. But
| time moves on, and technology gets better.
|
| They might be able to delay this (I expect a contract without
| AI, for now), but as soon as some independent studio starts
| creating good AI+human output the studios aren't going to do
| that again.
| dvngnt_ wrote:
| not yet. the writing isn't professional quality. might help for
| drafting though
| nradov wrote:
| And that is one of the main issues in the current WGA strike.
| Under the previous contract, writers were paid less for
| editing an existing script than for writing an original
| script. They are worried that producers will cut their
| incomes by using AI to write rough drafts, then pass it over
| to human writers to redo.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| I read a claim stating that studios were requesting that
| actors sign over their ai generated likeness to the studios
| in perpetuity. Which if accurate is insane. Dude could
| appear for 5 minutes in a movie as an extra, get paid $500
| and then never get paid again but show up in hundreds of
| movies.
| ars wrote:
| Why is that insane? He worked for 5 minutes only. Most
| people don't get paid over and over for working just
| once.
|
| And in any case it would be easy enough to create a
| hybrid likeness that combines a few people, with the
| final result looking like none of them, if you have an
| issue with the image of someone being used.
| stonogo wrote:
| How the hell do you build an acting career if the studios
| can just photgraph you once and then use your likeness
| forever? It's obviously exploitative. This is why unions
| _exist_.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-19 23:01 UTC)