Not exactly. CGI wasn’t really taking jobs directly from people, it was making people more efficient and changing the paradigm of artistic works by people. AI is wholesale taking jobs that could be done by people, and making it far shittier.
CGI did take a lot of animation artists jobs, but a lot of that work was monotonous frame filling.
The gripe with early CGI was that it didn’t look great. It was very easy to distinguish between CGI and real effects, and did not necessarily make for a coherent visual experience.
The gripe with AI is that it has no soul, steals from others, and is accelerating the death of the planet as well as the divide between the rich and powerful and everyone else.
The two do not really compare.
No.
CGI partially replaced one part of media and was similartoo how films replaced a lot of stage plays. It was a step forward and allowed things to be done that couldn’t before to increase immersion. The main complaints were that they took the jobs of one profession, and it didn’t take all the jobs.
AI, as in LLMs and GenAI images and videos, are plagiarism machines implemented to deceive users with low quality slop and are primarily used to justify mass firings of the work force, promote misinformation, and vomit out such a tidal wave of shit that it is ruining the internet and how customers interact with businesses. It is also ruining the environment, wrecking the economy for everyone except the wealthy, and tons of other negative outcomes.
They are superficially similar technologies but not even close with the context of how they are being used and the scope of negative impacts.
In terms of developing visual works, the difference is that AI is generally trained on images and videos that the companies have no license to. With CGI, it wasn’t like they were just taking a bunch of other people’s art, someone still had to do creative work.
It isn’t so much that they’re putting creatives out of work, but how they’re doing it. These AI models wouldn’t exist without art developed by humans.
Sort of but AI much much worse. CGI only affected a small group of people at first and was really just a shifting/retraining of the workforce, but still required a lot of skill, knowledge, and man power to create. AI is more low skill, low effort, easy entry, and intended to replace the workforce.
This is really it. In some ways early CGI was actually more intensive than traditional setpiece, costume, and effects-making in that it had a very high technical skill floor. Not denigrating the skills of actual physical artists here, but you had to not just have an artistic sense, but be able to navigate (in some cases, program in the first place!) the tools behind it.
I don’t think it’s intended to replace the workplace (whatever the AI bros say), more like the self checkout, edges handled by humans so bigger efficiency (per worker).
What riles me up isn’t that but that we generate so much wealth but still can’t share even enough so that people can be safe and fed.
Vibe coding was/is intended to replace trained and experienced coders by allowing people that don’t have a clue what they are doing to give AI instructions to create something and hope for the best but have no clue how it actually works. It will probably work out eventually, but the goal is something that took a team of skilled workers can now be done by a single high school drop out working minimum wage.
That’s the goal yeah, but it only works on an app or a website or something that doesn’t need a team of skilled software engineers.
People underestimate the difference between an app that downloads some data to display and say a control system in the industry, medical software, etc. and they are not even the most complex stuff at all.
If you’re a web dev, you will be affected wildly but they still search for COBOL developers.
Not really, no. There’s a LOT of gripes with what we colloquially call “Generative AI”, and almost none of them are applicable to CGI. To name some of the most significant ones…
- They exist because they were trained on MASSIVE amounts of real human works, virtually none of which was given with the creator’s consent.
- They aren’t being built for the benefit of humanity, they’re being monopolized by a very small set of powerful scumbags, looking toake a peofit and further cement their power in the world.
- They are exerting a VERY real and significant strain upon our collective resources, both economic and physically-necessary, to the point that they are causing suffering in the world, that will only get worse.
Not at all. The first use of CGI in movies is lauded as one of the greatest movies of all time, Hitchcock’s Vertigo.
The next big milestones for CGI was Westworld and then Tron. Both are celebrated for the use of CGI.
CGI has an evident use to it in such that it can do things that are hard to pull off in real life, even with miniatures. It’s a useful tool from the start.
AI has no real strong use case scenario for that to warrant the amount of money pouring into it. It’s just another scam by silicon valley tech bros to make money.
No
Nobody griped about cgi when it was first used. There started to be backlash once the people in charge of making movies all treated cgi as a magic thing they didn’t understand that meant they could refuse to give workers any time or money and let the cgi fix it (actually thousands of hours of unpaid labor), and they never had to trust professionals they could just re-do the cgi a million times until they got the kind of generic tasteless slop executives like.
With AI that happened immediately because the executives already knew they wanted this and were waiting for it.
I can’t see how these are even remotely comparable. CGI may have pushed out traditional artists, but it required work and artistic understanding to use. If you look at behind the scenes footage from Cameron’s Avatar movies, you can get an appreciation for how much work goes into good CGI. AI touches on much more than art and even a moron can get results the moron thinks are good.
Same as always.
Great question! I think you are much better off asking this on Reddit’s r/askhistorians for actual researched answers, you’re only going to really get one take on here: AI bad.
Yeah it’s like, you know, a correct and factual take. Just because it’s shared by a lot of people doesn’t mean it’s incorrect.
Use your head, it’s for more than just holding your hat
You can yourself use your eyes and read the subs name…
To be fair, it’s nostupidquestions not nostupidresponses.
In some ways yes, others no.
In what way are you thinking?
