Do we tend to resist better technology that improves the way we do things?

Hey guys,

In general, I feel that many artists (especially the oldest ones) are biased against new technologies that make those skills they’ve been developing for years (sometimes decades) somehow obsolete to some extent.

Many 3D sculptors disdain 3D scanning technology as if with their own sculpting abilities they could produce better and more accurate models in the same way a painter would think he could produce better portraits than a digital camera would.

Animators seem hate mocap technology as if by keyframing one could achieve superior animations.

I think it’s normal for us to fight for our corners. After all, nobody wants to see his hard work getting depreciated.

Typewriters’ manufacturers hated the advent of computers. For although computers are infinitely superior to typewriters, they’ve ruined their business.

Gas cars manufacturers don’t like electric cars and so on.

Is this just my impression? What do you guys think?

There is something sad about progress, I guess people want to feel like their skills are important.

I think you mix two different things…
Indeed once you get some ways of doing things it may be hard to learn new stuff.
But for the examples you talk about : For some realistic stuff indeed it can be a good start to use some photogrametry , chances are that it end up being touched up in a sculpt application for best result.

For animation, you can use mocap for realistic stuff , chance are that it gets cleaned-up by an animator for best results.

As a reminder, 3D scans tends to produce crappy models, so do mocap it’s quite giggly and both need to be smoothed out to be usefull.

But now, how would you make a pixar movie with only 3D scans and mocap ? How can you scan stuff that doesn’t exist ?

Pretty sure 3D scanning predates sculpting. :slight_smile:

The reason people reject it is because it’s a technical no-fun job to turn the output mess into something useable. And because people get into this line of work first and foremost to create, not do the 3D equivalent of photostitching.

Same for animators. 9/10 definitely hate mocap with a passion.

I think if the goal is accuracy, then there’s not much argument, mocap and scanning is almost always more accurate.

But when you go for the cartoony/stylized territory, I think its just not possible to use those technologies and get better results due to the uncanny valley.

also, I believe there’s some distinction between doing the most efficient route vs going the most enjoyable route.

In field of creativity, I think that a new technology never really make previous techniques obsolete.

We tend to continue to use ways of working that are not recognized as efficient, just to feel what is expressed by serendipity of erratic imperfections.
There are still people making stop motion animations or pinscreen animations.

Generally, I think that disdain is the case for some artists. But in my opinion, for most of them, that is more a lack of interest.

But , here, I don’t think that critique of 3D scanning technology corresponds to that.

A 3D Scan may be generated from various ways. And they have their downsides.

If you read a comment about the fact a laser scanning may be precised but may correspond to a huge amount of geometry data to deal with and at same time no coloring data.
If you read about photogrammetry that may offer color but may also result in a crappy geometry.

That could be totally legitimate critiques made, some years ago.

And relatively to situation, if you try to make 3D Scanning with a poor equipment and poor data as inputs, they still may be valid.
If you only have an old computer, not the latest pro camera and not the best software of photogrammetry ; that may feel less painful to sculpt from a photograph than to take and treat hundreds of photographs during double amount of time.

Same thing happens with motion capture, amount of time necessary to clean-up irregularities in capture may be represent an insane amount of work.

What makes mocap more related to expressed feeling is that can be incredibly boring for animator.
That is a lot less interesting than being the guy in charge of performance.
When there is no mocap ; the animator is the only interpret, responsible of character expression.

When your job is just to clean imperfections that computer is not able to understand ; I think you may have the right not to be enthusiast.
Now, after some training, AI should eradicate those jobs.

I don’t think people will be sad that nobody will call them to do uninteresting work.
I don’t think that majority of people are complaining to scientists that they should not give repetitive tasks to robots.

People’s lives may be affected to have less jobs.
But that is a problem related to stupidity of economics laws.
They don’t recognize that human’s knowledge, rarely expressed, is precious and that you can’t reprogram a human as fast as a machine.

That makes me worried about what neuroscience could discover in the near future… :fearful:

That was an excessive sentence. Currently, humans are more versatile than machines.
And AI is not used in all intellectual fileds.
But progress in AI makes me think that when investors (or AI used by investors) will have ability to choose between years to train AI and years to teach new jobs to humans : almost all jobs, only related to intellectual work, should theoretically disappear and would last only manual jobs.

But, in practice, that could not happen, before an AI really able to think by itself.
Humans will continue to be necessary to build AI in new fields and they will investigate new fields of knowledge that is infinite.
And they will encounter bigger problems like climate crisis & mass extinction before having enough numerous powerful machines.

Yeah, Neural nets are frightening, but not much.

but then I saw this:

it’s not perfect, but they managed to upload a small worm’s brain to a computer and simulate it, and the simulation works. And even, thats some old news.

1 Like

Oxford University predicted that 47% of jobs could be automated in 1-2 decades. In my opinion, even architect’s jobs could be at risk. This article talks about advancements in AI where it can make crude floor plans.

Historically, Luddites were an anti-automation organization that would destroy textile machines to keep their jobs. Today’s automation is different from the industrial revolution because today’s technology is on the borderline of taking 47% of jobs. Automation makes life easier, but it may force us to have to rethink the economy when technology becomes autonomous & can outperform people at most things. It sounds like science fiction, but we’re actually remarkably close to having machinery provide all our basic needs. If you think about it, you could even program a machine to fix other machines once AI robotics gets good enough.

I’m pro automation (as in I want automation to take as many jobs as possible) & I’m also for a universal basic income. Society would be better off with everyone in good financial health, then we can use technology to solve bigger problems like space exploration and expanding the human empire.

1 Like

Matrix here we go!

1 Like