People who make low effort AI bashing commentary videos, but it’s just them reading a script over some stock footage. You shouldn’t be making worse content than an AI my guy.
People who make low effort AI bashing commentary videos, but it’s just them reading a script over some stock footage. You shouldn’t be making worse content than an AI my guy.
What’s wrong with using stock footage for its intended purpose? How do you expect people to provide visuals for their commentary video outside of this? Draw or film it themselves? How would ai be an improvment?
How about don’t use any footage if it’s not relevant to the article?
I’m tired of seeing articles like this ”UHC CEO murdered in the street”, with a stock photo of a CyberTruck …… unless there’s a connection they don’t want us to know about
There are so many channels that produce creative visuals for their videos, even if they don’t have deep skills, like plenty of people draw stick people in paint and it’s miles more creative than the guys that just put vaguely relevant stock footage in the background
Most people who make YouTube videos do it as a hobby or side thing and not as their main profession. Can’t expect pro grade from a hobbyist ;)
I think this technique varies in success depending on the content of the video. And for some people even just being satisfied enough with their own drawings is too distracting or time consuming compared to less diverse stock footage options. They may be self conscious about their skills as an artist or worried that their drawing isn’t really expressing their point as well as stock footage might have.
Even just whipping up some stick people in paint, saving the frames, and ordering them in the video can be more time consuming than picking some clips from an existing library of footage. Many youtubers still have full time jobs and may not have the time or creative energy to add their own drawings to a video.