113
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] UrLogicFails@beehaw.org 14 points 1 month ago

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...

[-] OpenStars@piefed.social 16 points 1 month ago

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.

this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
113 points (100.0% liked)

TechTakes

1493 readers
41 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS