Then again, the Oscars are surely almost entirely vibes based anyway. So it's hardly some internally consistent system of merit in the first place.
Just because something is hard or even impossible to enforce, doesn't mean you don't state that it is not allowed and that there are consequences for being caught. That's a common fallacy that overly engineering-minded people fall into.
We're humans. We care about things. There is nothing strange about me asking you not to do something that I can't stop you from doing.
Moreover, why stop here? There are many great rules that are impossible to enforce. Why not a rule that the author isn't allowed to have any racist thoughts when writing the material?
We can't read minds, but it sure is a nice thing to care about, don't you think?
Also, "truth" is a thing that exists, and just because you can't always tell if somebody cheated the rules or not, does not mean the rules are "performative signalling".
If they ever get that good, I would just say you can't really fight the market. If AI content is good enough that people want it, then the Oscars just get left behind after a while. But that's fine, and up to them.
> Also, "truth" is a thing that exists, and just because you can't always tell if somebody cheated the rules or not, does not mean the rules are "performative signalling".
I don't really understand. If you can't hope to discover the truth, in what way is it not performative or signalling?
A one shot prompt can only get an estimation of what you asked for, no matter how descriptive you are. To get what you actually intended, what you imagined, the process looks quite a lot more like smarter versions of.the traditional workflows for digital effects. (Remove a background, add this thing, paint out that thing, etc.)
Isn't that true of all creative outputs, even of 'legacy' provenance?
Edit: funny to see the anti-AI crowd showing up again, how predictable... you can downvote but you can't stop the truth! Legacy entertainment is dying, and will soon become irrelevant.
Which is really the crux of the issue.
The rationale (which, again, I'm not arguing for or against) is that mocap performances are not strictly speaking totally the actors, because mocap has to be cleaned and can be (and very often is) edited and tweaked after the fact by animators. Not to mention there are often required liberties taken because a model cannot line up one to one with an actor anatomically.
In a sense, mocap performances are done by a team of animators where one animator puppeted a model in real time.
- emotional connection
- aesthetics
- zeitgeist
- lived experience
- artist journey
You're free to fall in love with your sexbot, but it's still just jerking off.
"Tron’s offices were trailers in the Disney parking lot, recalls Chris Wedge, then an animator for MAGI, who worked on Tron’s light cycle sequences. “[That’s] because the Disney animation department didn’t believe that this was animation,” he says. “They thought it was computers just making effects. They just didn’t understand anything about it.”"
"Tron’s distinctive glowing circuitry was achieved through a technique called backlight animation, which involves making a negative of each frame and hand-painting the glowing areas. There were 75,000 frames to do; more than half a million pieces of artwork."
"Star Wars and Alien both feature 3D wireframe graphics projected on screens. Only a few companies could produce such images, each of which had their own room-sized computer and their own custom-built software. The process was still cumbersome. “We had to figure out how to position and render objects 24 times to make one second of perceived movement on the screen,” says Bill Kroyer, Tron’s head of computer animation. Tron’s animators had to map out the CGI scenes on graph paper, then calculate the coordinates and angles for each element in each frame."
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jul/05/tron-steven-lis...
I no longer remember the details but I certainly didn't get the impression that "human input" vs "no human input" was the actualy criterion.
And this line to me is meaningless unless we have specific definitions of what the Christ Wedge meant by "animation" and "just effects"
> “[That’s] because the Disney animation department didn’t believe that this was animation,” he says. “They thought it was computers just making effects. They just didn’t understand anything about it.”"
Aren't most cgi acting already unable to be nominated for acting award - even when theres much more deliberate human involvement in the cgi acting? Or maybe they could have been nomination but never was? I see no ambiguity here: if there's no actor that performed anything for the genAI result there's no actor to be nominated. Does this need clarification?
> banned ai from winning writing awards
I'm going to be looking into how this is enforced/investigated. Again: a human must claim they wrote the script.
