If it was me I would feel horrible that what I gave to the public and dedicated my life to was contorted in this manner.
[1] https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/hayao-miyazaki-ar...
Reacting to an animation where a gross critter "learned to walk using AI" instead of being animated by a person 8+ years ago, and ended up using its head as a leg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngZ0K3lWKRc
It has nothing to do with the current image generation topic beyond the "AI" label being stuck on both of them
Which is not to say I expect he's thrilled about ChatGPT cloning the art style on a mass scale, but that quote that everyone keeps reposting doesn't have anything to do with it
He was pretty clearly talking about AI, at least to me.
I mean, the quote might very well reflect his actual views about generative AI, but that's definitely not what he was talking about.
That complaint is just as applicable to current Gen AI models. He wasn’t simply reacting with his gut to a gross looking video but to the concept of a thing with no concept of pain creating and animating artwork of living things. He understood the technology was about Gen AI, as “deep learning” is written on the whiteboard. He deserves some credit.
Watch the video - the purpose of the demo, as the creators explained it, was to train a creature to move quickly. Since the AI model didn't simulate pain it used its head like a foot, and since the result was creepy they thought it could be used for a zombie game. That's what they presented to Miyazaki, and that's what he commented on. Then Suzuki asked where they eventually wanted to end up, and a different presenter said the thing about machines that can draw.
> That complaint is just as applicable to current Gen AI models
If you like, but that's not what Miyazaki applied it to.
Watch the video
the purpose of the demo, as the creators explained it, was to train a creature to move quickly
- "Here, Mr. Miyazaki -- we have made a fast-moving zombie!"
- "I don't like the zombie you have made!"
1. The person who says that wasn't describing the purpose of the demo
2. He says it after Miyazaki's comments, ergo Miyazaki was not commenting on it
> - "Here, Mr. Miyazaki -- we have made a fast-moving zombie!"
Please don't sarcastically put words in the mouth of the person you're replying to - it's rude and it's never useful. All my previous comment did was summarize what was said, in the order it was said. I didn't suggest it was anything more or less than the words in the transcript.
Art is humane. It tells humans how to be humans. A thought about an ill person in pain is worthy of being told as a story. Not only that animation automation thing is of no use to someone trying to express those thoughts, its authors — just like many, many others — have no idea what humans do with their lives, and which tools artists may need to show it. They've made a toy, and were told that it's just useless wanking, together with the whole genres of pointless amusement that introduced such images into pop culture.
“An insult to life itself” is not just a phrase. There is life, and there are people who deliberately ignore it, and enjoy the sights painted on cardboards.
"After seeing a brief demo of a grotesque zombie-esque creature, Miyazaki pauses and says that it reminds him of a friend of his with a disability so severe he can’t even high five. “Thinking of him, I can’t watch this stuff and find [it] interesting. Whoever creates this stuff has no idea what pain is whatsoever. I am utterly disgusted. If you really want to make creepy stuff, you can go ahead and do it. I would never wish to incorporate this technology into my work at all. I strongly feel that this is an insult to life itself.”
He's disgusted by the creature, not the computer based technique. While he's on record as disapproving of CGI, Earwig and the Witch, directed by his son, used CGI so his disapproval isn't absolute.
I think it's clear that he is specifically responding to the the overall soullessness of the technique - to animate without a human understanding of what is being animated. But as others have pointed out this is well before modern AI image gen and I have been corrected in that aspect.
Presenters: "This is a presentation of an artificial intelligence model which learned certain movements [...] It's moving by using its head. It doesn't feel any pain, and has no concept of protecting its head. It uses its head like a leg. This movement is so creepy, and could be applied to zombie video games. An artificial intelligence could present us grotesque movements which we humans can't imagine."
The screen shows some Silent Hill looking vaguely humanoid, crawling blob. As the presenters say, it's pretty creepy looking.
Miyazaki: "I am utterly disgusted [...] I would never wish to incorporate this technology into my work at all"
IMHO saying Miyazaki outright hates AI is putting words into his mouth. All the clip shows is that a dude that doesn't make zombie horror films doesn't need a zombie horror generator thank you very much.
So yeah, he clearly rejects the product pitch. But judging from Kiki's Delivery Service and My Neighbor Totoro I don't see why you'd pitch him that product.
"Would you?"
"Yes"
Awkward silence
From this I don't think it's difficult to extrapolate his feelings about modern AI image gen. But you are correct in that this is not a direct assessment. Appreciate the correction, thanks.
How much of it is _his_ style and _his_ art?
How many people work on the frames and animation?
But you don't want any of that. You want to have a familiar pop cultural label (“Miyazaki”) that produces a familiar reaction (“Oooh!”). Purely decorative, symbolic objects. Stories, ideas, hard work? Eh, don't bother me with that nonsense.
There is nothing new or “cutting edge” in ignorance. And AI companies know perfectly well that they work for exactly that audience. Despite all the talk, they don't create the next genius artist, they want to be a next “enhancement filter” in TVs, something that no one uses, but everyone has to add to impress the public. That's just parasitism on lack of ability to discern.
and that the model surely used his films as data.
I mean, I have no doubts. But proving it seems tough!
What is OpenAI in all this, if not a greedy, sloppy, soulless outsider stealing their Art and effort for financial gain without ever asking for permission?
I pointed out a reason why litigation could be difficult. I'm quite sure nothing I wrote could have been seen as defending OpenAI. Just that I felt litigation would be tricky.
It's in the article
the quote in context - https://youtu.be/ngZ0K3lWKRc?si=gw-_z17n_XWfqzcQ
The USSR had some absolutely incredible art used on their propaganda posters. But if you use that for anything outside of ironic Russian themes (e.g. a goofy game set in that era, some silly snack that claims to be Russian-inspired), people will think you're an unironic communist and you instantly turn away loads of people.
When a dominant political force uses AI "art" for everything they do and the style becomes apparent, anything that looks similar to that instantly disgusts loads of people. You can argue "well that's their fault for being disgusted", but pattern recognition and being conditioned to associate certain images with "bad" goes far deeper than the conscious and it's a base instinct in animals.
People know the "NFT style", and when people see any sort of image like that, they instantly think "annoying crypto scammer."
There's now the "AI image" style, which people are becoming more aware of. And people associate that with scammers, very confused old people, weird porn, and the right.
Most of the ghiblified stuff is from AI/cryptobros and right wing movements (with heavy overlap on those groups). People possess pattern recognition and will become aware of the pattern each time they see these images.