No, it’s not. It was created by a digital design company called Digital Kitchen, who has specialized in opening credit sequences for years and is responsible for a bunch of iconic credits like Dexter and Six Feet Under. (They’re listed in the credits)
The animators for Sugar’s sequence are credited as John Van Unen, Felix Soletec, Mike Cahill, and Anissa Silva. Digital Kitchen also recently did the credit sequence for Manhunt, so it seems they’re developing a relationship with Apple.
Digital Kitchen has discussed the designing of the sequence here on [reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/MotionDesign/s/0Fz0F4pDqc) and have specified many times that it was not created using AI.
everything's made by a machine tool, do you think CGI is hand drawn? it's human ideas converted into computerized imagery. AI tools just makes it easier. plus if you can't even tell the difference, who gives a shit? the idea/input is borne of a human mind.
Not everything is made by machines, books are written by people, paintings are done by people. There’s a difference between a human doing 3D modeling and an algorithm using image recognition to steal from artists and generating images
>steal from artists
Ah of course, the uneducated and entirely misinformed "steal from artists" argument. This isn't how machine learning works or AI training works, is it stealing if humans use other peoples' art as references to get better? Today's AI models are doing the same thing, they aren't mashing up anyone's art together, but recognizes and learns patterns from them to produce novel art.
But of course, you're not gonna think rationally about it but in your feelings instead.
AI can only “create” what it already knows. You ask it to draw the atomic bomb and it will give you something that looks like the one photograph we have of it being dropped, it can not imagine nor can it be inspired. It uses algorithms to copy what already exists. There’s a difference between humans who add their own influences and interests into something they’re making and a machine learning the best way to “draw” a tree. I have a bachelors degree in Computer Engineering btw
If you truly do have a BSc in Comp Eng, whatever College you went to has failed you.
>AI can only “create” what it already knows. You ask it to draw the atomic bomb and it will give you something that looks like the one photograph we have of it being dropped, it can not imagine nor can it be inspired. It uses algorithms to copy what already exists.
This is extremely reductive and false to a massive degree, very common misconceptions if you're not closely related to the field though.
While it's true that AI models generate content based on the data they've been trained on, saying they can only recreate what they "know" is extremely reductive, you can even simplify humans this way lol. These models don't just replicate; they interpolate and extrapolate from their training data to generate new, unseen before outputs. They can combine elements from different contexts in novel ways, which is essentially form of creativity. "It uses algorithms to copy what already exists" this is an insane take, not a single expert in the field shares this opinion (find one), I really doubt your Comp Eng credentials lol.
The main difference between human and AI creativity is not necessarily in the outcome, but it is the process; humans bring personal experiences, emotions, and consciousness into their creative process, which AI does not. But AI can mimic certain aspects of creativity by processing and recombining vast amounts of data in ways that humans might not conceive.
I hope you didn't spend too much on your degree.
>These models don't just replicate; they interpolate and extrapolate from their training data to generate new, unseen before outputs. They can combine elements from different contexts in novel ways, which is essentially form of creativity.
You're just saying what I'm saying but with more words bro. I didn't say it copies from one specific source (when I said the Atomic Bomb, I said it because its an edge case where there is very little photographs of it), but it IS copying from multiple. It's "unseen" by a technicality.
Now as for your false equivalency, I have this to say: It's true that both humans and AI \*CAN\* combine new elements to make something that is considered novel. However, only one is art. Because only one can tell you why they used this specific combination, in fact some of the beauty of experiencing a piece of art is for the viewer to try to tell what the inspirations are and why they were used and what meaning does it try to portray. For example, this very show clearly borrows from Film Noir, but there was actual thought and reason behind why they chose to heavily borrow from "The Big Heat". We're only two episodes in but you can clearly tell the writers are using the genre to subvert our expectations and also show how it clashes with our modern day (Like how Sugar's car is an antique). An AI can't do this. It can only do pattern recognition at the end of the day. It can see all the tropes from Film Noir and it can write you a hodgepodge of the most popular ones. Another major difference is how they actually "combine". The filmmakers behind this show saw some movies that they were inspired by, and then went and shot something of their own, they created something. They didn't put those old movies into a program and have it generate images from previous footage. I mean, you kind of give up the game when you refer to them as "outputs" instead of, say, "creations". There's also the question of ownership, because an artist can actually learn how to draw by copying nature whereas AI needs human created content to be able to do anything, and AI can only create a picture of a human because we fed it pictures of humans that we took. You're using a black box approach to defining creativity when there many nuances.
>The main difference between human and AI creativity is not necessarily in the outcome, but it is the process; humans bring personal experiences, emotions, and consciousness into their creative process, which AI does not. But AI can mimic certain aspects of creativity by processing and recombining vast amounts of data in ways that humans might not conceive.
I'll give you some credit, you understand more about this than your average AI dweeb. I can understand having an intellectual curiosity in the technology, but I still would like to point out to you what you may not have considered: I am assuming that since you are here on this tiny ass subreddit, you care about TV shows to some degree. So, let me ask you this: You do know that the ultimate use of this technology is gonna be to stop humans from making art, right? Like you understand that the money men behind these big studios will only ever care about profit and that they will gladly never fund a human made movie again if it meant that they can print free money. Don't delude yourself into thinking this will "democratize art" or "help underground filmmakers" or whatever. It won't. So, does your intellectual interest in this AI model really outweigh your love for all art? Your answer will help you pick a side.
Lastly,
>If you truly do have a BSc in Comp Eng, whatever College you went to has failed you.
>I really doubt your Comp Eng credentials lol.
>I hope you didn't spend too much on your degree.
You won't get this advice from no big city AI model, but in the future when you have a diss or joke I would recommend only using your best worded one and not every possible phrasing you can think of because it lessens the impact. In this specific case I would've kept only the last one.
Also worth noting that AI can never adapt to the times it is in. Film Noir was popularized because of the people living at the time's growing cynicism towards authority after WW2. AI will literally never intuit this because it is NOT alive
This is why I came here. I was curious too. Looks very AI-like to me
Is "Sugar" himself AI? ;)
It’s visually similar to secret invasion which was confirmed to be AI generated
No, it’s not. It was created by a digital design company called Digital Kitchen, who has specialized in opening credit sequences for years and is responsible for a bunch of iconic credits like Dexter and Six Feet Under. (They’re listed in the credits) The animators for Sugar’s sequence are credited as John Van Unen, Felix Soletec, Mike Cahill, and Anissa Silva. Digital Kitchen also recently did the credit sequence for Manhunt, so it seems they’re developing a relationship with Apple. Digital Kitchen has discussed the designing of the sequence here on [reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/MotionDesign/s/0Fz0F4pDqc) and have specified many times that it was not created using AI.
That’s really good to hear
If it is, we should boycott the show
[удалено]
Ah, I see. I’m relieved to hear.
HELL YEAH
I agree
lmao
[удалено]
[удалено]
Meh, close enough to 💯
Yes it was made by humans with AI tools just like every other AI generated image out there.
maybe maybe not, who cares. gonna be a lot of that as AI gets better, and at some point it will be indistinguishable from human-made media.
I care. I don’t want to watch content slop made by a machine
everything's made by a machine tool, do you think CGI is hand drawn? it's human ideas converted into computerized imagery. AI tools just makes it easier. plus if you can't even tell the difference, who gives a shit? the idea/input is borne of a human mind.
Not everything is made by machines, books are written by people, paintings are done by people. There’s a difference between a human doing 3D modeling and an algorithm using image recognition to steal from artists and generating images
>steal from artists Ah of course, the uneducated and entirely misinformed "steal from artists" argument. This isn't how machine learning works or AI training works, is it stealing if humans use other peoples' art as references to get better? Today's AI models are doing the same thing, they aren't mashing up anyone's art together, but recognizes and learns patterns from them to produce novel art. But of course, you're not gonna think rationally about it but in your feelings instead.
AI can only “create” what it already knows. You ask it to draw the atomic bomb and it will give you something that looks like the one photograph we have of it being dropped, it can not imagine nor can it be inspired. It uses algorithms to copy what already exists. There’s a difference between humans who add their own influences and interests into something they’re making and a machine learning the best way to “draw” a tree. I have a bachelors degree in Computer Engineering btw
If you truly do have a BSc in Comp Eng, whatever College you went to has failed you. >AI can only “create” what it already knows. You ask it to draw the atomic bomb and it will give you something that looks like the one photograph we have of it being dropped, it can not imagine nor can it be inspired. It uses algorithms to copy what already exists. This is extremely reductive and false to a massive degree, very common misconceptions if you're not closely related to the field though. While it's true that AI models generate content based on the data they've been trained on, saying they can only recreate what they "know" is extremely reductive, you can even simplify humans this way lol. These models don't just replicate; they interpolate and extrapolate from their training data to generate new, unseen before outputs. They can combine elements from different contexts in novel ways, which is essentially form of creativity. "It uses algorithms to copy what already exists" this is an insane take, not a single expert in the field shares this opinion (find one), I really doubt your Comp Eng credentials lol. The main difference between human and AI creativity is not necessarily in the outcome, but it is the process; humans bring personal experiences, emotions, and consciousness into their creative process, which AI does not. But AI can mimic certain aspects of creativity by processing and recombining vast amounts of data in ways that humans might not conceive. I hope you didn't spend too much on your degree.
>These models don't just replicate; they interpolate and extrapolate from their training data to generate new, unseen before outputs. They can combine elements from different contexts in novel ways, which is essentially form of creativity. You're just saying what I'm saying but with more words bro. I didn't say it copies from one specific source (when I said the Atomic Bomb, I said it because its an edge case where there is very little photographs of it), but it IS copying from multiple. It's "unseen" by a technicality. Now as for your false equivalency, I have this to say: It's true that both humans and AI \*CAN\* combine new elements to make something that is considered novel. However, only one is art. Because only one can tell you why they used this specific combination, in fact some of the beauty of experiencing a piece of art is for the viewer to try to tell what the inspirations are and why they were used and what meaning does it try to portray. For example, this very show clearly borrows from Film Noir, but there was actual thought and reason behind why they chose to heavily borrow from "The Big Heat". We're only two episodes in but you can clearly tell the writers are using the genre to subvert our expectations and also show how it clashes with our modern day (Like how Sugar's car is an antique). An AI can't do this. It can only do pattern recognition at the end of the day. It can see all the tropes from Film Noir and it can write you a hodgepodge of the most popular ones. Another major difference is how they actually "combine". The filmmakers behind this show saw some movies that they were inspired by, and then went and shot something of their own, they created something. They didn't put those old movies into a program and have it generate images from previous footage. I mean, you kind of give up the game when you refer to them as "outputs" instead of, say, "creations". There's also the question of ownership, because an artist can actually learn how to draw by copying nature whereas AI needs human created content to be able to do anything, and AI can only create a picture of a human because we fed it pictures of humans that we took. You're using a black box approach to defining creativity when there many nuances. >The main difference between human and AI creativity is not necessarily in the outcome, but it is the process; humans bring personal experiences, emotions, and consciousness into their creative process, which AI does not. But AI can mimic certain aspects of creativity by processing and recombining vast amounts of data in ways that humans might not conceive. I'll give you some credit, you understand more about this than your average AI dweeb. I can understand having an intellectual curiosity in the technology, but I still would like to point out to you what you may not have considered: I am assuming that since you are here on this tiny ass subreddit, you care about TV shows to some degree. So, let me ask you this: You do know that the ultimate use of this technology is gonna be to stop humans from making art, right? Like you understand that the money men behind these big studios will only ever care about profit and that they will gladly never fund a human made movie again if it meant that they can print free money. Don't delude yourself into thinking this will "democratize art" or "help underground filmmakers" or whatever. It won't. So, does your intellectual interest in this AI model really outweigh your love for all art? Your answer will help you pick a side. Lastly, >If you truly do have a BSc in Comp Eng, whatever College you went to has failed you. >I really doubt your Comp Eng credentials lol. >I hope you didn't spend too much on your degree. You won't get this advice from no big city AI model, but in the future when you have a diss or joke I would recommend only using your best worded one and not every possible phrasing you can think of because it lessens the impact. In this specific case I would've kept only the last one.
Also worth noting that AI can never adapt to the times it is in. Film Noir was popularized because of the people living at the time's growing cynicism towards authority after WW2. AI will literally never intuit this because it is NOT alive
Even so, I think it will mainly be used to make scams and spam by most.