I don't agree that it is because of the "quality" of the video. The issue with AI art is that it lacks intentional content. I think people like art because it is a sort of conversation between the creator and the viewer. It is interesting because it has a consistent perspective. It is possible AI art could one day be indistinguishable but for people to care about it I feel they would need to lie and say it was made by a particular person or create some sort of persona for the AI. But there are a lot of people who want to do the work of making art. People are not the limiting factor, in fact we have way more people who want to make art than there is a market for it. What I think is more likely is that AI becomes a tool in the same way CGI is a tool.
> The issue with AI art is that it lacks intentional content. I think people like art because it is a sort of conversation between the creator and the viewer.
The trouble with AI shit is it's all contaminated by association.
I was looking on YT earlier for info on security cameras. It's easy to spot the AI crap: under 5 minutes and just stock video in the preview or photos.
What value could there be in me wasting time to see if the creators bothered to add quality content if they can't be bothered to show themselves in front of the lens?
What an individual brings is a unique brand. I'm watching their opinion which carries weight based on social signals and their catalogue etc.
Generic AI will always lack that until it can convincingly be bundled into a persona... only then the cycle will repeat: search for other ways to separate the lazy, generic content from the meaningful original stuff.
