CGI anime makes a case for adoption of generative AI

Idc how atrocious real art looks, it'd still remain much more beautiful and dignified in my artist eyes than pseudo slop that has no emotions nor consistency. Never wished so hardly that I could simply say "no" on this app until now.

@JuwairiyaU
You try to convince yourself that ugly is beautiful?
I give you that AI animations still suffer from some consistency issues, but at the same time it wasn't even 2 years and improved significantly in that aspect. Yeah, some editing would be required, yet even with the consistency issues from like 2 years ago, the overall quality would been superior to this 3DCG crap or to outsourced animation (which might have improved in time if gen AI wouldn't exist, but now is mostly shit and ruined countless shows).

As for the "emotionless" slop that it creates, hashtag not always and it's in the hands of the "artist" (slop-ist if you desire to call him/her that) to refine edit into something suited for what he/she imagined or into what new idea the creation inspired. If anything AI would be the vehicle for getting rid of the soulless slop that exists everywhere (anime too) and open the doors towards new heights of creativity for the sole reason that giving shape to one's artistic creativity/ideas/etc. is becoming increasingly easier.
Hell, it might even ressurect european animation.

As for the effort someone puts in, well, why would anyone even care about that? I consume entertainment, the end result of the artistic process, not the process itself. And finally, someone putting more effort doesn't guarantee the end result is even good anyway.

The real difference is CGI is still done by humans while AI is by machine and as humans we can check our work. Who watches the Watchmen...
If we want to create we should be able to edit that work. Not that AI work has no value but it does seem that there is a new trend to devalue creatives.

For sure Japan needs to close the gates and control the product and that will take a lot of work.

@alpo42ab
The animation is just grunt work, not much creativity about it. And as others pointed out too, the AI is not perfect, there still would exist the need for editing what the AI generates so that it fits the director's vision due to artifacts, mistakes and things like that. That being said, neither is CG3D animation really automated. So...

---

Now for the AI generative "art", while I addressed it before in the post above yours, it's not really the subject of this thread (but I'll speak on it nonetheless, I just don't want it to overshadow the issue of animation), cause as I mentioned in the paragraph above, the process of animation doesn't really involve creation imo. Sure, it used to involve skill and maybe it was even an artform, but I rather call the directors as the real artists in this instance and not the people just following the directions.
Are AI generated illustrations also art? Yes, I truly believe so, because the act of creation, the general idea comes from the human that instructs the AI through the prompt. The author might also edit whatever the AI outputs when it doesn't perfectly matches the author's vision (which takes some skill at least). But much more important is that the AI output if it wouldn't perfectly match the author's vision, might also give him/her new ideas adding to his/her imagination. There are some people who fear generative AI would kill creativity, but the previous sentence is exactly why I am absolutely convinced it would instead help creativity.

The generative AI in the end always depends on the human to create the thing, if the human's imagination is shit and dreams of "house, parents, tree, sun" (to make an analogy), it will give that kind of shit and I get it that good artists who invested a lot of time into their skills to get good are now being drowned in a sea of mediocrity and cheap crap, but at the same time this whole AI thing helps a large part of the global population expanding their horizons, enabling them to give shape to what they dream of.

To touch the skill issue, too, I don't think skills make an artist, imagination does. Skills were only necessary to express their visions.

---
Still, no matter how you feel about AI, there's no reason to not want it do the animation (not produce the artstyle), if it's passable that is.
Cause some other users here think it would be too inconsistent and editing would bring the costs up so much that it would rival costwise animation done entirely by humans (and not the outsourced kind which is garbage).

@Genjurooo
I would question that without skills you can't share your vision and do you really want to consume work entirely created by AI?

Yes my point I think that would put the grunts out of work and the few folks do traditional animation anyway.

The days of Gertie the Dinosaur are long gone.

AI is capable of the grunt work and if this is another example of creativity on a mass scale as a grunt I want to be able to work in the market
with others... I think that studios puts grunts together for production and Producers/Director use grunts to assist their vision for the project.

And what about voice work? AI can do that also so producers can use AI to do it all.

But perhaps all consumers should use AI to create the visions that they want in which case why have studios at all?

@alpo42ab I mean, yeah, studios would get much smaller or even cease to exist if any person can just do its own anime. Is that a bad thing?
The only problem we're going to face is increasing regulations and censorship as these fake leaders worldwide try to control the content it's created and spread.
Why it would be worse than now? Because studios and such have power (money/taxes) concentrated in them. With a boatload of individual creators everywhere that power will be dissipated everywhere. They'll have no say in anything.

That being said, I don't think voice acting will be replaced too soon by AI. There's a lot of money in that for now and putting my tinfoil hat on I think there's also a lot of collusion between talent agencies, production companies and so on, forming a spider web of "business" relationships not so easy displaced. Anime in general did always first compromise on animation and even artwork before even considering compromising on voice acting (not saying there weren't titles that compromised on all from the start).

About skills, just like the "real" artists, if you really want your vision to take form and the AI can't give the fidelity you want, you'd still go out of your way to make it happen (getting skills to edit or to draw it from the ground up). It depends on how much you will for it to exist in its unadulterated form you imagined. I don't mind work (skillwise) entirely done by the AI as long as it satisfies my thirst for increasingly finer aesthetics and doesn't feel soulless.
Many AI created illustration indeed feel "soulless", but I've seen lots of exceptions too.

@alpo42ab
The animation is just grunt work, not much creativity about it. And as others pointed out too, the AI is not perfect, there still would exist the need for editing what the AI generates so that it fits the director's vision due to artifacts, mistakes and things like that. That being said, neither is CG3D animation really automated. So...

---

Now for the AI generative "art", while I addressed it before in the post above yours, it's not really the subject of this thread (but I'll speak on it nonetheless, I just don't want it to overshadow the issue of animation), cause as I mentioned in the paragraph above, the process of animation doesn't really involve creation imo. Sure, it used to involve skill and maybe it was even an artform, but I rather call the directors as the real artists in this instance and not the people just following the directions.
Are AI generated illustrations also art? Yes, I truly believe so, because the act of creation, the general idea comes from the human that instructs the AI through the prompt. The author might also edit whatever the AI outputs when it doesn't perfectly matches the author's vision (which takes some skill at least). But much more important is that the AI output if it wouldn't perfectly match the author's vision, might also give him/her new ideas adding to his/her imagination. There are some people who fear generative AI would kill creativity, but the previous sentence is exactly why I am absolutely convinced it would instead help creativity.

The generative AI in the end always depends on the human to create the thing, if the human's imagination is shit and dreams of "house, parents, tree, sun" (to make an analogy), it will give that kind of shit and I get it that good artists who invested a lot of time into their skills to get good are now being drowned in a sea of mediocrity and cheap crap, but at the same time this whole AI thing helps a large part of the global population expanding their horizons, enabling them to give shape to what they dream of.

To touch the skill issue, too, I don't think skills make an artist, imagination does. Skills were only necessary to express their visions.

---
Still, no matter how you feel about AI, there's no reason to not want it do the animation (not produce the artstyle), if it's passable that is.
Cause some other users here think it would be too inconsistent and editing would bring the costs up so much that it would rival costwise animation done entirely by humans (and not the outsourced kind which is garbage).