Contact Info / Websites

Entry #1

Starsearcher

2008-02-15 01:59:54 by adamanimates

I'm making a stop-motion animated post-apocalyptic science fiction film... It'll be released on Newgrounds this summer. check out some
photos!

Starsearcher


Comments

You must be logged in to comment on this post.


RoosterRooster

2008-02-15 02:21:39

THIS SUMMER!!?! I CAN'T WAIT THAT LONG!!1!

adamanimates responds:

you can watch it now :)
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/
view/448397


RoosterRooster

2008-02-15 02:24:53

I also forgot to say, by the pictures, it looks pretty awesome. Good luck.


mrawmraw

2008-02-23 04:12:18

i have to say, that really does look incredable
cant wait to see it


taysf111taysf111

2013-12-04 09:09:43

Sweet :3


DannyDaNinjaDannyDaNinja

2013-12-17 08:00:30

If you do another Calvin and hobbes MAKE SURE you dont make them talk. I mean the voice will sound weird TO EVERYONE.


Zero2562130Zero2562130

2017-04-11 22:51:55

Some basic income welfare is fine and all, but automation is not going to replace even half of the jobs you mentioned. If you're honestly worried that GoAnimate will render you obsolete, then you're simply a crappy animator, plain and simple.

(Updated ) adamanimates responds:

haha... well GoAnimate is a crappy program. I don't see how you can think things aren't improving in software. As for my own skill, I've worked in the industry for a decade, and I do alright, thanks.

Anyway, here's the study claiming that 47% of jobs are at high risk of automation:
http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf

My own work is luckily harder to automate than most, but in the future I can see animation changing a lot.


Zero2562130Zero2562130

2017-04-13 02:17:05

Improving, yes. Rendering jobs obsolete, no; any sort of artistic endeavor cannot be replicated with any machinery. Those 47% of jobs, according to the graph, indicate that the ones that will be automated are the ones that are physically intensive and require little if any training, jobs that have been on the cutting room floor for a while and will not be missed. Hell, those production jobs that are way too romanticized tended to be the ones fueled by poor labor laws (Including child labor) and imposed the greatest of health risks.

Sounds like you've been blinded by misinformation. Sigh, never trust an artist for economic advice; your hand-crafted work, e.g. your cutout video and your stop-motion film, are exactly the types of animation styles that cannot, will not, and never will be "automated". Their design inherently prevents automation from giving them the same type of value. The only conceivable type of animation work that may end up becoming easier is mocap/CGI-related work, and the end-result there will be that some art drones will be...unemployed for a little bit before finding more meaningful work elsewhere, banding together to form a new company, or some combination of the 2, but finding employment through more dedicated mediums like Netflix, Amazon, or Hell, even Adult Swim.

Hey, here's a thought: How about instead of creating a welfare state for those that have jobs on the cutting room floor, they get retrained for more modern work? That way, they'll stimulate the economy more in the end, and any sort of job culling through automation will be future-proofed.

adamanimates responds:

I'm all for retraining, but it's not a long term solution if you agree that the simpler half of the jobs are going away. That's a lot of people. I just don't see tech creating enough jobs fast enough.

Not suggesting that my artsy cutouts will be done by machines, but that's not paid work, it's a personal project. There will always be artists doing things. Take a look at what Laika's been doing with 3D printers though. I think it's exciting how technology has been improving stop-motion animation recently. What used to take a lot of mental effort, like incremental camera moves, are now automated with motion control rigs.

I don't know how you can future-proof jobs. If tech increases exponentially, there's a point somewhere in the future when retraining isn't going to cut it anymore.


Zero2562130Zero2562130

2017-04-13 15:06:58

...how is that not a long-term solution? The whole point behind retraining is to keep the employment force up with the times, never letting them get left behind. You can't say that tech isn't creating jobs fast enough while still replacing them; that's a contradiction. Of course you don't; you're not willing to do so and actually learn the topic you attempt to inform others of. Anything meaningful takes time to develop, and through retraining, people aren't welfare slaves their whole life.

It's not paid work because you don't bother to sell it. For fuck's sake, even Dave managed to profit off of his works, particularly Retarded Animal Babies, through online DVD sales. What's your excuse? Your point? All that means is hand-crafted sculptors will have to learn programs like AutoCAD, ZBrush, Mudbox, etc if they want figures with such fine detail. This isn't even mentioning the fact that 3D printers are very affordable now, and will become even cheaper as time goes on. Even then, a hand-crafted stop-motion work would still be viable in the name of not making such investments; just look at Knox.

I just explained how. That's not how it works at all; it doesn't matter how much tech replaces other jobs, there will always be some for people to have based around it. Please tell me that you're using Moore's Law to justify your empty "points"; I haven't had a good laugh in a while.

adamanimates responds:

I agree that the point of retraining is to not let people get left behind. It's a good idea. I also agree that there will always be some jobs for people. Someone has to make decisions and all... robots are just tools. But I don't think you can imagine a future in which there aren't enough jobs that people can do more efficiently than machines. In which case all the retraining and education in the world won't be enough to keep everyone employed.

What is your rebuttal to the CGP Grey automation video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

Moore's law refers to processor speed, not anything more. Are you claiming that tech does not change faster over time? Anyone can look at how much things have changed over the past century.


Zero2562130Zero2562130

2017-04-24 02:50:40

I can, especially in the case of artistic works. It will be enough, because no amount of technology will ever make people truly obsolete.

So many things wrong with the video and who made it. First off, it's just some schmuck who only has 1 useful degree, and it's not Economics nor anything tech-related. Second, not every large math problem has been solved, so humans will still be needed to solve them, so that goes out the window. Third, general-purpose robots would still create jobs by way of having many components that would need to be maintained, likely by some combo of mechanic/house repair man. Fourth, automated supermarket checkouts have been proven to be abysmal failures, to the point where many are axing them entirely, so that's out. Fifthly, there are lots of logistical issues that come with automated driving, not the least of which is faulty detection that is still prevalent, and would only really be circumvented by making roads and highways essentially glorified railways, which would be far too expensive for any large country. Sixthly, automated programming is a complete crapshoot; I shouldn't even have to mention this. Same with law work, especially in the case of saving their clients. Seventhly, the human touch is still very imperative in the medical field, and would help people heal a lot better than some soulless machine. I skipped the creative section, because there is absolutely no way a machine can truly, substantially create something like the Arnolfini Wedding Portrait, First Blood, or Deus Ex; no amount of isolated cases or wasted grants will change this.

Oh good, you managed to actually learn something. This appeared to be your proof for your grossly misinformed stance, which would explain a lot. All you're ultimately doing is just jumping on an uninformed bandwagon, without any critical thinking whatsoever, and trying to make mountains out of molehills and fate out of fads; you're not the first Canadian to do this, and you will be proven wrong in the end like so many others.

(Updated ) adamanimates responds:

The arguments that you're making aren't things that I ever disagreed with... humans will always be necessary in most fields. My argument is that fewer will be necessary, and this is a problem that UBI can address.

There are many other arguments for UBI. The automation one is not necessary if you find it disagreeable.