[HN Gopher] AniSora: Open-source anime video generation model
___________________________________________________________________
AniSora: Open-source anime video generation model
Author : PaulineGar
Score : 315 points
Date : 2025-05-17 23:59 UTC (23 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (komiko.app)
(TXT) w3m dump (komiko.app)
| throwaway314155 wrote:
| Says it's open source but I'm having trouble finding a link to
| weights and/or code?
|
| Looks incredibly impressive btw. Not sure it's wise to call it
| `AniSora` but I don't really know.
| dh1011 wrote:
| https://huggingface.co/IndexTeam/Index-anisora
| throwaway314155 wrote:
| Thanks!
|
| > This model has 1 file scanned as unsafe. testvl-
| pre76-top187-rec69.pth
|
| Hm, perhaps I'll wait for this to get cleared up?
| echelon wrote:
| This is not the first time I've heard of checkpoints being
| used to distribute malware. In fact, I've heard this was a
| popular vector from shady international groups.
|
| I wouldn't expect this from Bilibili's Index Team, though,
| given how high profile they are. It's probably(?) a false
| positive. Though I wouldn't use it personally, just to be
| safe.
|
| The safetensors format should be used by everyone. Raw pth
| files and pickle files should be shunned and abandoned by
| the industry. It's a bad format.
| userbinator wrote:
| I wonder if the entropy of model weights and their size
| causes statistical false positives to appear often?
| throwaway314155 wrote:
| I imagine it has more to do with whether or not the file
| appears to have executable python code in it, as a .pth
| file is usually just a a pickled python object and these
| can be manipulated to load arbitrary python code when
| loaded.
| lbeltrame wrote:
| Disty of SD.Next has made a version in diffusers format.
|
| https://huggingface.co/Disty0/Index-anisora-5B-diffusers
|
| For the record, the dev branch of SD.Next
| (https://github.com/vladmandic/sdnext) already supports it.
| echelon wrote:
| > Not sure it's wise to call it `AniSora` but I don't really
| know.
|
| Given that OpenAI call themselves "Open", I think it's great
| and hilarious that we're reusing their names.
|
| There was OpenSora from around this time last year:
|
| https://github.com/hpcaitech/Open-Sora
|
| And there are a lot of other products calling themselves "Sora"
| as well.
|
| It's also interesting to note that OpenAI recently redirected
| sora.com, which used to be its own domain, to sora.chatgpt.com.
| pests wrote:
| > OpenAI recently redirected sora.com, which used to be its
| own domain, to sora.chatgpt.com.
|
| Probably to share cookies.
| echelon wrote:
| Cookies are such a mess.
|
| We need cross-domain cookies. Google took them away so they
| could further entrench their analytics and ads platform.
| Abuse of monopoly power.
| Anduia wrote:
| We use OAuth2 for identity.
|
| We use first-party cookies for session management.
|
| We use APIs and signed tokens (JWT) to federate across
| domains without leaking user data.
|
| The ones hurt by the death of third-party cookies are ad
| tech parasites who refused to innovate imho...
| echelon wrote:
| OpenAI uses all of these things and _still_ had to move
| domains.
|
| Also: tech should be easier, not harder.
|
| Building this shouldn't take more than an hour, yet
| somehow we did this to ourselves.
| isaacimagine wrote:
| I tested this out with a promotional illustration from _Neon
| Genesis Evangelion_. The model works quite well, but there are
| some temporal artifacts w.r.t. the animation of the hair as the
| head turns:
|
| https://goto.isaac.sh/neon-anisora
|
| Prompt: _The giant head turns to face the two people sitting._
|
| Oh, there is a docs page with more examples:
|
| https://pwz4yo5eenw.feishu.cn/docx/XN9YdiOwCoqJuexLdCpcakSln...
| Centigonal wrote:
| link's broke
| isaacimagine wrote:
| https://dihulvhqvmoxyhkxovko.supabase.co/storage/v1/object/p.
| ..
| internet2000 wrote:
| We're so close to finally being able to generate our own Haruhi
| season 3... what a time to be alive.
| veonik wrote:
| Dude... are you telling me it isnt actually finished? I am
| watching season 1 for the first time...
| darylteo wrote:
| No it's not. 4 of 10 volumes.
|
| The IP is likely doa anyway as it's on indefinite hiatus
| rererereferred wrote:
| Tanigawa released a new volume a few years ago, like 10
| years after the last one. But still, it probably doesn't
| have the popularity it once had so a new animation sounds
| unlikely.
| pm215 wrote:
| The most recent LN is volume 13, which came out in
| November 2024; it's on my shelf but I haven't got round
| to reading it yet. (The big gap between volumes was
| between 11 and 12: frankly I'd assumed that the author
| intended the end of volume 11 as the ending of the
| series. Volume 12 was in 2020 and was about half stuff
| the author had already published in other places.)
|
| I don't know how anime series economics works these days
| -- AIUI traditionally the live late night TV broadcast
| was effectively an advert to get the hardcore fans to buy
| the extremely expensive Japanese market DVD/bluray sets,
| which were what brought in the money. But I expect
| streaming has changed things a lot.
| rererereferred wrote:
| Thanks, I wasn't aware he released another just last
| year!
|
| I'd assume streaming services have changed the industry.
| Things like Devilman Crybaby wouldn't have been released
| if Netflix wasn't involved.
| protocolture wrote:
| My memory is:
|
| 1. Haruhi is based on light novels, so has to actually
| perform to get a release. Japanese market is upside down, the
| anime often goes to free to air to support a manga release
| where the real money is made (I have no idea how this works
| economically this is just how its explained to me) as there
| isn't any more manga or light novels to release, the
| likelihood of another season is low. It was sort of always a
| passion project.
|
| 2. The studio was firebombed.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Animation_arson_attack
|
| 3. Season 2 was critically panned, but I dunno I thought it
| was pretty genius.
|
| My suggestion, watch both series, then read the english
| translation of the novels.
| darylteo wrote:
| The studio being firebombed probably does not factor much
| into it. Kyoani and Kadokawa have beef, but Kadokawa can
| easily contract it to another studio to do. They just don't
| want to because of 1.
|
| Also don't forget to watch Disappearance after the 2
| seasons.
| stonecharioteer wrote:
| Shit i haven't heard of this anime in over 10 years. That was a
| shot of nostalgia
| dvh wrote:
| Or fix NGE
| khalic wrote:
| You can't fix perfection
| memming wrote:
| The german accent maybe needs fixing.
| nine_k wrote:
| I suppose you can do it right now. Speech models are
| excellent.
| xingped wrote:
| Literally the first proper anime series (not including movies
| or like DBZ) that I ever watched. Still fondly remember it and
| still salty about how the director killed it. It would be the
| greatest gift of a lifetime if anyone ever either finished the
| series or rebooted and completed it.
| layer8 wrote:
| Let's have that conversation in five or ten years again. It
| doesn't look so close to me now, I'm curious how that will play
| out.
| fwip wrote:
| Sure, if you're happy eating the dogshit that is AI.
| washadjeffmad wrote:
| >Powered by the enhanced Wan2.1-14B foundation model for superior
| stability.
|
| Wan2.1 is great. Does this mean anisora is also 16fps?
| babuloseo wrote:
| So we can finally remake Akame Ga kill?
| smusamashah wrote:
| There are so many glitches even on the very first example. Arm of
| the shirt glitching, moving hair disappear and appear out of no
| where. Rest is just moving arm and clouds.
| s0rr0wskill wrote:
| can i generate hentai
| topato wrote:
| Inquisitive minds need to know!
|
| But seriously, I had the same thought, considering the general
| lack of guardrails surrounding high-profile Chinese genAI
| models... Eventually, someone will know the answer... It's
| inevitable...
| hatsunearu wrote:
| So was this trained on existing anime? Ain't no way the corpus
| was licensed legally.
| tonyhart7 wrote:
| "animated video generation model presented by Bilibili."
|
| You understand that china has "different" view on
| copyright,license etc right??
| yorwba wrote:
| Not _that_ different. Bilibili is a big, above-board video
| streaming service; they definitely have distribution rights
| to a large collection of anime content. (They also have
| YouTube-style user uploads where proper licensing is less
| likely.)
|
| It's the equivalent of Crunchyroll putting out a video
| generation model. If the rightsholders disagree with this
| usage, it'll come up during the negotiations for new
| releases.
| tonyhart7 wrote:
| "It's the equivalent of Crunchyroll putting out a video
| generation model. If the rightsholders disagree with this
| usage"
|
| how can you prove then??? its literally the same way OpenAI
| use Ghibli material and they can't do anything about it
| yorwba wrote:
| OpenAI doesn't have an existing business based on
| licensing Studio Ghibli content, so the only option
| Studio Ghibli has to stop them is to sue them and hope
| that OpenAI is found to have infringed their copyright.
|
| Bilibili _does_ have an existing business based on
| licensing Studio Ghibli content, so Studio Ghibli can
| threaten to refuse to sell them distribution rights for
| future releases, even without a lawsuit.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| Really? We've all seen the stories on how Meta sourced book
| content from Anna's Archive and still you try to claim things
| are different in China?
| tonyhart7 wrote:
| so we playing whataboutism now?? huh
|
| then tell me what chinnese government stance on this
| matters, because I can tell that Meta doing is illegal but
| I cant say the same with chinnese company doing it on
| mainland china
| dbacar wrote:
| Do you think all that all the big guys just asked people
| while training their models?
| Lerc wrote:
| The right to train models on copyrighted data has yet to be
| determined.
| ronsor wrote:
| China doesn't care about silly licenses.
| mythz wrote:
| China doesn't know what you're talking about.
| ekianjo wrote:
| There are very few models out there that are not trained on
| data protected by copyright. So nothing new for the past 3
| years
| mattigames wrote:
| Not like chatgtp and sora which as all we all known are fully
| trained in public licensed content free of copyright.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| Exactly, that's why they aren't able to replicate the Studio
| Ghibli style.
| esafak wrote:
| They are, and that's what's sad about it. Studio Ghibli is
| not getting paid, and would never have consented to this
| even if they were offered.
| vunderba wrote:
| From the paper:
|
| _> a variable-length training approach is adopted, with training
| durations ranging from 2 to 8 seconds. This strategy enables our
| model to generate 720p video clips with flexible lengths between
| 2 and 8 seconds._
|
| I'd like to see it benched against FramePack which in my
| experience also handles 2d animation pretty well and doesn't
| suffer from the usual duration limitations of other models.
|
| https://lllyasviel.github.io/frame_pack_gitpage
| MattRix wrote:
| I might be missing something, but it feels weird that it's named
| after Sora?
| chii wrote:
| sora is the japanese word for sky, and it's not that uncommon a
| name.
| MattRix wrote:
| Sure, but this is literally named after OpenAI's Sora:
| https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.10255
| kachapopopow wrote:
| Some of these are very obviously trained on webtoons and manga,
| probably pixiv as well. This is very clear due to seeing CG
| buildings and other misc artifacts. So this is obviously trained
| on copyrighted material.
|
| Art is something that cannot be generated like synthetic text so
| it will have to be nearly forever powered by human artists or
| else you will continue to end up with artifacting. So it makes me
| wonder if artists will just be downgraded to an "AI" training
| position, but it could be for the best as people can draw what
| they like instead and have that input feed into a model for
| training which doesn't sound too bad.
|
| While being very pro AI in terms of any kind of trademaking and
| copyright, it still make me wonder what will happen to all the
| people who provided us with entertainment and if the quality
| continue to increase or if we're going to start losing
| challenging styles because "it's too hard for ai" and everything
| will start 'felling' the same.
|
| It doesn't feel the same as people being replaced with computer
| and machines, this feels like the end of a road.
| sshine wrote:
| It's great that you have sympathy for illustrators, but I don't
| see a big difference if the training data is a novel, a
| picture, a song, a piece of code, or even a piece of legal
| text.
|
| As my mom retired from being a translator, she went from
| typewriter to machine-assisted translation with centralised
| corpus-databases. All the while the available work became less
| and less, and the wages became lower and lower.
|
| In the end, the work we do that is heavily robotic will be done
| by less expensive robots.
| earthnail wrote:
| Here's the argument:
|
| The output of her translations had no copyright. Language
| developed independently of translators.
|
| The output of artists has copyright. Artists shape the space
| in which they're generating output.
|
| The fear now is that if we no longer have a market where
| people generate novel arts, that space will stagnate.
| briansm wrote:
| Makes me wonder if the generous copyright protections
| afforded to artists had not become so abhorrent (thanks,
| Disney) then this kind of thing might not have happened.
| wongarsu wrote:
| I don't think the Berne Convention on Copyright was meant
| as a complete list of things where humans have valuable
| input. Translators do shape the space in which they
| generate output. Their space isn't any single language bit
| rather the connecting space between languages.
|
| Most translation work is simple just as the day-to-day of
| many creative professions is rather uncreative. But
| translating a book, comic or movie requires creative
| decisions on how to best convey the original meaning in the
| idioms and cultural context of a different language. The
| difference between a good and a bag translation can be
| stark
| imiric wrote:
| > The output of artists has copyright.
|
| Copyright is a very messy and divisive topic. How exactly
| can an artist claim ownership of a thought or an image? It
| is often difficult to ascertain whether a piece of art
| infringes on the copyright of another. There are grey areas
| like "fair use", which complicate this further. In many
| cases copyright is also abused by holders to censor art
| that they don't like for a myriad of unrelated reasons. And
| there's the argument that copyright stunts innovation.
| There are entire art movements and music genres that
| wouldn't exist if copyright was strictly enforced on art.
|
| > Artists shape the space in which they're generating
| output.
|
| Art created by humans is not entirely original. Artists are
| inspired by each other, they follow trends and movements,
| and often tiptoe the line between copyright infringement
| and inspiration. Groundbreaking artists are rare, and if we
| consider that machines can create a practically infinite
| number of permutations based on their source data, it's not
| unthinkable that they could also create art that humans
| consider unique and novel, if nothing else because we're
| not able to trace the output to all of its source inputs.
| Then again, those human groundbreaking artists are also
| inspired by others in ways we often can't perceive. Art is
| never created in a vacuum. "Good artists copy; great
| artists steal", etc.
|
| So I guess my point is: it doesn't make sense to apply
| copyright to art, but there's nothing stopping us from
| doing the same for machine-generated art, if we wanted to
| make our laws even more insane. And machine-generated art
| can also set trends and shape the space they're generated
| in.
|
| The thing is that technology advances far more rapidly than
| laws do. AI is raising many questions that we'll have to
| answer eventually, but it will take a long time to get
| there. And on that path it's worth rethinking traditional
| laws like copyright, and considering whether we can
| implement a new framework that's fair towards creators
| without the drawbacks of the current system.
| GoblinSlayer wrote:
| >Art created by humans is not entirely original.
|
| The catch here is that a human can use single sample as
| input, but AI needs a torrent of training data. Also when
| AI generates permutations of samples, does their
| statistic match training data?
| taneq wrote:
| Not without a torrent of pre-training data. The
| qualitative differences are rapidly becoming intangible
| 'soul' type things.
| wongarsu wrote:
| A skilled artist can imitate a single art style or draw a
| specific object from a single reference. But _becoming a
| skilled artist_ takes years of training. As a society we
| like to pretend some humans are randomly gifted with the
| ability to draw, but in reality it 's 5% talent and 95%
| spending countless hours practising the craft. And if you
| count the years worth of visual data the average human
| has experienced by the time they can recreate a van Gogh
| then humans take magnitudes more training data than state
| of the art ML models
| startupsfail wrote:
| In case of an ML model either a very good description or
| that single reference could be added to the context.
| brookst wrote:
| No human could use a single sample if it was literally
| the first piece of art they had ever seen.
|
| Humans have that torrent of training data baked in from
| years of lived experience. That's why people who go to
| art school or otherwise study art are generally (not
| always of course) better artists.
| collingreen wrote:
| I don't think the claim that the value of art school
| simply being more exposure to art holds water.
| Nevermark wrote:
| Ambiguities are not a good argument against laws that
| still have positive outcomes.
|
| There are very few laws that are not giant ambiguities.
| Where is the line between murder, self-defense and
| accident? There are no lines in reality.
|
| (A law about spectrum use, or registered real estate
| borders, etc. can be clear. But a large amount of law
| isn't.)
|
| Something must change regarding copyright and AI model
| training.
|
| But it doesn't have to be the law, it could be
| technological. Perhaps some of both, but I wouldn't rule
| out a technical way to avoid the implicit or explicit
| incorporation of copyrighted material into models yet.
| omeid2 wrote:
| > There are very few laws that are not giant ambiguities.
| Where is the line between murder, self-defense and
| accident? There are no lines in reality.
|
| These things are very well and precisely defined in just
| about every jurisdiction. The "ambiguities" arise from
| ascertaining facts of the matter, and whatever some facts
| fits within a specific set of set rules.
|
| > Something must change regarding copyright and AI model
| training.
|
| Yes, but this problem is not specific to AI, it is the
| question of what constitutes a derivative, and that is a
| rather subjective matter in the light of the good ol'
| axiom of "nothing is new under the sun".
| nickserv wrote:
| A translation is absolutely under copyright. It is a
| creative process after all.
|
| This means a book can be in public domain for the original
| text, because it's very old, but not the translation
| because it's newer.
|
| For example Julius Caesar's "Gallic War" in the original
| latin is clearly not subject to copyright, but a recent
| English translation will be.
| GoblinSlayer wrote:
| Piracy is promotion, look at all the fanfiction.
|
| Also in case of graphic and voice artists unique style
| looks more valuable than output itself, but style isn't
| protected by copyright.
| victorbjorklund wrote:
| You are wrong. Translations have copyright. That is why a
| new translation of for example an ancient book has
| copyright and you are now allowed to reproduce it without
| permission.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Wrong from the first sentence...
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| That makes no sense, neither legally nor philosophically.
|
| > _Language developed independently of translators._
|
| And it also developed independently of writers and poets.
|
| > _Artists shape the space in which they're generating
| output._
|
| Not writers and poets, apparently. And so maybe not even
| artists, who typically mostly painted book references.
| Color perception and symbolism developed independently of
| professional artists, too. Moreover, _all_ of the things
| you mention predate copyright.
|
| > _The fear now is that if we no longer have a market where
| people generate novel arts, that space will stagnate._
|
| But that will never happen; it's near-impossible to stop
| humans from generating novel arts. They just do it as a
| matter of course - and the more accessible the tools are,
| the more people participate.
|
| Yes, memes are a form of art, too.
|
| What's a real threat is lack of _shared_ consumption of
| art. This has been happening for the past couple decades
| now, first with books, then with visual arts. AI will make
| this problem worse by both further increasing volume of
| "novel arts" and by enabling _personalization_. The real
| value we 're using is the role of art as social objects -
| the ability to relate to each other by means of
| experiencing _the same_ works of art, and thus being able
| to discuss and reference it. If no two people ever
| experienced _the same_ works of art, there 's not much
| about art they can talk about; if there's no shared set of
| art seen by most people in a society, there's a social
| baseline lost. That problem does worry me.
| brookst wrote:
| Translations absolutely have copyright.
| kouteiheika wrote:
| > As my mom retired from being a translator, she went from
| typewriter to machine-assisted translation with centralised
| corpus-databases. All the while the available work became
| less and less, and the wages became lower and lower.
|
| She was lucky to be able to retire when she did, as the job
| of a translator is definitely going to become extinct.
|
| You can already get higher quality translations from machine
| learning models than you get from the majority of commercial
| human translations (sans occasional mistakes for which you
| still need editors to fix), and it's only going to get
| better. And unlike human translators LLMs don't mangle the
| translations because they're too lazy to actually translate
| so they just rewrite the text as that's easier, or
| (unfortunately this is starting to become more and more
| common lately) deliberately mistranslate because of their
| personal political beliefs.
| khalic wrote:
| This is just not true, LLMs struggle very hard with even
| basic recursive questions, nuances and dialects
| zx8080 wrote:
| But as a customer cannot know that, they will tend to
| consume (and mostly trust) whatever LLM result is given.
| emsign wrote:
| Yes indeed. After a few years humans will be trained to
| accept the low tier AI translations as the new normal,
| hopefully I'm dead by then already.
| GoblinSlayer wrote:
| Maybe for dry text. Translation of art is art too and
| there's no such thing as higher quality art.
| taneq wrote:
| I'm intrigued by this statement. It seems obvious to me
| that some artworks are 'higher quality' than others. You
| wouldn't, I'd presume, consider the Sistine Chapel or the
| Mona Lisa to be the same quality as a dickbutt scribbled
| on a napkin?
| Ylpertnodi wrote:
| >You wouldn't, I'd presume, consider the Sistine Chapel
| or the Mona Lisa to be the same quality as a dickbutt
| scribbled on a napkin?
|
| To paraphrase Frank Zappa...Art just needs a frame. If
| you poo on a table...not art. If you declare 'my poo on
| the table will last from the idea, until the poo
| dissappears', then that is art. Similarly, banksy is just
| graffiti unless you understand (or not) the framing of
| the work.
| ben_w wrote:
| While LLMs are pretty good, and likely to improve, my
| experience is OpenAI's offerings *absolutely* make stuff up
| after a few thousand words or so, and they're one of the
| better ones.
|
| It also varies by language. Every time I give an example
| here of machine translated English-to-Chinese, it's so bad
| that the responses are all people who can read Chinese
| being confused because it's gibberish.
|
| And as for politics, as Grok has just been demonstrating,
| they're quite capable of whatever bias they've been trained
| to have or told to express.
|
| But it's worse than that, because different languages cut
| the world at different joints, so most translations have to
| make a choice between literal correctness and readability
| -- for example, you can have gender-neutral "software
| developer" in English, but in German to maintain neutrality
| you have to choose between various unwieldy affixes such as
| "Softwareentwickler (m/w/d)" or "Softwareentwickler*innen"
| (https://de.indeed.com/karriere-guide/jobsuche/wie-wird-
| man-s...), or pick a gender because "Softwareentwickler" by
| itself means they're male.
| kiney wrote:
| no, "Softwareentwickler" doed NOT mean the person is
| male. It's the correct german form for either male OR
| generic. (generisches Maskulinum)
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Same is true in Polish, but the feminist movement insists
| this is not acceptable and tries to push feminatives.
|
| I personally have no strong opinion on this, FWIW, just
| confirming GP's making a good point there. A translated
| word or phrase may be technically, grammatically correct,
| but still not be culturally correct.
| kouteiheika wrote:
| > While LLMs are pretty good, and likely to improve, my
| experience is OpenAI's offerings _absolutely_ make stuff
| up after a few thousand words or so, and they 're one of
| the better ones.
|
| That's not how you get good translations from off-the-
| shelf LLMs! If you give a model the whole book and expect
| it to translate it in one-shot then it will eventually
| hallucinate and give you bad results.
|
| What you want is to give it a small chunk of text to
| translate, plus previously translated context so that it
| can keep the continuity.
|
| And for the best quality translations what you want is to
| use a dedicated model that's specifically trained for
| your language pairs.
|
| > And as for politics, as Grok has just been
| demonstrating, they're quite capable of whatever bias
| they've been trained to have or told to express.
|
| In an open ended questions - sure. But that doesn't apply
| to translations where you're not asking the model to come
| up with something entirely by itself, but only getting it
| to accurately translate what _you_ wrote into another
| language.
|
| I can give you an example. Let's say we want to translate
| the following sentence:
|
| "itsumoYan warerukara, Lu Chu Du Yi etanda. "
|
| Let's ask a general purpose LLMs to translate it without
| any context (you could get a better translation if you'd
| give it context and more instructions):
|
| ChatGPT (1): "Since people always comment on it, I toned
| down how revealing it is."
|
| ChatGPT (2): "People always say something, so I made it
| less revealing."
|
| Qwen3-235B-A22B: "I always get told, so I toned down how
| revealing my outfit is."
|
| gemma-3-27b-it (1): "Because I always get told, I toned
| down how much skin I show."
|
| gemma-3-27b-it (2): "Since I'm always getting comments
| about it, I decided to dress more conservatively."
|
| gemma-3-27b-it (3): "I've been told so often, I decided
| to be more modest."
|
| Grok: "I was always told, so I toned down the exposure."
|
| And how humans would translate it:
|
| Competent human translator (I can confirm this is an
| accurate translation, but perhaps a little too literal):
| "Everyone was always saying something to me, so I tried
| toning down the exposure."
|
| Activist human translator: "Oh those pesky patriarchal
| societal demands were getting on my nerves, so I changed
| clothes."
|
| (Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqaAgAyBFQY)
|
| It should be fairly obvious which one is the biased one,
| and I don't think it's the Grok one (which is a little
| funny, because it's actually the most literal translation
| of them all).
| emsign wrote:
| You can't compare translation to creating new works of art.
| Sorry mom, but that's apples and oranges. A dangerously false
| comparison.
| sshine wrote:
| As noted in another sub-thread, translations are indeed
| works of art. As evidence, my mom has received royalties
| for her translations for decades, both from sales and from
| library lending. And she could sue for copyright
| infringement if someone stole her translation. The only
| difference is that she needs permission to distribute the
| translation, unless it's translated from the public domain.
| anton-c wrote:
| If you speak more than one language(esp something like
| Chinese or Japanese) you understand how subjective some
| choices are. It certainly takes creative decision making.
| numpad0 wrote:
| I speak Japanese natively and hell, I'm just going to
| say, _there is no such thing as translation_ , there is
| just foreign language ghostwriting.
|
| I'm not even sure if bilingualism is real or if it's just
| an alternate expression for relatively benign forced
| split personality. Could very well be.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| My prediction:
|
| It will be like furniture.
|
| A long time ago, every piece of furniture was handmade. It
| might have been good furniture, or crude, poorly constructed
| furniture, but it was all quite expensive, in terms of hours
| per piece. Now, furniture is almost completely mass produced,
| and can be purchased in a variety of styles and qualities
| relatively cheaply. Any customization or uniqueness puts it
| right back into the hand-made category. And that arrangement
| works for almost everyone.
|
| Media will be like that. There will be a vast quantity of
| personalized media of decent quality. It will be produced
| almost entirely automatically based on what the algorithm
| knows about you and your preferences.
|
| There will be a niche industry of 'hand made' media with real
| acting and writing from human brains, but it will be
| expensive, a mark of conspicuous consumption and class
| differentiation.
| collingreen wrote:
| This prediction implies that people will value consuming
| tailored media, knowing 100% that it was generated because
| they wanted it (as opposed to because someone wanted to
| express something), with no deeper story or connection or
| exploration to it.
|
| If people instead care about the creation story and
| influences (the idea of "behind the scenes" and "creator
| interviews" for on demand ai generated media is pretty
| funny) then this won't have much value.
|
| Time will tell - it's an exciting, discouraging time to be
| alive, which has probably always been the case.
| sshine wrote:
| > _There will be a niche industry of 'hand made' media with
| real acting and writing from human brains, but it will be
| expensive, a mark of conspicuous consumption and class
| differentiation._
|
| This addresses one axis of development.
|
| Meanwhile, there's lots of people around willing to express
| themselves for advertisement money.
|
| Like with translation: We're going to see tool-assisted
| work where the tools get more and more sophisticated.
|
| Your example with furniture is good. Another is cars: From
| horses to robotaxis. Humans are in the loop somewhere
| still.
| dogcomplex wrote:
| This. Except one should also disillusion themselves of the
| idea that there will always be a higher quality to the
| 'hand made' versions. AI will almost certainly outpace us
| in every way, _including_ the ability to make something
| beautiful that _looks_ 'hand-made', even with artificial
| flaws and illusions of the history and natural rugged
| beauty of the piece.
|
| The only discernable difference that won't be replicable is
| a cryptographic signature "Certified 100% Human-Made!"
| sticker, which will probably become the mark of the niche
| industry.
|
| Somewhat more accurate analogy would be the custom car
| market. Beautiful collectible convertibles with fine
| detailing everywhere, priced thousands of times higher than
| normal cars, that actually run far worse and basically
| break apart after a few thousand miles and are impossible
| to find parts for. Automated factories certainly could
| churn them out but they don't because they're impractical
| poorly-designed status items kept artificially scarce for
| the very rich to peacock with.
|
| Except AI will probably still produce equivalent
| impractical stuff anyway, just because production (digital
| and physical) will eventually be easy enough that resources
| are negligible, and everyone can have flashy impractical
| stuff. So again, only that "100% Human!" seal will
| distinguish, eventually.
| mmcconnell1618 wrote:
| The reproduction cost for the 2nd copy of media is near
| zero just like software. Handmade or customized furniture
| is more expensive because it takes more labor for each
| copy. With media, the cost is fixed, even if it is large.
| Once the first version of handmade media has been created,
| the owner is incentivized to get as much value from it as
| possible. The optimal demand curve is probably not a few
| rich people paying as much as possible.
| wordpad wrote:
| Artists push the envelope.
|
| With AI tools artists will be able to push further, doing
| things that AI can't do yet.
| numpad0 wrote:
| Audiences too. People loses interest fast for anything that
| something faceless can provide, whether the thing is machines
| or humans, or whether the act is drawing art or assembling
| iPhone.
| GoblinSlayer wrote:
| Push further can only artists that weren't crippled by AI.
| falsaberN1 wrote:
| What do you mean? How can AI cripple an artist? Even if the
| AI can do stuff better than I can in less time, it doesn't
| affect my art at all. It's the same thing as human artists
| better than them existing. Then again, I've seen people who
| get jealous to a raging degree because artist X can do
| better than them, so...
|
| Every artist worth anything strives to be better at their
| craft on the daily, if that artist gets discouraged because
| there's something "better", that means that artist is not
| good because those negative emotions are coming from a
| competitive place instead of one of self-improvement and
| care for their craft or the audience. Art is only a
| competition with oneself, and artists that don't understand
| or refuse this fact are doomed from the start.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Nice idealistic view. It doesn't pay the bills. Artists
| quit doing art when they have to flip burgers instead.
| And AI is absolutely unconditionally a competitor in that
| arena.
| numpad0 wrote:
| Online artists are more likely to be consultants and
| marketing experts. They "flip burgers", or rather make
| PowerPoints and lays out magazine articles, 12 hours a
| day for 8 days a week anyway. So AI only "financially"
| hurts them in the sense that it hurts their dopamine
| income.
| falsaberN1 wrote:
| This is more like it. Every dedicated artist I know does
| something else to pay the bills, from actual burger
| flippers to sysadmins like me. They will make time to
| draw things because they simply like doing it.
| numpad0 wrote:
| I really think this is why a lot of discussions and
| projects around generative AI and AI-relevant art don't
| go well. It's a one-way outside influence that also
| affect economy as second order effect to cultural
| impacts. Because economical impacts of these online arts
| are mere downstream effects, manipulations in that domain
| just don't work.
| falsaberN1 wrote:
| Then they were never real artists. I spend 14 hours a day
| at the office in a rather stressful job and still make
| time to draw, and I'm everything but a superhuman.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| The No True Scotsman can always be counted on to rear
| it's head.
| earthnail wrote:
| I find it interesting that you echo the concerns of people who
| defend artists' copyright claims, while stating that you are
| very pro AI in terms of copyright.
|
| It's a very emotionally loaded space for many, meaning most
| comments I read lean to the extremes of either argument, so
| seeing a comment like yours that combines both makes me
| curious.
|
| Would be interesting to hear a bit more about how you see the
| role of copyright in the AI space.
| gabriel666smith wrote:
| Not GP, though I agree with their views, and make my money
| from copyrighted work (writing novels).
|
| The role of the artist has _always_ been to provide excellent
| training data for future minds to educate themselves with.
|
| This is why public libraries, free galleries, etc are so
| important.
|
| Historically, art has been 'best' when the process of its
| creation has been heavily funded by a wealthy body (the
| church or state, for example).
|
| 'Copyright', as a legal idea, hasn't existed for very long,
| relative to 'subsidizing the creation of excellent training
| data'.
|
| If 'excellent training data for educating minds' genuinely
| becomes a bottleneck for AI (though I'd argue it's always a
| bottleneck for humanity!), funding its creation seems a no-
| brainer for an AI company, though they may balk at the
| messiness of that process.
|
| I would strongly _prefer_ that my taxes paid for this
| subsidization, so that the training data could be freely
| accessed by human minds or other types of mind.
|
| Copyright isn't anything more than a paywall, in my opinion.
| Art isn't _for_ revenue generation - it's for catalyzing
| revenue generation.
| blaeks wrote:
| "The role of the artist has always been to provide
| excellent training data for future minds to educate
| themselves with."
|
| We are not aware of the implications of this sentence. This
| is it. The only "source" is play. Joyful play.
| wodenokoto wrote:
| I think the "paper rock cross blade" short films by Corridor is
| absolute great and can by all accounts be called art and if
| they make a 3rd they will probably use this model.
|
| In terms of losing styles, that is already been happening for
| ages. Disney moved to xeroxing instead of inking, changed the
| style because inking was "too hard". In the late 90s/early
| 2000s we saw a burst of cartoons with a flash animation style
| on TV because it was a lot easier and cheaper to animate in
| flash.
| latexr wrote:
| I disagree with the positive characterisation. Those videos
| have a funny schtick of exaggerating anime tropes for a
| couple of minutes and that's the extent of it. The animation
| is all over the place, reactions, expressions, mouth
| movements often fail, style changes from frame to frame. It
| maybe kind of works precisely because it's a short
| exaggerated parody and we have a high tolerance for flaws in
| comedy, but even then the seams are showing. Anything even
| remotely more substantive would no longer have worked.
| rhubarbtree wrote:
| I think many artists will see that if they publish anything
| original then AI companies will immediately use it as training
| data without regards to copyright.
|
| The result will be less original art. They will simply stop
| creating it or publishing it.
|
| IMO music streaming has similarly lead to a collapse in quality
| music artistry, as fewer talented individuals are incentivised
| to go down that path.
|
| AI will do the same for illustration.
|
| It won't do the same for _art_ in the "contemporary art" sense,
| as great art is mostly beyond the abilities of AI models.
| That's probably an AGI complete task. That's the good news.
|
| I'm kinda sad about it. The abilities of the models are
| impressive, but they rely on harvesting the collective efforts
| of so many talented and hardworking artists, who are facing a
| double whammy: their own work is being dubiously used to put
| them out of a job.
|
| Sometimes I feel like the tech community had an opportunity to
| create a wonderful future powered by technology. And what we
| decided to do instead was enshittify the world with ads,
| undermine the legal system, and extract value from people's
| work without their permission.
|
| Back in the day real hackers used to gather online to "stick it
| to the man". They despised the greed and exploitation of Wall
| Street. And now we have become torch bearers for the very same
| greed.
| xyzal wrote:
| It is a fluke visual training sets are far less amenable to
| sabotage than textual ones. Not that I suggest engaging in
| such a horrible, terrible, very bad manners, do I?
| falsaberN1 wrote:
| I'm sorry to inform you that the mere automated pre-
| processing used in building of a training set will most
| likely disable any form of poisoning because the image is
| being altered before training. All popular training tools
| do this.
|
| Art stealing is a thing. I've had by art stolen regularly.
| Multiple Doom mods use sprites I made and only one person
| (the DRLA guy) asked for permission. I've had my art traced
| and even used in advertisements with me only finding out by
| sheer chance. I've had people use it for coloring without
| crediting the source. This has happened for more than
| thirty years. You can only learn to live with it, lest you
| risk going absolutely insane. If you are popular, people
| will do stupid stuff with your stuff. And if you aren't
| popular, you art is not going to be used to train, anyway
| (sets are ordered by popularity and only the top stuff gets
| used. The one with 3 upvotes is not going in.)
| numpad0 wrote:
| I don't think future tense is appropriate here as it's been
| few years since appearance of open weights image models.
| We're already transitioning into the gap phase between
| Napster to Vocaloid.
| aaclark wrote:
| 100% Agree.
|
| I wonder if there is a mitigation strategy for this. Is there
| a way to make (human-made-art) scraping robustly difficult,
| while leaving human discovery and exploration intact?
| danielbln wrote:
| Yes, going offline/physical only. If it's digital, it can
| be scraped/ingested/trained on.
| rererereferred wrote:
| > music streaming has similarly lead to a collapse in quality
| music artistry, as fewer talented individuals are
| incentivised to go down that path.
|
| Is there data for this? I feel there's more musicians than
| ever and there's more very talented musicians than ever and
| the most famous ones are more famous than ever so I would
| like to see if that's correct.
| rhubarbtree wrote:
| I've heard other people say that.
|
| I think there are more musicians with reach than ever.
|
| I would say it's very likely there are far fewer musicians
| making a living out of their music than there were in the
| last. That's the key difference.
|
| And the truth is that for most people incentives matter, so
| not being able to make a living from music means very
| talented people who are financially motivated (ie most of
| them) do something else instead.
| robotblake wrote:
| The internet has allowed for more artists to get exposure
| for sure, but it's still down to luck / prettiness /
| virality etc. In terms of slop (not necessarily AI) there's
| shit like this
| https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/spotify-denies-its-
| pl...
| robotblake wrote:
| Well said.
| exe34 wrote:
| > Art is something that cannot be generated like synthetic text
|
| 10 years ago: "real real text cannot be generated like stock
| phrases, so writing will be nearly forever powered by human
| writers."
| card_zero wrote:
| I think "text" is irrelevant, the distinction is between art
| and the synthetic, where art might be written or visual. It's
| a vague term that's often used to mean "graphics", confusing
| matters, and the meaning of art is endlessly debated, like
| the meaning of intelligence.
|
| Obviously we have synthetic graphics (like synthetic text).
| So something else must be meant by "art" here.
| exe34 wrote:
| If somebody comes up with a new pun, is that art?
| card_zero wrote:
| Atelier later.
| exe34 wrote:
| What?
| card_zero wrote:
| I tried to invent a new pun, it seemed a crime not to
| make the effort.
| exe34 wrote:
| how did you come up with it?
| card_zero wrote:
| Let's say I used an AI. Actually I browsed unrelated word
| lists in Onelook - I think I was on synonyms for
| "confusion" - until I remembered the word atelier because
| it turns up in fantasy anime a lot. But that's a kind of
| machine assistance, so let's pretend it was an LLM, if
| that helps with where you're taking this. Now what?
| numpad0 wrote:
| Now: "you can block that AI slop with uBlock, switch to
| Firefox if you haven't"
| exe34 wrote:
| If you could, I imagine universities wouldn't be so worried
| about students using chat gpt to cheat.
| protocolture wrote:
| >So this is obviously trained on copyrighted material.
|
| Is it? I have no knowledge of this product, but I recall Novel
| AI paid for a database of tagged Anime style images. Its not
| impossible for something similar to have happened here.
| raincole wrote:
| If you believe NovelAI is only trained on legally acquired
| content, I have a bridge to sell you.
| protocolture wrote:
| The argument they made, at least for the 1.0 of their image
| model, is that the database of images they purchased was
| heavily tagged reducing the work they had to do.
|
| That isn't to say that they purchased everything they have
| ever used. Nor do I care if they have.
| layer8 wrote:
| That wouldn't change the fact that the images are copyrighted
| material.
| sschueller wrote:
| The problem I have with the whole copyright AI thing is that
| the big ones benefit. If you reference any famous Copyright in
| chatgpt etc. you will get blocked but a small artist's stuff is
| not.
|
| Open it for all or nothing.
| dughnut wrote:
| We probably should just stop enforcing copyright. "Stealing"
| my idea doesn't deprive me of its use. Think about what the
| US market might look like if scaling and efficiency were
| rewarded rather than legal capture of markets. That large
| companies can buy and bury technology IP to maintain a market
| position is a tremendous loss for the rest of us.
| rchaud wrote:
| "Might makes right" is how we got here. Airbnb and Uber can
| break hotel and taxi regulations openly, but if you start
| your own ride-for-cash service, the state will shut you down
| for any number of by-law violations. They have law firms and
| lobbyists on retainer and you don't. Similarly, copyright
| infringement could be a jail sentence for you, but a "legal
| gray area" for them.
| latexr wrote:
| > So it makes me wonder if artists will just be downgraded to
| an "AI" training position, but it could be for the best as
| people can draw what they like instead and have that input feed
| into a model for training which doesn't sound too bad.
|
| Doesn't sound too bad? It sounds like the premise of a
| dystopian novel. Most artists would be profoundly unhappy
| making "art" to be fed to and deconstructed by a machine.
| You're not creating art at that point, you're simply another
| cog feeding the machine. "Art" is not drawing random pictures.
| And how, pray tell, will these artists survive? Who is going to
| be paying them to "draw whatever they like" to feed to models?
| And why would they employ more than two or three?
|
| > it still make me wonder (...) if we're going to start losing
| challenging styles (...) and everything will start 'felling'
| the same.
|
| It already does. There are outliers, sure, but the web is
| already inundated by shit images which nonetheless fool people.
| I bet scamming and spamming with fake images and creating fake
| content for monetisation is already a bigger market than people
| "genuinely" using the tools. And it will get worse.
| taneq wrote:
| Surely we're way past the point now that models could be
| improved via RLHF using upvotes, or something equally banal?
| latexr wrote:
| _The situation_ will get worse, not the models.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _You're not creating art at that point, you're simply
| another cog feeding the machine._
|
| That's the definition of commercial art, which is what most
| art is.
|
| > _"Art" is not drawing random pictures._
|
| It's _exactly_ what it is, if you 're talking about people
| churning out art by volume for money. It's drawing whatever
| they get told to, in endless variations. Those are the people
| you're really talking about, because those are the ones whose
| livelihoods are being consumed by AI right now.
|
| The kind of art you're thinking of, the art that isn't just
| "drawing random pictures", the art that the term
| "deconstruction" could even sensibly apply to - that art
| isn't in as much danger just yet. GenAI can't replicate
| _human expression_ , because _models aren 't people_. In
| time, they'll probably become so, but then art will still be
| art, and we'll have bigger issues to worry about.
|
| > _There are outliers, sure, but the web is already inundated
| by shit images which nonetheless fool people. I bet scamming
| and spamming with fake images and creating fake content for
| monetisation is already a bigger market than people
| "genuinely" using the tools. And it will get worse._
|
| Now _that_ is just marketing communications - advertising,
| sales, and associated fraud. GenAI _is_ making everyone 's
| lives worse _by making the job of marketers easier_. But that
| 's not really the fault of AI, it's just the people who were
| already making everything shitty picking up new tools. It's
| not the AI that's malevolent here, it's the wielder.
| perching_aix wrote:
| > Art is something that cannot be generated
|
| Of course it can be, you're seeing it first hand with your very
| own eyes.
| sbarre wrote:
| I think we're seeing machine generation of derivative visual
| materials.
|
| There's a difference, in my mind at least. "Art" is cultural
| activity and expression, there needs to be intent,
| creativity, imagination..
|
| A printer spooling out wallpaper is not making art, even if
| there was artistry involved in making the initial pattern
| that is now being spooled out.
| perching_aix wrote:
| The way I think of art has two main components: the
| aesthetics and the higher level impressions invoked through
| those aesthetics. For me, art is specifically about the
| experimentation-with and the then-intentional use of
| aesthetics, to evoke a specific set of impressions within
| its audience. A form of communication, a transfer of
| experiences, frames of mind, and ideas. The more
| effectively and intelligently one can do this, the more
| skilled of an artist they are in my book.
|
| When I see generative AI produced illustrations, they'll
| usually be _at least_ aesthetically pleasing. But sometimes
| they are already more than that. I found that there are
| lots and lots of illustrations that already deliver higher
| level experiences that go beyond just their quality of
| aesthetics delivery. They deliver on the goal they were
| trying to use those aesthetics for to begin with. Whether
| this is through tedious prompting and "borrowed"
| illustrational techniques I think is difficult to debate
| right now, but just based on what I've seen so far of this
| field and considering my views and definitions, I have
| absolutely zero doubts that AI will 100% generate artworks
| that are more and more "legitimately" artful, and that
| there's no actual hard dividing line one can draw between
| these and manmade art, and what difference does exist now
| I'm confident will gradually fade away.
|
| I do not believe that humans are any more special than just
| the fact that they're human provides to them. Which is
| ultimately ever-dwindling now it seems.
| falsaberN1 wrote:
| It's human intent.
|
| AI is technically another tool, and it can be used poorly
| (what people refer to "AI slop", using default settings,
| some LoRA and calling it a day) and it can be used
| properly (forcing compositions, editing, fixing
| errors...) to convey an idea or emotion or tell a story.
| Critical eye does the rest.
|
| After all, the machine doesn't do anything on its own, it
| needs a driver. The quality of the output is directly
| proportional to the operator's amount of passion.
| perching_aix wrote:
| Sure, but intent is a very fickle thing.
|
| Consider zero and single click deployments in IT
| operations. With single click deployments, you need to
| have everything automated, but the go sign is still given
| by a human. With zero click, you'll have a deployment
| policy instead - the human decision is now out of the
| critical path completely, and only plays part during the
| authoring and later editing of said policy. And you can
| also then generate those policies, and so on.
|
| Same can be applied to AI. You can have canned prompts
| that you keep refining to encode your intent and
| preferences, then you just use them with a single click.
| But you can also build a harness that generates prompts
| and continuously monitors trends and the world as a whole
| for any kind of arbitrary criteria (potentially of its
| own random or even shifting choice), and then follows
| that: a reward policy. And then like with regular IT, you
| can keep layering onto that.
|
| Because of this, I don't think that intent is the point
| of differentiation necessarily, but the experience and
| shared understanding of _human intent_. That _people_
| have varying individual, arbitrary preferences, and are
| going through life of arbitrary and endless differences,
| and then source from those to then create. Indeed, this
| is never going to be replicated, exactly because of what
| I said: this is humans being human, and that giving them
| a unique, inalienable position by definition.
|
| It's like if instead of planes we called aircraft
| "mechanical birds" and dunked on them for not flying by
| flapping their wings, despite their more than a century
| long history and claims of "flying". But just like I
| think planes do actually fly, I do also think that these
| models produce art. [0]
|
| [0] https://youtu.be/ipRvjS7q1DI
| falsaberN1 wrote:
| Disclaimer: I'm an artist with 30+ years of experience.
|
| Downgraded to AI training? Nonsense. You forget artists do more
| than just draw for money, we also draw for FUN, and that little
| detail escapes every single AI-related discussion I've been
| reading for the last 3 years.
| rchaud wrote:
| The issue is whether the artists creating things for love of
| the game will be crowded out even further by studios churning
| out slop (or in HN terms, Minimal Viable Products) for cash.
| There are probably 15 disposable reality TV shows created for
| every scripted sitcom or drama that needs good writers, set
| designers and directors.
| rererereferred wrote:
| The ones doing it because they like it don't need to care
| about the mass produced slop.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| They _already are_ ; have been for decades now. AI is
| amplifying this, true, but art done for love and for money
| are already pretty much disjoint ventures, and in areas
| where they mix (like TV shows), it's an uphill battle for
| the artist - and they're not always right, either; a good
| show is more than just great writing or beautiful art.
| Lerc wrote:
| The fact that those TV shows exist indicates the root of
| the problem has nothing to do with AI.
|
| Those show are cheap because they employ fewer people. They
| still need to employ some people though. To me the greater
| tradgedy is that they make a product where those people who
| make it do not care about it. People are working to make
| things they don't like because they need income to survive.
|
| The problem is not that AI is taking jobs, it is that it is
| taking incomes. If we really are heading to a world where
| most jobs can be done by AI (I have my doubts about most,
| but I'll accept many), we need a strategy to preserve
| incomes. We already desperately need a system to prevent
| massive wealth inequality.
|
| We need to have a discussion about the future we want to
| have, but we are just attacking the tools used by people
| making a future we don't want. We should be looking at the
| hands that hold the tools.
|
| Discussions like this often lead to talking about universal
| basic income. I think that is a mistake. We need a broader
| strategy than that. The income needs to be far better than
| 'basic'. Education needs to change to developing the
| individual instead of worker units.
|
| Imagine a world where the only TV shows were made were the
| ones who could attract people who care about the program
| enough that they would offer their time to work on it.
|
| That too would generate a lot of poor quality content,
| because not everyone is good at the things they like to do.
| It would be heartless to call it slop though. More
| importantly those people who are afforded the lifestyle
| that enables them to produce low quality things are doing
| precisely the work they need to be doing to become people
| who produce high quality things.
|
| Some of those hands learning to make high quality things
| may be holding the tools of AI. People making things
| because they want to make will produce some incredible
| things with or without AI. A lot of astounding creations we
| haven't even seen or perhaps even imagined will be produced
| by people creatively using new tools.
|
| (This is what I get for checking HN when I let the dog out
| to toilet in the middle of night)
| pca006132 wrote:
| Not an artist myself. I think some artists may become more
| like head chefs in some Chinese restaurant, who is more like
| QA and give direction to cooks to improve their work. I think
| it is hard to notice the details and give concrete feedback
| if you are not working on it professionally for a long time.
| falsaberN1 wrote:
| This is probably true. I've noticed some people have better
| critical eye with the AI output than others. People with
| artistic skill can make stuff of much higher quality, it
| seems. I guess they get immediately bored of the default
| settings which compose most of the low-quality slop being
| pushed around.
| atomicnumber3 wrote:
| AI is just going to absolutely blow the bottom 50% out of any
| market it's in.
|
| Examples:
|
| Disney isn't going to start using AI art. But all those gacha
| games on the iOS app store are ABSOLUTELY going to. And I
| suspect gacha apps support at least 10-100x more artists than
| Disney staffs.
|
| Staff engineers aren't going anywhere - AI can't tell
| leadership the truth. But junior engineers are going to be
| gutted by this, because now their already somewhat dubious
| direct value proposition - turning tickets into code while they
| train up enough to participate more in the creative and social
| process of Software Engineering - now gets blasted by LLMs.
| Mind you, I don't personally hold this ultra-myopic view of
| juniors - but mgmt absolutely does, and they pick headcount.
|
| Hmm yknow I could actually see Big Books getting the "top" end
| eaten by AI instead of the bottom, actually. All the penny
| dreadfuls you see lining the shelves of Barnes and Noble. Vs
| the truly creative work already happens at the bottom anyway,
| and is self-published.
|
| Also, as someone who's watched copyright from the perspective
| of a GPL fanboy, good fucking luck actually enforcing anything
| copyright related. The legal system is pay to play and if
| you're a small (or even medium!) fry, you will probably never
| even _know_ your copyright is being violated. Much less
| enforcing it or getting any kind of judgement.
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| You know, I wouldn't short what AI can do in the future, even
| if not trained on lots of art. It does not seem far out to me
| to think an AI could be trained to identify in images concepts
| like structure, balance, contrast, composition, narrative, etc,
| and then to pursue generation of such in procedural, iterative
| loops of drawing/painting using test time compute and a prompt
| for an objective.
| colesantiago wrote:
| I welcome this.
|
| I know there is a huge market for those excited for infinite
| anime music videos and all things anime.
|
| This is great for an abundance of content and everyone will
| become anime artists now.
|
| Japan is truly is embracing AI and there will be new jobs for
| everyone thanks to the boom AI is creating as well as Jevons
| paradox which will create huge demand.
|
| Even better if this open source.
| userbinator wrote:
| _This is great for an abundance of content and everyone will
| become anime artists now._
|
| I don't think they'd be artists, but AI-prompters, although
| you're right that there will be a huge flood of content.
| prmoustache wrote:
| I don't know, I used to like some anime and mangas when I was
| 14 in the mid 90's.
|
| Nowadays it seems everyone is interested by "anime style" of
| content but all I see is terrible in term of quality. It seems
| quantity increased so much in the last 30 years it only made
| quality stuff more invisible and we are inundated with
| animelike trash.
| imtringued wrote:
| This is absolutely correct. The quality has nosedived so hard
| in the first three months of 2025 that there wasn't anything
| worth watching whatsoever even if you were in the target
| demographic.
| wiz21c wrote:
| If success is not a function of quality (in general), then
| producers have an incentive to produce a lot of cheap
| stuff. It's like playing lottery more often.
|
| In the end, there will still be quality content but it will
| be much more expensive, available only to an elite.
|
| Then the elite will now what's good quality and will be
| able to produce more good quality. Those will be hired.
|
| The vast majority, only exposed to bad quality, will not be
| able to produce quality anymore. And won't be hired
| anymore.
|
| And so here is your great quality divide.
| latexr wrote:
| Yes, but that doesn't mean good things aren't being made
| today. In fact, plenty of recent shows are _better_ (in every
| regard: pacing, animation quality, character development,
| themes, ...) than most popular stuff we had in the 90s. Heck,
| they're better than many live action shows today. Quality
| from the 90s era looks skewed in the West, because we had
| such limited access that what even crossed the barrier were
| outliers in their own right.
|
| YouTube channels like Mother's Basement help picking out
| something to watch. Geoff has routinely pointed how he
| literally watches anime for a living and it's still hard to
| watch everything worthy he finds.
|
| Video titles are pretty self-explanatory. If you want to find
| something to watch, fire up one of "The BEST Anime of
| [season] [year]" and you'll get plenty of recommendations,
| nicely ordered and with some short explanation of what it is
| about and why it's noteworthy.
|
| https://youtube.com/@mothersbasement/
| throwawayk7h wrote:
| The percentage of anime I like is low and has always been
| low. I find a new anime I like comes along about every three
| years (I have to dig for it though.) In general, I care about
| the writing and story more than the visuals. So with a great
| increase in the amount of anime a single writer can create,
| shouldn't this allow for more well-written sloppy-visuals
| anime to exist? I'm excited to see.
| polskibus wrote:
| What would be the copyright status for clips generated with such
| service? Would the copyright protect it?
|
| Current stance:
|
| https://www.copyright.gov/newsnet/2025/1060.html
|
| "It concludes that the outputs of generative AI can be protected
| by copyright only where a human author has determined sufficient
| expressive elements".
|
| If it isn't covered (after all it's the AI that drew all the
| pictures) then anyone using such service to produce a movie would
| be screwed - anyone could copy it or its characters).
|
| I'm leaving out the problem of whether the service was trained on
| copyright material or not.
| Tade0 wrote:
| I would like to see how the fight scenes in _The Beginning After
| the End_ could improve from being passed through this tool.
|
| In all seriousness I wonder where is this all headed? Are people
| long term going to be more forgiving of visual artifacts if it
| will mean that their favourite franchise gets another season? Or
| will generated imagery be shunned just like the not-so-subtle use
| of 3D models?
| horhay wrote:
| We're discussing the implications of this here when this has
| presented nothing novel in this medium/genre? I gave it a shot
| and it still has the same pitfalls for video genAI. Dealing
| with chains of dynamic actions is the biggest challenge, moreso
| with anime with its several fight scenes. No, it did not do
| good, and none of the non open-source models can do a good job
| of it for the most part either
| layer8 wrote:
| I could see AI being used for douga in the future.
| rererereferred wrote:
| Toei Animation is looking to utilize AI in areas such as
| storyboarding, coloring, and "color specification," as
| well as in-between animation and backgrounds. The
| specific use cases mentioned include: * Storyboarding:
| Leveraging AI to "generate simple layouts and
| shooting of the storyboards." * Colors: Employing AI to
| "specify colors and automatically correct colors."
| * In-betweens: Utilizing AI to "automatically correct
| line drawings and generate in-betweens." * Backgrounds:
| Using AI to "generate backgrounds from a photo."
|
| Source: https://www.japannihon.com/toei-animation-discusses-ai-
| use-i...
|
| I think this is fine. The director will still make sure there's
| no visual artifacts. On the other hand indies will be able to
| create their own works, maybe with some warts, but better than
| nothing.
| emsign wrote:
| Why? Who needs this? Who wants this? I still don't get why you
| would produce art with generation models instead of letting human
| artists do their thing. It's only funny as long as it's bad, but
| once it becomes better it's just creepy and most of all totally
| pointless.
| numpad0 wrote:
| People that don't like East Asian monopoly of anime style
| contents. Manga and anime style contents are sold at completely
| broken price/performance ratio while it continues to invasively
| permeate into cultures globally.
|
| There are increasingly more reports of foreign scalpers
| stocking couples of $5 doujinshi in weekend cons and demanding
| receipts, and authors are moving to block them. That's like
| mafias genuinely smuggling charity home baked cookies. It
| shouldn't make sense. This astronomical gap in supply and
| demand, alone, should be enough to create incentives for people
| to even just mess up and ruin the market.
| throwawayk7h wrote:
| Why is it pointless? People want anime. This technology allows
| more anime to exist. It's like you're saying "why do we need
| cast-iron moulds? Just let artisans do their craft."
| hacknews20 wrote:
| Failed for me with erroneous error every time with different
| accounts and different inputs.
| PaulineGar wrote:
| If you are interested in creating AI anime content, consider
| participating in the AniGen competition!
| https://komiko.app/anigen-competition
| JoeDaDude wrote:
| Tempting, but I'll need to hurry. Submission deadline is May
| 20th!
| boogieray99 wrote:
| I always find it amusing that these LLM/AI generated software
| using copywrite material has the irony to copywrite its own
| system.
| throwaway71271 wrote:
| I am super conflicted about this kind of AI. I want artists to
| create the next amazing season of Solo Leveling, but I dont want
| to wait 1 year for it.
|
| You could argue that those tools in the hands of skilled
| craftsman will create amazing things faster, but we all know what
| will happen is absolute flood of AI slop in every entertainment
| category.
| wongarsu wrote:
| There has always been slop in animation. Some of it quite
| successful. "Why does this anime have fewer frames than the
| manga it's based on" has been a reoccurring topic over the
| years.
|
| South Park looks like MS-Paint drawings hastily animated by
| someone without access to Adobe Animate. It still manages to be
| a good and beloved show because it shines in other ways
|
| The world of entertainment is big enough for both Studio Ghibli
| productions and South Park to exist. AI slop will find its
| niche too. It will consume some animation jobs just as all the
| automaton and tooling coming before has, but I'm of the strong
| belief there will still be a market for good handmade art
| ryanmcbride wrote:
| thinking of how pissed I'd be if I saw that awful in-betweening
| example in a show I liked.
| throwawayk7h wrote:
| Is it able to render the same character in different scenes /
| from different angles? This is the main limitation of all image
| gen so far.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-05-18 23:00 UTC)