Category: AI

What Andy Thinks About… Originality

11th March 2024

3min read

The discussion around AI has got me thinking about the value of originality.

Firstly, originality doesn’t have to mean something that has never been done before, because that can be a tall order these days. Originality can just mean offering a new perspective. Generative AI doesn’t truly offer a new perspective, it just mashes together other peoples’ work and calls it a day, and I think that’s why AI art feels so empty and soulless to me, it’s that lack of human intention. Not to mention the obvious breaches of copyright, I’m looking forward to the results of the lawsuits on that one. For what it’s worth, my opinion is the fact they’re even having this conversation about whether it’s a breach of copyright or not means it probably is. But anyway, that’s a different topic for the legal experts. Back to originality…

I notice the same lack of originality in the social media world of photography by actual real photographers, not just AI. Many photographers try to imitate the work of others, chasing what’s trendy and popular, but always somehow fall short, and as a result they (and we) are robbed of seeing what the artist can truly do for themselves. I want to see a flavour of how they look at the world, where they live, what they like. Some might argue “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”, but people often forget the second half of that Oscar Wilde quote… “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can give to greatness”.

It’s good news for those who are inherently creative, they are continuously innovating and levelling up, a process that often involves a cycle of failures until they strike gold. Originality is lost by those who place higher value on chasing fast results for fear of failure, instead of a willingness to test out ideas for themselves. It is in failure that original ideas are born. The finished work you see is not what makes a creator successful, it’s everything that’s happening behind the scenes. Their work is driven by their unique perspective and innovation, and that’s not something that can be copied. As a result, those who rely on imitation will always find themselves 10 steps behind.

Let’s talk about the subtext of originality in creativity and why we celebrate it, and contrast what being unoriginal says about the entity behind the content. It takes guts and confidence to be original and put yourself out there as a creator, requiring total conviction in an idea and an acceptance that despite how much you might believe in it, it might not go as well as you hoped. An imitator then, by contrast, lacks the confidence in their own work or talents, and that insecurity puts any creativity they do have in a cage. Imitating those who they perceive as more successful than themselves might, for example, get them that popular Instagram account they crave, but they will always have that gnawing feeling of being a fraud. Something to keep in mind next time you see an account posting a photograph blatantly created with AI.

People who go out of their way to copy another’s art, photography, content, products, whatever it may be, are basically just a walking talking AI engine regurgitating what’s already out there. So with AI inadvertently pushing up the value of originality they will need to up their game or risk falling behind. Creators, on the other hand, naturally possess the secret weapon they need to succeed. 

Finally, if you as an original creator find your ideas being copied, take it as a compliment! That means the copycat “creator” thinks you’re doing something right.

Remember, true innovation leads to genuine success.

Viva la originality!

What Andy Thinks About… AI 

27th February 2024

4min read

If you work in the TV & Film production industry and you haven’t heard the buzz about AI, where have you been! It is virtually impossible for me to scroll through LinkedIn and not see a post about it.

Of course, AI is bigger than just our industry, but I’m going to confine my thoughts here to its application in creative roles within filmmaking, from pre to post. Think concept artists, writers, VFX artists and so on.

First we must consider the motivation behind building AI tools in the first place. To a business whose focus is to turn as much profit as possible, the bottom line is creative artists are slow, expensive and, by nature of being human, not always running at 100% efficiency. By contrast, a computer can achieve results in a fraction of the time, they are cheap to run by modern standards, and they never get sick, tired, creatively burned out, or require breaks. So you can see the appeal.

You might read that and think “Well, bugger. We’re done for”, and I wouldn’t blame you. However… I find the notion that AI is here to take all our jobs to be a product of hysteria, driven by a fear of the unknown and a social media storm whipped up by “tech bros” and self-appointed thought leaders on platforms such as the aforementioned LinkedIn. It will likely lead to companies hiring fewer artists, but it is unlikely to be a total apocalypse. 

Our industry has revolutionised itself in innumerable ways over a century of cinema and yes, whilst many traditional jobs fell by the wayside, many more were created, adapted and progressed as technology changed. A shining example of this was the rise of computers to create visual effects, which threatened the livelihoods of practical special effects artists. Those who pivoted to learning this new technology prospered and pioneered the foundations of the juggernaut VFX industry as we know it today which threw the field wide open creating jobs and opportunities we’d never dreamed of, whilst the others jumped ship and left the industry thinking they’d never work again. We can look back now amongst a renaissance of practical effects and say this was somewhat shortsighted. 

Speaking of the renaissance of practical effects, why did this happen? Because of the ever-growing audience backlash against CGI.

But wait, if audiences have decided they no longer like too much CGI, which is created by real artists, how could they ever accept video or artwork created by AI? Surely that’s more purely CGI than, well, CGI…

This is where I pour my bucket of water on the fires of hysteria. At the end of the day, our job is to create visuals that audiences like, and I don’t see a world where audiences are content watching content mostly created by AI. At least, not in mainstream film and television. This may not ring quite so true in the land of commercials and social media. 

Our job is to create visuals that audiences like, and I don’t see a world where audiences are content watching content mostly created by AI

The jobs I feel will be most at risk are those whose end products are not ultimately going to directly end up on screen. Think areas such as previs, concept and roto. These sorts of roles will likely find themselves streamlined by AI tools, and may well evolve to the artists overseeing the AI process, generating, guiding and quality controlling. I do find myself wondering though, how AI could cope with the meticulous, often pixel-fudging, notes of a client or supervisor who might like the broad strokes of a piece of work, but just want to tweak that little thing (or ten) to bring it home. I can see this being a huge hindrance to AI and a win for real artists. This is possibly a debate for further down the line though as we get more of an idea of what, specifically generative, AI tools will be capable of.

Either way, there will still be demand from purists for human craftsmanship throughout the entire production process. Humans have been creating art and telling stories for tens of thousands of years. It is our ability to be truly creative and independent that sets us apart from the abilities of any computer. Humans connecting with other humans through these mediums have stood the test of time through every single technological advancement in history. Those who champion AI will also realise this, in their own time, the same way they realised that just because you can do anything with CGI, it doesn’t mean you should. 

So don’t jump ship. Don’t give up. Carry the torch for human creativity. 

Footnote

I use the term CGI here because that is generally how the wider public refers to the field of visual effects. However I, and those of you who also work in the field, know that is an inaccurate description and I hope you can forgive me for this minor transgression…