Asklemmy

44331 readers

1069 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

What is the legitimate use-case for generative AI? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 18 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

69 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I promise this question is asked in good faith. I do not currently see the point of generative AI and I want to understand why there's hype. There are ethical concerns but we'll ignore ethics for the question.

In creative works like writing or art, it feels soulless and poor quality. In programming at best it's a shortcut to avoid deeper learning, at worst it spits out garbage code that you spend more time debugging than if you had just written it by yourself.

When I see AI ads directed towards individuals the selling point is convenience. But I would feel robbed of the human experience using AI in place of human interaction.

So what's the point of it all?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

What doesn't exist yet, but is obviously possible, is automatic tweening. Human animators spend a lot of time drawing the drawings between other drawings. If they could just sketch out what's going on, about once per second, they could probably do a minute in an hour. This bullshit makes that feasible.

We have the technology to fill in crisp motion at whatever framerate the creator wants. If they're unhappy with the machine's guesswork, they can insert another frame somewhere in-between, and the robot will reroute to include that instead.

We have the technology to let someone ink and color one sketch in a scribbly animatic, and fill that in throughout a whole shot. And then possibly do it automatically for all labeled appearances of the same character throughout the project.

We have the technology to animate any art style you could demonstrate, as easily as ink-on-celluloid outlines or Phong-shaded CGI.

Please ignore the idiot money robots who are rendering eye-contact-mouth-open crowd scenes in mundane settings in order to sell you branded commodities.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 hours ago

For the 99% of us who don't know what tweening is and were scared to Google it in case it was perverted, it's short for in-betweening and means the short frames of an animation in-between two main scenes

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Have you seen this? There was another paper, but I can't remember the name of it right now.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I had not. There's a variety of demos for guessing what comes between frames, or what fills in between lines... because those are dead easy to train from. This technology will obviously be integrated into the process of animation, so anything predictable Just Works, and anything fucky is only as hard as it used to be.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

I think this is the other one I remember seeing.