4 ms·

> And if you think any Jack or Jill can just come in and text prompt a whole movie, you're crazy. It's still hard work and a metric ton of good taste. If you w

> And if you think any Jack or Jill can just come in and text prompt a whole movie, you're crazy. It's still hard work and a metric ton of good taste. If you want anything good, yes. If you just want something… I reckon it'd take a week to assemble an incomprehensible-nonsense-film pipeline, after which it's just a matter of feeding the computer electricity. Short-term, this is going to funnel resources away from the people with good taste. Long-term, it might help collapse the entire "creative industry", after which we might get some of that artist liberation stuff you're talking about – but we might just end up with new gatekeeping strategies from the wealthy and connected, and business as usual.

echelon 3y ago
> If you want anything good, yes. If you just want something ... You don't even need AI for that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_poop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_poop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skibidi_Toilet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skibidi_Toilet The idea that AI isn't going to be used as a creative tool too and that it won't lead to more and better art is a defeatist, Luddite attitude. Similarly shaped people thought that digital cameras would ruin cinema and photography. > Short-term, this is going to funnel resources away from the people with good taste. On the contrary - every budding film student will soon [1] be able to execute on their entire visions straight out of the gates. No decades of clawing their way to a very limited, almost impossible to reach peak. > it might help collapse the entire "creative industry" The studio system. Not the industry. > new gatekeeping strategies from the wealthy and connected, and business as usual. Creatives have more ways of building brands and followings for themselves than ever before. It's one of the largest growing sectors of the economy, and lots of people are earning livings off of it. You'll be able to follow that steampunk vampire creator that's been missing from the world until now. Every long tail interest will be catered to. Even the most obscure and wild tastes, ideas, and designs. Stuff that would never get studio funding. As a creative, I'm overjoyed by this. My friends and I are getting to create things we never could make before [2]. [1] This and next year. [2] Just an inspiration / aesthetic sample, but we're making a full film: https://imgur.com/a/JNVnJIn https://imgur.com/a/JNVnJIn
- MrScruff 3y ago
  Are you talking about some as yet unseen research/technology? The aesthetic sample looks like something we could have seen on the SD subreddit for the last year.
- renegade-otter 3y ago
  > Similarly shaped people thought that digital cameras would ruin cinema and photography. Obviously, but you seem to be arguing that AI is just another evolution of productivity tools. You still need to have a photographer's eye while using this technology. If you couldn't make a good composition on film, a digicam will not save you, and it definitely did not replace photographers. Perhaps lowered the barrier of entry for prosumers. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/26/opinion/ai-future-photography.html?smid=nytcore-android-share https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/26/opinion/ai-future-photogr...
  - echelon 3y ago
    We're arguing the same point. :)
- crmd 3y ago
  >You'll be able to follow that steampunk vampire creator that's been missing from the world until now. Every long tail interest will be catered to. Even the most obscure and wild tastes, ideas, and designs. Stuff that would never get studio funding. Your optimism reminds me of the optimism I had around the early internet. Power to the people, long tail, rise of the creative class, the fall of gatekeeping corporations, etc. It was like that for a couple of years in the late 90s before power and control got vastly more centralized than before. Maybe this time it’ll be different.
  - munificent 3y ago
    The big difference is that back then, anyone with a consumer-level computer in their bedroom could turn it into a server and be a first-class citizen on the Internet. With generative AI, models will be controlled by a handful of giant corporations who have the enormous corpuses (of dubious provenance) and compute ability to train them. So it will be like last time, but even worse.

echelon 3y ago

> If you want anything good, yes. If you just want something ... You don't even need AI for that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_poop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_poop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skibidi_Toilet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skibidi_Toilet The idea that AI isn't going to be used as a creative tool too and that it won't lead to more and better art is a defeatist, Luddite attitude. Similarly shaped people thought that digital cameras would ruin cinema and photography. > Short-term, this is going to funnel resources away from the people with good taste. On the contrary - every budding film student will soon [1] be able to execute on their entire visions straight out of the gates. No decades of clawing their way to a very limited, almost impossible to reach peak. > it might help collapse the entire "creative industry" The studio system. Not the industry. > new gatekeeping strategies from the wealthy and connected, and business as usual. Creatives have more ways of building brands and followings for themselves than ever before. It's one of the largest growing sectors of the economy, and lots of people are earning livings off of it. You'll be able to follow that steampunk vampire creator that's been missing from the world until now. Every long tail interest will be catered to. Even the most obscure and wild tastes, ideas, and designs. Stuff that would never get studio funding. As a creative, I'm overjoyed by this. My friends and I are getting to create things we never could make before [2]. [1] This and next year. [2] Just an inspiration / aesthetic sample, but we're making a full film: https://imgur.com/a/JNVnJIn https://imgur.com/a/JNVnJIn

MrScruff 3y ago
Are you talking about some as yet unseen research/technology? The aesthetic sample looks like something we could have seen on the SD subreddit for the last year.
renegade-otter 3y ago
> Similarly shaped people thought that digital cameras would ruin cinema and photography. Obviously, but you seem to be arguing that AI is just another evolution of productivity tools. You still need to have a photographer's eye while using this technology. If you couldn't make a good composition on film, a digicam will not save you, and it definitely did not replace photographers. Perhaps lowered the barrier of entry for prosumers. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/26/opinion/ai-future-photography.html?smid=nytcore-android-share https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/26/opinion/ai-future-photogr...
- echelon 3y ago
  We're arguing the same point. :)
crmd 3y ago
>You'll be able to follow that steampunk vampire creator that's been missing from the world until now. Every long tail interest will be catered to. Even the most obscure and wild tastes, ideas, and designs. Stuff that would never get studio funding. Your optimism reminds me of the optimism I had around the early internet. Power to the people, long tail, rise of the creative class, the fall of gatekeeping corporations, etc. It was like that for a couple of years in the late 90s before power and control got vastly more centralized than before. Maybe this time it’ll be different.
- munificent 3y ago
  The big difference is that back then, anyone with a consumer-level computer in their bedroom could turn it into a server and be a first-class citizen on the Internet. With generative AI, models will be controlled by a handful of giant corporations who have the enormous corpuses (of dubious provenance) and compute ability to train them. So it will be like last time, but even worse.