3 ms·
Ok, so it's not very smart AI; emacs's eliza might do as good a job. But setting aside the article's lack of technical rigor, and its scientism, the film itsel
by alejohausner 9y ago
Ok, so it's not very smart AI; emacs's eliza might do as good a job.
But setting aside the article's lack of technical rigor, and its scientism, the film itself is interesting. I was impressed by how the actors could convey feeling, even with a randomly generated script. I imagine that, in acting school, actors have to do this sort of thing as an exercise: learn how to convey feeling using random words or grunts (is this done?).
For me, it's interesting that there's another side to human communication that has nothing to do with verbal meaning. It sounds hard to do THAT using software.
- Declanomous 9y agoAre they actually conveying emotion, or is the kuleshov effect [1] at work? I know one of the things they teach film actors is to 'act less' when they don't know what to do. We as humans tend to interpret the actor as displaying an appropriate emotion if their face is otherwise somewhat neutral. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuleshov_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuleshov_effect
- alejohausner 9y agoCool! I had thought that Eisenstein came up with that, but it looks like Kuleshov taught Eisenstein. I guess that's why there's an Oscar for editing! The temporal context of a shot matters as much as the shot itself. But even if my reaction to the film is conditioned by editing, and not just Hoff's acting, I still find it weird that I'm feeling things that don't depend much on the content of the words he's speaking.