is AI gonna take our jobs?

Artificial Intelligence Versus Lingual Responsibility | Daniel B. Klein (independent.org)


The expression “artificial intelligence” seems fitting for any entity that does not take responsibility for its words. ChatGPT and the like remind us that machines are not human beings and human beings are not machines. Machines do not approve and disapprove as human beings do. Machines do not have sentiments. They do not have a conscience. They do not have moral responsibility.​
Click to expand...

It's a politico-economic forum, so don't get instantly offended if you click on the link.

PS. While I think Klein is correct in general, the value judgements can be programmed but they're going to represent values of the programmer, not the machine.
 
AI can have my job - 25 spec feature scripts that never got made - 4 indy feature films that made all together about 8 bucks. Come and get it....
 
NorBro said:
To me, it works.

And I not only think that some people wouldn't even notice some of the AI-qualities about it, but that it actually has potential to be a viral video if that was a real business resulting in more exposure and money.
Click to expand...

And, using the NFL draft analogy, "we're three picks in". If one can make a 30 second commercial, one can make a 90 minute film because it's a commercial 180 times over.

Edit : this will/should result in a bunch of 'stock footage" clips too. You want a pizza ad, pick up half a dozen existing slices - get it, a pizza pun? - and then stitch it all together much like you might currently select background music for your GH-6 demo. And soon these preexisting clips would run no more than a few pennies per minute and add up to an unlimited selection of short videos and thus will be used over and over again. And no one would ever notice.
 
Last edited:
Def agree but that's already done now with normal stock footage. I've seen several mid-budget-ish commercials recycling non-exclusive stock footage (usually those advertising a product or service like with people's reactions or a random environment establishing shot that can serve as a blurry background for text, etc).

God, it will be so easy with AI once it looks a little more normal.

Just type in what you want.

Truly a dream come true for non-shooting content creators and a crushing nightmare for videographers.

Every generation seems pretty nostalgic for their younger years, but I am so grateful to grow up in the 90s/2000s; the absolute best time with old world and new world slowly converging as far as I'm concerned.
 
NorBro said:
Def agree but that's already done now with normal stock footage. I've seen several mid-budget-ish commercials recycling non-exclusive stock footage (usually those advertising a product or service like with people's reactions or a random environment establishing shot that can serve as a blurry background for text, etc).

God, it will be so easy with AI once it looks a little more normal.

Just type in what you want.
Click to expand...

A decade ago, when I was 10 years younger, I used to post on NoFilmSchool site. Once, they had an interview with a fairly prominent and well funded independent producer about the business of low/no budget films. And I think I commented that they should set up a green screen studio in an affordable locale (Vegas or somewhere in Arizona), fly the actors/directors in, shoot action and dialog quickly and then provide a reasonable quality background off a B-roll. At the time, daytime soaps were shooting over 100 pages per day with very little rehearsal time, so it would not have been impossible to shoot a film with live actors within the same time frame - a couple of days or fewer.

AI is making this concept even more possible. Bring in live actors, shoot in front of a green screen, create whatever background you need in AI and there's your film. And you don't even have to do a Mandalorian with gigantic LED's. Come to think of it, Mandalorian doesn't have to do a Mandalorian either. It's an AI world now.
 
No one would have entertained that then...even if doable it would have been so abnormal and not wanted, at all.

But this next batch of sapiens and beyond will mostly only know that way.

Everything that we did will feel like a chore and ass-backwards to new people (like the way we think about others doing many things 50, 100+ years ago).
 
I was sitting on my balcony and thinking of the recent (COVID era) online collaborations of prominent (and not so prominent) musicians for some famous tune covers. A few guys are covering Dio, a few more Deep Purple, a few more Pink Floyd (the Pink Floyd was not really a cover, it was Roger Waters himself being in one place and the supporting musicians in others). And my next thought was, "why even bring anyone in? One can remove the background on most new webcams. So, bring in your old acting group together - wherever they may be - make your buddy Jim look and/or sound like Hugh or Cary Grant, make Harry sound like Bill Holden or Humphrey Bogart, turn your female lead into a Grace Kelly/Kelly Rutherford clone, give them bodies from Baywatch, turn on a teleprompter. Have the AI handle all the post work - a tracking shot here, a high angle there And there's your film. It may not look like Freddie Young or Robert Surtees but it can be fixed in post. If you give post orders.
 
DLD said:
A decade ago, when I was 10 years younger, I used to post on NoFilmSchool site. Once, they had an interview with a fairly prominent and well funded independent producer about the business of low/no budget films. And I think I commented that they should set up a green screen studio in an affordable locale (Vegas or somewhere in Arizona), fly the actors/directors in, shoot action and dialog quickly and then provide a reasonable quality background off a B-roll. At the time, daytime soaps were shooting over 100 pages per day with very little rehearsal time, so it would not have been impossible to shoot a film with live actors within the same time frame - a couple of days or fewer.

AI is making this concept even more possible. Bring in live actors, shoot in front of a green screen, create whatever background you need in AI and there's your film. And you don't even have to do a Mandalorian with gigantic LED's. Come to think of it, Mandalorian doesn't have to do a Mandalorian either. It's an AI world now.
Click to expand...

by that logic, they don't need to use video walls now. and they could do it all on green screen. there's a reason they use video walls. there are always numerous intricacies in every line of work that are known only to the people actually doing it, not casual kibbitzers. AI might end up doing what you're saying but not for the reasons you're saying. let's not get sloppy in our analysis.

and generally speaking, it seems likely that the creative minds behind the production will continue in their current roles. it's likely to be the support crew that is most impacted.
 
They have reasons to do it because they're so well funded. And they want to keep their $15M per episode budgets intact. It's their choice but it's not a low/no budget production. There'll always be tradeoffs but, as a marquee show, the Mandalorian wants to deliver the state-of-the-art visuals to its fans.

And I would speculate that most of them don't care much like they don't care about 8K, HDR and high frame rate sequences. But it is what it is.

PS. When Shane Hurlbut lensed Mr. 3000, he used a high frame rate film camera to show a traveling baseball and then showcased it as an example of his cinematographic skills. The problem with it was that the character of Mr. 3000 was a retired player, just returning to the game to claim his 300th hit and, instead of looking at a fastball in slow motion, a typical reaction would have been to see any action as being far too quick. So, it was a cute shot but completely wrong from the sporting point of view. Nonetheless, they spent plenty of time filming it. C'est la vie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top