4 ms·

Generative TV demo of full South Park episode - SHOW-1

25 points by ericzawo 3y ago

mattl 3y ago
Hope they’re sued for using South Park without permission.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
brucethemoose2 3y ago
Oh, the South Park showrunners are going to make a episode about this, using this. I would bet money on it.
- alephnerd 3y ago
  They kinda did already. A portion of one of the latest season's episodes (aptly named Deep Learning) had the script of the final 5 minutes prompt engineered by Matt and Trey.
dtagames 3y ago
This boring and poorly written "demo" (which is undoubtedly fake) just proves that the real writers of South Park are what make the show creative and funny. Also, anyone planning to "run" shows this way, please just don't.
- ben_w 3y ago
  Humor is entirely subjective. On the one hand, South Park has almost never made me laugh (just not my thing); on the other, one of my very first programming experiences was transcribing things from the same box as the Commodore 64 user manual that I didn't understand because I was aged about 5 or 6, amongst them a random sentence generator whose utter nonsense was hilarious at the age.
  - rglullis 3y ago
    Satire is not (necessarily) made with the intention to get chuckles and laughs out of you.
- chrisco255 3y ago
  There was an "infinite Seinfeld" concept posted here a couple months ago. The dialog was awkward, but occasionally the jokes were funny. I can see it getting better if they removed all the "alignment" crap from the training model.
- 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
  Give it a year, it'll write better scripts than most writers.
  - alfalfasprout 3y ago
    Most writers don't even have a ton of creative freedom though. That's a big part of the reason there's so much derivative TV.
    - 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
      Indeed. But a big reason for this is that the homogenizing nature of the union they're in, focuses on getting more people into the writing room, and giving them more minimum baseline pay, and completely ignores the concept of people building names for themselves, standing out, so they feel they have the creative freedom to experiment and truly express themselves. And for studios to entrust them with greater risks. Writers will never admit they drove themselves into that hole. Bargaining individually against large corporations was indeed not tenable, but the way this union is run, they're victims of it just as much as victims of the studios. This is why studios rely so much on existing IP. Among the writers no one stands out. But if you lean on existing book, game, comic, you lean on something that stands out, so it has audience and apparently made an impression because it has quality. Imagine if directors had a union that operated like the WGA. 1. Every movie must have a director's room of at least 10 people. 2. They should get minimum this much pay per year. 3. The director's room hired must match a diverse profile of genders and races as this formula says. And so on. You can literally see in this how we'd never get a Christopher Nolan, or a Quentin Tarrantino, or a Scorcese, or Paul Thomas Anderson. Some of the best scripts out there were a vision of one person. WGA actively sabotages this, as they thrive on having more members and this requires more of their people hired per project. When you say "PRODUCED BY" or "DIRECTED BY" it means something, while "WRITTEN BY" rings hollow, which is why it's rarely ever in marketing. Absurd, but a fact. You hire a room of "little people" propped up by a union contract, and they feel like they're there to do what the studios tell them, not as artists that own the project, but just employees. On top of that they need to juggle a script with their colleagues each of whom pulls the story in different "diverse" directions, until everything unique and specific is torn apart and only the most homogenous and bland elements remain. And of course the result is mediocrity. WGA actively forces through their contract higher entropy in scripts. This is how high entropy looks: something that's homogenous, has a little of everything, doesn't stand out, blends with the environment (cultural in this case) and has no potential to make an impact.
- ch4s3 3y ago
  Yeah, this is entirely unwatchable.
JCharante 3y ago
This is pretty great. Of course it only has 1 camera angle perpendicular to the character but it’s amazing to see how far tech has come. To the people who consider this unethical, do you consider fan-fiction unethical? They both rely on the likeness of the characters. Tech like this can add visuals and audio to make more immersive experiences. It doesn’t take away any revenue from the show runners because who would watch show fan fiction without watching the show itself?
- 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
  It's research, so I don't consider it unethical. If they start competing with South Park, then it is. :D
ricklamers 3y ago
Jeremy Howard calling it out as a fake https://twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1681817279133253632?s=20 https://twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1681817279133253632...

25 points by ericzawo 3y ago

mattl 3y ago

Hope they’re sued for using South Park without permission.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

brucethemoose2 3y ago

Oh, the South Park showrunners are going to make a episode about this, using this. I would bet money on it.

alephnerd 3y ago
They kinda did already. A portion of one of the latest season's episodes (aptly named Deep Learning) had the script of the final 5 minutes prompt engineered by Matt and Trey.

dtagames 3y ago

This boring and poorly written "demo" (which is undoubtedly fake) just proves that the real writers of South Park are what make the show creative and funny. Also, anyone planning to "run" shows this way, please just don't.

ben_w 3y ago
Humor is entirely subjective. On the one hand, South Park has almost never made me laugh (just not my thing); on the other, one of my very first programming experiences was transcribing things from the same box as the Commodore 64 user manual that I didn't understand because I was aged about 5 or 6, amongst them a random sentence generator whose utter nonsense was hilarious at the age.
- rglullis 3y ago
  Satire is not (necessarily) made with the intention to get chuckles and laughs out of you.
chrisco255 3y ago
There was an "infinite Seinfeld" concept posted here a couple months ago. The dialog was awkward, but occasionally the jokes were funny. I can see it getting better if they removed all the "alignment" crap from the training model.
3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
Give it a year, it'll write better scripts than most writers.
- alfalfasprout 3y ago
  Most writers don't even have a ton of creative freedom though. That's a big part of the reason there's so much derivative TV.
  - 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
    Indeed. But a big reason for this is that the homogenizing nature of the union they're in, focuses on getting more people into the writing room, and giving them more minimum baseline pay, and completely ignores the concept of people building names for themselves, standing out, so they feel they have the creative freedom to experiment and truly express themselves. And for studios to entrust them with greater risks. Writers will never admit they drove themselves into that hole. Bargaining individually against large corporations was indeed not tenable, but the way this union is run, they're victims of it just as much as victims of the studios. This is why studios rely so much on existing IP. Among the writers no one stands out. But if you lean on existing book, game, comic, you lean on something that stands out, so it has audience and apparently made an impression because it has quality. Imagine if directors had a union that operated like the WGA. 1. Every movie must have a director's room of at least 10 people. 2. They should get minimum this much pay per year. 3. The director's room hired must match a diverse profile of genders and races as this formula says. And so on. You can literally see in this how we'd never get a Christopher Nolan, or a Quentin Tarrantino, or a Scorcese, or Paul Thomas Anderson. Some of the best scripts out there were a vision of one person. WGA actively sabotages this, as they thrive on having more members and this requires more of their people hired per project. When you say "PRODUCED BY" or "DIRECTED BY" it means something, while "WRITTEN BY" rings hollow, which is why it's rarely ever in marketing. Absurd, but a fact. You hire a room of "little people" propped up by a union contract, and they feel like they're there to do what the studios tell them, not as artists that own the project, but just employees. On top of that they need to juggle a script with their colleagues each of whom pulls the story in different "diverse" directions, until everything unique and specific is torn apart and only the most homogenous and bland elements remain. And of course the result is mediocrity. WGA actively forces through their contract higher entropy in scripts. This is how high entropy looks: something that's homogenous, has a little of everything, doesn't stand out, blends with the environment (cultural in this case) and has no potential to make an impact.
ch4s3 3y ago
Yeah, this is entirely unwatchable.

JCharante 3y ago

This is pretty great. Of course it only has 1 camera angle perpendicular to the character but it’s amazing to see how far tech has come. To the people who consider this unethical, do you consider fan-fiction unethical? They both rely on the likeness of the characters. Tech like this can add visuals and audio to make more immersive experiences. It doesn’t take away any revenue from the show runners because who would watch show fan fiction without watching the show itself?

3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
It's research, so I don't consider it unethical. If they start competing with South Park, then it is. :D

ricklamers 3y ago

Jeremy Howard calling it out as a fake https://twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1681817279133253632?s=20 https://twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1681817279133253632...