"Though we've seen plenty of AI generated commercials before (at previous Super Bowls, no less), this year's event was oversaturated with them. That's in part because image and video generation models have become more somewhat sophisticated in the past year - though still subpar compared to what humans create - just better enough for a number of brands to be now comfortable having their names associated with AI-derived footage."
"The main thrust of the ad (which only aired in New York and Los Angeles) from Israeli creative firm Artlist is that anyone can generate Super Bowl-worthy video footage using the company's suite of production tools. It even makes a point of bragging that Artlist only bought its Super Bowl space about a week ago and spent a mere five days producing the commercial."
Super Bowl ads using generative AI were widespread and often failed to showcase useful or exciting applications of the technology. Image and video generation models improved somewhat over the past year but remain subpar compared to human-created work, yet are now good enough for some brands to attach their names to AI-derived footage. Generative tools are much cheaper and faster, tempting brands to replace traditional production despite high Super Bowl spot costs. Many AI-produced spots displayed cheap, sloppy quality rather than cohesive storytelling or premium production. The Artlist example aired in limited markets, emphasized rapid production, and relied on disjointed animal clips.
Read at The Verge
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]