In a Sea of AI Slop, invideo Debuts Artfully Made AI-Generated Brand Anthem: A Human Story, Told with AI Tools

I wanted to give this the benefit of the doubt and I watched the whole thing. It’s still just garbage slop.

Like don’t get me wrong, the individual scenes all look fine, but it’s still just a bunch of unrelated snippets stitched together into a video that doesn’t mean or show anything of substance, which so far as I can tell is all AI can do.

this post highlights attempt to break away from the flood of low-quality AI content by creating an video that uses AI tools to tell a very human story. It raises questions about the future of creativity and technology: can AI become a meaningful collaborator in art, rather than just a generator of disposable content? in the broader context of Futurology, this connects to how societies will adapt to a world where creative expression is increasingly augmented by machines. If AI can help amplify human imagination and allow more people to participate in storytelling, we might see a democratization of art and culture at a scale we haven’t experienced before. on the other hand, it also forces us to consider issues of authorship, originality, and whether future generations will value works created with AI differently than those created without it.As humanity, technology, and civilization move forward together, the line between human-made and machine-made will likely blur. the real question is whether this blending creates deeper forms of collective expression, or if it leads to cultural noise where meaning is harder to find. In this sense, projects like these are early signals of how creativity, ethics, and technology may converge in shaping our shared future.

the future of creativity might not be about humans vs ai but about how both can work together. if ai lowers the barriers to production, maybe more people will experiment with visual storytelling, even those who never had access to big budgets or training. that could change cultural dynamics in the long run.

“Artfully made,” “ai-generated,” “a human story.”

Yeah, *right.*

what strikes me here is the workflow if it took 2 months with multiple ai tools stitched together then boy does that mean we’re closer to one new kind of creative producer role where the skill is less about drawing/animating and more about directing machines curating outputs?

There’s a couple of moments where it is quite nice, and doesn’t just seem like AI shots. But mostly it flags up as AI.

The reaction a lot of people have is dismissive. This is slop etc. I am imagining that agencies or production companies hoping to use AI are tempted to be dismissive themselves, hoping that reaction is temporary or a minority.

But I think it’s more than that.

CG is often used because it can do things that are not practical to film. It is not cheap and takes time. The desire is to get something that looks better than what could be achieved purely in camera.

If CG is done badly of course it will be conspicuous and give the impression of being cheaply done, which can harm the final production.

Car ads will often have CG cars. This is so they can control the look. It’s often so well done and seamless that you don’t notice. But it’s not cheap. It will however be integrated with a real world shoot, also not cheap.

But the impression is one of quality, with cars presented at their best in immaculately conceived and executed ads.

AI costs less and is quicker than doing it in camera or CG.

What impression does that give?

In this case, in this post, they probably made it as an experiment, to test the waters and see if this makes sense for future ads or productions.

Is there anything here that couldn’t be done for real? The horses would be tricky I guess, but a person at a desk, a close up of a lightbulb? Top hats?

The reason they didn’t do it for real, or with CG where appropriate?

AI is cheaper and quicker.

So when we notice something is generated, especially when it doesn’t have to be, that’s the message. They saved money and time.

I suspect AI generated elements, much like CG generated cars in car ads, will become the norm. Added where appropriate to enhance shots. At least when used intelligently.

Rejection of fully generated movies and ads and other media is not down to reactionary luddites. Its because people can tell what it is. Why it was done. Not to be better. Because it’s quicker. It’s cheaper. It’s easier. But it’s not better.

It was like 3 minutes long, I got bored 10 seconds in. Look, generic bland commercial trying to make itself sound super cool and important when it’s just some dumb product that I probably don’t want.

I had to skip to the end to see what it actually was, because I’ll be fucked if I spend two and a half extra minutes listening to some bullshit about ideas. To a bunch of largely disjointed not very coherent AI images and sentences that are grammatical but have no real meaning.

Was it terrible ad.

Bruh, the horses were running sideways. Same with the birds shadows flying at a 30 degree angle from the direction they were flying. Something tells me they couldn’t prompt that away and just had to roll with it. Because with AI media generation, You are only as ever good as your “tool”.

Regardless, people trying to use AI to fully generate media (or anything) is something I don’t think I can ever get behind. Using AI to put glasses on the person in your scene? Sure. More understandable. Fully generating a movie and selling me the ticket for 20 bucks? Get out.

I tried but got bored and turned it off.

It’s that same slaw pan and people looking wistfully into the distance thing.

Still slop.