lol i didn't realize that Darren Aronofsky AI-generated series they announced a few weeks ago, "On This Day... 1776" is actually 1) on YouTube, and 2) each "episode" is like five minutes long lmao https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZDnL_a0YfQ
-
omg sounds amazing
@peter After 'the Fountain', I wanted to punch Aronofsky in the face for making me lose two hours of my life. With this shit I am considering getting a ticket to the next European cinema festival they allow him in and actually do it. Fucking hack.
-
@peter who cares if it is good; is it getting *engagement*?!
@peter I should have known after my quip @pluralistic would have more direct writing relevant to this garbage - two quotes from https://pluralistic.net/2026/02/23/goodharts-lawbreaker/#no-metrics-no-targets which I think are relevant (1) All forms of cultural activity have collapsed into a single, overriding imperative: "getting attention." and (2) "the most dangerous thing for platforms is not racist garbage. It’s unmonetizeable content."
-
omg sounds amazing
I just watched this (for science!) and how should I put this. it is... useless? incoherent? extremely disorienting? they were very careful to select a narrow task with the best possible conditions (very short, no conversations between characters, human voice actors, 3-second cuts, award-winning filmmaker, full support from Google) and it's completely incoherent. like, you spend the whole time waiting for it to start because the whole thing feels like an introduction/trailer.
-
I just watched this (for science!) and how should I put this. it is... useless? incoherent? extremely disorienting? they were very careful to select a narrow task with the best possible conditions (very short, no conversations between characters, human voice actors, 3-second cuts, award-winning filmmaker, full support from Google) and it's completely incoherent. like, you spend the whole time waiting for it to start because the whole thing feels like an introduction/trailer.
people make jokes about the little stuff AI gets wrong or inconsistent in video content like this, and I used to kind of think of that as "gotcha" criticism, but for real, I think the human subconscious picks up on **tons** of little things about a room or clothing, and when those little things are inconsistent, you completely lose the thread of the narrative or place. it's an exceptionally weird experience.
-
people make jokes about the little stuff AI gets wrong or inconsistent in video content like this, and I used to kind of think of that as "gotcha" criticism, but for real, I think the human subconscious picks up on **tons** of little things about a room or clothing, and when those little things are inconsistent, you completely lose the thread of the narrative or place. it's an exceptionally weird experience.
I think there's a chance people figure out how to use this kind of video generation for... something. but it seems extremely poorly-suited to narrative. like, it's genuinely slop. I'm not necessarily gonna discard the whole thing (I've seen compelling stuff from the Chinese) but at the very least, I would say Google's AI stuff is in deep, deep fucking trouble. **deep** trouble.
-
I just watched this (for science!) and how should I put this. it is... useless? incoherent? extremely disorienting? they were very careful to select a narrow task with the best possible conditions (very short, no conversations between characters, human voice actors, 3-second cuts, award-winning filmmaker, full support from Google) and it's completely incoherent. like, you spend the whole time waiting for it to start because the whole thing feels like an introduction/trailer.
@peter Ok, I've been warned, I guess. The danger is that this will become acceptable because it's the only thing any wealthy person will be willing to fund. Seriously. AI isn't the problem. It's our willingness to tolerate AI that's the problem. Kids will watch this shit and shrug. It's called the Shifting or Sliding Baseline. Every generation has a new normal even if it's worse than the previous normal.
-
@peter Ok, I've been warned, I guess. The danger is that this will become acceptable because it's the only thing any wealthy person will be willing to fund. Seriously. AI isn't the problem. It's our willingness to tolerate AI that's the problem. Kids will watch this shit and shrug. It's called the Shifting or Sliding Baseline. Every generation has a new normal even if it's worse than the previous normal.
@Pappy I genuinely think unboxing videos are more compelling than this. and regular old cartoons are probably cheaper to produce.
-
@Pappy I genuinely think unboxing videos are more compelling than this. and regular old cartoons are probably cheaper to produce.
@peter Cheaper? Only because they had to pay Aronofsky.
AI is just empty. I think that's what we're experiencing. We can feel the human voice in things.
Anyway, I'll have to take a look, lol
-
@Pappy I genuinely think unboxing videos are more compelling than this. and regular old cartoons are probably cheaper to produce.
@Pappy like, I think there's lots of ways generated video can be used to capture attention (have you seen the vids of people slicing glass fruit?? captivating) but for **narrative** this is a shitshow.
-
@peter Cheaper? Only because they had to pay Aronofsky.
AI is just empty. I think that's what we're experiencing. We can feel the human voice in things.
Anyway, I'll have to take a look, lol
@Pappy they paid voice actors. and we don't actually know what generating video like this costs. might be cheaper. might not be!
-
@Pappy like, I think there's lots of ways generated video can be used to capture attention (have you seen the vids of people slicing glass fruit?? captivating) but for **narrative** this is a shitshow.
@peter My dad sent me this,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEway6v3yPI&list=WL&index=18
It is 75% accurate and just monotonous and weird. It has the veneer of truth but gets most of the details wrong. The more I watched it the more confusion and dread I felt, and it's a video about beavers.
-
@Pappy they paid voice actors. and we don't actually know what generating video like this costs. might be cheaper. might not be!
@peter True. I don't know the cost either, but it IS a lot. Mainly because you would need to render these videos many times to get something useable.
-
@peter My dad sent me this,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEway6v3yPI&list=WL&index=18
It is 75% accurate and just monotonous and weird. It has the veneer of truth but gets most of the details wrong. The more I watched it the more confusion and dread I felt, and it's a video about beavers.
@Pappy I'm sure it will pretty much take over the low-effort content channels. I see people on the metro watch slop all the time.
-
@peter True. I don't know the cost either, but it IS a lot. Mainly because you would need to render these videos many times to get something useable.
@Pappy exactly. and that takes a lot of time too, so it's not clearly offering savings there either.
-
@peter I should have known after my quip @pluralistic would have more direct writing relevant to this garbage - two quotes from https://pluralistic.net/2026/02/23/goodharts-lawbreaker/#no-metrics-no-targets which I think are relevant (1) All forms of cultural activity have collapsed into a single, overriding imperative: "getting attention." and (2) "the most dangerous thing for platforms is not racist garbage. It’s unmonetizeable content."
So is "become unmonetizable" the new "become ungovernable"?
-
lol i didn't realize that Darren Aronofsky AI-generated series they announced a few weeks ago, "On This Day... 1776" is actually 1) on YouTube, and 2) each "episode" is like five minutes long lmao https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZDnL_a0YfQ
@peter I tried to watch the video for a bit and yuck. It’s trying hard but I hate it
-
lmao let's check the top comment, see how it's going.
@peter sir, can I have some more?
-
So is "become unmonetizable" the new "become ungovernable"?
@oddeyed @nemoest @peter @pluralistic
Rather the new "outlawed".
If they'd leave alone all things and people they cannot monetize, that would be fine, but I'd actually expect that everything unmonetizable is squeezed out of society, then life, by economic and political pressures.
The narrative of groups being parasites on the body of societey or nation (e.g. when getting social benefits, or recently by the German Chancellor Merz, when people choose to work less than 40 hours a week) --- this narrative is part of the process: Everybody else produces value, but "these people" have "to be fed by others" or are "slacking off".
-
@oddeyed @nemoest @peter @pluralistic
Rather the new "outlawed".
If they'd leave alone all things and people they cannot monetize, that would be fine, but I'd actually expect that everything unmonetizable is squeezed out of society, then life, by economic and political pressures.
The narrative of groups being parasites on the body of societey or nation (e.g. when getting social benefits, or recently by the German Chancellor Merz, when people choose to work less than 40 hours a week) --- this narrative is part of the process: Everybody else produces value, but "these people" have "to be fed by others" or are "slacking off".
@oddeyed @nemoest @peter @pluralistic
Both things --- deciding you have enough and don't to accumulate more or objectively needing help --- is morally reprehensible to the libertarian/neo-liberal mind set.
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
