3 ms·

This is a common perspective among people that don't realize how much goes into making a movie. That stuff informs which movies get approved and it certainly ca

This is a common perspective among people that don't realize how much goes into making a movie. That stuff informs which movies get approved and it certainly can inform broader script changes, casting changes, and in some cases editing decisions, but there's a UNIVERSE of other artistic decisions that need to be made. Implying that the people involved are mere technicians implementing a marketing strategy is exponentially more reductive than saying developers and designers aren't relevant to making software because marketing surveys dictate the feature development timeline. A developer's input is far more fungible than an artist working on a feature film. I assure you, they don't do surveys on the punchiness and strategy used by foley artists; the slope and toe of the film stock chosen for cut scenes by the DP or that those cut scenes should be shot like cut scenes instead of dream sequences; the kind of cars they use; how energetic the explosions are; clothing selection and how the costumes change situationally or throughout the film; indescribably nuanced changes in the actor's delivery; what fonts go on the signs; which props they use in all of the sets and the strategies they use to weather things; what specific locations they shoot at within an area and which direction they point the camera, how the grading might change the mood and imply thematic connections, subtle symbolism used, the specifics of camera movements, focus, and depth of field, and then there's the deeeep world of lighting... All of those things and a million others are contributions from individual artists contributing their own art in one big collaborative project.

stale2002 2y ago
> Implying that the people involved are mere technicians implementing a marketing strategy Well no. Instead, I am implying that they are as much of a "technician" so someone who is putting in a huge amount of effort into making AI videos. If you want to say that it is perfectly possible for someone to put a high amount of vision and make a large amount of creative decisions into AI videos, then I agree. > All of those things and a million others are contributions Yes I agree that there can be a million other contributions to making AI videos. Glad you agree too.
- chefandy 2y ago
  Your sarcastic, bad faith, I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I-level statements attack positions I dont hold, yet avoid addressing anything I said— all of which is based on my professional experience with using generative AI in media creation, and also film production pipelines and workflows. Your retort might have made you feel better about making baseless statements but it certainly didn't lend credibility to those statements or you in anybody else's eyes.
  - stale2002 2y ago
    Its not sarcasm. Its just that other people need to admit that yes it is possible for AI to include a lot of creative decisions. You, being someone who claimed to care about that should be willing to admit that it is possible to do this. I agree completely that creative input, such as the creative input that people can put into AI if they choose to do so, is important. And just like how in other forms of media, yes sometimes people don't put in that creative input. But its still possible if you put in the effort. And since you didn't address this at all, I can only assume that you agree with me completely.
    - chefandy 2y ago
      Never in my entire life have I said it's not possible for the AI image generation process to include a lot of creative decisions. In fact, I've repeatedly said the opposite. Like I said, you're attacking positions I don't have. I use prompt-based generative AI in creative ways as part of my professional processes all the time. And you know what? They are nowhere close to being useful for generating anything that plays a significant on-screen role in high-end media creation. Anybody who says they are does not know how different the requirements for high-end use cases are. You're using me as a proxy to toe the line of a ridiculous ideological polemic that I have nothing to do with. If you want to argue with someone that has the uniform, standard-issue set of anti-AI opinions you expect to encounter so you don't have to consider your arguments too much, there's like thousands of them right over on reddit. Easy.
      - 2y ago

stale2002 2y ago

> Implying that the people involved are mere technicians implementing a marketing strategy Well no. Instead, I am implying that they are as much of a "technician" so someone who is putting in a huge amount of effort into making AI videos. If you want to say that it is perfectly possible for someone to put a high amount of vision and make a large amount of creative decisions into AI videos, then I agree. > All of those things and a million others are contributions Yes I agree that there can be a million other contributions to making AI videos. Glad you agree too.

chefandy 2y ago
Your sarcastic, bad faith, I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I-level statements attack positions I dont hold, yet avoid addressing anything I said— all of which is based on my professional experience with using generative AI in media creation, and also film production pipelines and workflows. Your retort might have made you feel better about making baseless statements but it certainly didn't lend credibility to those statements or you in anybody else's eyes.
- stale2002 2y ago
  Its not sarcasm. Its just that other people need to admit that yes it is possible for AI to include a lot of creative decisions. You, being someone who claimed to care about that should be willing to admit that it is possible to do this. I agree completely that creative input, such as the creative input that people can put into AI if they choose to do so, is important. And just like how in other forms of media, yes sometimes people don't put in that creative input. But its still possible if you put in the effort. And since you didn't address this at all, I can only assume that you agree with me completely.
  - chefandy 2y ago
    Never in my entire life have I said it's not possible for the AI image generation process to include a lot of creative decisions. In fact, I've repeatedly said the opposite. Like I said, you're attacking positions I don't have. I use prompt-based generative AI in creative ways as part of my professional processes all the time. And you know what? They are nowhere close to being useful for generating anything that plays a significant on-screen role in high-end media creation. Anybody who says they are does not know how different the requirements for high-end use cases are. You're using me as a proxy to toe the line of a ridiculous ideological polemic that I have nothing to do with. If you want to argue with someone that has the uniform, standard-issue set of anti-AI opinions you expect to encounter so you don't have to consider your arguments too much, there's like thousands of them right over on reddit. Easy.
    - 2y ago