I think you misunderstood my comment. The videos didn't win because of AI. A real person narrating, with a video set to a soundtrack of a real musician's music could very well be superior.
But the author of this post saved a lot of time in the interest of dominating the competition by using AI instead.
While I can appreciate that the process of assembly and curation of AI-produced components is an art (much as collage is an art form), I'm still dismayed by how AI 'art' is replacing real art (as the components of this collage, if you will).
To me, the difference between real art and AI output is human intent. There's a context, a though, a mood. What AI produces can't be art in the same sense, because there's no human behind it, who can explain their reasoning for why they used a specific stroke in one place. And real-world incentives diminish the value of the human element, which is why we're heading to a "dead internet" fast.
But the author of this post saved a lot of time in the interest of dominating the competition by using AI instead.
While I can appreciate that the process of assembly and curation of AI-produced components is an art (much as collage is an art form), I'm still dismayed by how AI 'art' is replacing real art (as the components of this collage, if you will).
To me, the difference between real art and AI output is human intent. There's a context, a though, a mood. What AI produces can't be art in the same sense, because there's no human behind it, who can explain their reasoning for why they used a specific stroke in one place. And real-world incentives diminish the value of the human element, which is why we're heading to a "dead internet" fast.