Summary of Key Points
The rough short film "Niulai" has unexpectedly become popular, reflecting changes in audience aesthetics and the value of creation in the AI era: when AI can easily produce content that "looks good," people begin to care more about the "human element" behind the work—such as the creator's genuine choices, the sacrifices made, and the specific intentions behind it, rather than just the final product. This phenomenon highlights deep-seated issues stemming from AI-generated content: the separation of the creative process from the result, conflicts over labor rights, the blurring of authorship, and the stratification of the future creative market.
I. "Niulai"’s Unexpected Success: Why Does Roughness Attract People?
The success of "Niulai" is not because it is "good," but because it is "real." Initially, people criticized its roughness (poor modeling, stiff movements), and these complaints turned into creative adaptations. Later, they realized that the film was made by a small team with limited resources. At this point, the audience's perspective changed: lagging performance was no longer seen as a flaw but as a sign of the team's capabilities; mismatched shots became evidence that someone had actually put in the effort to complete the project.
The key is that "human element" does not equate to roughness. A true sense of humanity comes from the creator's choices, hesitations, and the reasons why something was done the way it was. For example, you can feel the presence of a real person behind the uneven visuals, rather than just perfect but impersonal AI-generated content. AI-generated content often fits the platforms' "safe formulas" (beautiful lighting, smooth pacing), but after watching too much of it, viewers may wonder, "Why does this have to be like this? Is there anyone behind it?" The roughness of "Niulai" breaks away from this sense of artificial perfection, making people stop and realize that someone actually created it.
II. Audiences Buy More Than Just the Image; They Buy the Person Behind It
In the past, a good image meant the creator had invested a lot of time, so the result, the labor, and the creator were all interconnected. AI has separated these elements: results can be generated quickly, and labor is compressed, but audiences now want to know "who made it."
For instance, a genuine Van Gogh painting and a replica may look similar, but their prices differ greatly because audiences are buying more than just the image; they are also buying into the person of Van Gogh, his time, and the story behind his work. Psychological experiments have shown that even if people cannot distinguish between AI and human-made works, knowing it's AI-generated will lower its value. This shows that artistic value always includes the "source"—who made it, how, and why. The popularity of "Niulai" is a sign that audiences are starting to value the creative process itself.
III. "No AI" Is Not an Anti-Technology Statement; It's About Three Unresolved Issues
Many people who advocate for "no AI" do not hate technology, but rather three unresolved issues:
1. Aesthetic Considerations: AI-generated content can be touching, but the key is whether there is a human intention behind it. If AI is used as a tool to help creators ask questions, make choices, and take responsibility, the result still has value. However, content purely generated by prompts lacks authenticity.
2. Labor Issues: AI has made intermediate tasks (such as image library illustrations and advertising materials) more accessible and cheaper, leading to fewer orders and lower incomes for human creators. Worse yet, AI-generated content is dominating platforms, drawing attention away from human works, and creators are less motivated to upload their own content.
3. Rights Issues: Who's data is being used to train AI models? Are the creators being compensated? Platforms like Getty require traceability of AI-generated content and have established compensation mechanisms for contributors—this is a middle ground: AI can be used, but rights and responsibilities must be properly managed.
IV. As AI Improves, Does the Value of Humans Become More Precious?
AI will not eliminate human creativity; instead, it will make the human element more valuable. The future of visual content creation will be divided into three tiers:
1. Synthetic Visual Market: Dominated by AI, producing large quantities of cheap, result-oriented content (ad materials, background images), where AI's advantages are clear and prices will continue to decrease.
2. Hybrid Creation Market: A collaboration between humans and machines, where directors and designers use AI with traditional tools to create content that values "taste, narrative skills, and overall control" (e.g., film storyboards with AI-assisted rendering).
3. Human-Created Market: Audiences explicitly seek "handmade, original, and authentic" content (e.g., hand-drawn illustrations, live performances), where "no AI" becomes a symbol of rarity.
These three tiers will coexist for a long time. As AI improves, the value of human creativity will become even more prominent because machines can produce endless results, but only humans can claim the authenticity of the creative process.
Conclusion: The Lesson from "Niulai"
The success of "Niulai" is not about encouraging roughness; it reminds us that in the AI era, the focus of creation is no longer on whether a piece of work looks good, but on what humans have contributed to it. Future questions should be: Who’s data is being used by AI? Who benefits from the creation process? And who bears the costs of being replaced by machines? These issues are more practical and determine the direction of the next generation of creative systems.
In short, machines can produce results, but the traces and stories of human involvement will be the core competitiveness of future content.