321–330 of 1001 posts
Likely results: - Every script in Hollywood will now be submitted with a previs movie. - Manga to anime converters. - Online commercials for far more products.
Manga to anime already exists.
Commercials, particularly for social/online, already happening as well.
Facebook just spent 40 billion dollars on their AI infrastructure. Can they recoup those costs with stuff like this (especially after the VI debacle)? I doubt it. AI has been a wild ass jagged wasteland of economic failure since the 1950's and should be used with extreme caution by these companies...Like is it worth peoples time to spend ten\fifteen dollars (they have to eventually charge for this) to let AI create a…
I've been saying for years that generated content is an impending tsunami that's going to drown out all real human voices online. The internet may become effectively unusable as a result for anything other than entertainment.
I am grossed out by this. my instinct is to avoid ai slop. The interesting part to me is: What next? Where do we go? Will it be that "human" forums are pushed further into obscurity of the internet? Or will go so far as that we all start preferring meeting in person? Im clueless here
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All artists I have known have spent most of their lives practicing. Just as I have practiced programming. That's the biggest edge, commitment. To think that you _need_ to be neurodivergent to be an artist is non-sensical and stating mastering the craft itself is worthless is indicative of a lack of respect for their work. I'm baffled by this type of comment here in all honesty. Really, broaden your horizons.
> To think that you _need_ to be neurodivergent to be an artist You will notice I never said this. All I said, and is true, is there is a correlation between being an artist and being neurodivergent. > stating mastering the craft itself is worthless Where did I say this too? It appears you're having an argument with a ghost. You're correct, that argument is baffling! I wonder then why you made it up if you're just go…
> But mastering this alone is almost worthless.
> And it's magic because then it must not be rationale and it must not make sense, because the neurotypical can't see it.
Not trying to take them out of context, but specifying them. You mention, from my understanding, that mastering is almost worthless without the magic, and the magic only being there if you're neurodivergent.
This implies one cannot be a proper artist if not neurodivergent. Now, I could be misinterpreting it, so I apologize in advance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends on how shallow your understanding of media is. I'm sure this can be used to create entertaining movies that are fun and wacky. I don't think it can create impactful movies.
I don't agree. While "just" audio, I've made a few AI songs that have made people tear up and trigger strong emotions. I think you can do this with video too, just more challenging right now.
On social media platforms, typically the most popular content triggers the strongest emotions. It's rage-bait however, or sadness bait, or any other kind of emotional manipulation. It tricks the human mind and drives up engagement, but I don't think that is indicative of its value.
To be clear, I'm certain that's not what you're doing, and the music is good. But I think it's complicated enough that triggering emotions isn't enough data to ascertain value.
I don't know, exactly, what combination of measurements are needed to ascertain value. But I'm confident human-ness is part of the equation. I think if people are even aware of the fact a human didn't make something they lose interest. That makes the future of AI in entertainment dicey, and I think that's what fuels the constant dishonesty around AI we're seeing right now. Art is funny in how it works because, I think, intention does matter. And knowledge about the intention matters, too. It maybe doesn't make much sense, but that's how I see it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The content bubble apocalypse, where no one is ever watching the same thing and we lose all cultural connections to each other. At least until someone figures out an algorithm/prompt to influence the content, yvan eht nioj style.
The opposite will occur. Very little will change from how people consume content today. There won't be endless amounts of quality content, there will still be very little high quality content. There will be brief bursts of large amounts of garbage that nobody pays attention to (as a small percentage of people flirt with generative media and quickly lose interest; and the vast majority never bother at all). The extrem…
Though a reason we would gravitate towards common media more is if what someone brought up in the comments here comes to pass, and celebrities/actors license their likeness to studios only, and amateur tools are not licensed to use them. Though I think there will always be crafty/illegal ways around this. Also, likeness probably won't be worth much, if we can generate any type of character we like anyway. I, for one, couldn't be happier for celebrities and the cultural obsession around them to disappear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds gimmicky and worth watching once or twice, then forgetting about. Worthwhile art will continue to be created from a specific person's/group's vision, not an algorithmically generated sum of personal preferences.
I rarely watch movies or read books twice anymore. There's too much content already. The challenge with purely human art at this point is that it will be silenced by the perpetual flood of half-assed generated work. There will be room in elite art circles for more, but at some point the generated stuff will be so ubiquitous (and even meaningful) that anyone without connections is going to have a tough time building a…
At best, you'll get something like a generic sitcom. The idea that "all visual stimulus will be satisfied by hypertuned AI models" doesn't line up with how people experience the arts, at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are we only a few years away from one person/small group made movies where the dialog, acting, location and special effects can be tweaked endlessly for a relatively low cost. If I was a studio exec I'd be worried.
I'm not sure, I see a common pattern with autonomous vehicle, text to image, llms: the last 10% are hard to achieve
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nearly all the movies that go to theaters aren't "meaningful art". No but what they are is expensive, flashy, impressive productions which is the only reason people are comfortable paying upwards of $25 each to see them. And there's no way in the world that an AI movie is going to come anywhere close to the production quality of Godzilla vs Kong. And like, yeah, their example videos at the posted link are impressiv…
My suspicion is that, if AI moviemaking actually becomes common, there will be a younger generation of folks who will grow up on it and become used to its peculiarities. We will be the old ones going "back in my day, you had to actually shoot movies on a camera! And background objects had perfect continuity!" And they will roll their eyes at us and retort that nobody pays attention to background objects anyway.