The Onion Skin: Back to the present: How can this help the industry?

"The Animation Guild Reaches Tentative Agreement With AMPTP" by Amid Amidi and "Animation Guild Faces Discontent on Artificial Intelligence Terms in New Contract" by Gene Maddaus (Nov 25-Dec 4, 2024)

Okay, what is it about?

A tempting agreement was held in November 23rd between the animation guild and the AMPTP, which would consist in a three-year contract for better work conditions in the industry, with proposals similar to the ones received from the SAG-AFTRA strike in 2023. These includes better wages, healthcare funding, flexibility for leave and sick days, job security to regulate layoffs, remote work protection, and of course, transparency for the use of generative AI.

It sounded as a step forward for animation, but right in December 4th, Variety magazine revealed on a recent article that this agreement would not satisfy the needs of those on the guild who negotiated the agreement, specially with the AI topic.

The problem, according to Gene Maddaus, came out when the agreement stated that it is not possible to opt out to allow use of their work to train the machines. This is the only article for the moment that gives this update, so I will take as only a speculation of the entire panoramic and wait for more people to cover this.

Still, it is not surprising that the situation is this negative. And this is where I see the red flags in all of this. I don't know the reasons opting out would be impossible, but well, making your work your property unfortunately is too idealistic for this days.

And this is where I kept my decision to cover this situation in this one article.

The general problem

The entertainment industry is hanging on a thin string with notorious difficulty. The factors for this situation are for making more than one article. Layoffs and streaming services where the higher ups want to gain more affecting to creators, employees and consumers, the search for profitability rather than quality obstructing the production pipeline, and it does not help the fact that people mock the wrong reasons of why film making is in shambles (yes, I am looking at you "go woke, go broke" person that has the most triggering thumbnails or titles for your commentaries).

The thing is, since the beginning of our times, we were always attached to what our audience wants: A caveman drawing an movement sequence of an animal galloping representing the desire of the group, what they want to hunt; a sculptor from the 15th century doing a statue that appeals the religious conditions the church established; a pianist from the mid 1800's doing a piece that people could like for a party or even a private session; a cartoonist from the eighties doing a series that appeals to children's fantasies of magical worlds or badass battlefronts. And I can continue.

The difference is in how much time do we take to create said content. Nowadays, the demand for any kind of productions is high and the appeal for trending make the opportunity for many so tight.

And not to mention the fact that the industry standard tools are so expensive, making limited accessibility.

You could think this is normal, but it should not. Unfortunately, content creation is now wanted fresh out of the oven in no time. And well, how do you create something in no time? Well, the answer is the same as why Variety released an alleged disappointment from the animation guild about its agreement: generative AI.

AI as an ethical tool, it may be possible, right?

First of all, I am not going to talk about those Coca-Cola Christmas ads, as many, many, many people covered it and in a better way, so let's look at the house from other rooms that look dusty, shall we?

I was lurking for more articles to analyze, and I found this:

RADiCAL Motion introducing Adrian Rashad Driscoll, who would have a solid experience in immersive experiences in production and teaching, to their advisory board, while at the same Autodesk Tinkercad would start collaborating with said company.

This happened given that, according to the article, both Driscoll and RADiCAL have the same commitment to allow content creation accessible for anyone no matter the context, to empower content creation from people coming from limited access regions. I like this premise, it holds well to the statement "not everyone can have a talent, but a talent can come from anywhere".

Image from RADiCAL official website

And well, as you know, RADiCAL Motion is an AI supported mocap program, which would be needed to detect the body parts and make an automated rig without needing to have the budget for the materials being the costume, the sensors, cameras, the license to use a program, you know.

It is uncertain for me if RADiCAL would be accepted inside the industry, it uses AI. And as we know, in the arts, music and filmmaking, AI is concerning because it takes no effort, uses any type of external content without consent and is basically attached entirely to online interactions, so there is no originality. Even if in the future this completely changes, this kind of entertainment will always stay as inconsistent, stiff and with a vague conclusion.

This leads me to a question: Is it positive? Can we make our work our way with AI with no harm to the industry? my answer is "debatable".

It is known that you can make contacts for many elements and no need for a machine to make it for you, such as voice acting, storyboard, writing. And if you do not have those contacts, you can make on your own, even if it doesn't have that first "WOW" on the first impression, in the end, you are creating.

If I want to cancel some company because it uses something AI supported, it would come to nothing, even if I am the one who is right. AI existed for so long, but it did not have an explosive relevance until now, which is ridiculous, it shows how of a trending it became, but trying to criminalize anyone who uses AI for no reason, it is also not the best measure.

Let's say, I want to mock Facebook and twitter because of their decision to use their users' content to train their machine, literally I will be cooked and seasoned once the first syllable comes out of my mouth. The reasonable thing is quietly leaving those sites, period. They lose nothing if I opt out like that, but what I am winning with staying?

The thing here is not only the need for transparency. Your work generates profit in the end, you receiving nothing in exchange is just incorrect, so there is a need to opt out, to forbid your stuff to be used to train a machine only for it to be the corporate property. A positive use of AI in entertainment is regulated and limited for reference and special situations.

Basically, this is why I consider RADiCAL as an accesible alternative for those who would like to do motion capture without the budget nor the resources needed, being the suits, the cameras, a powerful computer, a license to use a program, you say; but it is not the standard element for the industry, such as Tinkercad, Flipaclip or pencil 2d. So does that mean I cannot use this programs with limited tools to make big projects, even a full length movie? of course not, these ones are for this mere situation where resources are limited.

Even generating images can be part of process, but as long you have that knowledge and practice the basics of production, composition, colour, perspective, shape, among others. I do not mean it is part of the portfolio, this should stay away from that, because it is not your job, it was done by a machine that recollects information.

Unfortunately, I do not find this kind of opinions, all the articles instead of talking about how to regulate AI, it ends up praising as if it was the future for entertainment, of how it will help content creators, all of that kind of stuff.

And let's not talk about how people constantly call the artists and animators... well, "immature" to this kind of stuff. People would prefer to use an image generator rather than wasting money for people to do it. Of course, sometimes the narrative can be a bit altered, but it is often known how people sees the arts and storytelling as plain content.

---

“I don’t want us to fall into the trap of having a moral opinion or a prejudice before we know what we are talking about,” (Retrieved by Geoffrey Macnab, 2023)

---

This quote came from Koen Van Bockstal, CEO from Flanders Audiovisual Fund, this one is su. I do not want to say the typical "he does not know what he is talking about", because it has his knowledge from a different point of view.

What I want to say about this is, the judgment towards the usage of Gen AI was not product of prejudice. The first time I heard about this was when someone decided to do an AI generated graphic novel about C.S. Lewis' "Abolition of Man", coming from Living the Line.

Something that gave my solid take on AI was the statement from Carson Grubaugh, the one in charge of the project, about how we have created so much that we are no longer original, and the prompting will bring it back and in less time. From that moment I knew things would go downhill, not because the supposed prejudice, but because of how studios will use it, how many people will be affected by that, and how bigger the dependence for technology will be.

The surprise in here is the dilemma of the use of this technology. I always assumed that "AI can be used in arts and entertainment only as reference", but it turned out this statement was still... ambiguous. I am not shocked for the constant positivism for AI, I know almost everyone wants this, instead it is the existence of the questions that give a purpose inside film making and content creation.

Another aspect, for example, is in analytics. In the filmmaking industry, it is hard to know when a production is profitable for the public before releasing it or even promoting it. Yes, the market study exists, and those who do it, project managers specifically are also necessary, but AI, with its regulations, can enter as an assistant to do calculations and check probabilities according to trendings, budget and casting considerations, which can be good, but also bad if we take in mind that, well, companies will decide to 100% trust it.

The conditions of AI in the workspace are needed to be seen, you can take an idea from it, but a human has to be the last word, requiring a strong critical thinking that can study the results, take notes, see external references, reflect and conclude. Just like CGI animation, Motion capture, even tradigital animation, where it saves time, but still it needs work to get outstanding results.

What made my conclusion change so drastically is about the other uses that can be used for moments where resources lack, or when there is need to save tedious processes that requires more than one person. I would not use someone else's voice or technique if I don't have the skills to do so, and I understand not everyone can do any role or want to do it.

There are times where you think in black and white, as a winner and as a loser, as the comedy and as the tragedy. It is common to happen at least once in a human being. It is our reaction that can take minutes to disappear once we recover to reason. Today, we preserve this feelings for months because we do not think by the other side. And it is from the beginning of our lives.

Is this somewhat useful?

And well, should have told you, my bad, but I have generated with AI plenty of times, only for curiosity, to experiment a little, it felt wrong in several times, but I knew the things it would do were basically empty, I was feeling intrigued still, for how wrong and vague the results were, no matter the prompt, it goes to the same spot, because the machine has a vague and limited grammar, key words are not enough, nor knowing what you want, but computer language cannot help either. It's just that the machine has limited capacity to digest information and create. And this is by own experience.

Let me tell you, I would say you can continue your life and career without knowing that AI is being in the industry. We all can say "Why we need to know that?", "I am not involving into this new tech" or the famous "This is harming the industry".

But in the end, we have understand and reflect about it to work and create what we want, what it appeals to our perspective due to the potentially aggresive take on this technology, we also must have a clear perspective of what to do and what not to do in relation with gen AI, and the chances we can take to make it creator friendly, without layoffs or budget cuts

However that does not mean this is to stand up for a cause, specially when we are not at knowing at the fullest the implication of a machine in our lives and our jobs. I cannot tell you what to do, if you should avoid AI or not or if the future will go to a negative path, I am not your threshold guardian or mentor, let me be your trickster, as I think I know it all, but just the basics, I am not so involved into guilds and associations that looks for workers, but that does not mean we cannot learn together this situation to have a better plan of action that is consistent with our principles.

This is to digest in the best way possible a middle point of why it is important for people to produce by themselves, to supervise and regulate the easiest paths so we can learn to bring quality and expression to the table.