i call this model: everything before 1990
i'm not appealing to tradition, i'm just saying what if our focus is the source of enjoyment... what if 1000 things to pick for dinner is exhausting but 1 that you think about all day always ends up good
For a better comparison, you could look at China which only allows for a few dozen foreign films per year (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_censorship_in_China#Quota...); which films depends on whether the publisher thinks it'll be successful there, whether it passes China's censors, and whether China was involved in its production. It's a different audience though, for example the Warcraft film bombed in the west but was hugely popular in China, possibly because of the relative scarcity of western films there?
Without that effort and filters, We're going to have a deluge of poorly inspired, sloppy content.
My brain just switches off if I realize something is AI generated. be it blogs, videos or audio.
Expensive cameras are still better. And yet, it's good that people who were never going to be able to afford those cameras have something else they can use to tell their story.
I can fire up chatgpt and have it write a thousand stories. Would you read it?
AI is good for generating content, but that doesn't make it valuable content. And we had low value slop before AI, just thinking of e.g. buzzfeed back when.
Anyway, go browse Youtube, plenty of interesting content that doesn't get enough views as it is.
As of the last couple of weeks, AIs can buy products[0][1]. Obviously for now these are intended to function on a short leash, but I wouldn't bet against agents with long-term horizon goals becoming actual consumers on their own in a few years.
[0] https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/ai-machine-learning/a... [1] https://openai.com/index/buy-it-in-chatgpt/
When we invented photography, realistic paintings kinda ... well I'm not qualified to talk about art but I feel like realistic paintings were like the last horse trying to merge into the model T traffic jam.
1. Unlike traditional animation, these AI characters are being "directed" in a sense that's unlike traditional drawing frame by frame.
2. The broader question of relationships that people are forming with AI, whether that's chatbots or AI influencers or the weird hologram Girls In a Jar stuff or whatever else.
That's not to say that actor is the right term. I think some of this is in "is a hot dog a sandwich" territory. But I think that's what people are trying to say with their use of the term.
Just for those unfamiliar with the relevant research, the proper classification of a hot dog is as a Taco - https://cuberule.com/
"Ask him."
Seriously though, practically I just don't understand how this would work unless the entire movie was just CGI, AI Generated, whatever to begin with if real actors are supposed to work with a fake thing like this.
So if the technical challenges are solved and the AI acting is quite good, that changes your view of it?
> I just don't understand how this would work unless the entire movie was just CGI... if real actors are supposed to work with a fake thing like this.
Actors have worked alongside CGI characters for many decades, I remember watching Who Framed Roger Rabbit in the late 80s.
I find it easy to imagine some disabled, or disfigured, otherwise blocked-from-stardom person using tech like this to transform themselves and be able to express their truth without being unfairly judged by the physical form they were born into.
But that's not what we're talking about, is it? Be honest.
If you want to impress me, well, I'm a techie nerd. Make a furry celebrity actress, that's the expression of a person. Like a Hollywood-grade implementation of a VTuber. Let 'em be driven by a person that I can get to know and recognize. In this day and age I'm not wedded to forcing everybody to be trapped in the form they're born in, still less so in art.
But this is NOT what we're talking about. You're going to have an AI by committee, drawn from a pandering mass of popular reactions, producing problems not unlike modern-day movies that try so hard to pander to the audience at any given moment that there's no weight to them and no point to any of it.
Here's hoping we also get the other thing. Sort of 'T-pain autotune turned into a style' but for acting. And again, I'm down with it if it's letting artists execute on realities they are otherwise completely unable to reach. But that's not what we're going to get, is it?
Outside of a select number of A-list actors, are there situations where the other 85-90% of actors are able to express their truth today?
One of the common problems with creative industries (and the primary reason I switched away from pursuing game development) was that you're not expressing your truth; you're expressing someone else's truth in exchange for money. And unless you have lots of other intangible and often uncontrollable qualities, and are willing to play politics, you will probably never end up in a position to express your truth (with any degree of notoriety) through your own or other people's work.
I am not disabled or disfigured, and while I'm blocked-from-stardom that's just because I have a fairly uninteresting existence overall that wouldn't warrant it on it's own. So I can only guess at this stuff from an outside perspective, but from where I sit, I don't see AI as a sea-change enabler for the people you're referring to.
Reminds me of a James Tiptree Jr. novella although in this case it's a remote-controlled artificial body instead of a remote-controlled digital avatar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Girl_Who_Was_Plugged_In . Avoiding spoilers, it doesn't exactly make one think that such avatarism would be a particularly good idea by the end of the story.
That "if" seems to be the running thing with everything AI right now. "If" we can fix hallucinations. "If" we can make it actually think and reason. "If" we can make a general AI system. And so on.
"IF" we actually hit that point that these systems can create truly creative genuine work instead of being nothing more than predictive engines than maybe we can revisit this conversation. But the fact is we are not there and we are nowhere near there considering we are still just iterating on the fundamental problem of these just being predictive engines.
> Actors have worked alongside CGI characters for many decades, I remember watching Who Framed Roger Rabbit in the late 80s.
Yes you are right, but there is a pretty massive difference between knowing what the fake thing will do that is already scripted, storyboarded, etc (ultimately controlled by a human the entire time) vs an AI thing that will be an unknown.
2. Your issue on the "how do actors work alongside AI characters" is that actors won't be able to do a good job themselves because it's not storyboarded enough for them? That AI characters aren't rigid enough?
Do you have any studies or data to back this up other than "trust us" from the companies pushing the models?
And how much "reduced". It is still a fundamental issue that is just being pushed under the rug since it is inconvenient for them to talk about anymore.
> There are, in fact, reasoning models.
Simulated (fake) reasoning models. They are still fundamentally LLM's talking to itself which goes back to the fundamental issue of hallucination and a complete inability for anything original.
Also this "reasoning" has been shown in multiple studies to fall flat on its face with complex issues because it is not true reasoning. There is no intelligence or "thinking" behind it.
> The "ifs" are not as theoretical as you imply.
My reason for saying it is because it always seems when someone is critical of claims being made the response is 1 of 2 things.
1. Trying to ignore the concerns and just say that it can already do X, its magic, its whatever.
Or 2. It is all about the promise. All about what it may supposedly one day be able to do "if" we can just fix this one thing that isn't somehow a huge fundamental issue.
Then what are they worried about? If this is true then it is not a job threat to human actors.
But Pixar proved that it isn't true for their actors made of pixels, so why would it become true when the pixels are arranged with the help of AI?
I don't think it's as big as the media makes it out to be, but there's rumours that people are willing to send money to the company behind the character, if that hasn't happened already, which is of course triggering outrage.
[0] (For human actors) These are currently set at an initiation fee of $3,060, annual dues of $241.32 plus work dues of 1.575% of covered earnings up to $1M - https://www.sagaftra.org/membership-benefits/membership-cost...
Yes, I'm being facetious, the reality is that audiences will watch that stuff, just like audiences will use AI generated apps or listen to AI generated music, and SAG-AFTRA knows that.
Maybe that the industry is getting destroyed by greedy managers, before they figure out that it's harmful?
> But Pixar proved that it isn't true for their actors made of pixels, so why would it become true when the pixels are arranged with the help of AI?
Animated Characters are obviously fake, while still having real humans creating them. AI-Chars are somewhere in the uncanny valley, unreal, orchestrated.
Gentle reminder human creativity did not produce photosynthesis or crispr or the color blue. Throughout history its a small self praising gatekeeping elite that decides what is labeled creative. Its usually a over-paid nihilistic morally detached leisure class. So good riddance.
But... do they protect their human animators from CGI? Or using cheaper foreign filming locations to cut costs?
It's all a continuum but they didn't care about it till it came for them. Nothing else on the continuum mattered... So, yeah, I won t shed a tear for them as they shed no tears for other parts of their production being replaced by different technologies over time.
1. Never scan a QR code.
2. Never fund AI content.
Human interaction is dying because of AI. It is most predominant in customer service at the moment. All AI customer service disconnects humanity and turns it to an endless voice mail system.
AI content will increase body dysmorphic disorders. As children grow up with AI content, they will see themselves inadequate compared to the the pix-perfect idea of what humans should look like. Yet, humans never looked like that and attempts at plastic surgery will be taken by those who try to look like the AI drawings.
Knowing an actor or actress is a real person makes the more relatable. AI content is a void of that relationship. Adults and children benefiting from knowing some actor or actress or musicians have lived through trauma that hey have or are living through. It helps empower them to keep moving forward versus ending their lives. That human connection is more powerful.
Like everything else in the attention economy if you want something/someone to go away then just...stop talking about them. Or at least let it become a real thing first.
S1m0ne ("Simone", or "Simulation One") https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258153
> A producer's film is endangered when his star walks off, so he decides to digitally create an actress to substitute for the star, becoming an overnight sensation that everyone thinks is a real person.
bitwize•4mo ago