5 ms·

With AI, this entire vast content library is about to be worthless anyway. We'll be making more long-form, quality content per month than entire Hollywood prod

With AI, this entire vast content library is about to be worthless anyway. We'll be making more long-form, quality content per month than entire Hollywood production years. And if you include short form content and slop, it'll be more content per second than entire years. When faced with infinite content, people will reach for content currently popular in the zeitgeist or content that addresses niche interests. Hollywood never made Steampunk Vampire Hunters of Ganymede, but in the future there will be creators filling every void. There won't be much reason to revisit old catalogues that don't cater to modern audiences unless it's to satisfy curiosity or watch one of the shining diamonds in the rough. There will be a few legacy titles that endure (Friends, Star Wars), but most of it will be washed away in a sea of infinite attention sinks. We're about to hit post-scarcity, infinite attention satisfiability. We've already looked over the inflection point, so it doesn't take much imagination to reason what's next. --- Edit: copying my buried comments from below to expand on this. --- I have direct experience with this field. I've written, directed, and acted in independent films. I've worked on everything from three person crews all the way up to 200 person shots. Even mocap and virtual production. We're now developing film and VFX tools for individual artists, and the world is full of artists. It's been starved for films, however. The studio production system only had so much annual capacity per year, and most creators never get the opportunity to helm a project of their own. You're not crying over the accessibility of digital art, digital music, indie games, or writing. Film production and distribution has been bottlenecked at the studio level for far too long due to capital, logistics, and (previously) distribution barriers. That's all changing now. Films are going to look more like fanfiction.net, Bandcamp, ArtStation, and Steam. That's a good thing. I have friends in IATSE (film crew union) and AI is going to hurt their work. The nature of work changes, and new opportunities arise. But what's hurting them right now is that film productions are being offshored to Europe and Asia to break up their unions and bank on cheaper local labor. Production in Atlanta is one sixth of what it was just a few years ago. I also have friends who write and direct that are looking at this as their big chance to build their own audience.

evilfred 2y ago
you completely misunderstand what it means to enjoy a film experience.
sdenton4 2y ago
Yeah, just like how the Odyssey became worthless when people started writing things down, the bible fell into obsolescence with the printing press, and Ulysses was usurped by the internet.
kouru225 2y ago
>With AI, this entire vast content library is about to be worthless anyway That’s just not how humanities work
- xp84 2y ago
  Yeah, even I, who is pretty bullish on AI in general, agree in doubting the premise that AI is going to make movies that are so good that people stop having any interest in older movies. I think it's more likely that once Gen Z is the oldest surviving generation, maybe no one will watch any content longer than a TikTok due to attention span degradation and Hollywood just churns out vertical 2 minute videos direct to phones rather than release movies, and those would be some mixture of AI and human-created work.
almostdeadguy 2y ago
Yeah I can't wait for "Forest Gump 2", The Simpsons Live Action starring John C. Reilly as Barney, and "Lord of the Rings But It's A Wes Anderson Movie". AI distilling the absolutely worst and most cynical Hollywood trends into full length motion pictures. I've yet to see anything remotely approaching non-slop from AI-generated video.
- genewitch 2y ago
  Birdemic 3, deathstalker 4, star wars episode N, star wars episode N+1, star wars non-episode A, star wars non-episode [...] Yeah, boy, I'm glad humans are making novel stuffs.
  - almostdeadguy 2y ago
    Yeah that is literally all the movies being made by people, unlike AI which has produced groundbreaking creative works.
  - runnr_az 2y ago
    Deathstalker 2 is a classic... of sorts...
- echelon 2y ago
  This already happens without AI, it's just that studios can only produce so many films given the budget, labor, and time constraints. Tell me that any of the "Jurassic Park" films beyond the first were necessary. Or the "Lord of the Rings" films and shows beyond the original trilogy. These are products of the classical studio system. They keep trying to remake "Back to the Future" and as soon as Zemeckis dies, they'll have their way. There will be amazing art made using AI, and AI will enable extremely talented creators that could have never made it in the classical studio system. Don't be so pessimistic. We're going to have "Obra Dinn" and "Undertale" equivalents in film soon. Small scale auteurs sharing their mind's eye with you.
  - almostdeadguy 2y ago
    Seems like we should have seen these groundbreaking creative works that have been totally inaccessible to create without AI by now rather than a million "X as a Wes Anderson Movie" trailers. Filmmaking has not been an inaccessible creative endeavor since like the 1910s. Budget price cameras have been with us for a long time. It's a weird AI company invention to suggest there are people who've been shut out of this pursuit for some reason. Creators don't need to wait around for AI to generate slop out of prompts, they can make movies.
saint_yossarian 2y ago
Thanks, I hate it. Can you point me to any examples of AI-generated content that's actually worth reading/watching/listening to?
- echelon 2y ago
  It's super early, and a lot of artists have issues with controllability that make the tools hard to incorporate. This is quickly changing. Here's a really small scoped short film made with the limited tools available half a year ago. It accomplished simple storytelling with limited tooling: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t_SgA6ymPuc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t_SgA6ymPuc You're going to see more and more ambitious stuff soon. We're beginning to have the ability to control characters, have consistency, block, and steer.
- pbhjpbhj 2y ago
  There was a Mario Brothers music video set in a swampy trailer park, actually watched that to the end. Couldn't work out if this channel is the creator but there a bunch of them - https://m.youtube.com/@demonflyingfox/videos https://m.youtube.com/@demonflyingfox/videos If the singing is ML-generated then I think that's pretty impressive too. Looks like the channels started out as still images with Ken Burns Effect only 2 years ago. That's some progress.
DrillShopper 2y ago
Silicon Valley Brain Rot claims another victim. Sad to see.
- echelon 2y ago
  I have direct experience with this field. I've written, directed, and acted in independent films. I've worked on everything from three person crews all the way up to 200 person shots. Even mocap and virtual production. We're now developing film and VFX tools for individual artists, and the world is full of artists. It's been starved for films, however. The studio production system only had so much annual capacity per year, and most creators never get the opportunity to helm a project of their own. You're not crying over the accessibility of digital art, digital music, indie games, or writing. Film production and distribution has been bottlenecked at the studio level for far too long due to capital, logistics, and (previously) distribution barriers. That's all changing now. Films are going to look more like fanfiction.net, Bandcamp, ArtStation, and Steam. That's a good thing. I have friends in IATSE (film crew union) and AI is going to hurt their work. The nature of work changes, and new opportunities arise. But what's hurting them right now is that film productions are being offshored to Europe and Asia to break up their unions and bank on cheaper local labor. Production in Atlanta is one sixth of what it was just a few years ago. I also have friends who write and direct that are looking at this as their big chance to build their own audience.
  - sumtechguy 2y ago
    > Films are going to look more like fanfiction.net, Bandcamp, ArtStation, and Steam. That's a good thing. It is already starting too. Click on some random 'read a sci-fi story' and your YT feed will be full of AI pictures with moderate coherency (depending on what AI tools they are using). Sometimes it will be very short videos with moderate in scene and poor inter scene coherency. It was utterly garbage a year ago with most of them sticking to static pictures. Voice clone is like 98% there and hard to tell at this point. If you listen to the story structure you can tell an AI probably wrote the story too. There are services out there were you can say 'write me the lyrics to a metal song about ducks and chickens' and then take that paste it into another service and say 'make a metal song with these lyrics' then paste the results into another service and put an AI voice of darth vader over it using the lyrics. That this is coming to video is not that big of a leap. That has gone from random limbs popping out of peoples foreheads to weird little janky things. I can today just use chatgpt and say 'write me a SCP memo on a man eating couch that stalks elephants of keter class' It will. I can add some small details and it will be an acceptable waste of my time. Written form is today being consumed quickly by the likes of chatgpt. The other types are next in line. People are already doing this. It is all over YT and tiktok.
Frederation 2y ago
Art doesnt cease to be art when new forms of art are materializing. Its up to the viewer.
- echelon 2y ago
  That wasn't the argument. The argument is that few will watch the majority of WB's back catalogue, because their time is being spent with all the other attention sinks. This places a monetary value on the content, not a social or cultural value.
  - spratzt 2y ago
    I absolutely agree. It’s also a silly to believe that because it’s old it’s culturally significant. There’s plenty of ancient dross in the back catalogues.
    - echelon 2y ago
      100%. The back catalogue will have a few scattered gems that you can find amongst the sea of mass media that appealed to its audience at the time. Most of that content no longer relates or makes sense to us. There's also a massive load of dreck and garbage. People should be realistic about this instead of emotionally invested against AI as the news media has tried to sway this. It's just a tool, and artists are starting to use it productively.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      "Culturally significant" is the wrong metric, and shows that you don't really understand why people watch what they watch. People watch all sorts of things, from all different time periods, because they enjoy them. Sometimes those things are "culturally significant", but I'd expect that's not the most common case. Sometimes those things are B-movies from the '70s or brain-candy sitcoms from the '90s.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        > because they enjoy them The premise is that there is so much good AI content that if you just pick something you enjoy, no other criteria, 90% of the time it'll be an AI work. The only people that would be watching a significant amount of older work are the people that have a reason beyond that.
hatmanstack 2y ago
It seems most of the things Netflix produces is optimized by the algo for attention. When I feel it directing me gives me the ick. Looking at you Squid Game.
- xp84 2y ago
  It's part of the same phenomenon we see in social media. The first waves of social media and YouTube were predicated on the idea that you either seek out content yourself or view a feed of content you'd already taken action to subscribe to/follow. Services like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube pivoted to go from "pull" where users select content or stay within their own networks, to a "push" model where the algorithm predicts and autoplays content, mostly from strangers, based on highly accurate predictions of virality and eyeball-retaining potential. Things like Netflix realized it too and buried the "Continue Watching" at a randomized index in an endless carousel, added Autoplay and even starts autoplaying something different after you finish a series. And of course, newer things like TikTok have always been this way. All these things are, I'd argue, user-hostile in that they're optimizing toward, in the extreme case, complete addiction.
- Yizahi 2y ago
  No need to suspect, they are advertising that openly and are proud of it. Famously, years ago they invented House of Cards TV show by looking at the most popular search tags and picked the most popular ones to select a genre and theme of a new show. It was a story of many articles about Netlix back then.
  - magicalist 2y ago
    > Famously, years ago they invented House of Cards TV show by looking at the most popular search tags and picked the most popular ones to select a genre and theme of a new show This does not appear to be true based on any articles I can find. I do believe they heavily follow the trends from their analytics in what the shows they buy and what they cancel, though.
  - jsnell 2y ago
    No, that's not at all what happened. House of Cards was a highly regarded UK TV series from BBC (made in the early 1990s). Like many UK TV series, it was ripe for an American adaptation. Netflix won the bidding war for that adaptation. Making up "famous" examples doesn't make your case stronger, but the opposite.
cogman10 2y ago
Tell you what, let's make a bet. I'll bet you $100 that there will not be a successful long form (more than 20 minutes) AI production in the next 10 years. By that, I mean something where either the dialog or the video (or both) is completely done by AI. By successful, let's say something that wins a non-AI award (For example, an Oscar or Emmy) or receives something like a 70% positive review on rotten tomatoes, IMDB, or some other metacritic platform that is not specifically made for reviewing AI art. I do not believe the AI will live up to the hype of "We'll be making more long-form, quality content per month than entire Hollywood production years." I think we'll see long form AI, I don't think it will be high quality or even something that most people want to watch. The only people that will want to watch that sort of AI slop are AI enthusiasts who want AI to be amazing.
- echelon 2y ago
  > By that, I mean something where either the dialog or the video (or both) is completely done by AI. I don't think LLMs can write nuanced character arcs, so let's not include them. On the subject of the visuals being completely AI, we need to be able to steer the video with more than just text prompts. Do you remove the possibility of using motion capture performances, compositing, or other techniques? I think we'll see 100% non-photon, non-CG visuals. I just think those performances will be human and the films will have a very human touch. If you can make that adjustment, then I think we have a bet. AI is just a tool. And artists are going to use the tools that can get the job done.
  - cogman10 2y ago
    > On the subject of the visuals being completely AI, we need to be able to steer the video with more than just text prompts. Do you remove the possibility of using motion capture performances, compositing, or other techniques? Yes I exclude that, because the primary reason to say "We'll be making more long-form, quality content per month than entire Hollywood production years." is that AI has eliminated or vastly eliminated the need for human actors. I'd accept a model trained on motion data or whatever, but I do not think something that augmenting that visual input data counts towards actually reducing production costs and speeding up the process of creating media. I'd accept modifications to the bet that would still allow for rapid media production. If the human staffing is virtually identical to what it is today then that's not AI actually reducing costs. Hence, AI needing to do the majority of the labor. For example of what I'd accept, a 2 person team that creates a 20+ minute ensemble film in less than a month or 2 that meets the success criteria above. I'd reject it if the film is "Watch ted go insane in this room" (I think for obvious reasons). > I think we'll see 100% non-photon, non-CG visuals. I just think those performances will be human and the films will have a very human touch. We already have that AFAIK. But again, I don't think that's a huge cost or time savings. > AI is just a tool. And artists are going to use the tools that can get the job done. I agree, it is a tool. I disagree with claims of how much content it will ultimately enable to be produced.
pipeline_peak 2y ago
In the same way AI will replace bland techno and run of the mill lofi hop hop, it’ll do the same for all the cgi crap Dreamworks puts out twice a year. AI can copy things that are already copied, but you’ll never get something as paradigm shifting as Toy Story 1.

evilfred 2y ago

you completely misunderstand what it means to enjoy a film experience.

sdenton4 2y ago

Yeah, just like how the Odyssey became worthless when people started writing things down, the bible fell into obsolescence with the printing press, and Ulysses was usurped by the internet.

kouru225 2y ago

>With AI, this entire vast content library is about to be worthless anyway That’s just not how humanities work

xp84 2y ago
Yeah, even I, who is pretty bullish on AI in general, agree in doubting the premise that AI is going to make movies that are so good that people stop having any interest in older movies. I think it's more likely that once Gen Z is the oldest surviving generation, maybe no one will watch any content longer than a TikTok due to attention span degradation and Hollywood just churns out vertical 2 minute videos direct to phones rather than release movies, and those would be some mixture of AI and human-created work.

almostdeadguy 2y ago

Yeah I can't wait for "Forest Gump 2", The Simpsons Live Action starring John C. Reilly as Barney, and "Lord of the Rings But It's A Wes Anderson Movie". AI distilling the absolutely worst and most cynical Hollywood trends into full length motion pictures. I've yet to see anything remotely approaching non-slop from AI-generated video.

genewitch 2y ago
Birdemic 3, deathstalker 4, star wars episode N, star wars episode N+1, star wars non-episode A, star wars non-episode [...] Yeah, boy, I'm glad humans are making novel stuffs.
- almostdeadguy 2y ago
  Yeah that is literally all the movies being made by people, unlike AI which has produced groundbreaking creative works.
- runnr_az 2y ago
  Deathstalker 2 is a classic... of sorts...
echelon 2y ago
This already happens without AI, it's just that studios can only produce so many films given the budget, labor, and time constraints. Tell me that any of the "Jurassic Park" films beyond the first were necessary. Or the "Lord of the Rings" films and shows beyond the original trilogy. These are products of the classical studio system. They keep trying to remake "Back to the Future" and as soon as Zemeckis dies, they'll have their way. There will be amazing art made using AI, and AI will enable extremely talented creators that could have never made it in the classical studio system. Don't be so pessimistic. We're going to have "Obra Dinn" and "Undertale" equivalents in film soon. Small scale auteurs sharing their mind's eye with you.
- almostdeadguy 2y ago
  Seems like we should have seen these groundbreaking creative works that have been totally inaccessible to create without AI by now rather than a million "X as a Wes Anderson Movie" trailers. Filmmaking has not been an inaccessible creative endeavor since like the 1910s. Budget price cameras have been with us for a long time. It's a weird AI company invention to suggest there are people who've been shut out of this pursuit for some reason. Creators don't need to wait around for AI to generate slop out of prompts, they can make movies.

saint_yossarian 2y ago

Thanks, I hate it. Can you point me to any examples of AI-generated content that's actually worth reading/watching/listening to?

echelon 2y ago
It's super early, and a lot of artists have issues with controllability that make the tools hard to incorporate. This is quickly changing. Here's a really small scoped short film made with the limited tools available half a year ago. It accomplished simple storytelling with limited tooling: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t_SgA6ymPuc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t_SgA6ymPuc You're going to see more and more ambitious stuff soon. We're beginning to have the ability to control characters, have consistency, block, and steer.
pbhjpbhj 2y ago
There was a Mario Brothers music video set in a swampy trailer park, actually watched that to the end. Couldn't work out if this channel is the creator but there a bunch of them - https://m.youtube.com/@demonflyingfox/videos https://m.youtube.com/@demonflyingfox/videos If the singing is ML-generated then I think that's pretty impressive too. Looks like the channels started out as still images with Ken Burns Effect only 2 years ago. That's some progress.

DrillShopper 2y ago

Silicon Valley Brain Rot claims another victim. Sad to see.

echelon 2y ago
I have direct experience with this field. I've written, directed, and acted in independent films. I've worked on everything from three person crews all the way up to 200 person shots. Even mocap and virtual production. We're now developing film and VFX tools for individual artists, and the world is full of artists. It's been starved for films, however. The studio production system only had so much annual capacity per year, and most creators never get the opportunity to helm a project of their own. You're not crying over the accessibility of digital art, digital music, indie games, or writing. Film production and distribution has been bottlenecked at the studio level for far too long due to capital, logistics, and (previously) distribution barriers. That's all changing now. Films are going to look more like fanfiction.net, Bandcamp, ArtStation, and Steam. That's a good thing. I have friends in IATSE (film crew union) and AI is going to hurt their work. The nature of work changes, and new opportunities arise. But what's hurting them right now is that film productions are being offshored to Europe and Asia to break up their unions and bank on cheaper local labor. Production in Atlanta is one sixth of what it was just a few years ago. I also have friends who write and direct that are looking at this as their big chance to build their own audience.
- sumtechguy 2y ago
  > Films are going to look more like fanfiction.net, Bandcamp, ArtStation, and Steam. That's a good thing. It is already starting too. Click on some random 'read a sci-fi story' and your YT feed will be full of AI pictures with moderate coherency (depending on what AI tools they are using). Sometimes it will be very short videos with moderate in scene and poor inter scene coherency. It was utterly garbage a year ago with most of them sticking to static pictures. Voice clone is like 98% there and hard to tell at this point. If you listen to the story structure you can tell an AI probably wrote the story too. There are services out there were you can say 'write me the lyrics to a metal song about ducks and chickens' and then take that paste it into another service and say 'make a metal song with these lyrics' then paste the results into another service and put an AI voice of darth vader over it using the lyrics. That this is coming to video is not that big of a leap. That has gone from random limbs popping out of peoples foreheads to weird little janky things. I can today just use chatgpt and say 'write me a SCP memo on a man eating couch that stalks elephants of keter class' It will. I can add some small details and it will be an acceptable waste of my time. Written form is today being consumed quickly by the likes of chatgpt. The other types are next in line. People are already doing this. It is all over YT and tiktok.

Frederation 2y ago

Art doesnt cease to be art when new forms of art are materializing. Its up to the viewer.

echelon 2y ago
That wasn't the argument. The argument is that few will watch the majority of WB's back catalogue, because their time is being spent with all the other attention sinks. This places a monetary value on the content, not a social or cultural value.
- spratzt 2y ago
  I absolutely agree. It’s also a silly to believe that because it’s old it’s culturally significant. There’s plenty of ancient dross in the back catalogues.
  - echelon 2y ago
    100%. The back catalogue will have a few scattered gems that you can find amongst the sea of mass media that appealed to its audience at the time. Most of that content no longer relates or makes sense to us. There's also a massive load of dreck and garbage. People should be realistic about this instead of emotionally invested against AI as the news media has tried to sway this. It's just a tool, and artists are starting to use it productively.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    "Culturally significant" is the wrong metric, and shows that you don't really understand why people watch what they watch. People watch all sorts of things, from all different time periods, because they enjoy them. Sometimes those things are "culturally significant", but I'd expect that's not the most common case. Sometimes those things are B-movies from the '70s or brain-candy sitcoms from the '90s.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      > because they enjoy them The premise is that there is so much good AI content that if you just pick something you enjoy, no other criteria, 90% of the time it'll be an AI work. The only people that would be watching a significant amount of older work are the people that have a reason beyond that.

hatmanstack 2y ago

It seems most of the things Netflix produces is optimized by the algo for attention. When I feel it directing me gives me the ick. Looking at you Squid Game.

xp84 2y ago
It's part of the same phenomenon we see in social media. The first waves of social media and YouTube were predicated on the idea that you either seek out content yourself or view a feed of content you'd already taken action to subscribe to/follow. Services like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube pivoted to go from "pull" where users select content or stay within their own networks, to a "push" model where the algorithm predicts and autoplays content, mostly from strangers, based on highly accurate predictions of virality and eyeball-retaining potential. Things like Netflix realized it too and buried the "Continue Watching" at a randomized index in an endless carousel, added Autoplay and even starts autoplaying something different after you finish a series. And of course, newer things like TikTok have always been this way. All these things are, I'd argue, user-hostile in that they're optimizing toward, in the extreme case, complete addiction.
Yizahi 2y ago
No need to suspect, they are advertising that openly and are proud of it. Famously, years ago they invented House of Cards TV show by looking at the most popular search tags and picked the most popular ones to select a genre and theme of a new show. It was a story of many articles about Netlix back then.
- magicalist 2y ago
  > Famously, years ago they invented House of Cards TV show by looking at the most popular search tags and picked the most popular ones to select a genre and theme of a new show This does not appear to be true based on any articles I can find. I do believe they heavily follow the trends from their analytics in what the shows they buy and what they cancel, though.
- jsnell 2y ago
  No, that's not at all what happened. House of Cards was a highly regarded UK TV series from BBC (made in the early 1990s). Like many UK TV series, it was ripe for an American adaptation. Netflix won the bidding war for that adaptation. Making up "famous" examples doesn't make your case stronger, but the opposite.

cogman10 2y ago

Tell you what, let's make a bet. I'll bet you $100 that there will not be a successful long form (more than 20 minutes) AI production in the next 10 years. By that, I mean something where either the dialog or the video (or both) is completely done by AI. By successful, let's say something that wins a non-AI award (For example, an Oscar or Emmy) or receives something like a 70% positive review on rotten tomatoes, IMDB, or some other metacritic platform that is not specifically made for reviewing AI art. I do not believe the AI will live up to the hype of "We'll be making more long-form, quality content per month than entire Hollywood production years." I think we'll see long form AI, I don't think it will be high quality or even something that most people want to watch. The only people that will want to watch that sort of AI slop are AI enthusiasts who want AI to be amazing.

echelon 2y ago
> By that, I mean something where either the dialog or the video (or both) is completely done by AI. I don't think LLMs can write nuanced character arcs, so let's not include them. On the subject of the visuals being completely AI, we need to be able to steer the video with more than just text prompts. Do you remove the possibility of using motion capture performances, compositing, or other techniques? I think we'll see 100% non-photon, non-CG visuals. I just think those performances will be human and the films will have a very human touch. If you can make that adjustment, then I think we have a bet. AI is just a tool. And artists are going to use the tools that can get the job done.
- cogman10 2y ago
  > On the subject of the visuals being completely AI, we need to be able to steer the video with more than just text prompts. Do you remove the possibility of using motion capture performances, compositing, or other techniques? Yes I exclude that, because the primary reason to say "We'll be making more long-form, quality content per month than entire Hollywood production years." is that AI has eliminated or vastly eliminated the need for human actors. I'd accept a model trained on motion data or whatever, but I do not think something that augmenting that visual input data counts towards actually reducing production costs and speeding up the process of creating media. I'd accept modifications to the bet that would still allow for rapid media production. If the human staffing is virtually identical to what it is today then that's not AI actually reducing costs. Hence, AI needing to do the majority of the labor. For example of what I'd accept, a 2 person team that creates a 20+ minute ensemble film in less than a month or 2 that meets the success criteria above. I'd reject it if the film is "Watch ted go insane in this room" (I think for obvious reasons). > I think we'll see 100% non-photon, non-CG visuals. I just think those performances will be human and the films will have a very human touch. We already have that AFAIK. But again, I don't think that's a huge cost or time savings. > AI is just a tool. And artists are going to use the tools that can get the job done. I agree, it is a tool. I disagree with claims of how much content it will ultimately enable to be produced.

pipeline_peak 2y ago

In the same way AI will replace bland techno and run of the mill lofi hop hop, it’ll do the same for all the cgi crap Dreamworks puts out twice a year. AI can copy things that are already copied, but you’ll never get something as paradigm shifting as Toy Story 1.