Even with their next-to-zero knowledge about AI (same as us all, probably) there are a lot of interesting things to think and talk about. Mike in particular: shouldn't these sort of ethical dilemmas and human considerations be right up his alley?
but why do they have zero knowledge? they've been making over a million from patreon for over a decade now, what the fuck are they doing with their time? its the same shit with movies, why do they only have the time to attend movies on thursday night at the blackest theater in town?
even if you don't know anything, its not that hard to research, spend an hour or two to get caught up. especially in the last decade where everyone is obsessed with making short form content it shouldn't be difficult to learn about anything.
a human can (is supposed to) conceptualize and action visual concepts that are not explicitly shown onscreen
"is supposed to" is right, and that's the thing, when you look at blacks or indians (a majority of the human population) they are less capable than even AI when it comes to visual concepts and conceptualizing and yet they obviously make films in india and nigeria so would you consider them in the same field as AI made entertainment? the same level of goyslop?
and what if you gave a script of something an AI made and had humans make that and you directed it and released it, is it still AI written based on how directors naturally switch up stuff during shooting that may not have been in the script? what about the adlibs?
And whats stopping a human from being an intermediary entirely, the same way certain white people would buy a house and be the "face" the bank sees when in reality it was a black family back in the days of redlining. there were plenty of banks that assumed they were interacting with a fellow human instead of a human doing the evil misdeeds of cotton picking farm equipment
Real art has passion in it that a sensitive person can see. It may not be flawless or even very good, but you can see the love it was made with and it transforms it into something more. It's the difference between a million mass produced Barbies and the little, hand-stiched ragdoll made by a great-grandmother for her first great-grandbaby even though her hand shakes and see can't quite see like she used to.
except what if there is no passion to it, the "in it for the money" acting job, there's a reason you're seeing tons of AI video prompts of people making fake drug commercials or news broadcasts, AI is amazing at making goyslop, like those Man on the Street interviews.
the second its more involved than the same goyslop you're having shoved in your face it fails completely,
Either way, there had to be a person behind the scenes coming up with the prompts, so is it not still an act of creativity?
great point, another point to add is that people have always said the same shit about new tech, moving from Cels to digital animation or 2d to 3d always leads to people trying to say it "doesn't count" or "isn't creative". they said the same shit about rap music and cover songs because it "wasn't original" and while people might still have that view, enough people didn't give a shit and the newer generations grew up with the tech to the point where they'd think you gone mad if you demanded cel shading and animating on ones instead of how they typically do shit now.
Especially when so many people claim George Lucas' wife is the true creator of star wars because she edited it, isn't someone prompting AI just basically editing from an unlimited reel of footage? If they're going to say all the women that edited movies are their real creators, then why can't you say the same thing about the lady using chat GPT instead of an editing bay.
The thing to fear is AI creating fake videos intended to influence elections or start wars.
remember when Benghazi happened and they blamed it on a youtube video? according to the democrats you're about a dozen years late to fearing AI created videos causing wars.
If only Hollywood had a tenth of such passion or spirit.
they did, hell they still do. its just that you never see it in big budget pictures,
Considering Spielberg became a pablum-peddling hack once he hit it big, calling a flash in the pan like Abrams the next Spielberg is pretty accurate.
say what you will about Spielberg he made sure to pay it forward, so much of beloved 90s kids stuff is because of him, same thing with George Lucas, they got in power and tried helping the next generation of creators. Same thing with guys like Tom Cruise or Adam Sandler or Rodney Dangerfield or Quincy Jones or Dr.Dre or Lloyd Kaufman. You take what you have and try and help everyone else. Meanwhile how many people can attribute their success as a behind the scenes creative from JJ Abrams giving them a shot? Where's JJ Abrams' Animanics or Monkey Island? it seemed like every fucking comedy in the late 2000s was made by Judd Apatow because once he got successful he helped greenlit all his buddies ideas.
? Just ask the AI to make a legally distinct version of that song and here you go
can it do that?
I hate the uncanniness of AI video. As fast as it's developing there's always that inhuman factor that creeps me out. I'm always expecting to see faces and limbs transmorphing into something else like they're made out of water.
I love messing around with AI for writing and arts, but video just doesn't cut it for me, at least not yet.
thats because of the Uncanny Valley effect, it will never truely be able to overcome that if you ask it to make humans, but the obvious use case is in animation, literally the shit people are making but involving talking cute animals or space aliens demolishes the highest budget dreamworks or disney shit. by the time shrek 5 comes out you'll be able to make a better shrek in your own living room.
it reminds me a lot of Jak&Daxter and Ratchet&Clank, both studios admit they did aliens instead of humans like other studios not only for the kid aspect but because humans are way easier for people to judge and critique while no one can go "that's not how otsels walk"
Who are these fake trailers even for? Do normies find this entertaining? It just looks uncanny and shitty.
its a joke, this movie had a legal issue but was made entirely before the current AI revolution
It takes me longer to get that feeling, but even now, there is a hyper-fluidity to motion. I guess that's the next step, to create believable hesitation and slight awkwardness.
what i don't like is how it still can't get fluids right, or how objects interact, a baseball hitting a piece of cardboard. i don't think it can ever get motion down too well. like those AI videos of sitcoms or comedy shows, it can't do the subtle movements, such as two people shaking hands or doing anything too intricate. Another big point is that everyone looks so movie quality. i've seen multiple videos of people parodying AI and its super easy to tell because even if they're attractive, they still have the marks and bumps that humans have.
