Daniel Binns is a media theorist and filmmaker tinkering with the weird edges of technology, storytelling, and screen culture. He is the author of Material Media-Making in the Digital Age and currently writes about posthuman poetics, glitchy machines, and speculative media worlds.
‘Vapourwave Hall’, generated by me using Leonardo.Ai.
This is a little late, as the article was actually released back in November, but due to swearing off work for a month over December and into the new year, I thought I’d hold off on posting here.
This piece, ‘The Allure of Artificial Worlds‘, is my first small contribution to AI research — specifically, I look here at how the visions conjured by image and video generators might be considered their own kinds of worlds. There is a nod here, as well, to ‘simulative AI’, also known as agentic AI, which many feel may be the successor to generative AI tools operating singularly. We’ll see.
Abstract
With generative AI (genAI) and its outputs, visual and aural cultures are grappling with new practices in storytelling, artistic expression, and meme-farming. Some artists and commentators sit firmly on the critical side of the discourse, citing valid concerns around utility, longevity, and ethics. But more spurious judgements abound, particularly when it comes to quality and artistic value.
This article presents and explores AI-generated audiovisual media and AI-driven simulative systems as worlds: virtual technocultural composites, assemblages of material and meaning. In doing so, this piece seeks to consider how new genAI expressions and applications challenge traditional notions of narrative, immersion, and reality. What ‘worlds’ do these synthetic media hint at or create? And by what processes of visualisation, mediation, and aisthesis do they operate on the viewer? This piece proposes that these AI worlds offer a glimpse of a future aesthetic, where the lines between authentic and artificial are blurred, and the human and the machinic are irrevocably enmeshed across society and culture. Where the uncanny is not the exception, but the rule.
I have two predilections that sometimes work hand in hand, and other times butt up against each other. The first is apps, tools, technology, all the shiny things; the second is a deep belief in supporting independent creators, developers, inventors, and so on. You can see fairly clearly here where the tensions lie.
For a long time I’ve mainly indulged the former, while proselytising-but-not-really-acting-on the latter. I’ve done the best I can to try smaller, indie folx as much as possible, but the juggernaut of platform capitalism is a shrewd and insidious demon; one that is very, very difficult to exorcise.
This year has been a period of learning and attempting to reorient and re-prioritise. The first big move was this site, which I desperately wanted to take off WordPress’s hosting. Having found a pretty good hosting deal elsewhere, it was only a few weeks of mucking about to transfer everything over.
It’s ironic, in a way, that one of the first things I did after migrating the site was to install WordPress as a front-end system to keep everything running1. I did give less corporate-affiliated, more indie and ethical alternatives a look and a try, but it was either too tricky at the time to convert the existing archive, or they just weren’t particularly intuitive to me. As at the time of this writing, I’ve been working with the WordPress platform personally and professionally for well over a decade: it’s hard to pull up roots from that foundation.
A few weeks ago I was looking at my budget spreadsheet; I’m not necessarily pinching pennies or anything at the moment, but after spending most of my life not having any kind of financial system or oversight or instinct at all, this simple spreadsheet is nothing short of a miracle. I was tinkering with expense categories and absently flicked to app subscriptions, and was fairly shocked at the total I saw. This category includes pro/premium subscriptions for apps like Todoist and Fantastical, but also many others that I’ve accumulated, particularly in the last year or two as I’ve really built up my work and personal workflows and systems. Now this work is important, and as noted earlier I do love playing around with new apps, toys, and so on. But when you see an annual/monthly/fortnightly total like that where it’s not necessarily an ‘essential’ purchase, it can pull you up short.
When I was re-jigging my old Raspberry Pi earlier in the year (possibly worth re-visiting that in a future post), I was keen to try and set it up as its own little server, running a bunch of little apps that might serve as a private, personal organisation/admin hub. Self-hosting is an awesome idea in theory and principle, but in practice, without a fairly hefty amount of sysadmin knowledge, it can be tricky. But emboldened by the desire to save some cash, I waded back into that world once more; not necessarily to set up a private server, but at least to load up some self-hosted alternatives to the larger expenses.
I went in a little more prepared this time, doing some reading, watching a few videos, getting my head around things like package managers, Docker and its containers, Homebrew, and even basic command line usage. Some of the apps I tried were intriguing, some were intuitive and well-designed, others were a little more wireframe-like, but still generally performed their tasks pretty well. After trying maybe a dozen self-hosted apps, though, I’m still using only one, and in most of the other cases, I’ve retained my subscriptions to the apps I was using before.
As with WordPress, it’s hard to shift to something new. But it’s particularly hard when much of your ‘system’ has been chugging along effectively for several months, even years. My own system is far from perfect. Many of the parts of the system talk to each other, sometimes seamlessly via a widget or integration, other times via some kind of jerry-rigged or brute force solution. But many of the parts don’t interact. It’s clean and pleasing sometimes; other times it’s messy and frustrating. But after fumbling around in the dark for many years, trying all sorts of different methods, apps, systems, modes, on- and off-line configurations, it basically comes down to the satisfaction of having a system that I constructed myself that works for me. That satisfaction is what makes it hard to tweak the way things work at the moment.
Experiments are important, though, and through the various little adventures I’ve had this year—from tinkering with old PCs, Macs, and Pis, to starting to consolidate and catalogue my not-insignificant digital media collection, to trying out a few indie/self-hosted options—I’ve started to wade into a whole other ecosystem of hardware, software, workflows, philosophies, methods, and techniques. This feels like somewhere I can be curious, can learn, can experiment, can fail, can build and create, and find pathways to a system slightly less dependent on tech megaliths: something ethical, sustainable, adaptable, friendly, and fun.
WordPress is both a corporation and a (supposedly) non-profit organisation. They’re usually differentiated via their URL suffixes, i.e. WP.com is the corp, WP.org is the nonprofit. WP.org offers their CMS tool open-source, so anyone can install on their web server regardless of host. That’s what I did for this site when I shifted. ↩︎
Made by me in, of course, Procreate (27 Aug 2024).
The team behind the powerful and popular iPad app Procreate have been across tech news in recent weeks, spruiking their anti-AI position. “AI is not our future” spans the screen of a special AI page on their website, followed by: “Creativity is made, not generated.”
It’s a bold position. Adobe has been slowly rolling out AI-driven systems in their suite of apps, to mixed reactions. Tablet maker Wacom was slammed earlier this year for using AI-generated assets in their marketing. And after pocketing AU $47 million in investor funding in December 2023, Aussie AI generation platform Leonardo.Ai was snapped up by fellow local giant Canva in July for just over AU $120 million.
Artist and user reactions to Procreate’s position have been near-universal praise. Procreate has grown steadily over the last decade, emerging as a cornerstone iPad native art app, and only recently evolving towards desktop offerings. Their one-time purchase fee, in direct response to ongoing subscriptions from competitors like Adobe, makes it a tempting choice for creatives.
Tech commentators might say that this is an example of companies choosing sides in the AI ‘war’. But this is, of course, a reductive view of both technology and industries. For mid-size companies like Procreate, it’s not necessarily a case of ‘get on board or get left behind’. They know their audience, as evidenced by the response to their position on AI: “Now this is integrity,” wrote developer and creative Sebastiaan de With.
Consumers are smarter than anyone cares to consider. If they want to try shiny new toys, they will; if they don’t, they won’t. And in today’s creative environment, where there are so many tools, workflows, and options to choose from, maybe they don’t have to pick one approach over another.
Huge tech companies control the conversation around education, culture, and the future of society. That’s a massive problem, because leave your Metas, Alphabets, and OpenAIs to the side, and you find creative, subversive, independent, anarchic, inspiring innovation happening all over the place. Some of these folx are using AI, and some aren’t: the work itself is interesting, rather than the exact tools or apps being used.
Companies ignore technological advancement at their peril. But deliberately opting out? Maybe that’s just good business.
A week or two ago I went to help my Mum downsize before she moves house. As with any move, there was a lot of accumulated ‘stuff’ to go through; of course, this isn’t just manual labour of sorting and moving and removing, but also all the associated historical, emotional, material, psychological labour to go along with it. Plenty of old heirlooms and photos and treasures, but also a ton of junk.
While the trip out there was partly to help out, it was also to claim anything I wanted, lest it accidentally end up passed off or chucked away. I ended up ‘inheriting’ a few bits and bobs, not least of which an old PC, which may necessitate a follow-up to my tinkering earlier this year.
Among the treasures I claimed was an innocuous-looking black and red USB stick. On opening up the drive, I was presented with a bunch of folders, clearly some kind of music collection.
While some — ‘Come Back Again’ and ‘Time Life Presents…’ — were obviously albums, others were filled with hundreds of files. Some sort of library/catalogue, perhaps. Most intriguing, though, not to mention intimidating, was that many of these files had no discernible name or metadata. Like zero. Blank. You’ve got a number for a title, duration, mono/stereo, and a sample rate. Most are MP3s, there are a handful of WAVs.
Cross-checking dates and listening to a few of the mystery files, Mum and I figured out that this USB belonged to a late family friend. This friend worked for much of his life in radio; this USB was the ‘core’ of his library, presumably that he would take from station to station as he moved about the country.
Like most media, music happens primarily online now, on platforms. For folx of my generation and older, it doesn’t seem that long ago that music was all physical, on cassettes, vinyl, CDs. But then, seemingly all of a sudden, music happened on the computer. We ripped all our CDs to burn our own, or to put them on an MP3 player or iPod, or to build up our libraries. We downloaded songs off LimeWire or KaZaA, then later torrented albums or even entire discographies.
With physical media, the packaging is the metadata. Titles, track listings, personnel/crew, descriptions and durations adorn jewel cases, DVD covers, liner notes, and so on. Being thrust online as we were, we relied partly on the goodwill and labour of others — be they record labels or generous enthusiasts — to have entered metadata for CDs. On the not infrequent occasion where we encountered a CD without this info, we had to enter it ourselves.
This process ensured that you could look at the little screen on your MP3 player or iPod and see what the song was. If you were particularly fussy about such things (definitely not me) you would download album art to include, too; if you couldn’t find the album art, it’d be a picture of the artist, or of something else that represented the music to you.
This labour set up a relationship between the music listener and their library; between the user and the file. The ways that software like iTunes or Winamp or Media Player would catalogue or sort your files (or not), and how your music would be presented in the interface; these things changed your relationship to your music.
Despite the incredible privilege and access that apps like Spotify, Apple Music, Tidal, and the like, offer, we have these things at the expense of this user-file-library relationship. I’m not placing a judgement on this, necessarily, just noting how things have changed. Users and listeners will always find meaningful ways to engage with their media: the proliferation of hyper-specific playlists for each different mood or time of day or activity is an example of this. But what do we lose when we no longer control the metadata?
On that USB I found, there are over 3500 music files. From a quick glance, I’d say about 75% have some kind of metadata attached, even if it’s just the artist and song title in the filename. Many of the rest, we know for certain, were directly digitised from vinyl, compact cassette, or spooled tape (for a reel-to-reel player). There is no automatic database search for these files. Dipping in and out, it will likely take me months to listen to the songs, note down enough lyrics for a search, then try to pin down which artist/version/album/recording I’m hearing. Many of these probably won’t exist on apps like Spotify, or even in dingy corners of YouTube.
A detective mystery, for sure, but also a journey through music and media history: and one I’m very much looking forward to.
Up until this year, AI-generated video was something of a white whale for tech developers. Early experiments resulted in janky-looking acid dream GIFs; vaguely recognisable frames and figures, but nothing in terms of consistent, logical motion. Then things started to get a little, or rather a lot, better. Through constant experimentation and development, the nerds (and I use this term in a nice way) managed to get the machines (and I use this term in a knowingly reductive way) to produce little videos that could have been clips from a film or a human-made animation. To reduce thousands of hours of math and programming into a pithy quotable, the key was this: they encoded time.
RunwayML and Leonardo.Ai are probably the current forerunners in the space, allowing text-to-image-to-(short)video as a seamless user-driven process. RunwayML also offers text-to-audio generation, which you can then use to generate an animated avatar speaking those words; this avatar can be yourself, another real human, a generated image, or something else entirely. There’s also Pika, Genmo and many others offering variations on this theme.
Earlier this year, OpenAI announced Sora, their video generation tool. One assumes this will be built into ChatGPT, the chatbot which is serving as the interface for other OpenAI products like DALL-E and custom GPTs. The published results of Sora are pretty staggering, though it’s an open secret that these samples were chosen from many not-so-great results. Critics have also noted that even the supposed exemplars have their flaws. Similar things were said about image generators only a few years ago, though, so one assumes that the current state of things is the worst it will ever be.
Creators are now experimenting with AI films. The aforementioned RunwayML is currently running their second AI Film Festival in New York. Many AI films are little better than abstract pieces that lack the dynamism and consideration to be called even avant-garde. However, there are a handful that manage to transcend their technical origins. But how this is not true of all media, all art, manages to elude critics and commentators, and worst of all, my fellow scholars.
It is currently possible, of course, to use AI tools to generate most components, and even to compile found footage into a complete video. But this is an unreliable method that offers little of the creative control that filmmakers might wish for. Creators employ an infinite variety of different tools, workflows, and methods. The simplest might prompt ChatGPT with an idea, ask for a fleshed-out treatment, and then use other tools to generate or source audiovisual material that the user then edits in software like Resolve, Final Cut or Premiere. Others build on this post-production workflow by generating music with Suno or Udio; or they might compose music themselves and have it played by an AI band or orchestra.
As with everything, though, the tools don’t matter. If the finished product doesn’t have a coherent narrative, theme, or idea, it remains a muddle of modes and outputs that offers nothing to the viewer. ChatGPT may generate some poetic ideas on a theme for you, but you still have to do the cognitive work of fleshing that out, sourcing your media, arranging that media (or guiding a tool to do it for you). Depending on what you cede to the machine, you may or may not be happy with the result — cue more refining, revisiting, more processing, more thinking.
AI can probably replace us humans for low-stakes media-making, sure. Copywriting, social media ads and posts, the nebulous corporate guff that comprises most of the dead internet. For AI video, the missing component of the formula was time. But for AI film, time-based AI media of any meaning or consequence, encoding time was just the beginning.
AI media won’t last as a genre or format. Call that wild speculation if you like, but I’m pretty confident in stating it. AI media isn’t a fad, though, I think, in the same ways that blockchain and NFTs were. AI media is showing itself to be a capable content creator and creative collaborator; events like the AI Film Festival are how these tools test and prove themselves in this regard. To choose a handy analogue, the original ‘film’ — celluloid exposed to light to capture an image — still exists. But that format is distinct from film as a form. It’s distinct from film as a cultural idea. From film as a meme or filter. Film, somehow, remains a complex cultural assemblage of technical, social, material and cultural phenomena. Following that historical logic, I don’t think AI media will last in its current technical or cultural form. That’s not to say we shouldn’t be on it right now: quite the opposite, in fact. But to do that, don’t look to the past, or to textbooks, or even to people like me, to be honest. Look to the true creators: the tinkerers, the experimenters, what Apple might once have called the crazy ones.
Creators and artists have always pushed the boundaries, have always guessed at what matters and what doesn’t, have always shared those guesses with the rest of us. Invariably, those guesses miss some of the mark, but taken collectively they give a good sense of a probable direction. That instinct to take wild stabs is something that LLMs, even a General Artificial Intelligence, will never be truly capable of. Similarly, the complexity of something like, for instance, a novel, or a feature film, eludes these technologies. The ways the tools become embedded, the ways the tools are treated or rejected, the ways they become social or cultural; that’s not for AI tools to do. That’s on us. Anyway, right now AI media is obsessed with its own nature and role in the world; it’s little better than a sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey or Her. But like those films and countless other media objects, it does itself show us some of the ways we might either lean in to the change, or purposefully resist it. Any thoughts here on your own uses are very welcome!
The creative and scientific methods blend in a fascinating way with AI media. Developers build tools that do a handful of things; users then learn to daisy-chain those tools together in personal workflows that suit their ideas and processes. To be truly innovative, creators will develop bold and strong original ideas (themes, stories, experiences), and then leverage their workflows to produce those ideas. It’s not just AI media. It’s AI media folded into everything else we already do, use, produce. That’s where the rubber meets the road, so to speak; where a tool or technique becomes the culture. That’s how it worked with printing and publishing, cinema and TV, computers, the internet, and that’s how it will work with AI. That’s where we’re headed. It’s not the singularity. It’s not the end of the world. it’s far more boring and fascinating than either of those could ever hope to be.
