this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
102 points (100.0% liked)
TechTakes
1402 readers
322 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean it's basic and boring but, considering the production cost was probably (a lot?) less than $1,000, compared to the $5,000+ it would've cost if filmed/animated traditionally, that seems like a win. And the average viewer isn't even gonna notice. In fact, they're getting plenty of free publicity for using AI to make it thanks to articles like these
good thing there’s no such thing as bad publicity, otherwise this shit would be fucking embarrassing
my my, those boots sure must be tasty
I've been boycotting cocacola for years now. Not sure what you're on about
you do not, under any circumstances, have to "give it to them"
there is no requirement to carry water for this awful shit
do not surprisedpikachu when someone calls out your weird posts
Are you quoting someone else?
Y'all get so upset about genAI and it's weird
how are you this fucking mid?
jesus fucking christ do you even understand where you're posting? how are you this goddamn oblivious?
the "you do not have to give it to them" is referencing a Dril tweet about Al-Qaeda, the person is implying you have a bad take, just FYI
I figured it was just an expression, thanks for the info! I'm aware of their opinion lol
I think your prices are off by about 1000x, but your main argument holds up.
My brain is stuck on 90s prices (I ran an advertisement company as a toddler)
I don't know the actual budget, but I think it probably cost much more than 1kUSD, though probably still less than real human work would cost.
It's important to note that no shit could last more than a second or two because after that the generated video starts to much more noticably have errors. So at minimum you still need editors (plus the music needed to be composited, etc). Also, as the article notes, all the logos needed to be added in post as well because GenAI cannot reliably do text or logos. With that in mind, I'd guess there was probably a significant amount of "cleaning up" that had to be done in post as well.
With all that said and done, I'm sure the commercial was not exactly dirt cheap, but it WAS probably still cheaper than having dignity and paying humans.
What's actually kind of wild, though, is a lot of these shots just look like bland stock imagery. And since they couldn't have any cohesion between shots because of GenAI's own limitations, the majority of these shots could have been replaced with stock footage and they probably would have only needed to CGI a few different shots...
What if I told you that the goal was not to make a good product, but to increase shareholder valuation?
In that case, all the "problems" disappear in light of chasing after the singular goal.
I would guess the original commercial was in the vicinity of 10 million? And the new one would be like...$10k? Maybe more.
I doubt that.
I don't.