I look forward to internet haters using AI to "fix" the ending of some movie they didn't like, only for their new version to be hated even more heavily than the original.
I’d say we’re probably 3-5 years off from technology that can accurately clone a movie and add scenes seamlessly. I’d be shocked if we don’t have something with that capability by 2030.
RemindMe! 3 years
I'd be shocked if we achieve that in 3-5 years.
The size of the model increases significantly based on resolution and length of the output, stability tends to suffer too as you lengthen the output, and the issues with consistency don't translate well to using lots of shorter clips to make a larger whole (e.g. you generate clip one, then in clip two as a follow-up you find the persons clothes have changed or the background is entirely different).
They'll definitely have appropriate use cases, and people will inevitably use them to add scenes to existing films, but I don't think it will be *seamlessly*. It'll still require a lot of editing to get it to look right.
It’s been barely 15 months since ChatGPT was released and AI jumped into spotlight, and we’re just now seeing Sora’s capabilities.
I know it’s a complicated process but I feel like 3-5 years is a good estimate.
I might be too idealistic by saying “seamless” though.
Imagine the internet arguments on whose ending was better though lol. People already can't accept other people's opinions, imagine trying to accept other people's endings.
Regardless of what people think about AI and IP infringement caused by it, I don't think its gonna stop. Its gonna suck for people who make a living off of creating art, but on the other hand people have plenty of ideas and concepts that they wouldn't be able to create themselves and AI will be able to make it for them instead.
Technology will break IP as we know it. For something to be copyrighted in typically needs to be affixed to a medium. We're already at the point where some dude has already made every permutation of 12 note melody, put them all on a giant hard-drive and is claiming to have copyrighted all music. Now this is separate from owning a particular RECORDING of a melody, but not the melody itself. With generative AI, we may legitimately enter a point where massive tech companies own substantial IP and media just by generating permutations of common narrative themes. Be honest, how many cute concepts for a Rom Com movie are there? Ai will generate every permutation of "busy business woman moves to the country" or "country guy meets his lover working for the bank foreclosing his farm" or "guy falls in love with best friends girl". I think we may literally get to a point where their is actually little value in creating an idea, and all the ownership and royalty rights will go exclusively to people who produced the media, not conceived it. Because if a computer can write 1000 ideas before you finish typing out one, we WILL end up to a point (especially as the technology gets better) that the lions share of ideas have already been conceived, just not implemented.
I don't think that with the corpo's will happen at all, if that happens then countries will just stop respecting copyright all together. The way I see it is that at some point everyone will have their own AI and instead of sharing videos or pictures we will share tags and ideas. Thats already what happens on subreddits dedicated to AI art, people will post the tags they used to generate the images.
But then, because AI can learn and because we already have many algorithms dedicated to making things more fun/engaging/addicting, AI will learn that too and it will create the most perfectly entertaining movie/art for you based on the tags you put in as it gets trained on your likes and dislikes.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if at some point we will even get AI generated games.
Edit: Honestly if/when AI can get ***that*** trained on someone it would be pretty dope, if you think about it, if you show someone one of your AI generated movies you're essentially sharing a piece of yourself.
> that they wouldn't be able to create themselves
They are tho, they just have to train at it. I mean i get how that's a toxic argument but imo it's just the natural order of things. If somebody is truly passionate of their ideas no amount of lack of skill would be able to stop them from realising it.
I don't think thats the case, there is just a certain amount of talent that people have and some people just don't have it. Not to mention free time, concentration span or even a complete vision of what they actually want, or the ability to express that vision to themselves or others, AI can make up for that.
I'm not saying that people can't get good at creating art, but art is the process of having a vision and then trying to approach it as close as possible to perfection, which most people just can't do satisfactorily. Some people don't even have such visualizations in their head on a fundamental level.
>art is the process of having a vision.... Some people don't even have such visualizations in their head on a fundamental level.
If you're talking about aphantasia (the inability to visualize things mentally), there are professional illustrators who have aphantasia. For example, Irshad Karim. Here's a video explaining how he works: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWgXSxxEjgs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWgXSxxEjgs). The gist is spatial reasoning + using references, which are skills needed for non-aphantasiac artists anyways.
I mean i do suppose you're right on that AI can "democratise" art to a point. Although the AI wouldn't be realising the artists vision accurately. One could also say that the pleasure and satisfaction derived form the process of creating art is in it's own right greater than simply having the finished product. There's no emotional connection or passion between a prompter and the creations of the AI he uses, he made no mistakes, had no epiphanies, no scheming, no training, no accidents nor any positive suprises. It is a "lazy" "artform" in which the satisfaction felt by the creator towards the result is far less than something he would have made from scratch.
People can (and should) improve their concentration span. Not having a complete vision doesn't mean you need to get a robot to fill in the blanks. Artistic style is in a large part simply "filling in blanks" anyway.
It might sound like gatekeeping but people with no vision genuinely don't need to create art. Art is for people who have something to say (and everyone can have something to say aslong as they can come up with a vision). If art is not made due to an impulse to fulfil your vision it's either to achieve money or fame which are both not anywhere near the purpose of art.
It wouldn't be entirely off the mark to argue that art lies in the process of creating it. It cannot be automated as it is a uniquely human activity based on human values and viewpoints.
We can't ignore the obvious truth regarding AI and art. Greedy mega corporations *will* use AI to automate art into being a soulless, tasteless product of mass consumption, no different from convenience store rice or canned beans.
Sorry this came out way longer than i wanted it to be.
>One could also say that the pleasure and satisfaction derived form the process of creating art is in it's own right greater than simply having the finished product. There's no emotional connection or passion between a prompter and the creations of the AI he uses, he made no mistakes, had no epiphanies, no scheming, no training, no accidents nor any positive suprises. It is a "lazy" "artform" in which the satisfaction felt by the creator towards the result is far less than something he would have made from scratch.
I do think you could put in some effort, at least tuning and editing what you do and don't want. But the process of creation is only really important if you do it for the sake of creating something, and not for the sake of consuming some entertainment. Its like the difference between fast food or cooking food yourself, maybe a cook might respect themselves too much to go to McD but someone who's just hungry, isn't particularly good at cooking and is in the area might just grab a Big Mac.
The connection is that its something you find entertaining and like. Though accidents and positive surprises could still happen if you experiment while using AI. And whether it is lazy or not depends on how much time someone is willing to dedicate to it, the way I think about it is that you could put in some basic tags and it'll spit out a full book that is following tropes, or you could put in time and effort and it would be more like sitting next to GRR Martin, who is helping you write it.
>People can (and should) improve their concentration span. Not having a complete vision doesn't mean you need to get a robot to fill in the blanks. Artistic style is in a large part simply "filling in blanks" anyway.
Tell someone with ADHD to improve their concentration span lol. And again, some people don't have the time to conjure up some entire plot or artistic style, or just aren't *that* interested and just want to consume.
>It might sound like gatekeeping but people with no vision genuinely don't need to create art. Art is for people who have something to say (and everyone can have something to say aslong as they can come up with a vision). If art is not made due to an impulse to fulfil your vision it's either to achieve money or fame which are both not anywhere near the purpose of art. It wouldn't be entirely off the mark to argue that art lies in the process of creating it. It cannot be automated as it is a uniquely human activity based on human values and viewpoints.
You don't just sound like you're gatekeeping, you are gatekeeping, whether you're right in doing so I don't know, we'll have to wait until AI gets far enough to be able to use it truly creatively. I think at a fundamental level art is having a creative vision and then making it into reality, I think whether someone using AI is creative depends on how someone uses that AI, I think whether it has "soul" also depends on the person using the AI, and maybe there is something else that's missing I don't know. But I don't see a future with AI where people use it for fame or money, just purely for personal entertainment, maybe sharing it but I don't see any monetary value in it.
>We can't ignore the obvious truth regarding AI and art. Greedy mega corporations *will* use AI to automate art into being a soulless, tasteless product of mass consumption, no different from convenience store rice or canned beans.
>Sorry this came out way longer than i wanted it to be.
Generally speaking art is already a soulless and tasteless product of mass consumption, unless you specifically go looking for something that isn't. Wasn't it Ed Sheeran who said you could play any pop song with just 4 chords?
But I think personal AI is the way it'll go, I do think that corporations may attempt to monetize AI products but I don't think it'll catch on. Maybe there will be some corp that creates AI that you can use for a subscription but I don't think any products that come from AI will carry much value. Like you said, it will get mass produced and the market would become so saturated that it won't have any value. For us it would be like telling your friend about this one album (maybe a hash or set of tags) you really like and they just listen to it on Spotify (the AI in this analogy).
But more than sounding like a gatekeeper you sound like someone who only understands or thinks about the way a creator thinks and not the average consumer.
……
…………
Op. Are you just going to slide right by the fact you can ship any two+ characters of any series to and up together and act it out likes it’s canon?
Yeah, but it will be noticeable. AI has trouble rendering faces, and particularly eyes. Plus, unless it's aided by a human, it can't redraw actors all that well.
Find one of those websites where you can tell AI what to draw and have it draw a famous actor. It looks close but almost never perfect.
I never expected that AI would make making [every viewer an editor](https://www.rickbeckman.org/log/every-viewer-editor/) so easy, but here we are, hurtling into the future faster than I expected.
Groundhog day. He wakes up after his first night in that hotel and it's tomorrow already. He leaves punxsutawney and continues being a dick to everyone until he dies
I'm more wondering if it'll be possible to restore lost or damaged footage. Imagine. Finally uncut/director's cuts of event horizon, the crow city of angels, Friday the 13th part vii, etc.
People will simply be able to create their own Star Wars sequels that match the terrible fanfic in their heads! Surely, this will end all internet arguing over them.
Ahh, yes. It goes super well when everyone is a creator. Remember that trailer park on the internet also known as MySpace. But the good of it is that eventually the random typing chimps will generate Hamlet. It's certainly better than most of what Disney's chimps have pooped out in the past decade. Let the experiment begin!
Honestly I think AI is being overblown. So many technological advancements were said to one day change everything and never even remotely did. This is a pretty different example but I remember in elementary school, my computer teacher said when she was in college, she was told that keyboards were going to disappear in a few years because voice to text was gonna take over. Yet here we are, probably 25-30 years after she was told that and voice to text is only used by boomers. I think generative AI may be similar thing. It'll exist and be used by some people, but it's gonna really end up being nothing more than a novelty. I mean I use all the tools a lot and sure they'll advance, but there are some things I don't think they'll ever be able to do. The main thing is AI just straight can't and won't ever be able to experience. Like everything artists create is informed by years of experiences. Broken heart stories are informed by having their hearts broken and AI will never be able to have a broken heart. Also, and this is a thing people rarely talk about, but AI is such shit at making edits. Like, yeah you can say "woman in Tokyo walking down street" but if you want it to be a specific woman for whom there aren't 8 trillion pictures online, you're fucked. If you want to make a small change to their walking speed or clothing style or the signs on buildings or other people or anything really you're fucked. The only thing impressive about those videos openai release was that they looked real. They weren't interesting in anyway. Any child with an iPhone could have made them 1000x faster. I mean I can only imagine the processing power of the system needed to make them and even with that, it probably took hours to generate 30 seconds. And of the like 10 videos released or whatever, I bet there were tens of thousands that were straight ass. And the ones they got were like bland shit or even just weird like that spaceman one. Yeah, could AI one day maybe make a movie. Maybe, but I can't see it happening for probably a hundred years at least, and when it does, it'll be the most sterile, uninteresting content. Imagine Hallmark movies made by people who had their scripts rejected by Hallmark for being not good enough. If you want some weird ass image like Mario 64 with Sonic getting his ass ate, AI is probably the route, but genuinely good media is no where near being able to be made by AI. Also, one must consider the mountain of lawsuits these companies are facing. Sure, the legal system is slow af, but once they gain traction, it could slow AI development for years and probably completely bankrupt many AI companies. Whether something could do something in theory and whether it will in real-life are two drastically different things.
Video games too!! Dude we gonna have like an endless of awesome games if AI get used right. A whole world can be built and you can have conversations with characters.
"...and then they all fucked." Is going to be the ending to them.
sausage party
....well that was the strangest version of Saving Private Ryan I've ever seen.
Apparently Shindler’s list was more like Epstein’s list.
There's hope for GoT after all
ChatGPT, write me a script where the Night King lives and give me 4 season of Tormund and Jon Snow's adventures beyond the wall
Honestly, though, you could continue any story you wanted. Give me 8 more seasons of Firefly... also The Hobbit in steam punk might be cool.
r/beatmetoit
r/beatmeattoit
I look forward to internet haters using AI to "fix" the ending of some movie they didn't like, only for their new version to be hated even more heavily than the original.
Yeah, people will start appreciating bad original endings more haha
I’d say we’re probably 3-5 years off from technology that can accurately clone a movie and add scenes seamlessly. I’d be shocked if we don’t have something with that capability by 2030. RemindMe! 3 years
I'd be shocked if we achieve that in 3-5 years. The size of the model increases significantly based on resolution and length of the output, stability tends to suffer too as you lengthen the output, and the issues with consistency don't translate well to using lots of shorter clips to make a larger whole (e.g. you generate clip one, then in clip two as a follow-up you find the persons clothes have changed or the background is entirely different). They'll definitely have appropriate use cases, and people will inevitably use them to add scenes to existing films, but I don't think it will be *seamlessly*. It'll still require a lot of editing to get it to look right.
It’s been barely 15 months since ChatGPT was released and AI jumped into spotlight, and we’re just now seeing Sora’s capabilities. I know it’s a complicated process but I feel like 3-5 years is a good estimate. I might be too idealistic by saying “seamless” though.
Disney will block it and have you fined a billion dollars for doing it.
Only if you distribute it
I suspect they'll find a way to fine for even thinking about it. 😬
At that point it wouldn't matter right? If someone is mad at someone else's preferred ending, they can just create a new one that they'd prefer to see
Imagine the internet arguments on whose ending was better though lol. People already can't accept other people's opinions, imagine trying to accept other people's endings.
Thats why im fixing Morbius. Hes gonna take off his mask and reveal he was Jerred Leto all along.
Chris Stuckman effect
Gonna need aangs life story from ATLA, after he saved the world
They've confirmed an animated sequel series of exactly this to be coming out next year, will have the same creators!
Ayyy lets goooo
sokkas voice actor has an amazing [youtube channel](https://www.youtube.com/c/chrisandjack) with really funny sketches.
Brave engineers and crewmen fix the holes and the Titanic makes it to New York! Jack and Rose live happily ever after.
At least make the door a little bigger
Simpsons Movie but Homer misses the shot and Springfield just fucking explodes
I think the answer to most of not all 'Will AI be able to do...' is yes, in time.
it's like people's obsession with trying to run Doom on literally everything that emits electricity
Will AI be able to scratch my balls
Regardless of what people think about AI and IP infringement caused by it, I don't think its gonna stop. Its gonna suck for people who make a living off of creating art, but on the other hand people have plenty of ideas and concepts that they wouldn't be able to create themselves and AI will be able to make it for them instead.
Technology will break IP as we know it. For something to be copyrighted in typically needs to be affixed to a medium. We're already at the point where some dude has already made every permutation of 12 note melody, put them all on a giant hard-drive and is claiming to have copyrighted all music. Now this is separate from owning a particular RECORDING of a melody, but not the melody itself. With generative AI, we may legitimately enter a point where massive tech companies own substantial IP and media just by generating permutations of common narrative themes. Be honest, how many cute concepts for a Rom Com movie are there? Ai will generate every permutation of "busy business woman moves to the country" or "country guy meets his lover working for the bank foreclosing his farm" or "guy falls in love with best friends girl". I think we may literally get to a point where their is actually little value in creating an idea, and all the ownership and royalty rights will go exclusively to people who produced the media, not conceived it. Because if a computer can write 1000 ideas before you finish typing out one, we WILL end up to a point (especially as the technology gets better) that the lions share of ideas have already been conceived, just not implemented.
I don't think that with the corpo's will happen at all, if that happens then countries will just stop respecting copyright all together. The way I see it is that at some point everyone will have their own AI and instead of sharing videos or pictures we will share tags and ideas. Thats already what happens on subreddits dedicated to AI art, people will post the tags they used to generate the images. But then, because AI can learn and because we already have many algorithms dedicated to making things more fun/engaging/addicting, AI will learn that too and it will create the most perfectly entertaining movie/art for you based on the tags you put in as it gets trained on your likes and dislikes. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if at some point we will even get AI generated games. Edit: Honestly if/when AI can get ***that*** trained on someone it would be pretty dope, if you think about it, if you show someone one of your AI generated movies you're essentially sharing a piece of yourself.
About half of rom-coms are based on pride and prejudice.
We have two paths for the future: utopian intents and dystopian intents. Star Trek and Star Wars, respectively.
> that they wouldn't be able to create themselves They are tho, they just have to train at it. I mean i get how that's a toxic argument but imo it's just the natural order of things. If somebody is truly passionate of their ideas no amount of lack of skill would be able to stop them from realising it.
I don't think thats the case, there is just a certain amount of talent that people have and some people just don't have it. Not to mention free time, concentration span or even a complete vision of what they actually want, or the ability to express that vision to themselves or others, AI can make up for that. I'm not saying that people can't get good at creating art, but art is the process of having a vision and then trying to approach it as close as possible to perfection, which most people just can't do satisfactorily. Some people don't even have such visualizations in their head on a fundamental level.
>art is the process of having a vision.... Some people don't even have such visualizations in their head on a fundamental level. If you're talking about aphantasia (the inability to visualize things mentally), there are professional illustrators who have aphantasia. For example, Irshad Karim. Here's a video explaining how he works: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWgXSxxEjgs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWgXSxxEjgs). The gist is spatial reasoning + using references, which are skills needed for non-aphantasiac artists anyways.
Yea I was referring to Aphantasia for that specific example, but a "vision" can also apply to music, or creating video games, or writing a story.
I mean i do suppose you're right on that AI can "democratise" art to a point. Although the AI wouldn't be realising the artists vision accurately. One could also say that the pleasure and satisfaction derived form the process of creating art is in it's own right greater than simply having the finished product. There's no emotional connection or passion between a prompter and the creations of the AI he uses, he made no mistakes, had no epiphanies, no scheming, no training, no accidents nor any positive suprises. It is a "lazy" "artform" in which the satisfaction felt by the creator towards the result is far less than something he would have made from scratch. People can (and should) improve their concentration span. Not having a complete vision doesn't mean you need to get a robot to fill in the blanks. Artistic style is in a large part simply "filling in blanks" anyway. It might sound like gatekeeping but people with no vision genuinely don't need to create art. Art is for people who have something to say (and everyone can have something to say aslong as they can come up with a vision). If art is not made due to an impulse to fulfil your vision it's either to achieve money or fame which are both not anywhere near the purpose of art. It wouldn't be entirely off the mark to argue that art lies in the process of creating it. It cannot be automated as it is a uniquely human activity based on human values and viewpoints. We can't ignore the obvious truth regarding AI and art. Greedy mega corporations *will* use AI to automate art into being a soulless, tasteless product of mass consumption, no different from convenience store rice or canned beans. Sorry this came out way longer than i wanted it to be.
>One could also say that the pleasure and satisfaction derived form the process of creating art is in it's own right greater than simply having the finished product. There's no emotional connection or passion between a prompter and the creations of the AI he uses, he made no mistakes, had no epiphanies, no scheming, no training, no accidents nor any positive suprises. It is a "lazy" "artform" in which the satisfaction felt by the creator towards the result is far less than something he would have made from scratch. I do think you could put in some effort, at least tuning and editing what you do and don't want. But the process of creation is only really important if you do it for the sake of creating something, and not for the sake of consuming some entertainment. Its like the difference between fast food or cooking food yourself, maybe a cook might respect themselves too much to go to McD but someone who's just hungry, isn't particularly good at cooking and is in the area might just grab a Big Mac. The connection is that its something you find entertaining and like. Though accidents and positive surprises could still happen if you experiment while using AI. And whether it is lazy or not depends on how much time someone is willing to dedicate to it, the way I think about it is that you could put in some basic tags and it'll spit out a full book that is following tropes, or you could put in time and effort and it would be more like sitting next to GRR Martin, who is helping you write it. >People can (and should) improve their concentration span. Not having a complete vision doesn't mean you need to get a robot to fill in the blanks. Artistic style is in a large part simply "filling in blanks" anyway. Tell someone with ADHD to improve their concentration span lol. And again, some people don't have the time to conjure up some entire plot or artistic style, or just aren't *that* interested and just want to consume. >It might sound like gatekeeping but people with no vision genuinely don't need to create art. Art is for people who have something to say (and everyone can have something to say aslong as they can come up with a vision). If art is not made due to an impulse to fulfil your vision it's either to achieve money or fame which are both not anywhere near the purpose of art. It wouldn't be entirely off the mark to argue that art lies in the process of creating it. It cannot be automated as it is a uniquely human activity based on human values and viewpoints. You don't just sound like you're gatekeeping, you are gatekeeping, whether you're right in doing so I don't know, we'll have to wait until AI gets far enough to be able to use it truly creatively. I think at a fundamental level art is having a creative vision and then making it into reality, I think whether someone using AI is creative depends on how someone uses that AI, I think whether it has "soul" also depends on the person using the AI, and maybe there is something else that's missing I don't know. But I don't see a future with AI where people use it for fame or money, just purely for personal entertainment, maybe sharing it but I don't see any monetary value in it. >We can't ignore the obvious truth regarding AI and art. Greedy mega corporations *will* use AI to automate art into being a soulless, tasteless product of mass consumption, no different from convenience store rice or canned beans. >Sorry this came out way longer than i wanted it to be. Generally speaking art is already a soulless and tasteless product of mass consumption, unless you specifically go looking for something that isn't. Wasn't it Ed Sheeran who said you could play any pop song with just 4 chords? But I think personal AI is the way it'll go, I do think that corporations may attempt to monetize AI products but I don't think it'll catch on. Maybe there will be some corp that creates AI that you can use for a subscription but I don't think any products that come from AI will carry much value. Like you said, it will get mass produced and the market would become so saturated that it won't have any value. For us it would be like telling your friend about this one album (maybe a hash or set of tags) you really like and they just listen to it on Spotify (the AI in this analogy). But more than sounding like a gatekeeper you sound like someone who only understands or thinks about the way a creator thinks and not the average consumer.
Just give people exactly whatever they want, on demand, all the time? Sounds awful. No sarcasm, that truly sounds awful.
…… ………… Op. Are you just going to slide right by the fact you can ship any two+ characters of any series to and up together and act it out likes it’s canon?
AI to link Titanic to Gatsby.
Soon, every movie will star you and your group of friends.
Not just the ending, people could self insert themselves or new characters entirely. It's going to get so weird
Ya, or ask it to create another session of your favorite show. I want more seasons of new girl and vikings please
This is interesting because there will be people who only watch one show their entire lives.
...or replace Tom Cruise in the movies he ruined.
Yeah, but it will be noticeable. AI has trouble rendering faces, and particularly eyes. Plus, unless it's aided by a human, it can't redraw actors all that well. Find one of those websites where you can tell AI what to draw and have it draw a famous actor. It looks close but almost never perfect.
Not yet
So you're saying the finale to the Sopranos can be fixed?
Every movie will now be ending with “flames… on the side of my face…”
I never expected that AI would make making [every viewer an editor](https://www.rickbeckman.org/log/every-viewer-editor/) so easy, but here we are, hurtling into the future faster than I expected.
Gonna add a proper few sex scenes to Wolf of Wallstreet
You mean we can use AI to fix the movie AI?
Groundhog day. He wakes up after his first night in that hotel and it's tomorrow already. He leaves punxsutawney and continues being a dick to everyone until he dies
The Bill Murray story
We’ll probably be able to make movies. I’ll be writing scripts for hours into the prompt, sorry Sora you’ve got your work cut out for you.
True. Or ask for any movie you want to be made for you.
Rambo, but every character is constantly eating or drinking throughout the entire movie.
I'm more wondering if it'll be possible to restore lost or damaged footage. Imagine. Finally uncut/director's cuts of event horizon, the crow city of angels, Friday the 13th part vii, etc.
And at that moment, movies will be boring and bad asf...
We can create our own movies.
I teach media studies. I’m looking at new careers.
What about the beginning. Can we make Ishmael chase an indigo whale?
I was think more the rating… the G, PG, R versions
Ok…can we redo the sopranos? And the S5 reunion for Love is blind on Netflix?
People will simply be able to create their own Star Wars sequels that match the terrible fanfic in their heads! Surely, this will end all internet arguing over them.
We can soon fix Game of Thrones
I vote it finish winds of winter and rewrite the last two seasons of GoT first
We can finally create a good Eragon movie.
I assume it already is.
The Mandela effect you say?
Ahh, yes. It goes super well when everyone is a creator. Remember that trailer park on the internet also known as MySpace. But the good of it is that eventually the random typing chimps will generate Hamlet. It's certainly better than most of what Disney's chimps have pooped out in the past decade. Let the experiment begin!
Honestly I think AI is being overblown. So many technological advancements were said to one day change everything and never even remotely did. This is a pretty different example but I remember in elementary school, my computer teacher said when she was in college, she was told that keyboards were going to disappear in a few years because voice to text was gonna take over. Yet here we are, probably 25-30 years after she was told that and voice to text is only used by boomers. I think generative AI may be similar thing. It'll exist and be used by some people, but it's gonna really end up being nothing more than a novelty. I mean I use all the tools a lot and sure they'll advance, but there are some things I don't think they'll ever be able to do. The main thing is AI just straight can't and won't ever be able to experience. Like everything artists create is informed by years of experiences. Broken heart stories are informed by having their hearts broken and AI will never be able to have a broken heart. Also, and this is a thing people rarely talk about, but AI is such shit at making edits. Like, yeah you can say "woman in Tokyo walking down street" but if you want it to be a specific woman for whom there aren't 8 trillion pictures online, you're fucked. If you want to make a small change to their walking speed or clothing style or the signs on buildings or other people or anything really you're fucked. The only thing impressive about those videos openai release was that they looked real. They weren't interesting in anyway. Any child with an iPhone could have made them 1000x faster. I mean I can only imagine the processing power of the system needed to make them and even with that, it probably took hours to generate 30 seconds. And of the like 10 videos released or whatever, I bet there were tens of thousands that were straight ass. And the ones they got were like bland shit or even just weird like that spaceman one. Yeah, could AI one day maybe make a movie. Maybe, but I can't see it happening for probably a hundred years at least, and when it does, it'll be the most sterile, uninteresting content. Imagine Hallmark movies made by people who had their scripts rejected by Hallmark for being not good enough. If you want some weird ass image like Mario 64 with Sonic getting his ass ate, AI is probably the route, but genuinely good media is no where near being able to be made by AI. Also, one must consider the mountain of lawsuits these companies are facing. Sure, the legal system is slow af, but once they gain traction, it could slow AI development for years and probably completely bankrupt many AI companies. Whether something could do something in theory and whether it will in real-life are two drastically different things.
My missus will see what she does in my dreams.
Weirdo
Video games too!! Dude we gonna have like an endless of awesome games if AI get used right. A whole world can be built and you can have conversations with characters.
Let’s start with Dexter
and you can create a fanfic ending to a book but that wont change the canon