2 ms·
I would distinguish: they could make them for their own entertainment, but should not market them. But come to think about it, how much non-AI slop is out there
by mentalgear 7mo ago
I would distinguish: they could make them for their own entertainment, but should not market them. But come to think about it, how much non-AI slop is out there that has become popular from entities with no or mediocre talent in it: generic Hollywood blockbusters, supplements, yellow papers, influencers ... all slop that became popular not due to its quality but secondary resources in form of marketing, placement and persistence of the propellants.
- the_af 7mo agoYes, I thought of this too: the industry was full of slop way before AI. We spoke of "Netflix's algorithm", but even before Netflix blockbuster movies were done with a cookie cutter. Transformers (to pick one example) existed way before this brand of AI. Movies like it are perfect candidates to be prompted and built by an AI, since they were almost there anyway. I can't help but think this "AI empowerment" will make it even easier for studios to produce more garbage at an unprecedented pace. And they won't have to even let actors age gracefully and die; now we can have Tom Cruise (or whomever, pick your poison) forever.
- shiroiuma 7mo agoWell, I guess one nice thing about that last part is that we'd be able to just enjoy AI "actors" as they are, instead of being conflicted because in real life, they're not cult promoters, rapists/groomers, etc. Moviemakers wouldn't have to worry that their star isn't going to suddenly be embroiled in some scandal, requiring them to hire another actor and re-shoot all their scenes quickly.
- the_af 7mo agoThat's little consolation. The future you describe seems like a corporate dystopia to me. We want actors to be human.