People who make low effort AI bashing commentary videos, but it’s just them reading a script over some stock footage. You shouldn’t be making worse content than an AI my guy.
worse content than AI
False.
May I direct your attention to: https://youtu.be/gfr4BP4V1R8?si=KtWrbCSwdfY-bRQG ( just add stock footage in your head )
Many of them really consider their spoken part to be the majority of their content, the stock footage is there to keep our attention, it isn’t necessarily the whole point of their channel and lets them get their points across without spending tons of time or money on their own footage. Many of this style of youtuber will also include charts, graphs, or diagrams when relevant between the stock footage. It gets them more views than some boring powerpoint style presentation between graphics.
What’s wrong with using stock footage for its intended purpose? How do you expect people to provide visuals for their commentary video outside of this? Draw or film it themselves? How would ai be an improvment?
There are so many channels that produce creative visuals for their videos, even if they don’t have deep skills, like plenty of people draw stick people in paint and it’s miles more creative than the guys that just put vaguely relevant stock footage in the background
I think this technique varies in success depending on the content of the video. And for some people even just being satisfied enough with their own drawings is too distracting or time consuming compared to less diverse stock footage options. They may be self conscious about their skills as an artist or worried that their drawing isn’t really expressing their point as well as stock footage might have.
Even just whipping up some stick people in paint, saving the frames, and ordering them in the video can be more time consuming than picking some clips from an existing library of footage. Many youtubers still have full time jobs and may not have the time or creative energy to add their own drawings to a video.
To stream original content, you must first create the universe.
Genuine question, what’s wrong with stock footage? What else should they use?
What’s the “bigger problem”?
Algorithms that value engagement over quality are the bigger problem. Stock footage and generative AI are both fine and basically unrelated to this problem.
If you dislike vapid slop that’s designed to maximize adherence to opaque and fickle metrics, you might wanna reconsider whether gen AI is fine and unrelated to the problem.
We’re seeing the genesis of the information equivalent of Kessler Syndrome here. Toxic promotion algorithms are quaint, comparatively.
Edit: Fwiw, I did not downvote you. Have a good day, friend.
So I’ve been producing video professionally for ~25 years, and judicious use of gen ai allows me to do some things that I wouldn’t have the time/resources to do otherwise. As a simple example, Premiere’s generative extend will add a few seconds to the end of (basically) any video clip (basically) seamlessly. Often that’s all the pad I need to improve a cut. The alternatives (re-shoots) are expensive, time-consuming, and approved on a need basis.
Many of the same concerns about the market being flooded with low quality content were raised with the advent of video and again with digital video and again with HD video. The barrier to entry for film is high; for video, it’s virtually non-existent. But I don’t think anyone would claim today that video was a bad idea. AI is in some ways the same kind of democratization of production technology.
I’d be remiss if I didn’t address the ways in which it’s not similar. We can set up a completely automated workflow right now that will quickly generate YouTube “content” and probably make a profit. We could do this before gen AI, but not with such hallucinatory gusto. YouTube is currently being flooded with this crap. But just like people left Twitter (or reddit) when it became overrun by bots, people aren’t going to stick around for your platform full of AI content (at least not until it’s much better).
The IP side of this is mostly funny to me. They’re already talking about a “post-plagiarism” world in academia. I don’t see how copyright survives gen AI at all long-term, frankly. As an artist who saw his first distributed feature film on pirate bay the same day - it just doesn’t bother me. I’ve only ever really gotten paid to do specific work for a client. I don’t expect to get paid for things I make to express myself artistically.
But I hate that I’m shackled to Adobe for a variety of other reasons, and if someone has a good suggestion for an open source alternative to After Effects, I’m all ears.
Edit: No worries. TLDR; YouTube’ll hopefully be forced to alter the toxic algorithms to at least better filter out purely automated shlock.
May I direct your attention to: https://youtu.be/gfr4BP4V1R8?si=KtWrbCSwdfY-bRQG ( just add stock footage in your head )
