is AI gonna take our jobs?

As a database grows, AI will be able to scan everything in it and all of a work's data/specifications (shapes, colors, shades, angles, pressure points, combinations; whatever goes into creating something) and will adjust its output accordingly.

I can't say whether this is right or wrong but I don't think it's going to matter in the future.

It's too important and powerful for business and money to be stopped.
 
NorBro said:
As a database grows, AI will be able to scan everything in it and all of a work's data/specifications (shapes, colors, shades, angles, pressure points, combinations; whatever goes into creating something) and will adjust its output accordingly.

I can't say whether this is right or wrong but I don't think it's going to matter in the future.

It's too important and powerful for business and money to be stopped.
Click to expand...

I mean, the databases are pretty much as big as they're going to get. They've run out of high-quality original material to scan. And while I agree that they may be able to incorporate a randomizing element to sufficiently differentiate their output from source material, it's worth noting that this is the opposite of what they are currently trained to do (which is to approximate source material). By Midjourney's own admission, it may be infeasible for them to take a proactive approach to avoiding copyright infringement:

Indeed, some of the company’s public comments have been dismissive of the question. When asked by a Forbes reporter, “Did you seek consent from living artists or work still under copyright?”, David Holz, Midjourney’s founder and CEO, expressed a certain lack of concern for the rights of copyright holders:
No. There isn’t really a way to get a hundred million images and know where they’re coming from. It would be cool if images had metadata embedded in them about the copyright owner or something. But that’s not a thing; there’s not a registry. There’s no way to find a picture on the Internet, and then automatically trace it to an owner and then have any way of doing anything to authenticate it.​

If any of the source material is not licensed, it seems to us (as nonlawyers) that this potentially opens Midjourney to extensive litigation by film studios, video-game publishers, actors, and so on.
Click to expand...

As far as business and money not being able to be stopped... People have been able to mechanically duplicate images of Mickey Mouse since his creation but Disney had the legal authority and financial muscle to defend its turf until the copyright expired. There are two sides to this business equation. That's why the New York Times and others are suing OpenAI.

Consider that copyright was created to protect content creators and to keep alive the goose that lays the golden egg. Even if it doesn't protect artists from AI in its current form, it could be changed to do so. It's also worth noting that if AI is trained on the output of AI, its work turns to sludge. This is mathematically proven and illustrates that the magic sauce of generative AI is the work of the humans that goes into it. Ergo it's not in the interests of society to let it kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

These issues could simply be sidestepped by developing licensing agreements for AI to use people's work, and that way the artists would be compensated. But of course paying for things is much more expensive than stealing them.
 
I think Midjourney is saying that generally, because it's a good [protective] thing to say.

As far as copyright, I guess I just think about the overall process, and the bigger picture.

Meaning if this is a case-by-case basis and an artist sees a company generate an image which looks identical to something he or she made then what...he or she has to initiate a process and that's when a Disney and the like and their muscle become problematic, artists vs. companies.

What a PITA this would be for judges, I think. The [new] laws would exist to protect but it's not like anything has to or will be done immediately.

Time-consuming, expensive, a headache for small folk...while the image(s) may or may not continue to get used until exhausted by the time anything is decided, possibly without a favorable outcome for artist.

In general, I guess I see AI as a tool and not really something that was made to steal. It will steal, yeah, of course - but with all the stealing already going on I guess we'll see.
 
I like your approach NorBro as you are seeing the AI tech objectively. It is doing everything we do, just at a much accelerated pace. We steal looks and approaches for our own use all of the time. We are just not as precise as this tech will be.

In the vein of respecting the technology, and to follow up on my post - how can we incorporate this tech into our business' and profit from this? We have specific knowledge that others' find useful.
 
Thank you, and that's truly how I see it...not much different than what humans already do, just faster.

And I think the best thing we can do is familiarize ourselves with all of the AI software out there if we choose to. Just like how we did with Premiere, FCP, Resolve, After Effects, Pro Tools, Photoshop, etc.

The more, the better...so if you get asked to do something, and you can use AI to do it, you can offer several options to client, quickly, and then decide if the automation is okay or further manual human tweaks should be made.

Even if one doesn't use it...just have the knowledge ready.
 
My understanding of AI image generation is that it is referencing thousands of video clips and images of puppies playing in the snow to understand the composition, lighting, movement, dynamics, etc and then generating its own video clip based on this understanding. Since it's not just regenerating a single clip in a recognizable way, I don't see how copyright will play a role in this process.

The promise of generative AI is that it will be able to deliver on Cheap/Fast/Good. Clients will no longer have to "pick two".
 
So that makes me wonder - will it always be available to general folks or will "clients" still want an "AI Expert" to guide them through their video process? Along the lines of what NorBro said, will there be an expertise software we can know that others are not as familiar with? Just trying to keep this from being a spilled milk cry fest as technology always has an angle to make some money around it.
 
The typing words into a bar to creating something will win. That's the Apple, the Microsoft, the Amazon.

But I think some sophisticated software will emerge for the more tech-savvy, and I sure think firms, people, will exhaust to guide companies through the AI technical process.

The AI experts...what to do, what not to do, what to use, etc. That could be a new career, not for me, but someone.
 
QuickHitRecord said:
My understanding of AI image generation is that it is referencing thousands of video clips and images of puppies playing in the snow to understand the composition, lighting, movement, dynamics, etc and then generating its own video clip based on this understanding. Since it's not just regenerating a single clip in a recognizable way, I don't see how copyright will play a role in this process.

The promise of generative AI is that it will be able to deliver on Cheap/Fast/Good. Clients will no longer have to "pick two".
Click to expand...

your understanding is flawed. hope that helps
 
Bassman2003 said:
In the vein of respecting the technology, and to follow up on my post - how can we incorporate this tech into our business' and profit from this? We have specific knowledge that others' find useful.
Click to expand...

I look at things on a case by case basis. I use AI audio tools like from Audostudio for cleaning up audio. (I don't think this really qualifies as AI... but AI is kind of a marketing term anyway...) I used some other audio site for reverb removal. Can't remember the name at the moment...

I've used Dalle and RunwayML for background expansion. I've tried to generate some b-roll in RunwayML but the results have been far from usable so far.

Hard to say where it goes from here. In the first stage, if generative AI is allowed to continue apace, I would expect it to be good for editors and bad for shooters which seems to be how it's shaping up. Sooner or later, I would think that some of what I do as an editor could be done by a producer if they can give the computer natural language commands. You just need to incorporate chatGPT into the program. I offer more on a creative level than just pushing buttons and memorizing shortcuts, but it would be a start if they could talk to the machine like they talk to me. I don't see signs of that happening yet, but it's not hard to imagine. I plan to react to whatever changes come down the pike rather than trying to predict them.

Like "prompt engineer", which some people think will be a career -- knowledgable people expect that to be outmoded in short order by chatGPT-like capabilities of the generative AI programs doing a better job understanding what the user is asking for in natural language. I wouldn't invest too much time learning those skills.
 
Good points. There might be very little there in the end. Like sweeping up in front of the bulldozer. Another sad reality is that the 'makers' will probably only let the good stuff out for the large players while us plebes only get to fool around with the 'just ok' stuff that never really kills it. It is for free so we can not expect anything at the present time.
 
Well this may be the time that filmmaking has encountered to be working at extremely low budgets to compete like during the Great Depression.

If the right filmmaker can make a film for less than $50,000 and pump out quality filmmaking, then I think we still have good competition against AI. Though it is a little rougher.

Think of that Rocky movie when Sylvester Stallone's character had to fight a Russian who was artificially stronger than any boxer.
 
I don't know where to start with that analogy, lol.

Dolph had a god body and the steroids did help (and fantastic genetics) but he would have also kicked the head off many boxers in real life.
 
NorBro said:
I don't know where to start with that analogy, lol.

Dolph had a god body and the steroids did help (and fantastic genetics) but he would have also kicked the head off many boxers in real life.
Click to expand...

If the worst-case scenario plays out (which I strongly doubt will happen), I think it would look something like this: in the ad world, shoots are gone. Editor does all. Then editor is gone, producer does all. Then producer is gone, marketing director does all. Then they're gone too and just the CEO is left to make big picture decisions that get carried out by an army of AIs.

Something similar would happen in scripted drama. But, as many people have pointed out, celebrity is kind of at the center of the movie business. There's gotta be someone to fantasize about. Now maybe the actors just get comprehensively scanned and sip martinis on a beach in Wyoming while the movie gets made. And they only leave home to do the press tour.

That's basically the capitalists' fever dream. There are a lot of reasons I don't think things will work out quite this way, although I do expect to see a general trend of fewer people (the cream of the crop) being employed at every level and paid more to produce more than they currently can.
 
There are groups of millions of people who idolize video game characters and anime and cartoons, and with enough time and exposure to the generations after us, human actors in movies could be like that as well (replaced by AI).

Celebrity isn't what it once was...and movie production is already so out of control that most of them might as well be video games with scans.

People born into that wouldn't know the difference.

Little Johnny: "Wait, dad, so humans acted in movies before? Why would they do that?"

lol
 
Totally agree. From a 10,000ft view, acting is very strange human behavior imho. If we look at why there have been celebrities over the past 100 years it is because of the narrow media window. Only movies then TV showed up. Everybody watched only these two and talked about it. Nothing else to fixate on. Then comes the internet and cord cutting and it all gets watered down in intensity.

This is a big change for us but not a big change for younger folks imho. That reenforces the fact that AI is here to stay. Does it matter if stock footage has fake people in it? Certain things like pornography are much less harmful IF they utilize fake people. So the Brad Pitt of tomorrow might be a fictional character, on one level - who cares if you still enjoy the movie? When one reads a book everything is made up in your mind.

I type all of this to realize that this is just change being change, nothing more. I will do my best to not resist it although I hate talking to devices and having them suggest things to me :)
 
Exactly, and there are so many distractions these days. We fixated on a couple of things yesteryear because that's all we had. It was nice and simple.

Such a beautiful, slower life.

People will forget about movies they watched a few days ago or mix them up with something else because there is so much data coming into the brain from all different angles.

Who cares if it's fake...that is the new world. Visuals, visuals, visuals...100mph.

Watch, watch, watch. Sell, sell, sell.

Back in the ole days, you watched a movie and you discussed it for 3 months. lol

___

Maybe everything will become so artificial that when a human does appear live it will be a special attraction.

"Wait, so she's going to be there in person? That's unbelievable!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top