Ben Affleck's surprisingly comprehensive take on LLMs for video

Because it will perform similarly to the way that writing LLMs do…. They obey and produce singularly predictable and droll stories that have trouble keeping the attention of a five year old. It’s the definition of stale tropes and predictable scenes at its worst.

It has no idea of the mind of the viewer or the reader. It’s literally generating the most probable next few words to tack on to the story.

LLMs are great for a lot of stuff, but they are by design not at all creative in any admirable sense of the term. They cannot produce a narrative that is simultaneously unique or genuinely surprising without it also being nonsensical.

Hallucinations are not a bug, they are a result of proper operation , just undesirable. The same thing that makes nonsensical“hallucinations “ if the “temperature” is set too high is what prevents llms from having any unique ideas if the temperature is set low enough to not hallucinate wildly.

LLMs are text prediction engines. Extremely useful and revolutionary in many ways, but not in creative work. Everything they do is by definition derivative and likely.

What graphics models do in images is no different, it’s not all that creative, and works much better when you -tell it- to be derivative. It’s just that the nature of graphic representation is mainly predictable and derivable… so it doesn’t bore us when it produces derivative, predictable work.

First, do all the techbro failures where they thought they were smarter than the industry.

Second, show the company where the technologists made the same thing the old school was making, and better. Amazon retail disrupted but didn't destroy physical retail, and certainly didn't replace it, and certainly isn't better at it. Same with AirBnB => hotels, Google/FB => advertising (disrupted with a new type of product... a tech product... but have no presence in literally every other form of the industry).

The closest thing you can get to dominance is Netflix making movies and television, and there's no evidence that they make better movies and television than the old school. Technologies can use money to leverage their position against slow-moving industry players, but in this specific discussion, we've seen nothing to suggest that eventually AI could make a better film than human beings.

If you were actually in the industry you'd know that the top decisionmakers at Netflix have decreasing respect from the creative community, increasing reputation for being a cheap and difficult company to work with, and are generally regarded as a mill that creates a lot of mediocre to slightly-above-average content that gets swept aside every 3-6 months for the next wave of grist. Profitable certainly but nowhere close to being a leader in quality, for as much money as they've thrown at trying to win that Best Picture trophy (and spoiler: Emilia Perez isn't gonna do it this year either).

If you don't know anything about Hollywood, maybe you should stay out of a discussion about Hollywood.

Nope, you do the opposite. The list is long on both sides, displaying how difficult it is to know if industry knowledge is an asset or liability.

Of course they don't do the exact same thing. Only someone in industry would think to do the exact same thing. The value proposition is the same in each case, that's what matters.

The people who don't know Hollywood are the ones taking over the entertainment business. Customers of the entertainment business don't care about the "creative community" or "hollywood".

>Vfx subreddit reaction to this

An amazing amount of angry finger pointing and very little actual reflection on the points raised. Burn the messenger! He's a witch!

More video content is going to get made, at lower cost. The skills required will change. The economics will change.

The VFX industry has struggled financially for many years. AI will not improve the financial prospects of the VFX industry.

That was a mistake. At least the guy yelling on the corner was obviously nonsense and you could realize you shouldn't trust him.

The newspaper guy had a sophisticated, industry insider sounding explanation for why newspapers would always be around. Detroit guys had logical sounding reasons why Tesla wouldn't work. Aerospace and defense guys had logical sounding reasons spacex wouldn't work. Everyone in retail had reasons amazon wouldn't work.

People who have been doing something for a long time haven't had a great record of predicting the future in the very field they operate in.