5 ms·

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

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.
        consteval 2y ago
        No I don't think it'll be anything like rugs
gedy 2y ago
I don't agree. While "just" audio, I've made a few AI songs that have made people tear up and trigger strong emotions. I think you can do this with video too, just more challenging right now.
- consteval 2y ago
  I'm sure eventually you can, but I don't think triggering emotions is the correct "KPI" so to speak. On social media platforms, typically the most popular content triggers the strongest emotions. It's rage-bait however, or sadness bait, or any other kind of emotional manipulation. It tricks the human mind and drives up engagement, but I don't think that is indicative of its value. To be clear, I'm certain that's not what you're doing, and the music is good. But I think it's complicated enough that triggering emotions isn't enough data to ascertain value. I don't know, exactly, what combination of measurements are needed to ascertain value. But I'm confident human-ness is part of the equation. I think if people are even aware of the fact a human didn't make something they lose interest. That makes the future of AI in entertainment dicey, and I think that's what fuels the constant dishonesty around AI we're seeing right now. Art is funny in how it works because, I think, intention does matter. And knowledge about the intention matters, too. It maybe doesn't make much sense, but that's how I see it.
  - aenvoker 2y ago
    Right now there is a ton of stigma around AI art. That stigma fuels a ton of poorly-informed rhetoric against it. There is also tons and tons of casual use of AI art being shitposted for funsies everywhere that reinforces that rhetoric that AI art means "Push button. Receive crap. Repeat." Meanwhile, as someone who has been engaged with the AI art community for years, and spent years volunteering part-time as a content moderator for Midjourney, the process of creating art via AI with intentionality is deeply human. As an MJ mod, I have seeeeeeen things.... It's like browsing though people's psyche. Even in public portfolios people bare their souls because they assume no one will bother to look. People use AI to process the world, their lives, their desires, their trauma. So much of it is straight-up self-directed art therapy. Pages and pages, thousands of images stretching over weeks, sometimes months, of digging into the depths of their selves. Now go through that process to make something you intend to speak publicly from the depth of your own soul. You don't see much of that day to day because it is difficult. It's risky at a deeply personal level to expose yourself like that. But, be honest: How much deeply personal art do you see day to day? You see tons of ads and memes. But, to find "real art" you have to explicitly dig for it. Shitposting AI images is as fun and easy as shitposting images from meme generators. So, no surprise you see floods of shitposts everywhere. But, when was the last time you explicitly searched out meaningful AI art?

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.
      - consteval 2y ago
        No I don't think it'll be anything like rugs

gedy 2y ago

I don't agree. While "just" audio, I've made a few AI songs that have made people tear up and trigger strong emotions. I think you can do this with video too, just more challenging right now.

consteval 2y ago
I'm sure eventually you can, but I don't think triggering emotions is the correct "KPI" so to speak. On social media platforms, typically the most popular content triggers the strongest emotions. It's rage-bait however, or sadness bait, or any other kind of emotional manipulation. It tricks the human mind and drives up engagement, but I don't think that is indicative of its value. To be clear, I'm certain that's not what you're doing, and the music is good. But I think it's complicated enough that triggering emotions isn't enough data to ascertain value. I don't know, exactly, what combination of measurements are needed to ascertain value. But I'm confident human-ness is part of the equation. I think if people are even aware of the fact a human didn't make something they lose interest. That makes the future of AI in entertainment dicey, and I think that's what fuels the constant dishonesty around AI we're seeing right now. Art is funny in how it works because, I think, intention does matter. And knowledge about the intention matters, too. It maybe doesn't make much sense, but that's how I see it.
- aenvoker 2y ago
  Right now there is a ton of stigma around AI art. That stigma fuels a ton of poorly-informed rhetoric against it. There is also tons and tons of casual use of AI art being shitposted for funsies everywhere that reinforces that rhetoric that AI art means "Push button. Receive crap. Repeat." Meanwhile, as someone who has been engaged with the AI art community for years, and spent years volunteering part-time as a content moderator for Midjourney, the process of creating art via AI with intentionality is deeply human. As an MJ mod, I have seeeeeeen things.... It's like browsing though people's psyche. Even in public portfolios people bare their souls because they assume no one will bother to look. People use AI to process the world, their lives, their desires, their trauma. So much of it is straight-up self-directed art therapy. Pages and pages, thousands of images stretching over weeks, sometimes months, of digging into the depths of their selves. Now go through that process to make something you intend to speak publicly from the depth of your own soul. You don't see much of that day to day because it is difficult. It's risky at a deeply personal level to expose yourself like that. But, be honest: How much deeply personal art do you see day to day? You see tons of ads and memes. But, to find "real art" you have to explicitly dig for it. Shitposting AI images is as fun and easy as shitposting images from meme generators. So, no surprise you see floods of shitposts everywhere. But, when was the last time you explicitly searched out meaningful AI art?