A Hypothetical (Another AI Post)

[OddLove]

But it's not about using AI for writing.

I've come across animated clips like comedy bits and even full music videos that were created using AI tools, and I did a little digging because I was curious how 'hands on' people were with it. Currently, the tools aren't quiet to the point where I would be able to create full animated clips with full creative control like a director/producer, but I imagine it will be eventually.

That being said.

IF! There ever comes a time where an easy to use AI tool could...

1. Generate In Specific Styles (Disney Princess, Anime, Adult Toon, etc.)

1. Generate and Edit character models to use in scenes (Height, Size, Hair, Eyes, Outfits, Voice, etc)

2. Generate and Edit full scenes, with sound effects. (Writing and 'Directing' your own movie or series)

Would you want to adapt some of your stories into movies or series?

...

Personally, I would. The only reason most people can't create an animated TV series right now is because they can't afford to hire animators, editors, a team of voice actors, and all the equipment and programs needed. A tool that completely removes the barrier to entry and lets anyone create a movie or series regardless of how little money or industry connections they have. Someone who works full time to survive could spend their one or two free hours a day writing stories and creating a TV show.

 

[Bamagan]

When a barrier is removed, the result is often a flood. It's hard to find good 'content' already. The easier it is to make, the harder it will be to find anything worth watching. It may well incentivize people to just ask a computer to make what they want instead of bothering with watching what other people asked the same computer to make. We see this happening here on Lit, even before the advent of AI. As a free site where writers give away their content, it makes it at least a bit more difficult for people who are trying to sell their stuff; it compensates for that somewhat by functioning as a marketing tool for independent authors, though. It also allows more niche content, which wouldn't have a sustainable market in the first place, to exist.

(Honestly, Literotica's popularity arguably makes it more difficult even for people trying to give away their stories, judging by how many here have lamented about drops in views.)

I think the ultimate result will be to put us right back where we are now, though: some people or groups will develop a reputation and/or a following and dominate the new 'market'. The real barriers to finding and sustaining an audience are quality of the content and effectiveness of advertising. The advent of computerized production doesn't do much to address the latter, and likely makes it worse. The 'big names' in entertainment might change, but the paradigm of popularity of a few reducing the opportunities for most others may be intrinsic to human interaction.

 

[CalBishForNow]

IF! There ever comes a time where an easy to use AI tool could...

This seems to have, maybe not all of the legal and ethical problems with using AI to produce written prose fiction, but most of them.

The only reason most people can't create an animated TV series right now is because they can't afford to hire animators, editors, a team of voice actors, and all the equipment and programs needed.

And because they lack the skill. It's easy to look down on the drivel in daytime television or childrens' cartoons but you're not seeing all the stuff that didn't even get broadcast. Go hunt down student productions sometime, or just hit "random" and actually read the stuff that scores below 3 in any Lit category, especially the ones other than LW. A lot of creative, passionate people out there are not actually good at creating fiction.

And the drive. Lightning can strike once for some people, especially if they then revisit it and take the time to polish it, but doing it over and over again for months or years is more effort than most people want to put into a creative effort.

But other than that, sure, why not, the tools aren't there.

So to get to the only actual question...

Would you want to adapt some of your stories into movies or series?

"Imagine myself, but just as interested and invested in producing animated shows as I am in reading and writing" is an odd hypothetical. I've been reading fiction since before I can remember and writing it seems like a natural extension. I'm not as attached to any visual media as I am to a dozen different written works. Would I still be me, in that case?

But in the hypothetical case where someone offered me some app that works like you're offering for my already existing stuff... I'd say no. Partly because it's already out there and basically done. Redoing it in a new format seems less like fun and more like work. Maybe if I was getting paid. In that case, how much? Also partly because I'm interested in the interior lives of my characters and occasionally unreliable narrators and it's harder to get into that in animation.

 

[Voboy]

Fuck no.

I write. I like that form of expression, and as anyone who's ever been disappointed by a filmed adaptation of a written work can tell you, the two are not the same. Reading gives engagement by stimulating the imagination, improving cognition, and (here, anyway) clearing out the plumbing.

A movie is more passive than I want to be in my storytelling. Movies require less from the consumer. That's why I read.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Drawing, music, video, animation... That's all art, so how's using AI for those purposes different than using it for writing stories?

Unlike most of those who comment on AI-produced art, I don't think that the quality is that bad.
It's certainly not worse than what the average human produces, and that's something we can easily see in the quality of human-made stories here on Lit.

No, it's not the quality of art that should put us off from using AI for such purposes. I'm certain that AI will only get better at it. I just think that art should exclusively be the domain of humans, because art that doesn't come from a person's soul shouldn't be called art.

AI should be wired not to produce art, or at least it should have some kind of hardcoded, unremovable tells that make it obvious that some piece of writing, music, or graphical art was created by AI. And then it's all up to us to decide how to look at such products.

 

[AG31]

The day will come when verifiably human authorship will be monetized for some pretty high value.

 

[Erozetta]

Not a chance.

I would rather get friends together to act my writing out, and I'm not gonna do that, either.

 

[MillieDynamite]

For my own enjoyment, sure. To share with others, no. In order to make money, I'm sure some would, not me. It's been my experience, in editing AI crap for a writer, that cleaning up AI writing is harder work than writing the story myself. Since AI has no soul or emotions, its writing lacks the essential aspects that good writers share. Writing isn't about grammar; it isn't dependant on perfect punctuation. Writing is about how you feel while writing, how others feel when they read. Physical and emotional sensations happen in the brain when we read something that's crafted from a person's heart.

That's what I think, believe, and will stand by. I'm a storyteller, and I want them to be told well. Therefore, I don't use AI!

 

[OddLove]

No, it's not the quality of art that should put us off from using AI for such purposes. I'm certain that AI will only get better at it. I just think that art should exclusively be the domain of humans, because art that doesn't come from a person's soul shouldn't be called art.

If a painter paints a picture of an AI generated mountain landscape, is that painting from a person's soul?

 

[AwkwardlySet]

If a painter paints a picture of an AI generated mountain landscape, is that painting from a person's soul?

Just as much as a writer editing, tweaking, and rewriting an AI-generated story. You can answer it for yourself.

 

[Bramblethorn]

But it's not about using AI for writing.

I've come across animated clips like comedy bits and even full music videos that were created using AI tools, and I did a little digging because I was curious how 'hands on' people were with it. Currently, the tools aren't quiet to the point where I would be able to create full animated clips with full creative control like a director/producer, but I imagine it will be eventually.

That being said.

IF! There ever comes a time where an easy to use AI tool could...

1. Generate In Specific Styles (Disney Princess, Anime, Adult Toon, etc.)

1. Generate and Edit character models to use in scenes (Height, Size, Hair, Eyes, Outfits, Voice, etc)

2. Generate and Edit full scenes, with sound effects. (Writing and 'Directing' your own movie or series)

Would you want to adapt some of your stories into movies or series?

Would I hire somebody else to climb Mt. Everest on my behalf, so I could say I'd climbed Mt. Everest? This feels like that.

Before AI, we used to get people here who had a Great Idea For A Story and just wanted somebody to take care of the pesky detail of writing it. They saw themselves as...directors, I guess. What they missed was that most of the skill of writing lies in the pesky details that they didn't want to bother with.

I suspect directing a film would be a similar deal. Other people's jobs always look simple until you have to actually do it yourself, and only then do you appreciate how much goes into all that the audience takes for granted.

I enjoy looking at a story and thinking "I made this", and especially thinking "this bit works because of how I used my skills to make it work". If I'm farming the work out to an AI, I don't get that feeling. Even if the AI makes good choices they're no longer my choices. Rather than going that path I might as well just publish the story, and let readers feed it into their own AIs and make the characters look the way they want them.

(Also I respect animators, (voice) actors, etc. etc. and don't want them all to starve.)

 

[BeechLeaf]

Sometimes I see photographs, real photographs of real people, taken because they were beautiful and charming and so on, and I think, Oh yes, that looks so much like my beautiful and charming X (in other writing, not here because I haven't established characters well enough here). I can send this picture to someone else and say, 'This is quite like how I see X' - these raised eyebrows, that slightly cynical smile, the gentle thoughtfulness.

But they're not my people. If a TV series was made and this actor was proposed for my character, I would say yeah, good enough, you can never get someone who's exactly like how I envisage them, and we have to cut corners, and this actor (this photograph) covers most of the attributes I know and am trying (how successfully?) to convey. But this real photograph, this real actor, nice though they are, they're not quite there.

A cartoon? An AI generalization? Yes it might get the hair colour right. She's beautiful and dark-haired and this picture is also of someone beautiful and dark-haired. Other than that...?

tl;dr: I like what words can do if you treat them carefully.

 

[OddLove]

Would I hire somebody else to climb Mt. Everest on my behalf, so I could say I'd climbed Mt. Everest? This feels like that.

People pay for tour guides to help them safely navigate up Mt Everest. And climbing a mountain is not quite equivalent to producing a piece of media. One just requires a tour guide, the other requires expensive equipment, software, animators, voice actors, and video editors, or thirty years worth of education someone may not have the money or privilege of free time to learn all on their own.

I enjoy looking at a story and thinking "I made this", and especially thinking "this bit works because of how I used my skills to make it work".

Does a producer/director not get to look at a finished project and feel a sense of accomplishment for a finished project they produced/directed since they didn't play every character, hold the camera and microphone in every scene, create all the digital special effects, design and craft every outfit, apply all the makeup and physical special effects, and build the set of each scene?

(Also I respect animators, (voice) actors, etc. etc. and don't want them all to starve.)

As do I, but most people cannot afford hiring animators and voice actors because they don't have the money hire people or the time to network in an attempt to collaborate to gain access to free animation and voice acting services.

So if an AI tool that could do all of those services while still giving someone creative control over their idea came about, should less fortunate people who want to create a tv show, movie, or video game not use the tools and instead accept the barrier to entry rules of 'pay artists' and not pursue their idea since they aren't in a privileged enough position to devote the time and resources that are required in order to bring their ideas to fruition without the tools?

Shaming and scolding others into not usimg those tools seems kind of elitist, but if someone is only making that choice to financially gatekeep themselves out making a show/movie/game, that's perfectly valid IMO. They should have that choice.

 

[nice90sguy]

Would I hire somebody else to climb Mt. Everest on my behalf, so I could say I'd climbed Mt. Everest? This feels like that.

Interesting analogy. It made me think of the number of people involved in "climbing mount Everest".

According to Tensing Norgay's autobiography, when they reached the summit, after Hillary photographed him, "I motioned to Hillary that I would now take his picture. But for some reason he shook his head; he did not want it."

 

[Voboy]

Shaming and scolding others into not usimg those tools seems kind of elitist, but if someone is only making that choice to financially gatekeep themselves out making a show/movie/game, that's perfectly valid IMO. They should have that choice.

I don't think it's "scolding." I think it's a reminder that AI is not all hearts and flowers. It has a significant downside, especially for creatives (and you've chosen to ask this question on a forum full of creatives).

AI does real harm to people, in terms of losing them work. It already has, and threatens to do even more damage. That's work our fellow humans are good at and committed to, work that gives them dignity and identity. Work that contributes to my (and your) life, enriching it in countless ways. I'm happy to support such people by honoring the ways they can contribute to society.

I don't look at an AI the same way, especially since it's getting those people fired. And I don't look at film-industry people as "prvileged," either, since most of them are not billion-dollar directors. Some of them are camera people, grips, and PAs whose work hardly takes them thirty years to perfect. If they are privileged, then so am I: I have a job too, a job I care about that took me time and effort to become good at.

I'm sorry if you don't see the value in that, but if you don't? Perhaps that's why you're so eager to lose it all.

 

[SkyBubble]

Lightning can strike once for some people, especially if they then revisit it and take the time to polish it, but doing it over and over again for months or years is more effort than most people want to put into a creative effort.

Especially when they're giving it away.

 

[KittyOfSteele]

Yesn't.

Now, the ambiguity of that is because I get the appeal, and it draws me in. However, even though I visualize my work already as film, I wouldn't use AI to turn it into a picture. I don't get that excited about my work that I need to see it materialized urgently; sometimes all I need is just a few photos for visual anchors and that's it. These photos eventually fade out into nothing when the final product starts to materialize.

Curiosity might make me give it a shot, but putting scenes of my work to share them to the public... I'd rather not. Is not even because it's AI, it's because it won't get the image I have in my head. Honestly, Baldur's Gate 3's Character Creator was exactly accurate in designing my D&D character, while AIs failed all the time.

Someone who works full time to survive could spend their one or two free hours a day writing stories and creating a TV show.

Ok, but there's one question I have to ask about this: why?

 

[Lifestyle66]

For the anti-AI crowd, consider the REALITY of todays "art".

How many "authors" really make their own creative work of art to publish? Do they need other English majors from a publishing house to edit their stories, going through repetitive cycles until they're told it's ready to publish? Do they depend on word processors, spelling and grammar checking because they can't produce a high-quality stream of text on a typewriter as done in days of old? Do they ask some graphic "artist" to use 3d modeling software to create an image or photoshop some living model's pic to perfection for illustrations or a book cover?

How many music "artists" today depend on purchasing their music written by others, then have sound engineers to perfect their soundtrack, and use other engineers for voiceovers during a stage performance? How about their body sculpting trainers, doctors for facelifts, boob jobs, and other enhancements? Are they still artists?

How many true human visual artists are still smearing paint on cave walls with their fingers? Or are they using state-of-the-art brushes and paints.

Today's creative artists are all using and depending on the latest tools of the trade to perfect something appealing to a larger audience.

Those who adamantly oppose AI in all its forms and potential uses are the same ones who insist that you only rate their stories with a 5. If you don't "LOVE" their story, then you shouldn't rate it at all!

In reality, the audience/reader decides what they want and like. Regardless of what tools are used to create the story, when they finally read it, they are reading the words on their screen, and everything used to put those words together become a "difference which makes no difference" if the reader can't distinguish any difference.

As for the approach of tools which can animate our stories, I imagine a time will come when such tools DO exist and people will retreat into their own self-created fantasy worlds, because their work is the only thing deserving of their time and it's obviously a 5!

 

[OddLove]

I don't think it's "scolding." I think it's a reminder that AI is not all hearts and flowers. It has a significant downside, especially for creatives (and you've chosen to ask this question on a forum full of creatives).

AI does real harm to people, in terms of losing them work. It already has, and threatens to do even more damage. That's work our fellow humans are good at and committed to, work that gives them dignity and identity. Work that contributes to my (and your) life, enriching it in countless ways. I'm happy to support such people by honoring the ways they can contribute to society.

I don't look at an AI the same way, especially since it's getting those people fired. And I don't look at film-industry people as "prvileged," either, since most of them are not billion-dollar directors. Some of them are camera people, grips, and PAs whose work hardly takes them thirty years to perfect. If they are privileged, then so am I: I have a job too, a job I care about that took me time and effort to become good at.

I'm sorry if you don't see the value in that, but if you don't? Perhaps that's why you're so eager to lose it all.

There are DAW's, Digital Audio Workstations. They're loaded with instrumentals and a piano roll. Guitars, Flutes, Violins, Drums, etc. People who've never played a single instrument can create drum tracks, arrange chords, and compose professional quality tracks for their music. Then they can record their vocals on a cheap $100 microphone from Amazon and use compression, reverb, delays, and autotune to get high production vocals.

Throughout that process, they bypassed paying music producers, audio engineers, and musicians.

And it's common practice in the music industry, many successful independent artist in the music industry produce their music without paying a single artist, and without knowing how to play a real instrument. Just a DAW and microphone on their laptop.

Do you think people should stop using DAW's because it costs audio engineers, producers, and musicians jobs?

 

[Bramblethorn]

People pay for tour guides to help them safely navigate up Mt Everest.

They do, and those people are not mountaineers in the same way that their guides are mountaineers. Meanwhile, the flood of rich tourists is turning Everest into an overcrowded garbage dump and contributing to deaths on the mountain.

And climbing a mountain is not quite equivalent to producing a piece of media. One just requires a tour guide, the other requires expensive equipment, software, animators, voice actors, and video editors, or thirty years worth of education someone may not have the money or privilege of free time to learn all on their own.

I'm pretty sure climbing Everest actually does require expensive equipment, but leaving that aside...

Yeah, it sucks that we don't all have the time or money to do all the things we'd like to do. But AI doesn't solve the money problem. It might look that way just now because current-day AI tech is mostly running at a heavy loss as the vendors try to build a customer base. But eventually they're either going to have to start charging what it actually costs them to run it, or go out of business. (And part of the business plan is to starve human animators/voice actors/etc. out of those careers, so that when they do start charging full price for AI services, there won't be a viable alternative. This is what Uber did to taxi services.)

Meanwhile, we collectively are spending trillions of dollars on AI data centres but balk at spending even a fraction of that money on creative grants, or subsidising film-making classes, or just letting people work a few hours less every week so they do have time for creative pursuits. That's a choice, and one that folk reinforce when they use AI to make "art".

The unpalatable truth is that getting good at anything requires investing time and effort. We get to make choices about which aspects to be good at, but if you don't have time to get good at anything, the product is going to be slop.

Does a producer/director not get to look at a finished project and feel a sense of accomplishment for a finished project they produced/directed since they didn't play every character, hold the camera and microphone in every scene, create all the digital special effects, design and craft every outfit, apply all the makeup and physical special effects, and build the set of each scene?

They get to feel accomplishment for the parts they contributed.

"Director" is an interesting example, because in a way it is similar to prompting an AI; much of the job is in telling other people what to do. But it also requires quite a good knowledge of those other people's jobs - not necessarily enough to do those jobs oneself, but enough knowledge to manage them, and then it requires long hours on set to actually do that managing.

It's not a job that one can do from home by spending a couple of hours a week writing instructions for all the actors and animators and set designers. So why would we think that this would work any better if they're prompting an AI instead.

So if an AI tool that could do all of those services while still giving someone creative control over their idea came about, should less fortunate people who want to create a tv show, movie, or video game not use the tools and instead accept the barrier to entry rules of 'pay artists' and not pursue their idea since they aren't in a privileged enough position to devote the time and resources that are required in order to bring their ideas to fruition without the tools?

When I think about "less fortunate people", I don't think about "people who want to make a TV show but don't have the time". I think about these guys. I don't think anybody has the moral right to build a hobby on the back of that.

Shaming and scolding others into not usimg those tools seems kind of elitist,

If it's elitist to argue that being good at something requires putting significant amounts of time into it, then yes, I'm an elitist.

 

[Voboy]

Those who adamantly oppose AI in all its forms and potential uses are the same ones who insist that you only rate their stories with a 5. If you don't "LOVE" their story, then you shouldn't rate it at all!

You can fuck right off with that shit. Because it doesn't even remotely follow, logically.

I oppose generative AI when it tries to substitute for human thought. I also don't give a single flying fuck whether you rate my stories a one or a five.

So. Kindly quit it with such stupid, childish generalizations.

 

[Voboy]

There are DAW's, Digital Audio Workstations. They're loaded with instrumentals and a piano roll. Guitars, Flutes, Violins, Drums, etc. People who've never played a single instrument can create drum tracks, arrange chords, and compose professional quality tracks for their music. Then they can record their vocals on a cheap $100 microphone from Amazon and use compression, reverb, delays, and autotune to get high production vocals.

Throughout that process, they bypassed paying music producers, audio engineers, and musicians.

And it's common practice in the music industry, many successful independent artist in the music industry produce their music without paying a single artist, and without knowing how to play a real instrument. Just a DAW and microphone on their laptop.

Do you think people should stop using DAW's because it costs audio engineers, producers, and musicians jobs?

Who creates the sound? Who composes the work? Who determines which notes follow others? Who decides when to cue the virtual fiddles, when to apply reverb (and how much to apply), where to place the crash of cymbals? A brain determines all that.

That is not the case in your hypothetical.

 

[OddLove]

The unpalatable truth is that getting good at anything requires investing time and effort. We get to make choices about which aspects to be good at, but if you don't have time to get good at anything, the product is going to be slop.

To a certain extent, I agree that getting good at anything requires investing time and effort, but when new technology comes along that lower the amount of time and effort it takes to accomplish something, it's historically been met with hostility. Claims of it being lazy, cheating, or unfair for the people who do it the 'right' way.

The most classic example is the typewriter. There was a good chunk of time where using one wasn't considered 'real writing' because many people of that time felt the lack of real human handwriting was pivotal to the art of writing.

They get to feel accomplishment for the parts they contributed.

"Director" is an interesting example, because in a way it is similar to prompting an AI; much of the job is in telling other people what to do. But it also requires quite a good knowledge of those other people's jobs - not necessarily enough to do those jobs oneself, but enough knowledge to manage them, and then it requires long hours on set to actually do that managing.

It's not a job that one can do from home by spending a couple of hours a week writing instructions for all the actors and animators and set designers. So why would we think that this would work any better if they're prompting an AI instead.

Next logical question seems to be... if AI get's to the point where it can do special effects just as good or better than human special effects artists, and the director decides to spends a couple hours using the AI tools for the special effects, has he contribute more or less to the project than he would've if he directed a human to do it?

When I think about "less fortunate people", I don't think about "people who want to make a TV show but don't have the time". I think about these guys. I don't think anybody has the moral right to build a hobby on the back of that.

That's a criticism of ruthless authoritarian capitalism, and it's happening in everywhere. There's practical slavery happening around the world to ensure we can have cheap smart phones and computers. Every valuable resource brought out of this earth is either 'on the back' of underpaid and unfairly treated workers(basically modern day slaves).

I'm fine with calling it out, and it's something that should change, but neither me nor you or anyone else is innocent of supporting massive corporations that have exploitive inhumane work conditions and/or severely damage the environment.

So, I agree with the criticism capitalism, but I'm still not sending all my electronics off to garbage island and moving into the woods to be off grid.

If it's elitist to argue that being good at something requires putting significant amounts of time into it, then yes, I'm an elitist.

I don't think it's elitist to acknowledge that becoming great at something takes time and afford.

I think it's elitist to tell aspiring artists who want to create something that would typically cost tens of thousands of dollars that they shouldn't use tools that would make it affordable for them.

 

[OddLove]

Who creates the sound? Who composes the work? Who determines which notes follow others? Who decides when to cue the virtual fiddles, when to apply reverb (and how much to apply), where to place the crash of cymbals? A brain determines all that.

That is not the case in your hypothetical.

Quick recap.

You mentioned AI causing real harm to workers.

So I pointed out that so do DAW's.

...

FL Studio has library of instrument packs, just about instrument you can think off, and perhaps many or even most of those sounds were recorded from a paid musician. But they aren't paying that musician royalties.

And for the last two decades, every single artist who has used a DAW to compose their music did NOT pay a musician to perform and record it.

...

If there comes a time where an AI tool can be precisely directed in the way a DAW can, then what is the difference?

 

[Rambling_Chantrix]

I think it's elitist to tell aspiring artists who want to create something that would typically cost tens of thousands of dollars that they shouldn't use tools that would make it affordable for them.

But aspiring animators don't want to use AI instead of doing animation work themselves. The question in this thread wasn't "do you, an artist, want AI to make your art for you". It was a hypothetical about people creating art they don't already want to make.