Exactly, and many have done exactly the same kind of video using VFX. What's the difference?
These kind of reactions remind me of the stories of the backlash following the introduction of calculators in schools...
This is like regulating handguns differently from compound bows. Both are lethal weapons, but the bow requires hours of training to use effectively, and is more difficult to carry discreetly. The combination of ease, convenience, and accessibility necessitates new regulation.
This being said, AI for video is an incredibly promising technology, and I look forward to watching the TV shows and movies generated with AI-powered tooling.
Do we make all usages of VFX now require a warning, just in case the VFX was generated by AI?
I think this is different to the bow v gun metaphor as I can tell an arrow from a bullet, but I can foresee a future where no human could tell the difference between AI-assisted and non-AI-assisted VFX / art
I believe this is evidenced by the fact that people can go around accusing any art piece of being AI art and the burden of proving them wrong falls on the artist. Essentially I believe we are rapidly approaching the point of it not mattering if someone uses AI in their art because people won't be able to tell anyway
This really depends on what you're doing. There are some great Cinema 4d plugins out there. As the plethora of YouTube tutorials out there clearly demonstrate, multiple professionals, and vast experience, are not required for some of the things they have listed. Tooling and assets costs are 0, in the high seas.
Until Sora is widely available, or the open source models catch up, at this moment it's easier to use something like Cinema 4d than AI.
The ease and lack of skill required. That brings whole another set of implications.
People using VFX aren't trying to create images in likeness of another existing person to get people to buy crypto or other scams. Comparing the two is disingenuous at best.