So, by his own admission, he never used AI before, had no idea how it works, and didn't bother to research it much before throwing himself into the video. On top of that, his main concern seems to be that he'd already done a Wes Anderson parody, and he thought the AI's version was worse. If I didn't know better, I'd say he's one of the thousands of doomsayers that I see every day now talking about how "AI WILL BE THE END OF TRUE ARTISTRY!!!!". Actually, that's exactly what I'll say, because for all of his hot air, he failed to actually make a point in the entire video. In one breath he would say that AI threatens to destroy all media, and then, in the next he'd say that AI is bad at everything it does and is completely unconvincing. I've said it before, and I'll say it, again; if your art can't survive AI, you aren't an artist. This guy is worried because AI is doing better parodies in an afternoon than he can do in a week, but true artists, like Wes Anderson, can't be copied so easily. He's so close, but he doesn't quite get there, and that's frustrating as a viewer. I hope he comes to grip with it, and learns that if he wants to keep milking that Youtube algorithm for his rent, he'll have to either get with the times, or just get better.
I respectfully disagree with you entirely. Patrick offered up many good points, but his best came from his breakdown of exactly how the AI might do a better job of using Wes Anderson tropes. Matter of fact, your recount of the video is so wildly different from my viewing, it’s hard to believe you’ve written your post in good faith. I wonder, what do you know that I don’t know?
Add comment