I can simultaneously appreciate the write-up for gaming a competition while also dreading how it basically describes the incentives for contributing to the AI-enshittification of the internet.
This story wouldn't have happened without AI. I genuinely used the tools to tell the story I wanted to tell.
There was something about the way friction was removed with the typical narration round-trips that actually made the storytelling better, easier, less painful… and I truly don't believe anything authentic was lost in that process.
My hope is tools like these can make storytelling easier for everyone.
I'm particularly intrigued by the creative things that can be accomplished with mutual diligence between user and AI. As a bit of a moron, I can now easily accomplish what otherwise would be too daunting. It's great..., when it works. What a smart person can accomplish under such conditions is frightening, in bith good and ungood ways. I'm hoping to go the API route soon and move toward a more free-thinking version geared as a research assistant.
Anyway, I'd say that's some pretty clever teamwork. Well done and thanks for sharing. Just get some better slippery sauce and if you're gonna squirt it on all beneath the heavens, go with Ballistol (I misspelled it in my other comment) - the fairies will thank ye.
I don't think that's the optimistic take you present it to be. To me the post reads as the story of someone for whom art is the least important part in an art contest and treats the artistic part as an afterthought ("I just wanted to adhere to recording content that prioritized the weighted breakdown").
I'm not going to pretend that the contest attracted the top artistic minds of this generation, but anyone who actually put care into the art part has lost to someone who made an art pipeline. Extrapolate to the art world and suddenly there's less real art because the money out there to fund it is going to AI programmers checking a spreadsheet.
Heavily artistic, thoughtful, and cinematic, leaning into my passion for the art of telling stories through video that I've kept close for almost 20 years now.
It lost. The judges selected the entries they felt were the best fit. The argument for this contest is that AI enabled _more_ thoughtful art to exist, not less.
I didn't particularly like any of the videos, even the fairy one, no offence. This probably speaks more to the nature of the competition than the videos themselves (I could care less about WD-40, though I'm sure a really good video could sweep me away, similarly to how I'm often genuinely impressed by the creativity of superbowl commercials, even for products I don't care about).
But I can definitely understand the thought process and also liked your write-up. My compliments to your art, which is your writing and your description of your thought process, and your creative solution to a challenge within an economic framework where you need money to survive and can justify outsourcing other typically human endeavors to the robots in pursuit of financial compensation.
But that economic framework, the incentives, and the replacement of that human touch with AI output is depressing, and the thought that most things we encounter online and in media will be AI-generated in the future is terrifying. That's not a commentary on what you did, and again, you also wrote an excellent article about it which I highly doubt was mostly written by AI.
As you said (perhaps in another comment) you spent more time on the article than the actual competition. That effort shows. And it stands out among a sea of low-effort, AI-generated blog content even now on the Internet. But when you talk about "AI making storytelling easier" there's also an admission that we're moving to a world in which, in many situations, lower-effort content and AI-generated content are becoming more worthwhile under the reality where maximizing the ratio of monetary reward to time investment is necessary and expected.
Basically, there's a lot of AI enshittification going on, but this isn't one of them. Just seems like a bit of fun.
But the author of this post saved a lot of time in the interest of dominating the competition by using AI instead.
While I can appreciate that the process of assembly and curation of AI-produced components is an art (much as collage is an art form), I'm still dismayed by how AI 'art' is replacing real art (as the components of this collage, if you will).
To me, the difference between real art and AI output is human intent. There's a context, a though, a mood. What AI produces can't be art in the same sense, because there's no human behind it, who can explain their reasoning for why they used a specific stroke in one place. And real-world incentives diminish the value of the human element, which is why we're heading to a "dead internet" fast.