this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
180 points (97.9% liked)
Technology
77090 readers
3338 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Internal review also takes time and expertise. Those things cost money, and the whole point of the exercise is to not spend money.
No one uses generative AI because they actually care about the quality of the end product.
But even allowing for those points, it's entirely possible that they did, in fact, do quality review. Extensively. But at some point the generation costs exceeded their allowed budget and this is what they settled on. This is the thing that lurks behind bad quality AI art; the fact that what we see is often the best result out of many, many tries. The Coca Cola holiday ad had to be stitched together from hours upon hours of failed attempts. Even the horrendously bad looking end product wasn't as bad as many of the failed outputs they got.
Regarding point 1, its a factored in value already. Replacing multiple stages of production simultaneously is a massive risk - voice acting + editing + editor review + production review on the cut.
This part:
I'd call entirely likely.
It would also mean that there was almost no testing of the llm's output prior to pushing it to production work, or basic items like intonation would have been called out.
Its also possible that the production team knew it was dogshit and pushed it out on purpose so people could see it for dogshit. Anime fans are not known for being supportive of poor adaptations after all, maybe they hoped for backlash? I know if I were on that team I'd prefer it.
At some point I'd expect management to have recognized it for being terrible though.
I seriously doubt that any of the decision makers involved in this process actually watch anime.
Anyone in management who cared probably didn't have enough pull / authority to do a damn thing about it.