Bloop
Sr Member
I agree with a lot of this. I've dabbled in deepfakes and the phrase "garbage in garbage out" definitely applies. Using AI/machine learning applications can be helpful as a tool, but I feel it should still be used as just a tool, not something that completely generates content. For example, there's still a lot of work required to make the deepfakes that I did - gathering and preparing usable footage & images for the GAN (Generative Advirsarial Network) to use, manually editing face markers and masks, editing individual frames after the images are generated, and post-production editing to tweak the results where needed. There's still a lot of human creativity required to makes something that looks realistic, and, admittedly, my own efforts still aren't 100% there. Also, I view my deepfakes more as digital makeup. Instead of using "AI" to create content, I'm using it as a tool to try to help with the "suspension of disbelief" required for viewing fictional works.
As far as the fully AI generated content goes being "copyright infringement," I agree, though the proponents and creators of these AI programs say that it's no different than a human learning to paint by copying the masters. The problem with that argument is that humans can't simply copy images in a mecahnical way like a computer can. Sure, we can use reference images for creating art, even trace images, but it's not automatic. Computers can copy and manipulate other people's works because it's all just ones and zeros to them. Humans learn and create differently. We have to train our minds and our bodies to create art. But it's also getting more and more difficult to say how much humans are creating art when we have computer programs that allow us to take shortcuts for what used to be tasks that be fully manual - any photo editing or graphic design is all computer based now. We used to have fewer specially trained/educated people that could do these things, now anyone can do it (some better than others, of course). For another example, major news outlets have eliminated photojournaists in favor of reporters using their phones to take pictures because the technology has advanced to where it's "good enough." Music creation tech has been eliminating more and more musicians from the process - digital instruments and loops have been replacing live musicians for decades. Autotune and other digital tools can help substandard singers sound better. You can even go back to advent of the microphone and amplified sound as a reason for why singers no longer need to be trained to project over a live band or orchestra. Tech designed to aid us ultimately has been eliminating the need for specially trained and talented people. AI goes even further.
Here's a link to my deepfake thread in case anyone is interested. There's also some simlar discussion of the merits of the tech:
My deepfake videos - "fixing" movies with de-aging FX and younger characters
I wasn't sure if this belongs anywhere on this site, but I figured it falls under "Entertainment" as much as anything else. I've been making deepfake videos, mainly focusing on fixing things like deaging in older films using current deepfake tech. My most recent video, though, is "fixing" the...
www.therpf.com
