• Match!!
    link
    fedilink
    English
    661 year ago

    That’s not even AI is it? It’s like a 90s Windows movie maker CG model

    • @TheFunkyMonk
      link
      English
      881 year ago

      I really don’t understand why everyone uses AI as a term to describe anything generated by a computer.

      • @hedgehogging_the_bed
        link
        English
        261 year ago

        The same way they convinced everyone that they should say “cloud” instead of 'on our servers."

        They stopped saying “algorithm” and started saying “AI”

        Once it’s used as a marketing term, the technical term loses all meaning in conversational language.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 year ago

          If it’s in your server it’s not in “the cloud”, the cloud is code for “someone else’s server.”

          • @hedgehogging_the_bed
            link
            English
            51 year ago

            I was thinking more from the marketing perspective " We keep your data on our servers!" verses “We keep your data in the cloud!” since the point was that the marketers of these things in particular are fucking up the terminology.

            If you are already in possession of a server then you’re probably aware it’s not a cloud.

          • Match!!
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            “cloud” really means “several servers in parallel for redundancy” at which point it is kinda useful

  • DarkThoughts
    link
    fedilink
    571 year ago

    AI? Looks rather like low tier CGI instead. Most “crowds” are CGI, have been for many years. They’re just usually made in a higher quality to hide it better.

    • HuddaBudda
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      This technology will get better, to the point I imagine most of us won’t be able to see the difference. Scary stuff all around.

      Though this shot is rather telling because that background character is “Center right” which basically gives it a spotlight. At that point, it is no longer a background, it is the scene.

      Though, it is a high-school teen sports Disney movie, so I am not expecting much in the form of creativity or effort.

    • @Rhoeri
      link
      English
      21 year ago

      This article is designed to piss off the ignorant. Nothing more.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    271 year ago

    How the fuck can they be so greedy?

    They make bazillions of dollars per year (if not per month), and they are unwilling to pay just a bit of money for extras.

    Fuck film execs, I hope there is another strike.

    • 567PrimeMover
      link
      fedilink
      151 year ago

      We reach a new, comical level of greed, and then they find a way to top it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      51 year ago

      Because we live in a system where paying more for doing the right thing will get fired and sued for lost profits as a CEO. If you run a publicly traded company, you are legally beholden to make the decision that yields the most profit, full stop.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            I’m as cynical as anybody else and there was a time I also would have repeated it as well.
            But… show me the law. Show me where it says this.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                31 year ago

                Your phrasing was “legally beholden” which suggests to me that a law exists requiring directors and officers to choose the most profitable path. The wikipedia page you linked does not mention any such law. It describes a type of lawsuit that investors can bring against those running the company.

                • Bleeping Lobster
                  link
                  English
                  51 year ago

                  Perhaps they didn’t use the right words. Iirc the correct term is ‘fiduciary duty’. A publicly traded company has a fiduciary duty to create value for shareholders.

                  The duties of some fiduciaries have been codified, for example, the statutory duty of skill and care which is imposed upon trustees by section 1 of the Trustee Act 2000 (TrA 2000) and the relationship between company directors and the company under the Companies Act 2006

                  https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/fiduciary-duties

                • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  They are only legally beholden to do what their shareholders collectively want. While it’s not necessarily just for profit, if the shareholders are only demanding more profits, that’s how the company will behave.

        • @Rhoeri
          link
          English
          01 year ago

          There will be no sources provided because there are no sources to prove it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I wouldn’t want to deal with additional background characters either even if they played the role for free.

      It’s just more contracts to be signed, more people on set, more potential things that don’t go as planned. Its a lot of extra work and organisation needed for something that pretty much no normal viewer would notice if done at least semi professionally.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    211 year ago

    I’ve watched that clip probably a dozen times and laughed every time. They have an entire row of fake mannequin people in the middle of the shot surrounded by lots of real actors and extras. Utterly bizarre.

    This is why I don’t use the word “content” to describe this stuff. That’s the word execs use, and it’s because they see this kind of thing as fine. It’s just mass-produced product to them.

    • 567PrimeMover
      link
      fedilink
      111 year ago

      I had a look as well, and that’s gotta be 1995 dancing baby tier CGI. The effects department must be dusting off the old SGI indys because the budget clearly went to Bob’s next yacht

        • possibly a cat
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          I thought they might have been doing it in protest because some of the mannequins are clapping off the beat, but then I realized it matches one of the real actors in the front, and now I’m just thanking myself that I haven’t watched a Disney movie since I took a gamble on their first SW flick.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        To be fair, the actors and extras in those 2 seconds aren’t doing much better trying to not look robotic. Some of the CGI mannequins were obvious, but others were less obviously CGI than basketball player 2.

  • @londos
    link
    English
    131 year ago

    Genuinely, I wonder what the cutoff will be for calling something live-action.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      Ask Toy Story Football.

      What an embarrassment that was. I hope it got better, I could only bear like half of the first quarter.

  • @Rhoeri
    link
    English
    71 year ago

    CGI is AI now? I guess if you really want to go out of your way to find something to complain about-

    This would be something.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    71 year ago

    I can hear the executive after they got the crowd shot and somebody noted the stands looked pretty empty: “Just have the AI fill it in”

  • Metal Zealot
    link
    fedilink
    English
    41 year ago

    I remember this set in 3D Movie Maker

    “Those bullies won’t bother me now”

    • @TORFdot0
      link
      English
      01 year ago

      “What’s up Wanda?”

  • AutoTL;DRB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    41 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    While the WGA has since come to an agreement with studios, SAG-AFTRA’s strike is still ongoing — and the use of artificial intelligence in the industry has remained a huge point of contention, with actors calling for protections against studios using AI-generated versions of their voices or likenesses — and for good reason.

    The clip, which first made its rounds on social media back in April, shows an audience seated on bleachers watching a high school basketball game.

    The clip reignited a heated debate surrounding the use of computer-generated imagery in film, and how the tech could eventually replace human actors, a major talking point during SAG-AFTRA’s ongoing negotiations.

    In a press conference immediately following the union’s call for a strike in July, executive director and chief negotiator Duncan Crabtree-Ireland revealed that the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers proposed to have background performers scanned, “get paid for one day’s pay, and their company should own that scan their image, their likeness and should be able to use it for the rest of eternity.”

    “Disney is insane and just more reason why the AMPTP needs to ditch this plan to replace background actors with AI,” freelance writer Christopher Marc, who recently shared the “Prom Pact” clip, tweeted.

    This week, SAG-AFTRA proposed a bill to lawmakers called the NO FAKES Act, “creating new and urgently needed protections for voice and likeness in the age of generative artificial intelligence.”


    The original article contains 431 words, the summary contains 237 words. Saved 45%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    31 year ago

    For the folks saying this is nothing new and nbd - Id watch the animated version first lol

    I don’t have any issue with CGI extras in general (plenty of movies have done it well), but this shit is just bad lol