4 ms·

But why would Hollywood be screwed? They would have new tools at their disposal. Movies with sound put theatre musicians and some actors with unfortunate voices

But why would Hollywood be screwed? They would have new tools at their disposal. Movies with sound put theatre musicians and some actors with unfortunate voices out of a job, but Hollywood thrived.

ben_w 2mo ago
> But why would Hollywood be screwed? I'm sorry, you're asking "why would Hollywood be screwed?" with regards to a tech that lets you write a short prompt and get an artefact out? One where it already does this for stock photography, short scripts, and short clips? Where random people already do this for fun because it's so cheap? Where I'm talking specifically about a hypothetical which cost-anchors this for the price of a cinema ticket, i.e. $10 in creates a movie tailored to whatever the person prompting it happens to ask for? You can't see how this has the same impact on Hollywood that sound recordings had on live music performances during cinema? You can't see how anyone who wants a new film for some specific mood can just ask for that in this future, and skip the entirety of Hollywood? I'm not using fiction as evidence here, so don't misunderstand it as such, but consider how the Holodeck is written in Star Trek: you talk to the computer and it gives you what you want, and if you don't like it half way through you pause and tell what to change. For a variety of obvious reasons, Trek's script writers and practical effects people didn't put in all the glitches we see in current GenAI models, but I'm asking you to imagine a future where GenAI models also don't make such mistakes. > Movies with sound put theatre musicians and some actors with unfortunate voices out of a job, but Hollywood thrived. "but Hollywood thrived." is Texan sharpshooter, it's picking the winner after the fact. I specifically gave live theatre musicians as an example of the opposite, those who were screwed by the new tech.
- defrost 2mo ago
  Apropos of nothing, live theatre musicians and live voice over artists during movies made a solid comeback in the 1980s in several countries as part of what some described as the "dub parody" genre ala What's Up, Tiger Lily?, Hercules Returns and a run of actually live examples. Addendum: eg https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-07-22-ca-7511-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-07-22-ca-7511-s... in California.
- bazoom42 2mo ago
  Most people will not want to create their own unique movies, even if it is technically possible. They want to watch movies other people watch with actors they know.
  - ben_w 2mo ago
    > Most people will not want to create their own unique movies, even if it is technically possible. Even if it's 1% of the population, this would be enough to end Hollywood and similar agglomerations when an entire film costs $10 to generate. Given what we already see, I think it is rather a lot more than 1%. Even if it weren't done by end users (and I am confident it will be done by end users even without requiring much creativity, for the same reason Google now has generative answers and not just search results), at this price* any advertiser wanting a product placements would consider it a no-brainer to make a whole range of films for their brand in much the same way (but different details) as we're now drowning in AI slop blog posts because the cost of generating even just one custom blog post is now lower than the ad revenue shown on it. i.e. soap operas all over again. Except now there's one for all tastes, in such quantity and diversity the new drowns out the old. > They want to watch movies other people watch with actors they know. What is today is not the same as what comes when the tech sucks less. But what we see already with this limited tech is that the group size for "other people watch" can easily just be "your personal friends", and the "actors they know" can be people in their lives rather than their adverts, both as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepfake_pornography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepfake_pornography though one may hope the future version of this is less that and more https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/deepfake-2 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/deepfake-2 * and yes, hypothetical on the future quality being better
    - bazoom42 2mo ago
      > Even if it's 1% of the population, this would be enough to end Hollywood Why? Hollywood would still have 99% percent of the population as audience.

But why would Hollywood be screwed? They would have new tools at their disposal. Movies with sound put theatre musicians and some actors with unfortunate voices out of a job, but Hollywood thrived.

ben_w 2mo ago

> But why would Hollywood be screwed? I'm sorry, you're asking "why would Hollywood be screwed?" with regards to a tech that lets you write a short prompt and get an artefact out? One where it already does this for stock photography, short scripts, and short clips? Where random people already do this for fun because it's so cheap? Where I'm talking specifically about a hypothetical which cost-anchors this for the price of a cinema ticket, i.e. $10 in creates a movie tailored to whatever the person prompting it happens to ask for? You can't see how this has the same impact on Hollywood that sound recordings had on live music performances during cinema? You can't see how anyone who wants a new film for some specific mood can just ask for that in this future, and skip the entirety of Hollywood? I'm not using fiction as evidence here, so don't misunderstand it as such, but consider how the Holodeck is written in Star Trek: you talk to the computer and it gives you what you want, and if you don't like it half way through you pause and tell what to change. For a variety of obvious reasons, Trek's script writers and practical effects people didn't put in all the glitches we see in current GenAI models, but I'm asking you to imagine a future where GenAI models also don't make such mistakes. > Movies with sound put theatre musicians and some actors with unfortunate voices out of a job, but Hollywood thrived. "but Hollywood thrived." is Texan sharpshooter, it's picking the winner after the fact. I specifically gave live theatre musicians as an example of the opposite, those who were screwed by the new tech.

defrost 2mo ago
Apropos of nothing, live theatre musicians and live voice over artists during movies made a solid comeback in the 1980s in several countries as part of what some described as the "dub parody" genre ala What's Up, Tiger Lily?, Hercules Returns and a run of actually live examples. Addendum: eg https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-07-22-ca-7511-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-07-22-ca-7511-s... in California.
bazoom42 2mo ago
Most people will not want to create their own unique movies, even if it is technically possible. They want to watch movies other people watch with actors they know.
- ben_w 2mo ago
  > Most people will not want to create their own unique movies, even if it is technically possible. Even if it's 1% of the population, this would be enough to end Hollywood and similar agglomerations when an entire film costs $10 to generate. Given what we already see, I think it is rather a lot more than 1%. Even if it weren't done by end users (and I am confident it will be done by end users even without requiring much creativity, for the same reason Google now has generative answers and not just search results), at this price* any advertiser wanting a product placements would consider it a no-brainer to make a whole range of films for their brand in much the same way (but different details) as we're now drowning in AI slop blog posts because the cost of generating even just one custom blog post is now lower than the ad revenue shown on it. i.e. soap operas all over again. Except now there's one for all tastes, in such quantity and diversity the new drowns out the old. > They want to watch movies other people watch with actors they know. What is today is not the same as what comes when the tech sucks less. But what we see already with this limited tech is that the group size for "other people watch" can easily just be "your personal friends", and the "actors they know" can be people in their lives rather than their adverts, both as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepfake_pornography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepfake_pornography though one may hope the future version of this is less that and more https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/deepfake-2 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/deepfake-2 * and yes, hypothetical on the future quality being better
  - bazoom42 2mo ago
    > Even if it's 1% of the population, this would be enough to end Hollywood Why? Hollywood would still have 99% percent of the population as audience.