Which Way is the Uncanny Valley?



An Internet brouhaha recently caught my eye, about a twitter thread posted by a musician named Supercomposite, who claims to have accidentally used image generating AI to generate the world's first digital cryptid.  The image is of an older woman whom Supercomposite has named Loab.  Supercomposite claims that this image is adjacent to a bunch of gory and disturbing images in the AI's understanding of the world, and that crossbreeding this image with other images produces images that are horrific, disturbing, desolate, and bleak. You can see the thread here.

Leaving the hoopla about digital cryptids aside, as an artist, I'm more interested in the application of this to horror art.

The uncanny valley is a movie term that describes the creepy effect that occurs when an animated character is rendered too realistically to be a cartoon, but not realistically enough to look real, with the result that it looks like an animated corpse.  Animated film makers try to avoid the uncanny valley, but if you're a horror artist, you may want to plot a course directly into it.

I was curious whether the creepazoid factor in the AI-generated images would survive being redrawn, or whether it was dependent on the photographic realism of the source image.  I've had this problem in the past when trying to use Artbreeder -generated images as reference.  It became evident very quickly that Artbreeder does not understand form and volume; it is collaging bits of flat images together, and the effect falls apart as soon as you redraw it and it is no longer a photograph.  If over-rendering is the key that unlocks the door to the uncanny valley, just how over-rendered does it need to be?  Does it need to look photographic, or is a pencil drawing good enough?

You can judge for yourself, but I think the horror survived mostly intact.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog