3 ms·

The holy grail is to generate content for you! The future will combine these tool with data about you—aesthetic preferences, story arches you respond to well,

The holy grail is to generate content for you! The future will combine these tool with data about you—aesthetic preferences, story arches you respond to well, your current mood—-and generate content on the fly. I assume there will still be people working on the skeleton or basic structure of such content, but the rest will be filled in by these tools.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> The future But probably not in my lifetime. > aesthetic preferences, story arches you respond to well, your current mood that's not how content consumption works. > will still be people working on the skeleton or basic structure of such content That's not a real issue, we are still writing stories based on very few skeletons and very few archetypes, invented millennia ago (and maybe they are even older of the ones we discovered).
- lukebuehler 4y ago
  How does content consumption work then? Would you not say there are clear characteristics, like your preferred genres, that matter quite a bit whether you will like a movie or not?
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > How does content consumption work then? simplified, there are two main branches: - those who consume everything, kinda like maximizing the investment or "it makes me company" - those who consume things that need to pass some kind filter generated content would (maybe) reward the first group, but without some very good hit they will probably go back to downloading stuff, but not the second. At least not yet and not in the foreseeable future. There's a difference between computer aided content and computer generated. Jurassic park wouldn't exist as it is without technology advancements, but the novel was already good. Another example by Crichton is WestWorld. The original was written and directed by Crichton himself in 1973, the original movie is great, the second chapter is good, the tv-show is visually astonishing, but after 2 seasons, I stopped watching it. The material taken from the first two movies had ended and nothing really interesting have come out after from the writers (IMO). Voyage au centre de la Terre (Journey to the Center of the Earth) is a great book from 1864 and I honestly prefer the movie from 1959 than the its latest 3D incarnation from 2008. Not because older is better, but because the 1959 version is more centered around the story and it aged better. Probably because Indiana Jones hadn't come out yet and the director didn't try to imitate it.
layer8 4y ago
I’m pretty sure it will continue to be more profitable to just cater to the lowest(-ish) common denominator.
pfisherman 4y ago
I don’t buy it. There was a discussion on a post about Netflix about how their “long tail” of niche content is getting totally blown out of the water by the likes of Ted Lasso, Severance, and pretty much any of the Mouse’s tentpole properties. Hell Netflix’s most successful shows right now are all big tentpole productions by Shonda Rimes. The problem with art and aesthetics (and many other things) (1) is that people often don’t know what they want until they see or hear it, and (2) there is a social element to it - people derive value from being part of a shared experience.
PheonixPharts 4y ago
> The future will combine these tool with data about you I'm not sure anyone has let you know yet but this future you're imagining was cancelled a long time ago. We're going to start seeing more global food shortages this year, it won't impact you yet (except small price increases). But in a decade expect your quality of life to be noticeably worse than it is now. The world you're imagining living in is a world powered by tremendous amounts of fossil fuel energy. But either a.) we run out of fuels, or b.) we don't and cook the planet. The mass delusions we're living through right now when people start talking about the "future" is just a bit too much for me to let go any more. We need to stop pretending for all of our mental health.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago

> The future But probably not in my lifetime. > aesthetic preferences, story arches you respond to well, your current mood that's not how content consumption works. > will still be people working on the skeleton or basic structure of such content That's not a real issue, we are still writing stories based on very few skeletons and very few archetypes, invented millennia ago (and maybe they are even older of the ones we discovered).

lukebuehler 4y ago
How does content consumption work then? Would you not say there are clear characteristics, like your preferred genres, that matter quite a bit whether you will like a movie or not?
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > How does content consumption work then? simplified, there are two main branches: - those who consume everything, kinda like maximizing the investment or "it makes me company" - those who consume things that need to pass some kind filter generated content would (maybe) reward the first group, but without some very good hit they will probably go back to downloading stuff, but not the second. At least not yet and not in the foreseeable future. There's a difference between computer aided content and computer generated. Jurassic park wouldn't exist as it is without technology advancements, but the novel was already good. Another example by Crichton is WestWorld. The original was written and directed by Crichton himself in 1973, the original movie is great, the second chapter is good, the tv-show is visually astonishing, but after 2 seasons, I stopped watching it. The material taken from the first two movies had ended and nothing really interesting have come out after from the writers (IMO). Voyage au centre de la Terre (Journey to the Center of the Earth) is a great book from 1864 and I honestly prefer the movie from 1959 than the its latest 3D incarnation from 2008. Not because older is better, but because the 1959 version is more centered around the story and it aged better. Probably because Indiana Jones hadn't come out yet and the director didn't try to imitate it.

layer8 4y ago

I’m pretty sure it will continue to be more profitable to just cater to the lowest(-ish) common denominator.

pfisherman 4y ago

I don’t buy it. There was a discussion on a post about Netflix about how their “long tail” of niche content is getting totally blown out of the water by the likes of Ted Lasso, Severance, and pretty much any of the Mouse’s tentpole properties. Hell Netflix’s most successful shows right now are all big tentpole productions by Shonda Rimes. The problem with art and aesthetics (and many other things) (1) is that people often don’t know what they want until they see or hear it, and (2) there is a social element to it - people derive value from being part of a shared experience.

PheonixPharts 4y ago

> The future will combine these tool with data about you I'm not sure anyone has let you know yet but this future you're imagining was cancelled a long time ago. We're going to start seeing more global food shortages this year, it won't impact you yet (except small price increases). But in a decade expect your quality of life to be noticeably worse than it is now. The world you're imagining living in is a world powered by tremendous amounts of fossil fuel energy. But either a.) we run out of fuels, or b.) we don't and cook the planet. The mass delusions we're living through right now when people start talking about the "future" is just a bit too much for me to let go any more. We need to stop pretending for all of our mental health.