my fear is that this is only because AI videos look like uninspired trash.
So only the people who like it are people with zero taste, resulting in a shitty movie.
My fear is that it’s temporary, that in a few years AI video would be indistinguishable from artist made one, and by then, I don’t know what will happen with movies
I mean, if a computer creates an artistic work that is truly indistinguishable from a human work, then that would imply the AI possesses sentience and is sharing it’s individual perspective via said work. And honestly I consider that something to be celebrated, not feared.
LLMs might be able to fool us for a minute or two into believing it is alive, but unless I’m fundamentally misunderstanding the technology they can’t actually ever share a perspective and make art because they don’t possess a perspective.
But I’m not talking about a copy machines. I’m saying that if a hypothetical synthetic being was able to retell an existing human story using its own voice then that qualifies as an original artistic work. Just as we don’t consider Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey” to be a “copy” even though the story has been told before. Without an artist you definitionally don’t have art.
Copy machine output doesn’t count as original works.
Movies that retell stories openly are adaptations that give credit to the original source. AI slop does not give attriution to what it is copying.
Movies that are inspired by prior works, which is basically everything, but intentionally do a new take are art because they have intent and meaning even if done poorly. AI slop is just regurgitating stuff.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, I agree that a copy machine is not sentient. You can’t just decide that an inanimate object is “art” and then work backwards to say that the non-sentient tools that were used to create the work are the real artist.
It runs into a lot of issues tied to AI (bad voices, glossly/weightlessness to everything, art style all over the place). Some things will be fixed over time, but I don’t think the current AI trend can replace someone with a good eye for art direction, it certainly can’t write scripts on its own, and the voices tied to the video frames will probably continue to prove challenging.
That being said, this definitely wasn’t created with some of the better models out there, and articles I was reading said something like 2/3rds of Chinese micro-dramas have heavy AI usage. So, maybe not the end of the world, but not great either.
I’m more worried that it will become passable enough to make a profit at the box office, even if less people see it than if it wasn’t AI. And movie quality will plummet.
my fear is that this is only because AI videos look like uninspired trash.
So only the people who like it are people with zero taste, resulting in a shitty movie.
My fear is that it’s temporary, that in a few years AI video would be indistinguishable from artist made one, and by then, I don’t know what will happen with movies
I mean, if a computer creates an artistic work that is truly indistinguishable from a human work, then that would imply the AI possesses sentience and is sharing it’s individual perspective via said work. And honestly I consider that something to be celebrated, not feared.
LLMs might be able to fool us for a minute or two into believing it is alive, but unless I’m fundamentally misunderstanding the technology they can’t actually ever share a perspective and make art because they don’t possess a perspective.
Or it just copied human works and made the sources it copied from obscure enough to not be sued, which is the best it can do.
But I’m not talking about a copy machines. I’m saying that if a hypothetical synthetic being was able to retell an existing human story using its own voice then that qualifies as an original artistic work. Just as we don’t consider Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey” to be a “copy” even though the story has been told before. Without an artist you definitionally don’t have art.
Copy machine output doesn’t count as original works.
Movies that retell stories openly are adaptations that give credit to the original source. AI slop does not give attriution to what it is copying.
Movies that are inspired by prior works, which is basically everything, but intentionally do a new take are art because they have intent and meaning even if done poorly. AI slop is just regurgitating stuff.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, I agree that a copy machine is not sentient. You can’t just decide that an inanimate object is “art” and then work backwards to say that the non-sentient tools that were used to create the work are the real artist.
You can’t take a thing, call it art, and then work backwards to calling the thing that made it an artist.
I mean, religion does, but I don’t believe them either. Eg; a rainbow.
You are correct, and the goons who say otherwise are suffering from the ELIZA effect. Full stop.
If AI gets half as good as Uwe Boll at making movies I will eat my six month old underwear.
we waiting for AI to get better, or Uwe Boll to make an extra shitty movie?
and 6 month underwear might be edible
It took some effort, but this seems to be a trailer of the movie.
It runs into a lot of issues tied to AI (bad voices, glossly/weightlessness to everything, art style all over the place). Some things will be fixed over time, but I don’t think the current AI trend can replace someone with a good eye for art direction, it certainly can’t write scripts on its own, and the voices tied to the video frames will probably continue to prove challenging.
That being said, this definitely wasn’t created with some of the better models out there, and articles I was reading said something like 2/3rds of Chinese micro-dramas have heavy AI usage. So, maybe not the end of the world, but not great either.
I’m more worried that it will become passable enough to make a profit at the box office, even if less people see it than if it wasn’t AI. And movie quality will plummet.