The Creature in the Corner

I was staying at a friend's house a couple of weeks ago and I got up in the middle of the night to take a leak. Not wanting to wake her, I tried to navigate the hallway without turning on any lights. As I walked past the open door of a room on my way to the bathroom, I saw some sort of creature in the corner, sitting in the dark.

It was about four feet tall, it looked like it was maybe covered in long hair or something, and it had two glowing eyes staring right at me.

I couldn't make out any other details because the room was illuminated solely by the moonlight coming in through the window, and this creature was off in a corner, away from the main shaft of light.

I paused. I stepped back from the doorway so I couldn't see it (or, rather, so it couldn't see me).

I peered in. It was still looking at me.

I took a step towards it into the darkened room, but it stayed where it was.

I took another step. It didn't flinch.

Another step. Its eyes were frozen.

One final step. And it started feeling considerably less animate than it did on first glance.

I reached out and my hand cast a shadow across one of the glowing eyes.

I touched the cursed monster and realized it was an exercise bike with a jacket hanging off the display screen. The "eyes" were the silver plugs on the ends of the handlebars that curved forward and inward around the jacket.

I let out a deep breath. I was significantly less concerned this thing was going to kill me or steal my soul. (On the negative side, it wasn't going to grant me wishes either.)

Did I ever really think it was some kind of hairy goblin? Probably not. But it was the middle of the night, I was half asleep, in a new place. So while I wasn’t sure it was a creature. I wasn’t sure it wasn’t either. It was just this mysterious thing until every step I took stripped it of its mystery a little. The closer I got, the less dangerous it became, the less alive, the less capable of becoming anything.

A lot of magic gets diminished the same way. Not by being explained, exactly, but by being over-defined.

If, at breakfast, you put a strawberry under a coffee mug, mumble some kind of incantation, lift up the mug, and the strawberry is gone, your friend watching might wonder what they just saw. Especially if you seem to not fully comprehend it yourself. Was it a trick? Was it a glitch in the matrix? Did she really see a strawberry in the first place? What was that incantation about?

Now exchange the coffee mug for a spun copper cup. And the strawberry for a crocheted ball. Add two more cups and more crocheted balls. Exchange the placemat for a close-up mat. Don't simply vanish one thing. Make the balls vanish and appear over and over. Have them penetrate the bottom of a cup. Have them all gather under one cup.

Every additional beat of magic or bit of polish you add to a trick ends up clarifying the category of the experience for people. It tells them, "This is a magic performance. This has been engineered. This has been practiced." In some contexts, that's exactly what you want.

But I think the most affecting amateur magic occurs when they're not sure exactly what they just saw. It must have been a trick, of course… but it had all the rough edges of…something else.

Consider that before adding another phase, a second climax, or using special props that look only like something you'd get at a magic shop.

Are you sure you want to take that step forward if it ends up making things safer, smaller, and more easily understood?

Sometimes the best thing you can do is keep them in the doorway a little longer, let the eyes keep glowing, and let the creature remain a creature.

Mailbag #175

Do you have any tips for spotting AI? I thought you were reaching with Wednesday's post about AI in that magic demo but when Penguin came out and admitted it I realized I'm maybe falling for a lot of it. Anything in particular I should look out for? —NA

I don't really know what to tell you. To me it was obvious the moment I saw it—the way the facial features moved, the voice, etc.

You know, sometimes someone will say, "This diet soda tastes just like regular soda." And I taste it and it tastes chemically, fizzy, sweet piss. I just think some people's senses are attuned differently.

I pick up on AI content really easily, especially in magic or writing—but that's because I perform daily for people and I write professionally. So that's right in my wheelhouse. On the other hand, if you showed me an AI cricket match I'd probably buy it because I've never really seen a real one.

So it was just an immediate recognition. And then on rewatch, specific things stood out to me as strange.

"There's no way you're going to get this." That seems like an odd thing to say. The card is sitting face-up in front of her. He's turned away. He hasn't indicated he's going to try to "get" anything (that's not even the point of the trick). At this point in the routine he's only had her take a card and sign it.

Notice her eyes and facial expressions. They don't line up with looking at someone's back. That's a face that's making eye contact with someone.

Her reaction here is too intense for the trick.

The trick is a card turning over in the deck. At best this should be a fun surprise moment.

This expression is what's known as the "inner brow raiser." It's indicative of shock, but not "fun magic trick" shock. More of, "I forgot the baby in the hot car" shock. There's concern and fear there.

You can get this reaction with magic, but it typically has to be a very intense or personal effect.

AI often gets the magnitude of things wrong. Here it's like, "Oh you want her shocked? Sure thing." And it gives you a woman who looks like she found her husband in bed with her grandfather.

You wanted this 😮 and you got this 😱.

You see this magnitude issue in AI writing as well. People will ask AI to write an ad for their variation on Twisting the Aces, and it's like:

This isn't just a card trick. It's a weapon. This is a rupture in the fabric of what your spectators believe is possible.

One ace turns. Their pupils dilate. Their breath catches. Time itself seems to fold in on the moment.

It's not magic. It's inevitability.

And magic creators are like, "Hmmm… yeah that sounds about right. Let's go with that."

Everything is maximal, nothing is specific, and the actual mechanics or performance conditions of the trick are nowhere to be found—because the "writer" doesn't know what a real reaction looks like, just what "reaction-adjacent language" sounds like.

The truth is, online magic reactions have always been mostly worthless as far as judging a trick goes. Pull out a camera and start filming people's reactions and you're going to get performative reactions. It's actually less embarrassing to go, "Wow! That's incredible!" than to give a real reaction that's underwhelming.

So my point in calling this out was never to be like, "How dare you tarnish our beloved demo reactions with AI!" It was just to make the point that if there’s going to be any value to online demos we at least have to all understand exactly what we’re dealing with.

---

Just a quick heads up for a potential topic for your blog: As so many people are raving about Reid Ferry’s ‘Trident’, I’m wondering what you think of it. The prop-less version in particular is pretty obvious, isn’t it? I think it’s generous of Reid to post the uncut version on YouTube, but not only me even after showing this to a laymen, they immediately knew what was going on... However, if there would be a way to improve it, it would probably fit to the carefree approach.—SG

I think you should offer a service where you offer a “stamp of approval” for tricks before they come out. I’m tempted to by the new Trident trick but it’s SUCH an investment. And the endorsements just sound like the standard mutual cocksucking of all magic endorsements. I feel like you’re in a good position to confirm if a trick has merit because you’re known in the community but you aren’t ever marketing yourself or wanting people to like you, so you don’t have the “let’s scratch each others backs” thing going on. Think about it. —DA

What the fuck? I want people to like me! Do I come off that misanthropic? Well, to be fair, I don’t particularly care if other magicians like me. So I see your point.

I’ve actually offered a similar service in the past to people who are releasing effects. I don’t think anyone ever took me up on it.

As far a Trident goes, I found the propless version (shown here—five minutes in) pretty obvious. And that’s despite the fact that the demo is edited to hide the process somewhat. But what did you expect? Any truly propless “any word” revelation has to be obvious almost by definition.

I think the version with a business card is stronger (shown here) But if the method I’ve been told for this is accurate, you’re going to have a lot of unhappy people when they get this.

That said, there may be so much more to this than I understand and it may actually be great. But from what I’ve seen and heard, I’m skeptical.

---

I wanted to share one of my favorite hooks. I usually use it when I know I'll be spending my time with some of my friends that I see often (especially if I know that we will spend some time scrolling away and showing each other funny videos and whatnot). It's basically having a bunch of normal interesting posts saved on Instagram that make for an interesting magic hook... 

Also, by having the videos on the saved page on Instagram, you can showcase the video as if you had just stumbled across it while scrolling with a few taps on the video (going down with a few upward swipes after clicking on the saved video, then swiping downward as u look at the reels yourself with the audio on). I find that feeling of spontaneity adds to the fun of the experience for smaller effects compared to "look at this interesting video I saw last week" even though I still love that line if the presentation makes sense for me to use it. —KA

Yeah, this is a goood idea. That style of interaction: “Let’s hang out and look at stuff on our phone and show each other anything interesting we find” is so common and natural these days that using that as an “in” to an effect makes a lot of sense.

I’ll try to remember to mention any good posts that I come across for this purpose. Perhaps it’s time to turn this blog into a similar Instagram.

Until then, you’ll have to find your own useful posts. Which sadly means branching out from the bear-focused balloon fetish content you usually peruse on Instagram.

Penguin Responds

In regards to Wednesday’s post about my suspicions of the use of AI in the spectator’s reaction to the effect, What the Flip? Acar Altinsel, the owner of Penguin Magic writes:

Thanks for your thoughtful blog post. It was actually more helpful than you may realize.

I hate to admit, I didn't realize the trailer had AI in it. So when you posted about it, we had a meeting and immediately took down that video and ripped the AI stuff out, and put up a new cut.

I'll write a newsletter about this topic at some point, but I feel very strongly that we definitely *do not* want AI to help reactions OR effects.    There was a trailer that was submitted to us a year ago that used an AI reaction and it triggered me to say very clearly to our team that people won't trust us if they think we do this. Since then, until "What the Flip", as far as I know we haven't done this.

And *because* I've been very clear to our team about that, I kind of assumed our videos didn't have it, so it was really disappointing to find out some had made it into our new video.  Thank you for pointing it out in a respectful way.

We work with a lot of editors, which makes it difficult to police especially as AI gets better, but we added a new requirement that editors we work with give a complete list of *any* AI that was used to help work get done no matter how, to hopefully prevent this kind of thing again.

Anyway, just to be clear, I hate the idea of AI being used to enhance effects or reactions, and frankly find it creepy in general, and I'll always appreciate another set of eyes helping us catch it. You helped us quite a bit today. —AA

Now, you may be saying, "That sounds good, but he's only saying it because they got caught."

That's not the impression that I get. I take him at his word. More importantly, I take him at his actions. They re-cut the trailer, pulling out the AI content. And he okayed me posting this email that publicly states they're not going to use AI to enhance effects or reactions in future demos.

That's good enough for me.

Speaking of me and my incredible AI-dar and ability to spot digital manipulation, I don't want this site to become just me calling people out, but I have to be honest… I don't think this is Craig's real physique.

Anti-Mastery

For a long time, before starting this site and refining my approach to performing social magic, I had the same issue most amateurs face when performing for friends and family: a generally steady decline in interest and appreciation for the tricks I was showing people..

The first time they see a trick from you, they're completely enthralled—even if the trick is nothing special. Months later there is less engagement. Years on, you have the "magician's wife" situation where they're significantly less interested in what you have to show them unless it's profoundly strong. Just a gradual decline in enthusiasm over time.

My solution at that time was to continually find new people to perform for. I'd perform regularly for a new person in my life, and then as time passed and their reactions lessened I'd start performing for them much less—maybe only every few months—and find fresh faces to focus on instead.

But then I stumbled onto a different approach that has proven to have much more enduring appeal.

It's very simple. The key is just never implying mastery. Nothing should ever feel "done."

In the past, the experience for people was:

Andy does magic tricks.

• He showed me a trick.

• He showed me another trick.

• He showed me another trick.

That might happen all in one night or over the course of a year. But each thing was its own separate experience—the feeling being that I had perfected this one thing and was now presenting it for their approval. And that's terrible for ongoing interest.

Imagine it this way. Let's say someone shows you some artwork they've done. Finished pieces. They're masters of their craft. At first you're like, "Wow, this is great! You're so talented." But as time goes by, you stop being surprised by their talent. It's expected now. So you're just comparing piece to piece: is this new one measurably more impressive than the last? If yes, maybe a reaction. If not, more of the same.

Now imagine a friend who is no master, but just someone who is interested in art and always experimenting with new techniques. Their pursuit is likely to hold your interest much longer even if their work is nowhere near as good as the first person's. Even if they're a total amateur. Even if the quality is all over the place. In fact, that only makes their pursuit more interesting.

This is the heart of anti-mastery.

Say "I can read minds" to someone you see regularly and you've put an expiration date on the experience. There's only so many times that premise can land before it stops feeling impossible and starts feeling expected. Even if someone could actually read minds, you'd lose interest in watching it pretty quickly.

But if it's something you're working on—something you've been reading about, experimenting with, trying to get a handle on—that same premise stays alive indefinitely. It's no longer a claim, now it's a thread that makes sense to return to again and again. You can come back to it, push it further, try a different angle, let it succeed, let it miss, let it evolve. People stay interested because it's still in motion.

The exceptions are:

If you want to claim an ability with someone you'll never see again, go ahead.

If you want to claim something so frivolous you'd only ever do it once, go ahead. For example: "I don't know why, but ever since I was little I could tell how many grapes someone can fit in their mouth."

But never claim the big abilities: mind reading, sleight-of-hand expertise, psychological manipulation, seeing the future, etc.

This is the best approach for an amateur who wants to play the long game. You're always learning. You've never mastered anything. You're exploring different approaches and you want their feedback. You're growing, you're on a journey and you're inviting them along for it.

No, Seriously, What the Flip?

Penguin released a new trick today.

I would love to see the raw footage of this live performance, because I’m pretty positive this is AI. Specifically this woman here…

And here…

To be clear, I know this is a real person who was really there. I'm saying her reactions—what she said and the expression on her face—were generated by AI. To me it's obvious.

I know Penguin has been using AI video effects in their demo videos for a while now, but this is the first time I've seen a video using it for the spectator's reaction. We're not okay with this, right? If this becomes commonplace, demo videos will go from their current state (mostly useless) to something that's actively destructive to your ability to sense if something is a good trick or not.

Now, I've always been a big Penguin Magic fan and I may be proven wrong on this. Maybe that's her real reaction and she's just on mescaline or something. If the raw footage matches up to the ad, I will buy 50 copies of the trick and distribute them to readers of this site as an apology to Penguin for questioning their integrity.

We'll see.

Salvage Yard: Pixx

So I grabbed Pixx off Penguin a couple weeks back. The method's solid — no surprise, it's Max Maven — but the trick itself feels arbitrary in a very “magic-y” way. The pictures are just random objects. And the predictions aren’t exact matches for the original possibilities. Which means someone in your audience could imagine that one prediction applies to multiple selections which just makes it feel less clean overall.

And then in this video they suggest you just use the method and come up with your own cards and images — cool, so I'll do the creative work you were supposed to do. Great division of labor.

I've got nothing for framing. Genuinely stumped.

So now it's your problem. Any ideas for a way to perform this that’s maybe more interesting? —HT

Actually… yes.

I had similar thoughts when this was performed for me. Strong method, but uninspired overall framing. But it's only $20, so I didn't really see an issue with it.

Here's an idea for a premise that is more interesting, more cohesive, less arbitrarily limiting (the part where there are colored frames around the original images lumping two together), and more memorable than the current version.

You'll have to go to a little effort to make it up, though, but with AI and online card printing companies it won't be that difficult.

Or, if Penguin wants to produce Pixx: Jerx Edition, they have my permission. Here's my signature signing the rights over to them.

Here's how it works…

You bring up the concept of "psychic detectives"—people who seem to have insights into crimes and their perpetrators they couldn't possibly know.

"These people come out of the woodwork all the time, but 99% of them are lunatics or bullshit artists, but 1% seem to be the real deal. And that's somewhat frustrating because—are the cops supposed to follow up on 99 bad leads for the one good one? Or do they just ignore these people and end up missing out on a key bit of information?"

"What they end up doing is giving these people a little test based on a crime that's already been solved. Even a fictionalized case will work, as long as a verified answer for the case has been created as well."

I want to try that with you today, because I get the sense you'd be good at it.

You bring out two envelopes. One labelled "Suspects," the other "Perpetrators."

From the Suspects envelope you remove eight police sketches and put them in groups of two. Each group has some very basic similarities between the individuals, but also some obvious differences.

Group 1 - Two white male "punk" types. One with a mohawk and clean shaven. The other bald with a long beard.

Group 2 - Two black males. One thin with a long face. One fat with a round face.

Group 3 - Two older women. One with dark straight hair, one with blond curly hair.

Group 4 - Two children. One boy, one girl.

"The scenario is a bank robbery gone wrong. 18 people killed. The authorities know it was a crew of four and they have sketches of people who were in the area. But anyone who could positively identify exactly who was involved was killed and all the security cameras were taken out."

"I'm going to ask you some questions about who was involved. I don't want you to use your brain or try to ‘logic’ out the correct answer. Instead, just go with your intuition."

"We're going to start furthest out and work our way towards the vault."

"On the street, in front of the bank, there were two individuals in cars. One was the getaway driver; the other was just an innocent person sitting in their car. Use your gut. Which of these groups had the getaway driver in it?"

They point to the two white males.

"Okay, and which of these was the actual getaway driver?"

They indicate the bald one.

You slide that picture off to one side, and put the other one in the start of a discard pile.

"Now there was an individual at the front door of the bank, guarding it and acting as a lookout. And there was another individual out there who was just an innocent bystander. Which group contains the door guard?"

They pick the two black males as containing the door guard. And then identify the thin one as the actual perpetrator.

They then decide it was the two children that were in the lobby and the one doing crowd-control was the little girl (the little boy was innocent).

And finally, inside the vault were the two older women. Although they both claimed they were innocent, your friend identifies the curly-haired one as the mastermind. The other one was just her final hostage.

As you place the unchosen individual's police sketches away, you recap. "You identified which person you thought was guilty and exactly where they were located during the crime. The odds of getting every one right are like in the 100s or 1000s to one." Maybe not exactly, but close enough.

You slide the contents of the perpetrators envelope out. On top of the pile is a cover card (my addition, just to delay and clarify the climax). It says something like:

Perpetrators

1. Getaway Driver

2. Door Guard

3. Lobby

4. Vault

"So first we have the getaway driver. You said the white males were in the cars outside. And between those, you thought the guilty one was the bearded man."

"And the actual getaway driver was…" You remove the cover card.

You then go through the rest of the cards, showing they found the full guilty "crew" and identified what their roles were.

The "patter" I'm giving here is pretty basic—just to get the idea out there. In reality I'd try to come up with something a little more interesting. And, of course, you’d want to emphasize your amazement that they got everything correct.

Maybe give them a picture of JonBenet-Ramsey at the end and be like, “Use your powers. Don’t hold back on us now. What happened to her?”

Mainly what I want to do is come up with a less arbitrary grouping of the two images (these are two suspects spotted in the same general area), a way of making the order meaningful (they're choosing what the people's roles were), and more generally interesting subject matter (psychic detective).

Note

I found it somewhat difficult to get AI to create something that looked like a real police sketch. It produced something too perfect looking each time. The closest I got was with this prompt in Google Gemini.

• Click for Prompt

  Create a black-and-white police composite sketch, like a witness-based forensic drawing rather than a polished portrait. The image should look imperfect, rough, and slightly amateurish, as if drawn by a competent but not highly artistic police sketch artist.

  Use graphite pencil on plain white paper. The subject should be shown front-facing in a simple head-and-shoulders composition, with a neutral expression and no dramatic lighting. The facial proportions should be slightly off in believable ways: mild asymmetry, uneven eyes, simplified nose and mouth, awkward jawline, imperfect ear placement, and features that feel approximate rather than lifelike.

  Use visible pencil lines, basic crosshatching, smudgy shading, and uneven line weight. Avoid beautiful realism, cinematic portraiture, fashion illustration, or highly detailed anatomy. The sketch should feel utilitarian, flat, and witness-driven — clear enough to identify a suspect, but not refined or artistically “good.”

  Subject: [Ex. A white male, in his 20s, "punk" look with a mohawk.]

  Do not make it a polished realistic portrait, charcoal art, concept art, glamour drawing, hyper-detailed illustration, or attractive finished sketch. Avoid perfect symmetry, perfect anatomy, dramatic lighting, and painterly rendering.

I then asked ChatGPT for a photo-realistic mugshot based on the image.

If I was going to pursue this further, I’d then use makeplayingcards.com or something similar to create the cards.

Mailbag #174

I love the absurdity of this “multi sauce” pack that comes with this effect. What are your thoughts on this as an EDC trick? —MIS

In my opinion, anything that doesn't seem like something you would carry around with you normally is terrible for an "everyday carry" trick. That's the metric I use.

Imagine someone said to you, "I need a quarter for the parking meter. Hold on." And they start emptying their pockets.

They pull out some bills, a credit card, their keys, a pack of gum. You would have no thoughts on that. That makes tricks that use these items perfect for EDC.

But if they pull out a little vinyl wallet with eight playing cards in it?

Poker chips?

Ketchup and mustard packets?

They'd look like a weirdo.

When performing socially, you don't want to start off unnaturally just based on the items you're using.

So no. This isn't good for an EDC.

Perform it at home, where you might have some condiment packets lying around from a food order.

Perform it professionally, because no one cares about the objects you use when performing professionally. They go into it assuming you're using strange stuff even if it's normal stuff.

But don't carry it with you and think you can roll into it "casually." No one's going to buy that.

The only potential I see for social performing is a one-phase thing where you just bring out the multi-sauce packet. "Have you seen these? I got them at that new diner. They don't like you to take extras because apparently they're pretty expensive. But I snagged one without them noticing. It's a multi-sauce packet…."

In this case, you're not some weirdo carrying around "normal" condiment packets to do a multi-phase trick with. You're a normal person carrying around "something weird" you found — which is much more justified.

---

I got Mosaic from Ellusionist and the reactions have been just okay so far. It seems like it gets more laughs than astonishment. Any idea why or suggestions on how to improve it?—DG

I actually wrote about this briefly in the most recent newsletter.

I think this is a case where the trick is so clever and polished—and it’s happening on a phone—that the only place for their mind to go is that an app or something similar is behind it.

If something visually interesting or unusual happens on your phone, it’s hard to get people to not just think of it as a “phone trick.” So while I think the trick generates a nice initial surprise, the nature of the reveal is so phone-centric they’re almost certainly going to fight against the mystery by shrugging it off as a “phone thing.”

It doesn't help that these types of photo mosaics are done by computers. So people already know your phone is assisting you to some extent. So their question will be, at best, "How did he know the celebrity I'd name?" Not, "How did he take pictures for the past two years in such a manner that when zoomed out they'd form the picture of the celebrity I would eventually think of?"

This is all a matter of personal choice, of course. For some people, the surprise factor will be enough to make this worth performing.

But I personally think the best apps make the phone feel a little more tangential to the effect than this one does.

---

I was wondering if you've seen this incredible 30-minute AI film called Holy Grail? It was made by one guy in 10 days and it's a historical sci-fi drama set in 1503 Florence. To my eyes, it's beautifully "shot" and "edited," and features a compelling lead "performance" by a charismatic "actor." It's the best integration of animation and live action I've ever seen; I mean, it's an animated film by definition but it doesn't look or read as such. And this is still early days; AI filmmaking will never again look worse than this.

Watching it was the first time I ever felt viscerally that traditional Hollywood filmmaking is toast. Within a few years it will seem unthinkable to spend $200-300 million to make a Lord of the Rings-type film, with hundreds of production people and actors when a couple of geniuses in their bedroom can produce epics for the cost of AI credits.

I have no idea what this kind of thing does or doesn't mean for magic. I'm inclined to think live magical experiences will only grow in value and preciousness when every visual experience imaginable can be manifested in the digital realm. But in any case Holy Grail is a hell of a yarn. —JS

Video available on YouTube

This video is age-restricted, so it can’t be played directly on this page.

Watch on YouTube

I agree with you on the magic front. I feel the advances in digital content have only made in-person magic a stronger experience.

As for the film, I thought it was a snooze, but I'm not the sort of person who would watch this if it was made by humans. So I'm probably not the best judge.

While it's impressive, I can't imagine anyone watching it who wasn't curious to see what could be done with AI.

They've got the spectacle down—and that's obviously going to change the way big Hollywood epics are made going forward. It already has, actually.

But the acting is still not quite there. I have a feeling it may never get past the uncanny valley stage. So I don't see it replacing actors. (To be fair, when I first started watching it I happened to skip forward to 3 minutes in where the lead "actor" says, "Holy shit we found it!" in this bizarre way. And all I could think of as I watched a lot of this was the poor guy who made it having to settle for certain "takes" because no matter how he prompted it, he was getting weak outcomes.)

One time I met a guy who told me that people would stop skiing in the real world because if they wanted to ski they could do it in VR at any mountain in the world. I told him he was a fucking moron. "You don't understand why people ski," I told him.

And I think the idea that AI will fully replace the human element in movies, TV, etc. is similarly flawed. Yes, it will be a tool for big epics. But that may backfire too. Look at the most profitable live-action films from the past couple months:

The Devil Wears Prada 2
Michael
Obsession
Backrooms

A character-driven sequel, a biopic, two small-scale/intimate horror pics.

What bombed?

Supergirl
Masters of the Universe
Mandalorian and Grogu

It may be that people are more interested in human stories than spectacle these days. Perhaps when spectacle becomes something someone can do in their bedroom, we care about it less.

Or maybe I'm just reading into things.

But it does seem telling this epic short film, showing the pinnacle of AI filmmaking, has, after two months, 2600 views. For whatever reason, people don't give a shit.

Over the same time period, Craig Petty telling you what's in his close-up case, has 3800 views.

Make of that what you will.