5 ms·

This sounds gimmicky and worth watching once or twice, then forgetting about. Worthwhile art will continue to be created from a specific person's/group's vision

This sounds gimmicky and worth watching once or twice, then forgetting about. Worthwhile art will continue to be created from a specific person's/group's vision, not an algorithmically generated sum of personal preferences.

dyauspitr 2y ago
You’ll never be able to tell them apart.
- williamcotton 2y ago
  You will if you go see someone pick on a guitar at an open mic!
- keiferski 2y ago
  "Turn this book into a two-hour movie with the likeness of [your favorite actor/actress] in the lead role." This sounds marginally above fanfiction, so I do think it'll be very easy to tell them apart. "Terminator, except with Adam Sandler and set on Mars" is a cute, gimmicky idea, not a competitor to serious work.
  - gedy 2y ago
    Maybe, but I guarantee you this is going to get banned in the US for "safety" or "misinformation" reasons eventually (with large backing from Hollywood).
  - aenvoker 2y ago
    Well, yeah. If you explicitly try to come up with a cute, gimmicky idea, it's not going to be serious. Taste still matters regardless of paint, cameras or computers.
- consteval 2y ago
  It depends on how shallow your understanding of media is. I'm sure this can be used to create entertaining movies that are fun and wacky. I don't think it can create impactful movies.
  - dyauspitr 2y ago
    I think that’s an extremely short sited perspective. There isn’t much that separates a “fun and wacky” movie from something impactful from a cinematography perspective. With the right music, ambience and script you could absolutely do any genre of movie you wish to.
    - consteval 2y ago
      I disagree, I believe your perspective is short-sighted. If you really think what makes a movie "impactful" is the music, ambience, and script then I don't think you have much media literacy. It's no more ridiculous than saying what makes a painting impactful is the brush strokes. But if I copy Picasso's work stroke for stroke, why am I not Picasso? After all, the dumbass paints like a child, admittedly! How could someone like him ever be considered a great painter?
      - heurist 2y ago
        You forget that there's a human behind the prompt, stitching frames and dialogue together.
        consteval 2y ago
        If they are stitching then I would consider that a form of art. However, merely describing something is not doing the thing. Otherwise, the business analysists at my company would be software engineers. No, I make the software, and they describe it. The end-goal here is humanless automation, no? Then I'm not sure your assumption holds up. If there's no human, I question the value.
        dyauspitr 2y ago
        > If there's no human, I question the value. You may question the value but if it’s anything like rugs you won’t be in the majority. People pay a significant premium for artisanal handmade rugs but that being said, more than 95% of the rugs people use are machine made because they’re essentially indistinguishable from a handmade one and are much, much cheaper and just as functional.
sionisrecur 2y ago
Isn't a specific person's vision basically their personal preferences?
- keiferski 2y ago
  Not really. A vision implies a particular kind of project, presumably created by someone with expertise and some well-thought through ideas about what it ought to be. Personal preferences just mean that someone likes X qualities. To use a real-world example: if the Renaissance-era patrons had merely written down their preferences and had work made to match those preferences, it's highly unlikely that you'd have gotten the Mona Lisa or David. Which is to say that, there will definitely be some interesting and compelling art made with AI tools. But it will be made by a specific person with an artistic vision in mind, and not merely an algorithm checking boxes.
heurist 2y ago
I rarely watch movies or read books twice anymore. There's too much content already. The challenge with purely human art at this point is that it will be silenced by the perpetual flood of half-assed generated work. There will be room in elite art circles for more, but at some point the generated stuff will be so ubiquitous (and even meaningful) that anyone without connections is going to have a tough time building an audience for their handcrafted work, unless it happens to be particularly controversial or 'difficult' to make. The demand for visual stimulus will be satisfied by hypertuned AI models. Generative AI is not there quite yet but there's no reason to think it won't be better than 90%+ of purely human content within a decade given the pace of development over the last few years.
- keiferski 2y ago
  I don't buy this narrative at all. People like people and increasingly follow artists because of their personality and overall "brand." No one cares about generated AI art or its creator(s), because it's not interesting. It's also not sharable with other humans; see, for example, the frenzy around going to a Taylor Swift concert. The mass appeal and shared interest is part of the draw. At best, you'll get something like a generic sitcom. The idea that "all visual stimulus will be satisfied by hypertuned AI models" doesn't line up with how people experience the arts, at all.
  - whilenot-dev 2y ago
    I fully agree here. I want to be part of an audience, and as part of that audience I always look at the human development of the things to share - artifacts in the case of fine art, or experiences in the case of performative art. The artist will always be more important than their work to me. I don't want to carry mechanical solutions labelled culture - deterministic enough, despite hallucinations - into the next generation that follows my own. It's an impressive advancement for automation, sure, but just not a value worth sharing as human development. That being said, I think GenAI could be a valuable addition in any blueprint-/prototype-/wireframing phase. But, ironically, it positions itself in stark contrast to what I would consider my standards to contemporary brainstorming, considering the current Zeitgeist: - truthful to history and research (GenAI is marketing and propaganda) - aware of resources (GenAI is wasteful computing) - materialistic beyond mere capitalistic gains (GenAI produces short-lived digital data output and isn't really worth anything)
javier123454321 2y ago
Exactly, there will be a lower barrier to entry, but making content that stands out will require the same (or more) effort.

dyauspitr 2y ago

You’ll never be able to tell them apart.

williamcotton 2y ago
You will if you go see someone pick on a guitar at an open mic!
keiferski 2y ago
"Turn this book into a two-hour movie with the likeness of [your favorite actor/actress] in the lead role." This sounds marginally above fanfiction, so I do think it'll be very easy to tell them apart. "Terminator, except with Adam Sandler and set on Mars" is a cute, gimmicky idea, not a competitor to serious work.
- gedy 2y ago
  Maybe, but I guarantee you this is going to get banned in the US for "safety" or "misinformation" reasons eventually (with large backing from Hollywood).
- aenvoker 2y ago
  Well, yeah. If you explicitly try to come up with a cute, gimmicky idea, it's not going to be serious. Taste still matters regardless of paint, cameras or computers.
consteval 2y ago
It depends on how shallow your understanding of media is. I'm sure this can be used to create entertaining movies that are fun and wacky. I don't think it can create impactful movies.
- dyauspitr 2y ago
  I think that’s an extremely short sited perspective. There isn’t much that separates a “fun and wacky” movie from something impactful from a cinematography perspective. With the right music, ambience and script you could absolutely do any genre of movie you wish to.
  - consteval 2y ago
    I disagree, I believe your perspective is short-sighted. If you really think what makes a movie "impactful" is the music, ambience, and script then I don't think you have much media literacy. It's no more ridiculous than saying what makes a painting impactful is the brush strokes. But if I copy Picasso's work stroke for stroke, why am I not Picasso? After all, the dumbass paints like a child, admittedly! How could someone like him ever be considered a great painter?
    - heurist 2y ago
      You forget that there's a human behind the prompt, stitching frames and dialogue together.
      - consteval 2y ago
        If they are stitching then I would consider that a form of art. However, merely describing something is not doing the thing. Otherwise, the business analysists at my company would be software engineers. No, I make the software, and they describe it. The end-goal here is humanless automation, no? Then I'm not sure your assumption holds up. If there's no human, I question the value.
        dyauspitr 2y ago
        > If there's no human, I question the value. You may question the value but if it’s anything like rugs you won’t be in the majority. People pay a significant premium for artisanal handmade rugs but that being said, more than 95% of the rugs people use are machine made because they’re essentially indistinguishable from a handmade one and are much, much cheaper and just as functional.

sionisrecur 2y ago

Isn't a specific person's vision basically their personal preferences?

keiferski 2y ago
Not really. A vision implies a particular kind of project, presumably created by someone with expertise and some well-thought through ideas about what it ought to be. Personal preferences just mean that someone likes X qualities. To use a real-world example: if the Renaissance-era patrons had merely written down their preferences and had work made to match those preferences, it's highly unlikely that you'd have gotten the Mona Lisa or David. Which is to say that, there will definitely be some interesting and compelling art made with AI tools. But it will be made by a specific person with an artistic vision in mind, and not merely an algorithm checking boxes.

heurist 2y ago

I rarely watch movies or read books twice anymore. There's too much content already. The challenge with purely human art at this point is that it will be silenced by the perpetual flood of half-assed generated work. There will be room in elite art circles for more, but at some point the generated stuff will be so ubiquitous (and even meaningful) that anyone without connections is going to have a tough time building an audience for their handcrafted work, unless it happens to be particularly controversial or 'difficult' to make. The demand for visual stimulus will be satisfied by hypertuned AI models. Generative AI is not there quite yet but there's no reason to think it won't be better than 90%+ of purely human content within a decade given the pace of development over the last few years.

keiferski 2y ago
I don't buy this narrative at all. People like people and increasingly follow artists because of their personality and overall "brand." No one cares about generated AI art or its creator(s), because it's not interesting. It's also not sharable with other humans; see, for example, the frenzy around going to a Taylor Swift concert. The mass appeal and shared interest is part of the draw. At best, you'll get something like a generic sitcom. The idea that "all visual stimulus will be satisfied by hypertuned AI models" doesn't line up with how people experience the arts, at all.
- whilenot-dev 2y ago
  I fully agree here. I want to be part of an audience, and as part of that audience I always look at the human development of the things to share - artifacts in the case of fine art, or experiences in the case of performative art. The artist will always be more important than their work to me. I don't want to carry mechanical solutions labelled culture - deterministic enough, despite hallucinations - into the next generation that follows my own. It's an impressive advancement for automation, sure, but just not a value worth sharing as human development. That being said, I think GenAI could be a valuable addition in any blueprint-/prototype-/wireframing phase. But, ironically, it positions itself in stark contrast to what I would consider my standards to contemporary brainstorming, considering the current Zeitgeist: - truthful to history and research (GenAI is marketing and propaganda) - aware of resources (GenAI is wasteful computing) - materialistic beyond mere capitalistic gains (GenAI produces short-lived digital data output and isn't really worth anything)

javier123454321 2y ago

Exactly, there will be a lower barrier to entry, but making content that stands out will require the same (or more) effort.