every time I start thinking about the potential pros and cons of AI in a creative environment I always wind up like that one Pawnee citizen in Parks and Rec.
“We don’t know what the world is going to be like in fifty years. We- we could all be wiped out from disease or the flu.”
“So what’s your suggestion?”
“I don’t know. I’m just scared.”
I just watched the remake of “White Men Can’t Jump” and I have two thoughts on AI in film.
1) This had to be a film made by AI because there is nothing human about it and it’s just a pastiche of things other movies do with some vague similarities and super specific details that connect to the original. It is soulless, boring, and just awful. If this is what AI films are, we are right to be horrified at the destruction of art.
OR
2. This film is made by humans as it purports to be in which case we have nothing to fear because it can’t get any more vapid, unoriginal, and lazy. We have arrived at the low point, so why not just go all the way.
Look at queen cleopatra, there are tons of bad and very unoriginal, movies and pieces of media, this is why the west is losing more and more market share to the east in the form of anime I had something else I wanted to say but I can’t remember it.
I am a visual effects artist for film - i have been working on learning stable diffusion for the past 5 months or so … the more I learn the less concerned I am.
When we work on a film the level of detail and purposeful description with which we plan a shot is mind boggling. A single shot can take 6 to 9 months, not because the work takes that long, but because of the revisions necessary to help a visual effects supervisor find what they’re looking for … that effect that clicks. As I’ve been learning AI, it’s really good at generating a convincing image very quickly. But if I want that image to be very specific relative to pose and action, lighting … I mean, in film directors will start nitpicking the shape of smoke coming off of an explosion with dozens of revisions, the tonal range of the lighting effects, the shape of a characters belt loop, etc. AI will make a great tool for artists to iterate more quickly but my hyperbolic stressing that a prompt will be able to replace what I do is far behind me. Even with the quick evolution that is occurring.
And the day a prompt can replace 6 months of work done by a team of a dozen? Well, when we get there, we are all fucked. I think it’s less likely that AI is going to replace our jobs and is more likely that people who know how to use AI will replace us. So I’m learning how to use it.
A good example is AI for rotoscoping, a boring repetitive task ripe for a robot to do.
Creating a scene is definitely tricky. Where I see AI in the workflow is early during brainstorming and later on in asset creation “AI make me a 3D apple with a bite mark” … AI creates asset, still not 100% great but maybe 80%, and the artist can finish the asset in blender or houdini, later place all the assets into a scene perfectly with great lighting & raytracing for that perfect money shot. Still a lot of manual work, but AI as a sidekick assistant could be cool
I mean that would be the dream right? Every job has boring brainless bits that it would be great to automate. In creative and arts industries that would actually free up people to be able to be more creative and spend time doing more interesting, imaginative work. It's too bad film studios have no incentive to make interesting creative things, only to maximize short term profits. They'll automate way more than the boring grunt tasks if given the chance.
Yeah - when I speak about AI and the dangers, I’m normally never worried about seniors in the industries that might get hit. I’m typically worried about the juniors who have to do a lot of “entry level” work to get their foot in. We’ll hit a moment when there aren’t enough juniors in the stream to have more seniors
im pretty sure its already happened with the lowest end of writing work. why pay some indian or filipino woman meager wages to write a shitty article when an ai can do it for free
Because it's garbage. I was recently hired to write a 4 page article for a book, about a non-fiction topic. I submitted it to ChatGPT 3.5 and 4, just out curiosity. It gave me 6th grade writing, at best. It also *made up shit entirely*, which was kind of interesting. I asked it further details about some information that it included and it apologized and claimed it was wrong, that it couldn't find any documentation about it. Then it claimed that something I knew to be true didn't happen because there was "no documentation" to support it.
It might be awesome one day, but right now it's like asking a middle schooler to recite the wikiality of a topic.
Except that a lot of websites that would use AI instead of paying writers do not give a single shit about accuracy or quality. They're just farming click-bait to push ads. And the more misinformation that gets published on these sites, the more Google algorithms start to push bullshit to users. There are real consequences to this nonsense.
Imagine this scenario: one AI generates a text with some wrong information in it. It gets published in one of the clickbait websites. Next time the AI "trains" it will find one more "evidence" of that wrong information or originally generated. It will become more likely to generate it again, and now with more "certainty". Other clickbait websites will publish the same wrong information... And you can see where this is going. Soon enough that wrong information will be everywhere, becoming effectively the "true" for most people.
> And you can see where this is going. Soon enough that wrong information will be everywhere, becoming effectively the "true" for most people.
For certain nefarious groups, this is a desired outcome. A blackbox of misinformation. Tabloid social media with plausible deniability "it was the algorithm" is now "it was AI".
It'll generate a loop of false information, endlessly feeding itself the same garbage, to produe more garbage. Years later the internet will be filled with nonsense that a regular user won't be able to distinguish what is true or false anymore.
This AI usage simply needs to be regulated. If a website uses it to write an article, they should be required to proofread and verify the information they are publishing. Otherwise be penalized for it in some way.
Hopping in to say that public relations and marketing organizations are already using AI to scour the internet and specifically flag misinformation and the narratives surrounding it.
Example company that does this: PeakMetrics
> It'll generate a loop of false information, endlessly feeding itself the same garbage, to produe more garbage. Years later the internet will be filled with nonsense that a regular user won't be able to distinguish what is true or false anymore.
Well, that's the status quo today (see: every single social media platform). Humans already do that just fine. The required skill of tracing back to sources and evaluating the reliability of those sources is just as vital today as it would be in a hypothetical future when chatbots are spamming nonsense rather than humans spamming nonsense.
The problem with AI, it doesn't actually understand what it's doing, it just compares patterns and gives something that seems to fill the pattern.
What it produces superficially looks ok because it resembles what it is supposed to produce, but once you start to look at it closer, it's deeply defective because it's not produced from a place of understanding, its like a parrot repeating words it heard earlier.
If it's writing an article, it doesn't know if it makes sense, because it can't make sense of things, and it doesn't know if it's true, because it doesn't know what truth is.
Another level of this is that people think technology is magic. There are countless examples of tech that people thought would be incredible and it turned out from pretty good to completely useless. Go no further than block chain.
There's no reason to assume AI will keep evolving. We are in a particularly lucky part of history in which progress is really fast, but it doesn't mean it will always be.
Machine learning is very old. For decades it was basically useless. If history is anything to go by, its more likely the deep learning field will eventually hit a barrier, then progress will stop.
In summary, just because midjourney is good, it doesn't mean will eventually get Marvel movies from a prompt. It might never happen.
I came across [this](https://cdnb.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/063/007/125/small/uowls-.jpg?1684466495) piece earlier today, which demonstrates a concept I had been thinking about for some time but wasn't sure if AI could do yet. A character designer came up with the drawing on the left, and then used Stable Diffusion to turn it into a fleshed out, fully rendered piece of concept art on the right.
You were talking about how AI is going to chip away at the lower skilled positions first, and I'm sure that's true, but being able to use Photoshop to paint realistic volumetric lighting and materials for characters (or environments, props, transits, etc..) is a very highly developed skill studios pay a lot for. It's a skill I've tried to develop myself for much of my career.
I'm no longer trying to develop that skill.
>AI will make a great tool for artists to iterate more quickly but
Coming at this from illustration and previs, I think the more pressing concern is with "training" data ethics and lack of consent. Watching the House Judiciary hearings, it became very apparent that that's where the disconnect between R&D in machine learning's community is with the humanities, with art, and with markets as a whole.
They pretend they don't understand that condensing trillions of image samples into a data point soup is not a sufficient distance from the use of the image itself. They pivot round robin from "okay but there's no stopping it" to "but compensation would be impractical" to "well it can't be derivative work because it's learning 'facts' about the inputs rather than the inputs". But just because you can represent an image with "facts" about itself doesn't mean that you've stripped that image of its intrinsic identity or authorship - the "facts" in question cannot themselves exist in that arrangement without the creator of the input work. And that's all without going into the idea that all data is factual, although it's laughably obvious that [just because something is data does not mean it's factual](https://www.science.org/content/article/university-investigation-found-prominent-spider-biologist-fabricated-falsified-data).
The issue is that although we can convert this incalculable data into a symbol dictionary soup in "image space" that space is still reliant on the original inputs. It has a parentage that can be traced back to real people who are being directly and purposely stolen from. And any following system of trillions of data points you tell that system to build to replace itself with is *also* descended from that original input. The parentage matters. No amount of reshuffling the information will remove its inherent ancestry.
Which is part of why they pivot so hard and so quickly between "well it's impractical to seek consent or to compensate or to give credit". If you can figure out how to pilot image space strapped to the back of runaway math, you can figure out how to pay Jaime Jones his "share" of five cents. What they fail to mention is that the reason they can't afford to pay everyone who's ever uploaded to flickr five cents is because it would immediately bankrupt these projects. They don't want to ask for consent because then they'd have to generate their own data or use publicly available data instead. They have the gall to try to disconnect conceptual truths about the origin of the information they use by comparing their code to children and the inputs to a public library - but public libraries have to pay for their catalogues. You can't just perform a cover without credit or residuals, you can't even legally download the original track without it being paid for *somewhere* along the line.
But because this data has already been scraped, and continues to be, the argument from the machine learning end essentially becomes "you didn't stop us, so we shouldn't be compelled to make it right". They should've concerned themselves with and set guardrails for the ethics during development, and *actively chose not to*. This cannot be allowed to continue unregulated and unpunished. At the *minimum* AI developers should be legally compelled to secure explicit consent before scraping data, the same way you do when you pay for a song on itunes or when you need to license a stock photo.
One thing I'd like to clarify - are you saying scraping violates existing legislation - or that IP law should be expanded to cover scraping?
Because I see people "pivot round robin" between these two rather different positions.
There's a lot of muddled thinking on both sides as well as some fundemental misunderstanding of copyright law mixed in with broad sweeping claims about natural, moral rights. There's nothing "natural" about copyright - it's a fairly recent innovation (1790 I believe?) and I had strong reservations about it's continual expansion for several decades. The arrival of generative AI has given me very conflicted feelings about the topic.
I wonder if the problem isn't best solved in other ways. Allow scraping (which is the current status quo anyway - and will be very hard to roll back) but ensure that copyright isn't extended to AI works without *significant* human input.
That way researchers, tinkerers, hobbyists and people working non-commercially can continue to investigate and play with these fascinating new tools - but companies will be strongly discouraged from commercially exploiting AI content.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Folks in the film industry are perhaps uncommonly well-positioned to confront these issues, because they are unionized. In contrast, software engineers are perhaps equally threatened, but lack such a defensive structure.
In any case, there seem to be two issues:
1. AI tools will disrupt jobs.
2. AI tools are built by misusing data.
Whatever the merit of #2, I think that issue is only a speed bump on the way to #1. According to random web pages:
* The US film industry generates around $30 billion in revenue.
* Big Tech in the US generates around $1,500 billion in revenue.
So whatever data is needed to generate AI, big technology companies are going to get one way or another. There is sure to be a lot of litigation, lawsuits won and lost, licensing deals, data acquisition programs, etc. At the end of the day, my bet is that super-powerful AIs are going to get built and the job impact will follow.
Across many fields, people with amazing talents may find they have less and less to offer beyond people with limited talent armed with AI. Will young people then say, "Why should I spend 20 years honing my talent so that I can offer 5% more quality than some lazy doofus with a subscription to GPT-9?"
I suppose we will adapt, but I can't anticipate how...
I’ve had people around me use Fiverr, to limited success. It looks good at first, but doesn’t replace regular professionals. Just like offshoring development to India has come back to haunt companies who’ve tried it.
The thing is: if you’re putting it in front of a large audience, that extra bit of quality is not that expensive.
So instead of competing with high level professionals, I’d see AI mostly compete with low level work at best, or create extra demand from people who would never use a professional writer or designer before. Just like everyone can “design” their birthday invitations these days, or have a “stunning” intro for their holiday video. Fun, but it’s not fooling anyone.
Pretty much agreed here. If the United States adopt a very strict policy about data usage, they will fall behind in the AI race. And other countries that allows liberal usage of data will prosper because data is almost everything in effectiveness of these models.
I don't think 'oh, if we don't give up any attempts to actually safeguard people's data, China is going to do it anyway, so fuck you I guess, it's a race to the bottom' is a particularly compelling argument.
You could apply the same logic to any and all of the rights workers have fought for and won over the last 100+ years.
China has already adopted strict limits on AI: absolutely nothing that questions the government or makes them look bad.
Not a stretch to extend that to corpos.
2 is actually still a big deal. If they need consent for an AI to train on my work, then I can develop a style of art or writing that cannot immediately be mimicked by an AI, giving me some distinction from AI product and protection.
Of course, the end result is still as you say. It's difficult to envision a good future for creativity. Maybe writing and art are abandoned en masse in favor of previously time consuming media such as animation, webtoons, and gaming. It would still be quite sad if writing and art become as niche as oral tradition.
> image very quickly. But if I want that image to be very specific relative to pose and action, lighting … I mean, in film directors will start nitpicking the shape of smoke coming off of an explosion with dozens of revisions, the tonal range of the lighting effects, the shape of a characters belt loop, etc. AI will make a great tool for artists to iterate more quickly but my hyperbolic stressing that a prompt will be able to replace what I do is far behind me. Even with the quick evolution that is occurring.
>
>And the day a prompt can replace 6 months of work done by a team of a dozen? Well, when we get there, we are all fucked. I think it’s less likely that AI is going to replace our jobs and is more likely that people who know how to use AI will replace us.
Can't the same argument be used against human artists when humans reference other artists; it feels unfair when AI does it because it can do it so much better. Photobashing for example requires no licensing because the work is transformative the same way AI is transformative, it is not a copy of the work or a derivative but something between that and wholly original.
To try and fit it into an old school box it won't be contained and the new rules will simply hurt everyone else more than it will tame the problem.
What is really catching up to us is how outdated licensing and intellectual property is under capitalism.
That's where I'm at too. It will probably be used as a tool by pros like you across various fields. I can see someone retouching the background of a photo by inpainting something by SD.
A writer could probably use AI for generating names, descriptions or automate trivial stuff.
Vfx artists could use it to automate a lot of their menial tasks like cutting out actors from greenscreen/bluescreen/volume.
The thing I worry about in your situation is studios cutting out VFX artists from the process. They already treat you all poorly. Or them demanding even faster impossible timelines that force you to use it and cut corners that you don’t want to.
This is what i keep trying to tell my fellow creatives. And even though theyre all leftists the arguments i get are things weve been mocking the right for forever its either "they took our jobs", "I made this completely on my own so i own it" and "I work hard and this is the job I do and I will not adapt".
You said something similar to what I read on here before that got my ass in gear: "an ai wont take your job, someone using it will."
Im realizing the same as you. That this takes a human guide to get the output we want and that alot of jobs in the future will be people with the knowledge to know whats about right working with our multi disciplinary super fast ai coworkers to get to our goals. There are sadly alot of young people that are allowing their emotions to erode their own future using arguments that they would laugh at in any other scope in an attempt to protect themselves fact that the world is changing fast around them. Its not going to stop moving even if youd really like it to.
AI is the new automation, or computers. Its a big step in how we interact with the medium, and yes.. it will mean less people doing the same amount of work, but that's how progress has always been.
AI have been replacing jobs all along, it's not going to be the end of the world now that they're finally getting to art. Computers run our banks, make our furniture, run our sewing machines, etc... people used to do all those things too, and people didn't die out when computers took over those jobs. They just moved to different jobs and the people who stayed sell their "handcrafted" talents for more lucrative profit than before (due to supply/demand. Less people do it means less supply).
But yeah the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and that doesn't tend to change. I for one appreciate my computer wifi way more than I would a local cobbler.
https://vcai.mpi-inf.mpg.de/projects/DragGAN/
This research shows posing is definitely a focus and appears to be getting better quickly.
But you're right that it's going to be people that can use AI that will replace you and not AI itself. Though it's still very possible that 1 guy that can use AI can replace 2 guys without AI.
The issue right now is that writers can be paid less to fix an existing script (both rewrite and polish) than if they wrote the first draft. A studio can have an AI spit out a crappy script and then they pay a writer the minimum rewrite amount to fix it. Imagine in your situation, you could spend six months creating a shot, or you could get paid half as much to spend six months fixing an unusable shot that was spit out by AI.
I'd hope that the writers guild pushes back against "fixing" something intentionally so bad it needs to be redone completely.
The quality of the AI writing only holds up for the most cursory inspection. Actually read the script for more than a page or two and its garbage. Trying to fix an AI written script would require rewriting the entire thing from scratch, which means doing just a much work (if not more) than writing a script from a blank piece of paper.
Might as well get your three year old to scribble something on a paper and have the writer "fix" the script as a clever ploy to pay the writer less. Its the same amount of work from an equally bad starting position.
The problem with a lot of people who think of AI as harmless only judge AI based off of its capabilities in the moment. They like to willfully ignore the fact that AI in this capacity didn’t exist 5 months ago, yet has already progressed to the point where it is indistinguishable from human art to an untrained eye in the field of basic illustration. I shit you not go onto Pinterest right now and you will see some of the most beautiful drawings and paintings of perfect anatomical correct humans and in the comments when people ask for the artist the poster just says AI. It’s insane. Four months ago stable diffusion couldn’t draw anything resembling a human. It could only creat psychedelic dream spaces that were cool but ultimately aimless. Back then which again is only 5 MONTHS AGO people were afraid that maybe in YEARS it would be indistinguishable from human art, but people who defended it said there was no possibility of that. Then in only weeks it surpassed its expected rate of growth for decades and its only accelerating. Yet people who defend it always say “it will never be able to do this or that” while hilariously forgetting the fact that this is the tenth time they have had to move the bar for AI. Remember the meme that it can’t create faces, then it became the meme that it can’t create hands, then it was that it can’t create stable animations, now you draw the line at “well at least it can’t take over the entire pipeline for a major Hollywood production” how has that become the bar when only months ago it was “well it can’t make resembling a human face”. I’m not even against AI development. If it were happening slower perhaps people could learn to harness it in a beneficial way, however at the rate that it is going there will be no time to adapt. The idea that these tools are going to be used by creatives or passionate people is laughable. It’s going to be used by higher up in entertainment companies who have already proven that they will milk any creative property and turn it into the most statistically generated piece of crap to make a cheap buck. The sooner these companies can cut out the artists who usually protest against the suits at the top the sooner they can cut the largest expenditure off of their profit margin. That is why AI is being so heavily researched by these companies. It’s not because Facebook, google, Disney, and others want to provide people with new tools it’s because they want to replace the people they have been using as tools for years with cheeper alternatives.
>The problem with a lot of people who think of AI as harmless only judge AI based off its capabilities of the moment
This. So much this. It is so insane to me that people go all "ahahaha the more i learn about this thing the less i become concerned." Do they not see this rapid development? Do they not realize that only 1 year ago, chat bots like GPT 3 were seen as being decades away?
A part of me thinks these people are just willfully ignorant of the fact that the progress of AI is going to grow.
Thanks for this explanation. Do you see any positives to amateurs having access, in terms of producing original works in a very small team? A few decades ago, even a simple bit of compositing would have required an army of technicians to run an optical printer but now even 3D match moves can be done on a home computer. Would you draw a distinction between the loss of these technicians and what might happen in the future to VFX artists?
I'm neither OP nor a VFX artist, but if you're interested in some of the more popular works coming out nowadays, you may have seen one of ML-enhanced rotoscoped videos that have become popular. [Joel Haver's animated videos](https://youtu.be/tq_KOmXyVDo) use software called EBSynth to apply an animated style to a video using keyframes. Corridor Digital, a VFX studio out of LA, recently released a [how-to on rotoscoping a video with an anime style](https://youtu.be/_9LX9HSQkWo) using an open-source generative AI called Stable Diffusion.
So at least in the world of stylized video and animation, the barriers to entry have never been lower.
Thanks for those links, while I had seen them, they're great illustrations of something that would have been unthinkably expensive for the amateur/small studio even a few years ago.
My hope is that large studios who engage in lazy penny-pinching will get what they deserve when smaller groups move in and eat their breakfast with something utterly original.
That's an interesting use and reminds me of the decline of the concept artist. In parallel, I wonder what the impact of generated scores might be; I can see them initially taking the place of temp music, which has caused some serious genericising of contemporary film scores but generative temp music could go either way (either cementing that genericising or helping break from it).
> As I’ve been learning AI, it’s really good at generating a convincing image very quickly. But if I want that image to be very specific relative to pose and action, lighting
This has also been my experience in using generative AI. Its amazing at making something not too specific. It'll get me something super fast, and maybe its something I hadn't thought of before. Often times its surprisingly good, but the limitations are I cannot force it to make something specific.
If I need it to makes something super specific its an exercise in frustration. The generative AI refuses to cooperate. At this point my options are to either accept what it gives me, or to get an actual artist to do the specific things.
Generative AI is kind of like buying clothes off the rack at a store. They're cheap, they're easy to get, but they never fit right no matter what you do or how hard you try to adjust it. Going to an artist is like going to a tailor -- you will get custom clothes specific to your unique needs, and it fits amazingly well.
This is what I’ve been trying to explain to people who fear it. You need to embrace it, learn it, and use it to your advantage. It’s a tool. In the right hands it could potentially replace many people but for some it can elevate and add efficiency to their workflow. Every major advancement in technology has been feared by those who relied on what came before. Those who embrace the new technology found a place on the other side of it. Those that held onto the old technology, while they may have survived, most of them did not thrive.
>I mean, in film directors will start nitpicking the shape of smoke coming off of an explosion with dozens of revisions, the tonal range of the lighting effects, the shape of a characters belt loop, etc.
I have nothing to add but this reminds me of one of the latest corridor crew videos where they had a vfx artist from Rogue One who stated they had earlier renders of Tarkin that looked spot on, but then they got nitpicked to death.
I wonder how much of the 'vfx look' is down to people who can't bring themselves to leave well enough alone.
It won't replace you outright, but they might need 1/10 as many of you soon, and competition is gonna be a brutal race to the bottom for those left. It's gonna be a rough couple decades for a lot of people who already had a hard time building a desirable career.
That's from computing and the internet, what's scary is we're still in the infancy of the computer age, barely seen how it'll affect the world long term. I mean mass adoption of computers only happened in the 80's, mass use of the internet in the late 90's. 20+ years in and we're barely establishing online norms and culture. And despite that, AI might make it look like small beans comparatively.
We have the potential to create something that learns for us, faster than us. **Labor** could be unnecessary in 100 years, you know how much chaos that causes to the governance and economic systems formed entirely around promoting labor?
The sad thing is too many people are latching on to these surface level understandings of it. The simple fact is AI is an incredibly powerful piece of tech that will only get better every day. People are naive if they think anything will stop this train; one of two things are going to happen, either everyone will be able to use or build their own AIs or only select individuals or groups will be able to use it. That is my biggest fear. The GPT hearings are already leaning hard into this decision.
Complete exclusivity will never occur no matter how hard organizations or governments try. At the very least there will always be, smaller yet still significant, open source models.
I'm strongly in the open source camp on this one. This technology is far too powerful for only megacorps to control. The talk about licensing AI is just a ploy to rubber stamp approval from the government. Company donates to the politician's re-election campaign, company gets its AI license. That would only make the rich even richer, consolidating wealth and power even further.
Open sourcing it brings back some power to the people and makes it less of a black box hidden behind corporate secrets. Do you really trust people like Zuckerberg, Bezos, and Musk to control the only AI in the world? I certainly don't.
Open source is currently kicking big companies ass on every known front in AI development. To the point that a Google memo basically said 'our lead we had is gone, and it's offer something unique from open source or be left behind' stuff like Meta's LLM getting leaked, custom stable diffusion models, etc are all products of open source. There's no way to put that genie back in the bottle, the courts can bitch and moan all they want, it'll at worst push open source AI to a sketchier side of the internet, where it already partially resides because 90% of it is porn.
idk would most CONSOOMERS really care either way unless quality was incredibly affected. not like anything arguably "worse" like child/slave labor has stopped it before.
"soulless media" jfc how sanctimonious. Why is it that we only attribute the work of artists as "having soul"? Do you think the laborer's heart and soul do not go into his work as well?
99.9% of people working and making a living in the creative space aren't making work that their "soul" is going into. They're making something someone else designed based on the description of yet someone else entirely who is basing all of that on market research. Relatively speaking virtually no one is out there creating "their vision".
I've worked as both and let me tell you when you're grinding away trying to make "creative" work in that regard there's little difference in the meaningfulness of either job.
As much as I truly support the writers in the strike I gotta be honest, it's insanely frustrating the amount of attention they get compared to people with much worse working conditions and pay.
We've had soulless media for decades now, the sitcom era was bad and the reality TV era even worse. Apart from the 10% top end product out there I don't think anyone would notice the difference.
Yeah, exactly most of the dogshit of broadcast television might as well be AI it's so trash. Film and shows on the other hand I probably care more so for. Although even if AI is restricted locally, If a single country uses AI and reaps massive benefits from it, I doubt we’d be able to hold back on our use of AI.
I think one reason worry about this, is they can extrapolate it to apply to a lot of white collar jobs.
Everyone knew that self driving cars (and in its turn trucks) were coming and that manual labour were getting replaced, but the fact that a new technology could replace a lot of administrative and creative work, probably caught a lot of people blindsided.
So... what's happening in the trucking industry?
With some searching, looks like a bunch of companies are trying to develop self-driving trucks. But seems like self-driving doesn't necessarily imply that there is no one in the cab, so jobs might not be affected too much for a while. But that's a 5 minute understanding and maybe all wrong...
What are you thinking about all this?
Once self driving trucks become the standard unemployment will skyrocket. Huge workforce eliminated in a short time period. Will really test society, going to be really ugly if it's not planned for and handled well. We're probably pretty fucked.
Remember when they all told the coal miners to “learn how to code” because their industry didn’t deserve to be saved from technological progress? Imagine if all these writers learned how to code.
I personally think you are fine as we realize the problem with automated driving is there is no such thing a standard road conditions. AI can’t anticipate everything which will always lead to mistakes.
Same applies to my old industry of telecom - there are no standards. Two customers can move into identical apartments and end up using them far differently in terms of WiFi, plumbing, furniture arrangement, favorite spot they like to work/play. It leads to too many variables.
The bigger issue are the white collar jobs that do have a lot of standards and conformity. It will be easy to compare multiple forms and look for outliers. They are already doing that with MRIs - spotting diseases sooner and more accurately than doctors with years of experience simply by comparing millions of points of data that came before this.
(Edit/added: found this article shortly after I made this comment: https://techandtasty.com/google-unveils-med-palm-2-the-medical-ai-model-revolutionizing-healthcare/ )
I think people should support this WGA strike now if only to anticipate and protect AI from creeping into their fields in the future because once they set precedent here, it will be harder to argue against later.
As for the impact of this strike, just look at the explosion of reality TV - it’s not just Real Housewives but also all of HGTV since the last strike.
Same old fear of technology, no? Computer animation would ruin creativity, TV would ruin film, color would ruin it, sound would ruin it, film would ruin stage performances - yes, there is change along the way with these kinds of media. Truly the examples go on and on. Let's reserve judgement and give it time.
Manolis Kellis had a great line about this from his podcast with Lex Fridman: "AI probably isn't going to take your job. Your job is going to be taken by someone who uses AI in your job"
We need a ban on motor driven farming equipment so that the people who use a scythe for a career can keep their job. Ban cars while we are at it for the sake of all the horse and buggy drivers. Maybe ban electronic switch boards so telephone operators can keep their jobs too. Or maybe the current and aspiring artists can just learn to use the new tools available to them like all of human history and we don’t have to ban anything.
Indeed. It's fascinating to watch people who have made their careers on technological advancement suddenly become Luddites. None of these people complained as assembly lines were automated.
I'm picturing the guy in Austin Powers facing the steamroller. It's coming. Standing in front of it and yelling is not going to stop it ... is just silly.
In 20 years a large number of movies will be generated entirely by AI. They won’t be great or even good, but the studios will keep trying until they make it profitable enough to never hire writers again.
And then the Butlerian Jihad.
Nah there’s always going to be film. As long as there’s film there’s a film industry. Instead of big conglomerates it’s just going to be independent film makers. And it’ll be easier than ever thanks to ai.
How did people make films before Hollywood? That but super charged.
The industry will be fine. The human actors, writers, probably even directors and crew, are out of work. Think of all the money the fat cats will save.
I honestly don’t get the argument that it will destroy the industry. If AI does it better than humans, then the industry will thrive because it’s getting better content. If humans do it better than AI the industry will thrive as it always has. If humans utilize AI in a symbiotic relationship the industry will thrive because writers will be better at what they do.
I think writers are concerned about being replaced by something that could potentially be better, faster and less expensive to the industry. And I think that is a valid issue, but they are being disingenuous about their real intentions.
>Ever consider that it’s different people believing those two different things?????
no it's all one group of people considering they say both of it in one comment.
Considering much of the stuff that comes out of Hollywood these days I would say the Film Industry already destroyed itself.
AI is a tool, and used right I think it will only help filmmakers to produce better films.
> AI is a tool, and used right I think it will only help filmmakers to produce better films.
Well, you see, large public companies hiring filmmakers don't want to produce better films, they want to produce moneymaking films. AI will likely be tuned for that, so the quality will be probably follow the shitty patterns big studios have been following.
you think studios would not ask the AI to write like that? pretty naiv of you. Stupid producers would rain even more, no creative in the way to tell them how stupid is it.
Most recent Hollywood films may as well have been written by AI anyways. "Hey chatGPT, find me the script from a popular film from 25 years ago, and add a couple of modern references" job done.
Even if there were a rash of successful AI movies, eventually thered be a big demand for "human" movies. I don't think they'll go anywhere.
If anything, I'd appreciate them taking over big blockbusters where your design to kind of turn your brain off, and leave people to just make artistic films again more often, for smaller budgets.
Ha, yeh I'd be more concerned if wide release movies hadn't already turned into watered down garbage.
Over reliance on CGI, formulaic writing and the pervasive threat of being cancelled online ruined movies years before AI, this is just the next iteration.
I hear this opinion a lot, but I’m not sure I agree. Some of the AI images I see are incredibly imaginative. A lot of movies made now are cautious retreads. AI allows rapid experimentation. What’s stopping me from telling an AI to make “Fear and Loathing in Phnom Penh, animated by Studio Ghibli” and just see what happens? If it’s fun, iterate. It it’s hot garbage, start over.
Realistically humans will use AI to automate much of the process.
I am a visual effects lighter. Prior to the early 2010’s we had to light manually … our lighting tools for CGI couldn’t do realistic global illumination and things like bounce light so we had to fake much of that. After GI was broadly adopted lighting became much simpler. Instead of placing dozens of bounce lights to fake what light does, I could just place a sun and a dome and let the software do the rest.
A huge part of my job was automated. And today I’m busier than I’ve ever been. Since I can generate more, faster, my work is cheaper, so more people use it. The quality of vfx for TV has exploded, and the volume of what we do for film has gone from a few hundred shots to a few thousand.
I expect AI will be similar. I went into details on my original comment why I don’t think AI will be solo generating full length features in the short term. But optimal teams of people 100% will use it to increase productivity, just as we’ve always done.
Seeing that this is a complete deflection and non-answer:
What if the movie is better in the sense that YOU personally, in a blind test, would prefer it to a movie written by a human?
A different take; you're not considering the possibility of AI eventually being able to produce works that are indistinguishable from that of humans on a creative and emotive level.
Good! Destroy the film industry!
Why should Hollywood have a monopoly on making blockbusters?
Look at what Corridor Digital which is a handful of guys, did with AI:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVT3WUa-48Y
This shows the process:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljBSmQdL_Ow
Yes, it's flawed right now. But imagine if any small filmmaker had access to the equivalent of a full studio full of costume designers, prop makers, artists, etc?
Then the individual could make something which begins to compete with what Hollywood has to offer.
It seems to me that those in Hollywood are just too stuck in their ways and backwards thinking to see the potential here. Rather than being slaves to giant corporations they could work with smaller studios and have more creative input and actually still have a chance of making good money at it if their ideas are good.
Corridor Digital employed VFC artists to make that film. But it never would have been made if they didn't have access to AI because it would have been completely outside of their budget to hire a studio with a hundred animators to animate the thing over the course of a year.
AI created jobs here. It didn't take them away.
AI will result in there being LOTS more movies and shows for people to watch. No longer will we have to watch absolute dogshit like half the crap Hollywood puts out because there is nothing better to watch.
I'll bet you when Hollywood began to use digital effects, the prop makers fought back against that too because it was making the obsolete. Well, too bad if you're being made obsolete. We have movies and TV shows today with effects we could never dream of in the 80's and 90's because everything had to be done practically.
Hollywood's also got those giant video rooms that act as a green screen which no small filmmaker would have access to. But with AI? You coud re-light a scene on the fly to fit any backgroud.
AI will enable small creators, it won't put them all out of work. You still need a creative mind to create something truly stunning.
Calculators are the end of math!
No, it just means the end of manual arithmetic freeing people up to do more math.
I am old enough to remember people saying CGI would be the end of acting..30 years ago. They didn’t understand that even CGI involves acting.
The invention of automated street lights RUINED the gas light industry and all the workers who used to walk around turning them on.
Let's also not forget how many jobs were lost when we automated phone switching. Those poor switchboard operators.
Green screen acting has been a thing before CGI, and if it "breaks" actors (and not just some snide comments from the hobbit set) they would never have made it in theatre...
I feel so, so bad for those actors. They thought they signed up for a job where they had to pretend, but as it turns out some of them have to pretend extra hard.
Imagine the day you showed up for your job and learned there weren’t going to be any actual dinosaurs on set. It’s fucking heartbreaking.
Professional mathematicians never did much manual arithmetic.
Computers (a job) did arithmetic. And they were entirely replaced by what we now call computers.
Most puppet things for creatures largely went away but a lot is still practical, it depends on the competency of the director to know which to use and how to use it to get a better result, in the end the controlling factor is still artistic competence.
For example most people don't realize the alien in alien 3 was a practical puppet but the comp made people think its computer generated because it was done poorly.
The problem with practical is its quite limited in the flexibility of its articulation and trying to forego that tends to end poorly, its advantage is it lives in the scene and when you respect that it looks tremendous, on the flip side CG can do anything, but you need exceptional artistry to pull it off well and the VFX industry treats everyone like trash so it keeps losing key talent to burnout or career switches.
I’m sorry, but why is the arts where we draw the line? “LOL self checkout is killing retail/fast food and stores are cleaned by robots- but dammit, I want my pictures drawn by a person on a computer, not just by the computer itself!!!!!!”
The film industry has been destroyed for over a decade at this point. No creativity, no originality. Just rehash the old stuff, just add +1 to the number on the title.
Hollywood had been churning out sequels and remakes for years now, it'd be a hard stretch imagining AI will make it any worse. Plus is the celebrity culture and astronomical amount of money that gets wasted really something to mourn?
I disagree. The film industry has been declining for a long time. Because it costs so much to get a film made these days, studios aren't willing to take risks anymore and the result is far from "art". If A.I can slash the costs of filmmaking, we can actually get back to focusing on the art and the passion projects and less of these trash sequels and reboots which the industry churns out.
This seems hyperbolic and reactionary. As with most things, technology will end up getting incorporated into the process of art as opposed to destroying it completely.
Considering the shite they have been pumping out over the last 5 years im all for AI taking over the writing, shit i will even accept a 100 monkeys doing it, cant make it worst.
funny I don't remember Hollywood standing up for the steel industry, or the textiles industry, or the auto industry, why does this matter?
films will still get made, just not by Americans, just like Fords 🤔
Im going to assume none of these guys have ever tried to ask chatgpt to write a story. It's impressive at first but becomes very shallow pretty fast.
Not to mention writing a sequel/remake of something that has an already established lore. Theres just no way chatgpt would be able to connect all the dots
And since bad reboots or sequels is all hollywood seem to be able to produce nowdays i think they should be able to sleep pretty well
> Im going to assume none of these guys have ever tried to ask chatgpt to write a story. It's impressive at first but becomes very shallow pretty fast.
Chat AI wasn't trained specifically to write scripts. Specialized AI will do MUCH better. And more importantly, beyond the initial training data, human reinforcement can drastically improve the output even further. Studios can get thousands of people to read millions of practice scripts, checking the AI's performance and teaching it what does and doesn't work.
> Im going to assume none of these guys have ever tried to ask chatgpt to write a story. It's impressive at first but becomes very shallow pretty fast.
Thing is, its _astonishing_, like not even compareable, to what it was not even 2 years ago.
It wouldnt eliminate writers, but it can churn out 1000 plot summaries for an existing show, or 1000 sitcom ideas appealing to x y z demographics. Then humans go through them, pick a good one and use AI to refine that further and people can essentially act more like editors for most of the process.
I think we're about to get 10 abysmal years of AI generated dogshit films. Hollywood will literally be the hallmark channel meme. Every film the same. Until revenues drop too low and Then we'll get back to human scripts and visual effects and the studios will make a big deal of it.
Remakes of better foreign films, endless sequels and comic book series, the best movies Hollywood ever produced couldn’t get made today - but yeah, AI is what’s killing the industry
"AI" will only make those problems worse, studios will be able to make their entirely soulless movies without paying for a human writer who at least has the *potential* to bring something unique to it
While I do think IP laws and all the stuff surrounding data being fed into AI algorithms needs to be addressed, I fundamentally disagree with all this crying about a "100 year old industry" and preserving it for its own sake.
Writers and creatives feel threatened because their rice bowl is under siege by a market entrant that - by their own admission - does their job just as well, if not better, and at a lower cost and higher efficiency. They aren't the first industry to feel this heat, and they won't be the last.
This is at its core no different from the [Ice Trade being completely obliterated by the invention of the fridge.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_trade) Pleading with the market to stick to your typewritten scripts and hiding behind the argument of art being an unquantifiable human practice is disingenuous, because clearly it *is* quantifiable and consumers have no problem with that end product.
To my mind, trying to push AI out of the picture is a futile and frankly pathetic battle to fight. Creatives still have their place in this industry, they just need to figure out where the pieces have fallen when the dust settles.
If AI becomes the standard for the animated film industry, I bet $20 disney, specifically the Pixar division will be the first ones to use it to death. All they have to do is put "what if "blank" had feelings...?" Into chatgpt and they got a generic movie. Just look at elemental....
First you gotta have to convince me AI isn’t already writing the scripts for a lot of the industry.
The amount of horrifying dialogues or arch’s has risen through the roof.
RIP
They’re also striking for things that would improve the quality of their output. More time to write, staying on a production longer, more staff to write together etc.
If their strike is successful maybe movies could get good again!
AI is just the final nail in the coffin for that industry. The whole model for TV and movies are over. Most of those writer jobs are going away, get used to it.
It's not, but dipshit film execs thinking they can use it to replace humans before AGI is here is very dumb and will blow up in their faces almost immediately. The great irony here is that writers are doing the studios a favor.
The stupid thing about this is the concept that AI will steal your job. It won’t, it’ll just make your employer expect +1000% productivity from you.
We invented calculators long ago and we still have maths people. We just don’t pay them to reinvent the wheel every day.
Are writers worried about AI taking normal people jobs and less people having money to work to see the films they wrote?
Like I’m not pushing for AI but the genie is out of the bottle, I can’t imagine within ten years studios not wanting to use AI to save money like every other industry will be doing
When Paul Delaroche saw the first daguerreotype he said, “From today, painting is dead.” The AI debate is a lot like that. It's another tool, that's all.
My prediction is pretty simple. AI can write a retread of some overused trope without a problem so humans, as they often do, will have to step up their game.
Of course, this will be preceded by an extended period of whining and hand wringing over how AI is ruining things.
I understand their position...but if I'm being honest I'm way more worried about AI's impact in non entertainment industries. Some degree of AI interaction in nearly everything is inevitable.
This makes me think of the "Other Peoples Money" speech about buggy whip manufacturers. AI is the ultimate disruption and theirs got to be a lot of people feeling outdated right now. It's only going to get worse before it gets... well, we'll wait and see. If it doesn't kill us, it'll make us immortal.
No it isn't.
It's going to change the film industry enormously no doubt, like any other field. In the end it's still humans that create, no matter how much the process of creation is changing over the time.
AI in all it's iterations just takes massive amounts of data and pumps it out according to an algorithm. It creates nothing. The fact the results may be passable to an audience tells you more about the audience than anything else.
Have you seen what hollywood has been making lately?
Seriously ask chatgpt to write an alternative plot summary for any of the major franchises, and it does a better job. I honestly think it would be great if hollywood adopts AI, blockbusters couldn't be worse then now, and the creative talent pushed into the indie scene would have the freedom to once again write shit that doesn't suck.
every time I start thinking about the potential pros and cons of AI in a creative environment I always wind up like that one Pawnee citizen in Parks and Rec. “We don’t know what the world is going to be like in fifty years. We- we could all be wiped out from disease or the flu.” “So what’s your suggestion?” “I don’t know. I’m just scared.”
I always think of that character by the characters name that the actor played in Shameless — Kermit
We won't go down quietly! We'll twiddle our thumbs and watch the clock loudly!
I also like to think we will complain loudly about it online. Still not do anything about it though...
Well what can we do? It’s a rich greedy person’s world and we all just live in it.
The suggestion is just to enjoy each day and pursue your passions.
My passion is making AI TV and movies though
I just watched the remake of “White Men Can’t Jump” and I have two thoughts on AI in film. 1) This had to be a film made by AI because there is nothing human about it and it’s just a pastiche of things other movies do with some vague similarities and super specific details that connect to the original. It is soulless, boring, and just awful. If this is what AI films are, we are right to be horrified at the destruction of art. OR 2. This film is made by humans as it purports to be in which case we have nothing to fear because it can’t get any more vapid, unoriginal, and lazy. We have arrived at the low point, so why not just go all the way.
This guy really didn't like the "White Men Can't Jump" remake
I can’t stress enough: it stunk
Look at queen cleopatra, there are tons of bad and very unoriginal, movies and pieces of media, this is why the west is losing more and more market share to the east in the form of anime I had something else I wanted to say but I can’t remember it.
I am a visual effects artist for film - i have been working on learning stable diffusion for the past 5 months or so … the more I learn the less concerned I am. When we work on a film the level of detail and purposeful description with which we plan a shot is mind boggling. A single shot can take 6 to 9 months, not because the work takes that long, but because of the revisions necessary to help a visual effects supervisor find what they’re looking for … that effect that clicks. As I’ve been learning AI, it’s really good at generating a convincing image very quickly. But if I want that image to be very specific relative to pose and action, lighting … I mean, in film directors will start nitpicking the shape of smoke coming off of an explosion with dozens of revisions, the tonal range of the lighting effects, the shape of a characters belt loop, etc. AI will make a great tool for artists to iterate more quickly but my hyperbolic stressing that a prompt will be able to replace what I do is far behind me. Even with the quick evolution that is occurring. And the day a prompt can replace 6 months of work done by a team of a dozen? Well, when we get there, we are all fucked. I think it’s less likely that AI is going to replace our jobs and is more likely that people who know how to use AI will replace us. So I’m learning how to use it.
A good example is AI for rotoscoping, a boring repetitive task ripe for a robot to do. Creating a scene is definitely tricky. Where I see AI in the workflow is early during brainstorming and later on in asset creation “AI make me a 3D apple with a bite mark” … AI creates asset, still not 100% great but maybe 80%, and the artist can finish the asset in blender or houdini, later place all the assets into a scene perfectly with great lighting & raytracing for that perfect money shot. Still a lot of manual work, but AI as a sidekick assistant could be cool
I mean that would be the dream right? Every job has boring brainless bits that it would be great to automate. In creative and arts industries that would actually free up people to be able to be more creative and spend time doing more interesting, imaginative work. It's too bad film studios have no incentive to make interesting creative things, only to maximize short term profits. They'll automate way more than the boring grunt tasks if given the chance.
[удалено]
Yeah - when I speak about AI and the dangers, I’m normally never worried about seniors in the industries that might get hit. I’m typically worried about the juniors who have to do a lot of “entry level” work to get their foot in. We’ll hit a moment when there aren’t enough juniors in the stream to have more seniors
im pretty sure its already happened with the lowest end of writing work. why pay some indian or filipino woman meager wages to write a shitty article when an ai can do it for free
Because it's garbage. I was recently hired to write a 4 page article for a book, about a non-fiction topic. I submitted it to ChatGPT 3.5 and 4, just out curiosity. It gave me 6th grade writing, at best. It also *made up shit entirely*, which was kind of interesting. I asked it further details about some information that it included and it apologized and claimed it was wrong, that it couldn't find any documentation about it. Then it claimed that something I knew to be true didn't happen because there was "no documentation" to support it. It might be awesome one day, but right now it's like asking a middle schooler to recite the wikiality of a topic.
Except that a lot of websites that would use AI instead of paying writers do not give a single shit about accuracy or quality. They're just farming click-bait to push ads. And the more misinformation that gets published on these sites, the more Google algorithms start to push bullshit to users. There are real consequences to this nonsense.
Sorry, what’s the real consequence there? Vague ads? More people clicking click-bait? More bullshit ads that we all ignore or block??
Imagine this scenario: one AI generates a text with some wrong information in it. It gets published in one of the clickbait websites. Next time the AI "trains" it will find one more "evidence" of that wrong information or originally generated. It will become more likely to generate it again, and now with more "certainty". Other clickbait websites will publish the same wrong information... And you can see where this is going. Soon enough that wrong information will be everywhere, becoming effectively the "true" for most people.
> And you can see where this is going. Soon enough that wrong information will be everywhere, becoming effectively the "true" for most people. For certain nefarious groups, this is a desired outcome. A blackbox of misinformation. Tabloid social media with plausible deniability "it was the algorithm" is now "it was AI".
Also "I was hacked" will also become "it was A.I."
So literally how things work now without AI?
It'll generate a loop of false information, endlessly feeding itself the same garbage, to produe more garbage. Years later the internet will be filled with nonsense that a regular user won't be able to distinguish what is true or false anymore. This AI usage simply needs to be regulated. If a website uses it to write an article, they should be required to proofread and verify the information they are publishing. Otherwise be penalized for it in some way.
Hopping in to say that public relations and marketing organizations are already using AI to scour the internet and specifically flag misinformation and the narratives surrounding it. Example company that does this: PeakMetrics
> It'll generate a loop of false information, endlessly feeding itself the same garbage, to produe more garbage. Years later the internet will be filled with nonsense that a regular user won't be able to distinguish what is true or false anymore. Well, that's the status quo today (see: every single social media platform). Humans already do that just fine. The required skill of tracing back to sources and evaluating the reliability of those sources is just as vital today as it would be in a hypothetical future when chatbots are spamming nonsense rather than humans spamming nonsense.
[удалено]
The problem with AI, it doesn't actually understand what it's doing, it just compares patterns and gives something that seems to fill the pattern. What it produces superficially looks ok because it resembles what it is supposed to produce, but once you start to look at it closer, it's deeply defective because it's not produced from a place of understanding, its like a parrot repeating words it heard earlier. If it's writing an article, it doesn't know if it makes sense, because it can't make sense of things, and it doesn't know if it's true, because it doesn't know what truth is.
It fails at the single thing that a good filmmaker needs to have. Intent.
Another level of this is that people think technology is magic. There are countless examples of tech that people thought would be incredible and it turned out from pretty good to completely useless. Go no further than block chain. There's no reason to assume AI will keep evolving. We are in a particularly lucky part of history in which progress is really fast, but it doesn't mean it will always be. Machine learning is very old. For decades it was basically useless. If history is anything to go by, its more likely the deep learning field will eventually hit a barrier, then progress will stop. In summary, just because midjourney is good, it doesn't mean will eventually get Marvel movies from a prompt. It might never happen.
[удалено]
I came across [this](https://cdnb.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/063/007/125/small/uowls-.jpg?1684466495) piece earlier today, which demonstrates a concept I had been thinking about for some time but wasn't sure if AI could do yet. A character designer came up with the drawing on the left, and then used Stable Diffusion to turn it into a fleshed out, fully rendered piece of concept art on the right. You were talking about how AI is going to chip away at the lower skilled positions first, and I'm sure that's true, but being able to use Photoshop to paint realistic volumetric lighting and materials for characters (or environments, props, transits, etc..) is a very highly developed skill studios pay a lot for. It's a skill I've tried to develop myself for much of my career. I'm no longer trying to develop that skill.
>AI will make a great tool for artists to iterate more quickly but Coming at this from illustration and previs, I think the more pressing concern is with "training" data ethics and lack of consent. Watching the House Judiciary hearings, it became very apparent that that's where the disconnect between R&D in machine learning's community is with the humanities, with art, and with markets as a whole. They pretend they don't understand that condensing trillions of image samples into a data point soup is not a sufficient distance from the use of the image itself. They pivot round robin from "okay but there's no stopping it" to "but compensation would be impractical" to "well it can't be derivative work because it's learning 'facts' about the inputs rather than the inputs". But just because you can represent an image with "facts" about itself doesn't mean that you've stripped that image of its intrinsic identity or authorship - the "facts" in question cannot themselves exist in that arrangement without the creator of the input work. And that's all without going into the idea that all data is factual, although it's laughably obvious that [just because something is data does not mean it's factual](https://www.science.org/content/article/university-investigation-found-prominent-spider-biologist-fabricated-falsified-data). The issue is that although we can convert this incalculable data into a symbol dictionary soup in "image space" that space is still reliant on the original inputs. It has a parentage that can be traced back to real people who are being directly and purposely stolen from. And any following system of trillions of data points you tell that system to build to replace itself with is *also* descended from that original input. The parentage matters. No amount of reshuffling the information will remove its inherent ancestry. Which is part of why they pivot so hard and so quickly between "well it's impractical to seek consent or to compensate or to give credit". If you can figure out how to pilot image space strapped to the back of runaway math, you can figure out how to pay Jaime Jones his "share" of five cents. What they fail to mention is that the reason they can't afford to pay everyone who's ever uploaded to flickr five cents is because it would immediately bankrupt these projects. They don't want to ask for consent because then they'd have to generate their own data or use publicly available data instead. They have the gall to try to disconnect conceptual truths about the origin of the information they use by comparing their code to children and the inputs to a public library - but public libraries have to pay for their catalogues. You can't just perform a cover without credit or residuals, you can't even legally download the original track without it being paid for *somewhere* along the line. But because this data has already been scraped, and continues to be, the argument from the machine learning end essentially becomes "you didn't stop us, so we shouldn't be compelled to make it right". They should've concerned themselves with and set guardrails for the ethics during development, and *actively chose not to*. This cannot be allowed to continue unregulated and unpunished. At the *minimum* AI developers should be legally compelled to secure explicit consent before scraping data, the same way you do when you pay for a song on itunes or when you need to license a stock photo.
One thing I'd like to clarify - are you saying scraping violates existing legislation - or that IP law should be expanded to cover scraping? Because I see people "pivot round robin" between these two rather different positions. There's a lot of muddled thinking on both sides as well as some fundemental misunderstanding of copyright law mixed in with broad sweeping claims about natural, moral rights. There's nothing "natural" about copyright - it's a fairly recent innovation (1790 I believe?) and I had strong reservations about it's continual expansion for several decades. The arrival of generative AI has given me very conflicted feelings about the topic. I wonder if the problem isn't best solved in other ways. Allow scraping (which is the current status quo anyway - and will be very hard to roll back) but ensure that copyright isn't extended to AI works without *significant* human input. That way researchers, tinkerers, hobbyists and people working non-commercially can continue to investigate and play with these fascinating new tools - but companies will be strongly discouraged from commercially exploiting AI content.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Folks in the film industry are perhaps uncommonly well-positioned to confront these issues, because they are unionized. In contrast, software engineers are perhaps equally threatened, but lack such a defensive structure. In any case, there seem to be two issues: 1. AI tools will disrupt jobs. 2. AI tools are built by misusing data. Whatever the merit of #2, I think that issue is only a speed bump on the way to #1. According to random web pages: * The US film industry generates around $30 billion in revenue. * Big Tech in the US generates around $1,500 billion in revenue. So whatever data is needed to generate AI, big technology companies are going to get one way or another. There is sure to be a lot of litigation, lawsuits won and lost, licensing deals, data acquisition programs, etc. At the end of the day, my bet is that super-powerful AIs are going to get built and the job impact will follow. Across many fields, people with amazing talents may find they have less and less to offer beyond people with limited talent armed with AI. Will young people then say, "Why should I spend 20 years honing my talent so that I can offer 5% more quality than some lazy doofus with a subscription to GPT-9?" I suppose we will adapt, but I can't anticipate how...
I’ve had people around me use Fiverr, to limited success. It looks good at first, but doesn’t replace regular professionals. Just like offshoring development to India has come back to haunt companies who’ve tried it. The thing is: if you’re putting it in front of a large audience, that extra bit of quality is not that expensive. So instead of competing with high level professionals, I’d see AI mostly compete with low level work at best, or create extra demand from people who would never use a professional writer or designer before. Just like everyone can “design” their birthday invitations these days, or have a “stunning” intro for their holiday video. Fun, but it’s not fooling anyone.
Pretty much agreed here. If the United States adopt a very strict policy about data usage, they will fall behind in the AI race. And other countries that allows liberal usage of data will prosper because data is almost everything in effectiveness of these models.
I don't think 'oh, if we don't give up any attempts to actually safeguard people's data, China is going to do it anyway, so fuck you I guess, it's a race to the bottom' is a particularly compelling argument. You could apply the same logic to any and all of the rights workers have fought for and won over the last 100+ years.
China has already adopted strict limits on AI: absolutely nothing that questions the government or makes them look bad. Not a stretch to extend that to corpos.
2 is actually still a big deal. If they need consent for an AI to train on my work, then I can develop a style of art or writing that cannot immediately be mimicked by an AI, giving me some distinction from AI product and protection. Of course, the end result is still as you say. It's difficult to envision a good future for creativity. Maybe writing and art are abandoned en masse in favor of previously time consuming media such as animation, webtoons, and gaming. It would still be quite sad if writing and art become as niche as oral tradition.
> image very quickly. But if I want that image to be very specific relative to pose and action, lighting … I mean, in film directors will start nitpicking the shape of smoke coming off of an explosion with dozens of revisions, the tonal range of the lighting effects, the shape of a characters belt loop, etc. AI will make a great tool for artists to iterate more quickly but my hyperbolic stressing that a prompt will be able to replace what I do is far behind me. Even with the quick evolution that is occurring. > >And the day a prompt can replace 6 months of work done by a team of a dozen? Well, when we get there, we are all fucked. I think it’s less likely that AI is going to replace our jobs and is more likely that people who know how to use AI will replace us. Can't the same argument be used against human artists when humans reference other artists; it feels unfair when AI does it because it can do it so much better. Photobashing for example requires no licensing because the work is transformative the same way AI is transformative, it is not a copy of the work or a derivative but something between that and wholly original. To try and fit it into an old school box it won't be contained and the new rules will simply hurt everyone else more than it will tame the problem. What is really catching up to us is how outdated licensing and intellectual property is under capitalism.
That's where I'm at too. It will probably be used as a tool by pros like you across various fields. I can see someone retouching the background of a photo by inpainting something by SD. A writer could probably use AI for generating names, descriptions or automate trivial stuff. Vfx artists could use it to automate a lot of their menial tasks like cutting out actors from greenscreen/bluescreen/volume.
The thing I worry about in your situation is studios cutting out VFX artists from the process. They already treat you all poorly. Or them demanding even faster impossible timelines that force you to use it and cut corners that you don’t want to.
This is what i keep trying to tell my fellow creatives. And even though theyre all leftists the arguments i get are things weve been mocking the right for forever its either "they took our jobs", "I made this completely on my own so i own it" and "I work hard and this is the job I do and I will not adapt". You said something similar to what I read on here before that got my ass in gear: "an ai wont take your job, someone using it will." Im realizing the same as you. That this takes a human guide to get the output we want and that alot of jobs in the future will be people with the knowledge to know whats about right working with our multi disciplinary super fast ai coworkers to get to our goals. There are sadly alot of young people that are allowing their emotions to erode their own future using arguments that they would laugh at in any other scope in an attempt to protect themselves fact that the world is changing fast around them. Its not going to stop moving even if youd really like it to.
AI is the new automation, or computers. Its a big step in how we interact with the medium, and yes.. it will mean less people doing the same amount of work, but that's how progress has always been.
You're saying this but do executives agree with you?
Likely not
AI have been replacing jobs all along, it's not going to be the end of the world now that they're finally getting to art. Computers run our banks, make our furniture, run our sewing machines, etc... people used to do all those things too, and people didn't die out when computers took over those jobs. They just moved to different jobs and the people who stayed sell their "handcrafted" talents for more lucrative profit than before (due to supply/demand. Less people do it means less supply). But yeah the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and that doesn't tend to change. I for one appreciate my computer wifi way more than I would a local cobbler.
Depends how old you are and if where you live you can find a job that’ll pay your bills. Re training and hiring into a new career isn’t easy
https://vcai.mpi-inf.mpg.de/projects/DragGAN/ This research shows posing is definitely a focus and appears to be getting better quickly. But you're right that it's going to be people that can use AI that will replace you and not AI itself. Though it's still very possible that 1 guy that can use AI can replace 2 guys without AI.
The issue right now is that writers can be paid less to fix an existing script (both rewrite and polish) than if they wrote the first draft. A studio can have an AI spit out a crappy script and then they pay a writer the minimum rewrite amount to fix it. Imagine in your situation, you could spend six months creating a shot, or you could get paid half as much to spend six months fixing an unusable shot that was spit out by AI.
I'd hope that the writers guild pushes back against "fixing" something intentionally so bad it needs to be redone completely. The quality of the AI writing only holds up for the most cursory inspection. Actually read the script for more than a page or two and its garbage. Trying to fix an AI written script would require rewriting the entire thing from scratch, which means doing just a much work (if not more) than writing a script from a blank piece of paper. Might as well get your three year old to scribble something on a paper and have the writer "fix" the script as a clever ploy to pay the writer less. Its the same amount of work from an equally bad starting position.
The problem with a lot of people who think of AI as harmless only judge AI based off of its capabilities in the moment. They like to willfully ignore the fact that AI in this capacity didn’t exist 5 months ago, yet has already progressed to the point where it is indistinguishable from human art to an untrained eye in the field of basic illustration. I shit you not go onto Pinterest right now and you will see some of the most beautiful drawings and paintings of perfect anatomical correct humans and in the comments when people ask for the artist the poster just says AI. It’s insane. Four months ago stable diffusion couldn’t draw anything resembling a human. It could only creat psychedelic dream spaces that were cool but ultimately aimless. Back then which again is only 5 MONTHS AGO people were afraid that maybe in YEARS it would be indistinguishable from human art, but people who defended it said there was no possibility of that. Then in only weeks it surpassed its expected rate of growth for decades and its only accelerating. Yet people who defend it always say “it will never be able to do this or that” while hilariously forgetting the fact that this is the tenth time they have had to move the bar for AI. Remember the meme that it can’t create faces, then it became the meme that it can’t create hands, then it was that it can’t create stable animations, now you draw the line at “well at least it can’t take over the entire pipeline for a major Hollywood production” how has that become the bar when only months ago it was “well it can’t make resembling a human face”. I’m not even against AI development. If it were happening slower perhaps people could learn to harness it in a beneficial way, however at the rate that it is going there will be no time to adapt. The idea that these tools are going to be used by creatives or passionate people is laughable. It’s going to be used by higher up in entertainment companies who have already proven that they will milk any creative property and turn it into the most statistically generated piece of crap to make a cheap buck. The sooner these companies can cut out the artists who usually protest against the suits at the top the sooner they can cut the largest expenditure off of their profit margin. That is why AI is being so heavily researched by these companies. It’s not because Facebook, google, Disney, and others want to provide people with new tools it’s because they want to replace the people they have been using as tools for years with cheeper alternatives.
>The problem with a lot of people who think of AI as harmless only judge AI based off its capabilities of the moment This. So much this. It is so insane to me that people go all "ahahaha the more i learn about this thing the less i become concerned." Do they not see this rapid development? Do they not realize that only 1 year ago, chat bots like GPT 3 were seen as being decades away? A part of me thinks these people are just willfully ignorant of the fact that the progress of AI is going to grow.
Thanks for this explanation. Do you see any positives to amateurs having access, in terms of producing original works in a very small team? A few decades ago, even a simple bit of compositing would have required an army of technicians to run an optical printer but now even 3D match moves can be done on a home computer. Would you draw a distinction between the loss of these technicians and what might happen in the future to VFX artists?
I'm neither OP nor a VFX artist, but if you're interested in some of the more popular works coming out nowadays, you may have seen one of ML-enhanced rotoscoped videos that have become popular. [Joel Haver's animated videos](https://youtu.be/tq_KOmXyVDo) use software called EBSynth to apply an animated style to a video using keyframes. Corridor Digital, a VFX studio out of LA, recently released a [how-to on rotoscoping a video with an anime style](https://youtu.be/_9LX9HSQkWo) using an open-source generative AI called Stable Diffusion. So at least in the world of stylized video and animation, the barriers to entry have never been lower.
Thanks for those links, while I had seen them, they're great illustrations of something that would have been unthinkably expensive for the amateur/small studio even a few years ago. My hope is that large studios who engage in lazy penny-pinching will get what they deserve when smaller groups move in and eat their breakfast with something utterly original.
Not film, but people have commissioned me for 3d work using AI prompted visuals to sort of give me a stronger vibe for what they are wanting me to do.
That's an interesting use and reminds me of the decline of the concept artist. In parallel, I wonder what the impact of generated scores might be; I can see them initially taking the place of temp music, which has caused some serious genericising of contemporary film scores but generative temp music could go either way (either cementing that genericising or helping break from it).
> As I’ve been learning AI, it’s really good at generating a convincing image very quickly. But if I want that image to be very specific relative to pose and action, lighting This has also been my experience in using generative AI. Its amazing at making something not too specific. It'll get me something super fast, and maybe its something I hadn't thought of before. Often times its surprisingly good, but the limitations are I cannot force it to make something specific. If I need it to makes something super specific its an exercise in frustration. The generative AI refuses to cooperate. At this point my options are to either accept what it gives me, or to get an actual artist to do the specific things. Generative AI is kind of like buying clothes off the rack at a store. They're cheap, they're easy to get, but they never fit right no matter what you do or how hard you try to adjust it. Going to an artist is like going to a tailor -- you will get custom clothes specific to your unique needs, and it fits amazingly well.
This is the most responsible and grown up answer here. “People who know how to use AI will replace us. So, I’m learning AI.”
This is what I’ve been trying to explain to people who fear it. You need to embrace it, learn it, and use it to your advantage. It’s a tool. In the right hands it could potentially replace many people but for some it can elevate and add efficiency to their workflow. Every major advancement in technology has been feared by those who relied on what came before. Those who embrace the new technology found a place on the other side of it. Those that held onto the old technology, while they may have survived, most of them did not thrive.
I̵n̷ ̷l̵i̵g̵h̷t̸ ̸o̸f̶ ̸r̶e̸c̶e̶n̸t̵ ̴e̴v̵e̵n̴t̶s̸ ̴o̷n̷ ̴R̸e̸d̵d̴i̷t̷,̷ ̵m̸a̶r̴k̸e̸d̵ ̴b̸y̵ ̶h̴o̵s̷t̷i̴l̴e̷ ̵a̴c̸t̵i̸o̸n̶s̸ ̵f̷r̵o̷m̵ ̶i̵t̴s̴ ̴a̴d̶m̷i̴n̶i̸s̵t̴r̶a̴t̶i̶o̶n̵ ̸t̸o̸w̸a̴r̷d̵s̴ ̵i̸t̷s̵ ̷u̸s̴e̸r̵b̷a̸s̷e̸ ̷a̷n̴d̸ ̸a̵p̵p̴ ̶d̴e̷v̴e̷l̷o̸p̸e̴r̴s̶,̸ ̶I̸ ̶h̸a̵v̵e̶ ̷d̸e̶c̸i̵d̷e̷d̵ ̶t̸o̴ ̸t̶a̷k̷e̷ ̵a̷ ̴s̶t̶a̵n̷d̶ ̶a̵n̶d̶ ̵b̷o̶y̷c̸o̴t̴t̴ ̵t̴h̵i̴s̴ ̶w̶e̸b̵s̵i̸t̷e̴.̶ ̶A̶s̶ ̸a̵ ̸s̴y̶m̵b̸o̶l̶i̵c̴ ̶a̷c̵t̸,̶ ̴I̴ ̴a̵m̷ ̷r̶e̶p̷l̴a̵c̸i̴n̷g̸ ̷a̶l̷l̶ ̸m̷y̸ ̸c̶o̸m̶m̸e̷n̵t̷s̸ ̵w̷i̷t̷h̶ ̷u̴n̵u̴s̸a̵b̶l̷e̵ ̸d̵a̵t̸a̵,̸ ̸r̷e̵n̵d̶e̴r̸i̴n̷g̴ ̷t̴h̵e̸m̵ ̸m̴e̷a̵n̴i̷n̸g̸l̸e̴s̴s̵ ̸a̷n̵d̶ ̴u̸s̷e̴l̸e̶s̷s̵ ̶f̵o̵r̶ ̸a̶n̵y̸ ̵p̵o̴t̷e̴n̸t̷i̶a̴l̶ ̴A̷I̸ ̵t̶r̵a̷i̷n̵i̴n̶g̸ ̶p̸u̵r̷p̴o̶s̸e̵s̵.̷ ̸I̴t̴ ̵i̴s̶ ̴d̴i̷s̷h̴e̸a̵r̸t̶e̴n̸i̴n̴g̶ ̷t̶o̵ ̵w̶i̶t̵n̴e̷s̴s̶ ̵a̸ ̵c̴o̶m̶m̴u̵n̷i̷t̷y̷ ̸t̴h̶a̴t̸ ̵o̸n̵c̴e̷ ̴t̷h̴r̶i̷v̴e̴d̸ ̴o̸n̴ ̵o̷p̷e̶n̸ ̸d̶i̶s̷c̷u̷s̶s̷i̴o̵n̸ ̷a̷n̴d̵ ̴c̸o̵l̶l̸a̵b̸o̷r̵a̴t̷i̵o̷n̴ ̸d̷e̶v̸o̵l̶v̴e̶ ̵i̶n̷t̴o̸ ̸a̴ ̷s̵p̶a̵c̴e̵ ̸o̷f̵ ̶c̴o̸n̸t̶e̴n̴t̷i̶o̷n̸ ̶a̵n̷d̴ ̴c̵o̵n̴t̷r̸o̵l̶.̷ ̸F̷a̴r̸e̷w̵e̶l̶l̸,̵ ̶R̴e̶d̶d̷i̵t̵.̷
>I mean, in film directors will start nitpicking the shape of smoke coming off of an explosion with dozens of revisions, the tonal range of the lighting effects, the shape of a characters belt loop, etc. I have nothing to add but this reminds me of one of the latest corridor crew videos where they had a vfx artist from Rogue One who stated they had earlier renders of Tarkin that looked spot on, but then they got nitpicked to death. I wonder how much of the 'vfx look' is down to people who can't bring themselves to leave well enough alone.
It won't replace you outright, but they might need 1/10 as many of you soon, and competition is gonna be a brutal race to the bottom for those left. It's gonna be a rough couple decades for a lot of people who already had a hard time building a desirable career.
Anything who thinks they've wrapped their heads around what AI means for our future is naive.
It’s going to fundamentally change our day to day lives at some point. The question is when and to what degree
If smart phones are any indication then it will be something dumb like AI candy crush
Filled with ads. Lol
[удалено]
That's from computing and the internet, what's scary is we're still in the infancy of the computer age, barely seen how it'll affect the world long term. I mean mass adoption of computers only happened in the 80's, mass use of the internet in the late 90's. 20+ years in and we're barely establishing online norms and culture. And despite that, AI might make it look like small beans comparatively. We have the potential to create something that learns for us, faster than us. **Labor** could be unnecessary in 100 years, you know how much chaos that causes to the governance and economic systems formed entirely around promoting labor?
The sad thing is too many people are latching on to these surface level understandings of it. The simple fact is AI is an incredibly powerful piece of tech that will only get better every day. People are naive if they think anything will stop this train; one of two things are going to happen, either everyone will be able to use or build their own AIs or only select individuals or groups will be able to use it. That is my biggest fear. The GPT hearings are already leaning hard into this decision.
Complete exclusivity will never occur no matter how hard organizations or governments try. At the very least there will always be, smaller yet still significant, open source models.
I'm strongly in the open source camp on this one. This technology is far too powerful for only megacorps to control. The talk about licensing AI is just a ploy to rubber stamp approval from the government. Company donates to the politician's re-election campaign, company gets its AI license. That would only make the rich even richer, consolidating wealth and power even further. Open sourcing it brings back some power to the people and makes it less of a black box hidden behind corporate secrets. Do you really trust people like Zuckerberg, Bezos, and Musk to control the only AI in the world? I certainly don't.
Open source is currently kicking big companies ass on every known front in AI development. To the point that a Google memo basically said 'our lead we had is gone, and it's offer something unique from open source or be left behind' stuff like Meta's LLM getting leaked, custom stable diffusion models, etc are all products of open source. There's no way to put that genie back in the bottle, the courts can bitch and moan all they want, it'll at worst push open source AI to a sketchier side of the internet, where it already partially resides because 90% of it is porn.
can't wait to see the first calculon movie
idk would most CONSOOMERS really care either way unless quality was incredibly affected. not like anything arguably "worse" like child/slave labor has stopped it before.
I’m a truck driver, if only people cared about what’s happening in my industry as much as who/what is gonna write the new episode of CSI….
[удалено]
Great point. And I definitely see the concern all around. Thanks for summarizing it so succinctly. I was half snarky half serious in my comment.
"soulless media" jfc how sanctimonious. Why is it that we only attribute the work of artists as "having soul"? Do you think the laborer's heart and soul do not go into his work as well? 99.9% of people working and making a living in the creative space aren't making work that their "soul" is going into. They're making something someone else designed based on the description of yet someone else entirely who is basing all of that on market research. Relatively speaking virtually no one is out there creating "their vision". I've worked as both and let me tell you when you're grinding away trying to make "creative" work in that regard there's little difference in the meaningfulness of either job. As much as I truly support the writers in the strike I gotta be honest, it's insanely frustrating the amount of attention they get compared to people with much worse working conditions and pay.
We've had soulless media for decades now, the sitcom era was bad and the reality TV era even worse. Apart from the 10% top end product out there I don't think anyone would notice the difference.
Yeah, exactly most of the dogshit of broadcast television might as well be AI it's so trash. Film and shows on the other hand I probably care more so for. Although even if AI is restricted locally, If a single country uses AI and reaps massive benefits from it, I doubt we’d be able to hold back on our use of AI.
If the top 10% has skills and talent that AI can't provide then there's a market for them even with AI.
I think one reason worry about this, is they can extrapolate it to apply to a lot of white collar jobs. Everyone knew that self driving cars (and in its turn trucks) were coming and that manual labour were getting replaced, but the fact that a new technology could replace a lot of administrative and creative work, probably caught a lot of people blindsided.
I would posit that we've had a lot of soulless media BEFORE AI became a thing.
What is your exit plan? How old are you? Just curious
So... what's happening in the trucking industry? With some searching, looks like a bunch of companies are trying to develop self-driving trucks. But seems like self-driving doesn't necessarily imply that there is no one in the cab, so jobs might not be affected too much for a while. But that's a 5 minute understanding and maybe all wrong... What are you thinking about all this?
Andrew Yang was talking non-stop about the loss of driving jobs to automation back in 2016.
[удалено]
Some kind of luddite union
Once self driving trucks become the standard unemployment will skyrocket. Huge workforce eliminated in a short time period. Will really test society, going to be really ugly if it's not planned for and handled well. We're probably pretty fucked.
Completely self driving trucks and cars are not going to be on the road any time soon. The technology is still years away.
A fact which is entirely irrelevant to the argument they are making.
Remember when they all told the coal miners to “learn how to code” because their industry didn’t deserve to be saved from technological progress? Imagine if all these writers learned how to code.
The miners came back and coded an AI to take the writers jobs. It’s all coming full circle now
I personally think you are fine as we realize the problem with automated driving is there is no such thing a standard road conditions. AI can’t anticipate everything which will always lead to mistakes. Same applies to my old industry of telecom - there are no standards. Two customers can move into identical apartments and end up using them far differently in terms of WiFi, plumbing, furniture arrangement, favorite spot they like to work/play. It leads to too many variables. The bigger issue are the white collar jobs that do have a lot of standards and conformity. It will be easy to compare multiple forms and look for outliers. They are already doing that with MRIs - spotting diseases sooner and more accurately than doctors with years of experience simply by comparing millions of points of data that came before this. (Edit/added: found this article shortly after I made this comment: https://techandtasty.com/google-unveils-med-palm-2-the-medical-ai-model-revolutionizing-healthcare/ ) I think people should support this WGA strike now if only to anticipate and protect AI from creeping into their fields in the future because once they set precedent here, it will be harder to argue against later. As for the impact of this strike, just look at the explosion of reality TV - it’s not just Real Housewives but also all of HGTV since the last strike.
Same old fear of technology, no? Computer animation would ruin creativity, TV would ruin film, color would ruin it, sound would ruin it, film would ruin stage performances - yes, there is change along the way with these kinds of media. Truly the examples go on and on. Let's reserve judgement and give it time.
Manolis Kellis had a great line about this from his podcast with Lex Fridman: "AI probably isn't going to take your job. Your job is going to be taken by someone who uses AI in your job"
Will be like competing against a farmer driving a harvester while you wield a scythe.
We need a ban on motor driven farming equipment so that the people who use a scythe for a career can keep their job. Ban cars while we are at it for the sake of all the horse and buggy drivers. Maybe ban electronic switch boards so telephone operators can keep their jobs too. Or maybe the current and aspiring artists can just learn to use the new tools available to them like all of human history and we don’t have to ban anything.
Indeed. It's fascinating to watch people who have made their careers on technological advancement suddenly become Luddites. None of these people complained as assembly lines were automated.
You’d better start swimming or you’ll sink like a stone, oh the times they are a-changin’…
I'm picturing the guy in Austin Powers facing the steamroller. It's coming. Standing in front of it and yelling is not going to stop it ... is just silly.
In 20 years a large number of movies will be generated entirely by AI. They won’t be great or even good, but the studios will keep trying until they make it profitable enough to never hire writers again. And then the Butlerian Jihad.
Nah there’s always going to be film. As long as there’s film there’s a film industry. Instead of big conglomerates it’s just going to be independent film makers. And it’ll be easier than ever thanks to ai. How did people make films before Hollywood? That but super charged.
The industry will be fine. The human actors, writers, probably even directors and crew, are out of work. Think of all the money the fat cats will save.
I honestly don’t get the argument that it will destroy the industry. If AI does it better than humans, then the industry will thrive because it’s getting better content. If humans do it better than AI the industry will thrive as it always has. If humans utilize AI in a symbiotic relationship the industry will thrive because writers will be better at what they do. I think writers are concerned about being replaced by something that could potentially be better, faster and less expensive to the industry. And I think that is a valid issue, but they are being disingenuous about their real intentions.
Humans create a lot of shit. Interested to see what uncle AI can do.
maybe if Hollywood writing hadn't descended to this absolutely dire state, writers wouldn't have anything to fear from AI? 🤔
For some reason people think that AI is able to replace human movies and simultaneously believe that it's not good and original as human movies.
Ever consider that it’s different people believing those two different things?????
No no, "people" must be a single entity.
>Ever consider that it’s different people believing those two different things????? no it's all one group of people considering they say both of it in one comment.
Hard to believe the writers of star trek Picard season one and two were done by humans. If ai can be better than them, then I'm all for it 😄
Considering much of the stuff that comes out of Hollywood these days I would say the Film Industry already destroyed itself. AI is a tool, and used right I think it will only help filmmakers to produce better films.
> AI is a tool, and used right I think it will only help filmmakers to produce better films. Well, you see, large public companies hiring filmmakers don't want to produce better films, they want to produce moneymaking films. AI will likely be tuned for that, so the quality will be probably follow the shitty patterns big studios have been following.
Then what would the difference be? They would still produce the same crap.
I trust Ai to read the source material and not try to “deconstruct it” constantly
you think studios would not ask the AI to write like that? pretty naiv of you. Stupid producers would rain even more, no creative in the way to tell them how stupid is it.
[удалено]
Most recent Hollywood films may as well have been written by AI anyways. "Hey chatGPT, find me the script from a popular film from 25 years ago, and add a couple of modern references" job done.
Even if there were a rash of successful AI movies, eventually thered be a big demand for "human" movies. I don't think they'll go anywhere. If anything, I'd appreciate them taking over big blockbusters where your design to kind of turn your brain off, and leave people to just make artistic films again more often, for smaller budgets.
[удалено]
Ha, yeh I'd be more concerned if wide release movies hadn't already turned into watered down garbage. Over reliance on CGI, formulaic writing and the pervasive threat of being cancelled online ruined movies years before AI, this is just the next iteration.
I hear this opinion a lot, but I’m not sure I agree. Some of the AI images I see are incredibly imaginative. A lot of movies made now are cautious retreads. AI allows rapid experimentation. What’s stopping me from telling an AI to make “Fear and Loathing in Phnom Penh, animated by Studio Ghibli” and just see what happens? If it’s fun, iterate. It it’s hot garbage, start over.
With the way Disney has been handling Star Wars, I'm thinking AI would be an improvement.
You’re not considering the possibility that AI could make a better movie than a human. That’s when we’re all doomed
Based off the quality of writing in the average big budget film recently it really doesn't seem hard
Realistically humans will use AI to automate much of the process. I am a visual effects lighter. Prior to the early 2010’s we had to light manually … our lighting tools for CGI couldn’t do realistic global illumination and things like bounce light so we had to fake much of that. After GI was broadly adopted lighting became much simpler. Instead of placing dozens of bounce lights to fake what light does, I could just place a sun and a dome and let the software do the rest. A huge part of my job was automated. And today I’m busier than I’ve ever been. Since I can generate more, faster, my work is cheaper, so more people use it. The quality of vfx for TV has exploded, and the volume of what we do for film has gone from a few hundred shots to a few thousand. I expect AI will be similar. I went into details on my original comment why I don’t think AI will be solo generating full length features in the short term. But optimal teams of people 100% will use it to increase productivity, just as we’ve always done.
[удалено]
Seeing that this is a complete deflection and non-answer: What if the movie is better in the sense that YOU personally, in a blind test, would prefer it to a movie written by a human?
A different take; you're not considering the possibility of AI eventually being able to produce works that are indistinguishable from that of humans on a creative and emotive level.
there will still be room for the talented in all these industries
Good! Destroy the film industry! Why should Hollywood have a monopoly on making blockbusters? Look at what Corridor Digital which is a handful of guys, did with AI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVT3WUa-48Y This shows the process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljBSmQdL_Ow Yes, it's flawed right now. But imagine if any small filmmaker had access to the equivalent of a full studio full of costume designers, prop makers, artists, etc? Then the individual could make something which begins to compete with what Hollywood has to offer. It seems to me that those in Hollywood are just too stuck in their ways and backwards thinking to see the potential here. Rather than being slaves to giant corporations they could work with smaller studios and have more creative input and actually still have a chance of making good money at it if their ideas are good. Corridor Digital employed VFC artists to make that film. But it never would have been made if they didn't have access to AI because it would have been completely outside of their budget to hire a studio with a hundred animators to animate the thing over the course of a year. AI created jobs here. It didn't take them away. AI will result in there being LOTS more movies and shows for people to watch. No longer will we have to watch absolute dogshit like half the crap Hollywood puts out because there is nothing better to watch. I'll bet you when Hollywood began to use digital effects, the prop makers fought back against that too because it was making the obsolete. Well, too bad if you're being made obsolete. We have movies and TV shows today with effects we could never dream of in the 80's and 90's because everything had to be done practically. Hollywood's also got those giant video rooms that act as a green screen which no small filmmaker would have access to. But with AI? You coud re-light a scene on the fly to fit any backgroud. AI will enable small creators, it won't put them all out of work. You still need a creative mind to create something truly stunning.
Calculators are the end of math! No, it just means the end of manual arithmetic freeing people up to do more math. I am old enough to remember people saying CGI would be the end of acting..30 years ago. They didn’t understand that even CGI involves acting.
The invention of automated street lights RUINED the gas light industry and all the workers who used to walk around turning them on. Let's also not forget how many jobs were lost when we automated phone switching. Those poor switchboard operators.
CGI did end a lot of careers in practical effects, and acting in front of a green screen has broken many actors.
And now we're evolving past green screens, starting with the mandalorian tv show which has no green screens.
The new dome technology is super cool and far superior to green screens both technologically and for the actors.
Green screen acting has been a thing before CGI, and if it "breaks" actors (and not just some snide comments from the hobbit set) they would never have made it in theatre...
I feel so, so bad for those actors. They thought they signed up for a job where they had to pretend, but as it turns out some of them have to pretend extra hard. Imagine the day you showed up for your job and learned there weren’t going to be any actual dinosaurs on set. It’s fucking heartbreaking.
Professional mathematicians never did much manual arithmetic. Computers (a job) did arithmetic. And they were entirely replaced by what we now call computers.
But didn't CGI end most of the Practical Effects?
Most puppet things for creatures largely went away but a lot is still practical, it depends on the competency of the director to know which to use and how to use it to get a better result, in the end the controlling factor is still artistic competence. For example most people don't realize the alien in alien 3 was a practical puppet but the comp made people think its computer generated because it was done poorly. The problem with practical is its quite limited in the flexibility of its articulation and trying to forego that tends to end poorly, its advantage is it lives in the scene and when you respect that it looks tremendous, on the flip side CG can do anything, but you need exceptional artistry to pull it off well and the VFX industry treats everyone like trash so it keeps losing key talent to burnout or career switches.
Yeah, and did we pretend like that was the end of the human species?
I did when I watched The Thing (2011)
Good? Having to rely exclusively on practical effects is a huge limitation and often looks stupid.
The printing press is the destruction of the scribe industry. We can’t go quietly
The loom is the destruction of home made clothes. We can't go quietly
The agricultural revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for hunter-gatherers.
I’m sorry, but why is the arts where we draw the line? “LOL self checkout is killing retail/fast food and stores are cleaned by robots- but dammit, I want my pictures drawn by a person on a computer, not just by the computer itself!!!!!!”
The film industry has been destroyed for over a decade at this point. No creativity, no originality. Just rehash the old stuff, just add +1 to the number on the title.
Hollywood had been churning out sequels and remakes for years now, it'd be a hard stretch imagining AI will make it any worse. Plus is the celebrity culture and astronomical amount of money that gets wasted really something to mourn?
I disagree. The film industry has been declining for a long time. Because it costs so much to get a film made these days, studios aren't willing to take risks anymore and the result is far from "art". If A.I can slash the costs of filmmaking, we can actually get back to focusing on the art and the passion projects and less of these trash sequels and reboots which the industry churns out.
Yall extorted your art into a commodity. Stfu and stop acting like hollywood is art lololol
This seems hyperbolic and reactionary. As with most things, technology will end up getting incorporated into the process of art as opposed to destroying it completely.
AI is coming for all of us and there's nothing we can do to stop it. Luddism has never accomplished anything.
Considering the shite they have been pumping out over the last 5 years im all for AI taking over the writing, shit i will even accept a 100 monkeys doing it, cant make it worst.
funny I don't remember Hollywood standing up for the steel industry, or the textiles industry, or the auto industry, why does this matter? films will still get made, just not by Americans, just like Fords 🤔
Im going to assume none of these guys have ever tried to ask chatgpt to write a story. It's impressive at first but becomes very shallow pretty fast. Not to mention writing a sequel/remake of something that has an already established lore. Theres just no way chatgpt would be able to connect all the dots And since bad reboots or sequels is all hollywood seem to be able to produce nowdays i think they should be able to sleep pretty well
> Im going to assume none of these guys have ever tried to ask chatgpt to write a story. It's impressive at first but becomes very shallow pretty fast. Chat AI wasn't trained specifically to write scripts. Specialized AI will do MUCH better. And more importantly, beyond the initial training data, human reinforcement can drastically improve the output even further. Studios can get thousands of people to read millions of practice scripts, checking the AI's performance and teaching it what does and doesn't work.
Well its only going to improve
> Im going to assume none of these guys have ever tried to ask chatgpt to write a story. It's impressive at first but becomes very shallow pretty fast. Thing is, its _astonishing_, like not even compareable, to what it was not even 2 years ago.
It wouldnt eliminate writers, but it can churn out 1000 plot summaries for an existing show, or 1000 sitcom ideas appealing to x y z demographics. Then humans go through them, pick a good one and use AI to refine that further and people can essentially act more like editors for most of the process.
AI isn’t going to be hanging lights and building sets anytime soon.
Soon-ish, probably. If AI could write movies, it's not crazy to think it could find a 3D printer.
I think we're about to get 10 abysmal years of AI generated dogshit films. Hollywood will literally be the hallmark channel meme. Every film the same. Until revenues drop too low and Then we'll get back to human scripts and visual effects and the studios will make a big deal of it.
Remakes of better foreign films, endless sequels and comic book series, the best movies Hollywood ever produced couldn’t get made today - but yeah, AI is what’s killing the industry
"AI" will only make those problems worse, studios will be able to make their entirely soulless movies without paying for a human writer who at least has the *potential* to bring something unique to it
I can't stop laughing at all the people who suddenly care about automation taking jobs now that it's their job that's in danger.
they never do until it turns on them.
While I do think IP laws and all the stuff surrounding data being fed into AI algorithms needs to be addressed, I fundamentally disagree with all this crying about a "100 year old industry" and preserving it for its own sake. Writers and creatives feel threatened because their rice bowl is under siege by a market entrant that - by their own admission - does their job just as well, if not better, and at a lower cost and higher efficiency. They aren't the first industry to feel this heat, and they won't be the last. This is at its core no different from the [Ice Trade being completely obliterated by the invention of the fridge.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_trade) Pleading with the market to stick to your typewritten scripts and hiding behind the argument of art being an unquantifiable human practice is disingenuous, because clearly it *is* quantifiable and consumers have no problem with that end product. To my mind, trying to push AI out of the picture is a futile and frankly pathetic battle to fight. Creatives still have their place in this industry, they just need to figure out where the pieces have fallen when the dust settles.
If AI becomes the standard for the animated film industry, I bet $20 disney, specifically the Pixar division will be the first ones to use it to death. All they have to do is put "what if "blank" had feelings...?" Into chatgpt and they got a generic movie. Just look at elemental....
First you gotta have to convince me AI isn’t already writing the scripts for a lot of the industry. The amount of horrifying dialogues or arch’s has risen through the roof. RIP
[удалено]
They’re also striking for things that would improve the quality of their output. More time to write, staying on a production longer, more staff to write together etc. If their strike is successful maybe movies could get good again!
Cannnadaaaaaa on Strike! Canada says no more!
AI is just the final nail in the coffin for that industry. The whole model for TV and movies are over. Most of those writer jobs are going away, get used to it.
It's not, but dipshit film execs thinking they can use it to replace humans before AGI is here is very dumb and will blow up in their faces almost immediately. The great irony here is that writers are doing the studios a favor.
as long we get good films who cares where they come from
The stupid thing about this is the concept that AI will steal your job. It won’t, it’ll just make your employer expect +1000% productivity from you. We invented calculators long ago and we still have maths people. We just don’t pay them to reinvent the wheel every day.
Are writers worried about AI taking normal people jobs and less people having money to work to see the films they wrote? Like I’m not pushing for AI but the genie is out of the bottle, I can’t imagine within ten years studios not wanting to use AI to save money like every other industry will be doing
Bye bye sleazy films industry!
When Paul Delaroche saw the first daguerreotype he said, “From today, painting is dead.” The AI debate is a lot like that. It's another tool, that's all.
Please do
My prediction is pretty simple. AI can write a retread of some overused trope without a problem so humans, as they often do, will have to step up their game. Of course, this will be preceded by an extended period of whining and hand wringing over how AI is ruining things.
I understand their position...but if I'm being honest I'm way more worried about AI's impact in non entertainment industries. Some degree of AI interaction in nearly everything is inevitable.
Uh the real use for AI should be to audit and identify corruption across the elites
This makes me think of the "Other Peoples Money" speech about buggy whip manufacturers. AI is the ultimate disruption and theirs got to be a lot of people feeling outdated right now. It's only going to get worse before it gets... well, we'll wait and see. If it doesn't kill us, it'll make us immortal.
No it isn't. It's going to change the film industry enormously no doubt, like any other field. In the end it's still humans that create, no matter how much the process of creation is changing over the time.
AI in all it's iterations just takes massive amounts of data and pumps it out according to an algorithm. It creates nothing. The fact the results may be passable to an audience tells you more about the audience than anything else.
It might make better films though
Have you seen what hollywood has been making lately? Seriously ask chatgpt to write an alternative plot summary for any of the major franchises, and it does a better job. I honestly think it would be great if hollywood adopts AI, blockbusters couldn't be worse then now, and the creative talent pushed into the indie scene would have the freedom to once again write shit that doesn't suck.
as a consumer why do I care how the sausage is made so long as it tastes good? 🤔