is AI gonna take our jobs?

NorBro said:
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
Click to expand...

God grant me the patience to rebut this...

When my wife and I look for movies to watch, one of the first (or only) things we look at is the actors. Both because they're the most outward-facing aspect and because their involvement says something about the budget of the piece and their stamp of approval. (Some actors are very good at picking projects.)

Look on YouTube- what are influencers? Talking heads. Face in a phone.

If the characters/actors in movies are completely
fabricated, it won't be that different than books or comic books. What do we care about there? The author and/or illustrator.

If movies become photorealistic animations with CGI voices, then that's what i would expect -- that the director has supreme importance. There's no way that great movies are just going to make themselves, no matter how badly some people want that to be true. And even if they could, people don't have time to watch all the movies in the world. They're still only going to want to watch the best of what's available and they will want some indicator of quality. Maybe that's just Netflix's Top 10 recommended AI flicks. But more likely I think it's, "Hey, wanna watch the new Taylor Sheridan movie?" Even if he just curated and directed the AI's output. You still need Sheridan because most people couldn't tell good from bad to save their life.

I think that's all very unlikely because I see no indication that AI actually can write original material. Many movies are formulaic and maybe it could handle those.

Is celebrity in general dying? I see no indication of that. Just the opposite-- it's the only reliable marketing scheme these days. Kylie Jenner's customer base in gen z and they made her a billionaire.
 
Oh, interesting - which talent was the driving force in Leave the World Behind?

___

Sometimes people have trouble seeing into the future, especially if they are drawing conclusions for how life is in its current state, and how they may specifically do things in their own lives.

I roll with the punches and adapt accordingly, it's all good with me and whatever happens happens.

But I don't think you (you) should confuse film celebrity status with influencer status.

If it's unclear, I was directly speaking about movie stars and not what people are doing online, which if anyone knows me by now knows I think these people have the most power with everything.

Now critically-thinking about it, if you asked me if I think AI would also replace influencers...oohh, that's a tough one. I don't think so, not yet.

And specifically because of the human connection (ironically) that still exists with the smaller, more personal online content vs. bigger movies in studios, many of which have large parts created by software.
 
NorBro said:
Oh, interesting - which talent was the driving force in Leave the World Behind?
Click to expand...

I loved Leave the World Behind. It was based on an acclaimed novel, had a famous director, and a bunch of (aging) stars... It's funny, because when my wife and I were watching it we said to each other, "I really don't think white guys are going to like this movie based on the way that the white guys in it are depicted and also how America is brought to its knees by a foreign power." So it wasn't a surprise to me that there was a negative reaction to it here although I didn't want to say it.

Sometimes people have trouble seeing into the future, especially if they are drawing conclusions for how life is in its current state, and how they may specifically do things in their own lives.
Click to expand...

In this case, I think it's useful to look at what AI has done to photography since it's basically the same but a year or so ahead. So far, it's been impactful but not as fast and as hard as some predicted. Things could still change.

I also think about how people predicted self-driving cars would take over by 4 years ago.

I also look at things like Zuckerberg's Metaverse. That sort of seems like a product that nobody really wants, at least not until it gets so good that you can feel and smell and taste things in it and you don't have to wear a stupid helmet. I don't know if that will ever happen. But just because new technology is available doesn't mean that it fulfills a consumer desire.

But I don't think you (you) should confuse film celebrity status with influencer status.
Click to expand...

I think you made a general statement about celebrity, so I was responding generally.

If it's unclear, I was directly speaking about movie stars and not what people are doing online, which if anyone knows me by now knows I think these people have the most power with everything.

Now critically-thinking about it, if you asked me if I think AI would also replace influencers...oohh, that's a tough one. I don't think so, not yet.

And specifically because of the human connection (ironically) that still exists with the smaller, more personal online content vs. bigger movies in studios, many of which have large parts created by software.
Click to expand...

Even on the biggest epic movies, the personal story at the core is what resonates. And people still fantasize about being the character or having a relationship with them.

One other thing -- it doesn't cost THAT much just to hire the actors. It's a lot, but if there is any money still to be made by making movies and if having recognizable celebrities gives you an edge, it may be worth the cost to include them.

But I'm really just speaking hypothetically. I don't expect things to take this course. What I expect is that special effects and backgrounds/background elements/background actors get replaced by digital effects, at least on many movies. More of the principal photography is done that way than it currently is, and there's more use of face-tracking performances onto digital actors. But I fully expect that most of the main elements of principal photography will continue to be actually filmed in order to maximize quality. But it's sort of academic to me because I don't work in that part of the industry.

And while this is a different use case that has different needs -- I remember people saying that chatGPT would take everything over. I used it to brainstorm on a few projects and then just stopped because it didn't do that much for me. I go back to it on occasion for various needs. Probably twice a month.

People said that Google was toast because Bing released AI search first. Today, Bing has 3.43% market share. 6 years ago, it had 3.25%.
 
I think the future is very much going to depend on how good they get everything to look.

If they can do everything (camera, lighting, movements, etc) in post like Sora but even so much better and save money on complex, expensive, tedious real life productions then it has to be considered.

There are hundreds of details to take care of way before the cameras start rolling and if this can now be done in a computer who's not going to do it?

IDK...

But I also think human talent will push back on this; at least until enough time passes where the majority of the talent that exists in the world was born into it.
 
NorBro said:
I think the future is very much going to depend on how good they get everything to look.

If they can do everything (camera, lighting, movements, etc) in post like Sora but even so much better and save money on complex, expensive, tedious real life productions then it has to be considered.

There are hundreds of details to take care of way before the cameras start rolling and if this can now be done in a computer who's not going to do it?

IDK...

But I also think human talent will push back on this; at least until enough time passes where the majority of the talent that exists in the world was born into it.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's all about quality (and, separately, legality). That's why I think actors will stay in the mix. Nobody is better at reading human emotions than humans. Even if the machine can fake something, a good actor could probably do a better and more interesting job. One of thr Sora hype videos they released is supposed to be a movie trailer about astronauts. It looks nice, more or less. But the humans just look dead in the eyes. Strangely bad. And I look at traditional CGI. For all their advances and everhthong they can do, they still face track humans (and body track them too, for that matter).

But yeah, if the quality is there then I could see it happening.

One of the reasons i think most other aspects of filmmaking are ripe targets for AI is because they're already simulacra and approximations. If the lighting is a bit off, nobody will notice. The effects are already fake.

I haven't seen evidence yet that AI can produce good creative writing. It gets to the biggest weakness of the tool, which is handling novelty. Like i was watching Hell or High Water recently, written by Taylor Sheridan. What makes it interesting is that it combines themes of romance for independence/wilderness and a nostalgia for a bygone era with modern politics and sensibilities. It would be hard for an AI to do something like that. Of course, Sheridan is a gifted writer. But how many movies do I need to watch? I haven't even been able to finish that one. So I don't need writers who are less capable than that.
 
But do you think writing really matters anymore?

Meaning...okay, when it's really good, it's really good, and the general consensus reflects the appreciation.

But then you have something like LTWB in which you presumably liked the writing or some of it (I didn't follow the other thread), and so many people, it looks like, didn't.

So if that's true and you think the writing is good and others think it's not good, why wouldn't AI - who can write hundreds (thousands?) of scripts in seconds - have just as much of a chance of succeeding like human writers?

The heavy criticism will continue to exist...but it has to strike gold with something here and there, just like humans? (B/c it's not like people are writing amazing things consistently.)
 
NorBro said:
But do you think writing really matters anymore?

Meaning...okay, when it's really good, it's really good, and the general consensus reflects the appreciation.

But then you have something like LTWB in which you presumably liked the writing or some of it (I didn't follow the other thread), and so many people, it looks like, didn't.

So if that's true and you think the writing is good and others think it's not good, why wouldn't AI - who can write hundreds (thousands?) of scripts in seconds - have just as much of a chance of succeeding like human writers?

The heavy criticism will continue to exist...but it has to strike gold with something here and there, just like humans? (B/c it's not like people are writing amazing things consistently.)
Click to expand...

A few different questions here. Does writing still matter? Yes. Absolutely. Always. I don't think superhero movies would have flopped so hard in the last 2 years if they had better writing. And over the last decade, I think their success individually strongly correlates with writing quality. Same thing on YouTube-- Mr beast had good writing. Even if it's improv'd. And the writing isn't just what he says -- it's the idea to look at yachts of different value, starting with a $1 yacht.

LTWB had good writing. This was the wrong audience both demographically and in terms of how they view media. LTWB probably has a niche audience.

I'm not sure any of the AI scripts will be gems. But let's say a few are. Are you going to want to watch a hundred in the hopes you see a couple good ones? Maybe if you have limitless time... but it makes more sense for Taylor Sheridan to watch a hundred and pick a couple out (and tweak them) and then you just watch the couple he (or Quentin Tarantino or whoever) has picked out. No?
 
It goes both ways like with the Mr. Beasts and what not (obviously he's on a level by himself). Depending on what you do, you don't always need great writing, and he had a pretty massive following before any money was being put back into the writing, his teams, etc. later in the career (naturally).

But, for AI, I figured someone would still have to green-light the stuff and they would collectively evaluate, maybe consider what's going on in the world, and pick a few (and even tweak a little). I guess famous directors and writers could do it but maybe not all would want to.

Fr though I almost never ever watch new movies or new TV shows so my perspective is compromised. I know much more about the video game industry, music, social media and random stuff like that - but barely anything about new movies or shows.
 
There will be cream and it will rise to the top. If corporate America gets drunk on AI and it flops for certain things they will make changes and bring humans back in. It is what they do and they really have no shame. AI being present does not prohibit normal behavior so there will be competition at some level. For what "most people" occupy their time with, Kardashians, Real AI Housewives etc... it might be more than good enough. For true art the humans will probably always be around. Tragic? Not to me.
 
NorBro said:
It goes both ways like with the Mr. Beasts and what not (obviously he's on a level by himself). Depending on what you do, you don't always need great writing, and he had a pretty massive following before any money was being put back into the writing, his teams, etc. later in the career (naturally).
Click to expand...

Before he paid anyone to write/create for him, he did it all himself. Probably still does a lot of it himself. Probably came up with his name. Came up with the ideas for giveaway episodes, wealth comparison episodes, etc. All of that is writing. Everything is writing.

One more point about copyright -- usually in a copyright lawsuit, the defendants try to prove that they had no knowledge of the work they are accused of copying, and that any similarities are coincidental. That's going to be a difficult or impossible case to make when the source material is part of the massive database they work from.

There have been numerous high-profile music copyright lawsuits recently, such as the judgement against Blurred Lines for copying Marvin Gaye's Got to Give It Up. $5M penalty + 50% of royalty revenue going to Gaye's heirs. Compare the songs for yourself to see how similar or not they are. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/m...dgment-768508/

It won't be a matter of every little copyright holder needing to sue OpenAI to protect their copyright. A couple big plaintiffs could take them down or force them to pay licensing fees to everyone.

With Napster and music sharing, there was no big corporation profiting off the piracy. They would have been destroyed. There was just a mass of consumers ripping off creators. Of course, there could be an open source AI available for people to run on their home computers and you could end up with a similar model. But if you want to have a massive corporation profiting from this stuff, it's going to need court approval. The litigation is pending so we'll see what they say. Maybe they'll wave it through.

One last point -- people accuse artists of motivated reasoning when they argue against AI. But the people on the opposite side predicting the mass disruption of entire industries are just as biased. (As Cory Doctorow writes, "Mister Market is insatiably horny for firing human beings and replacing them with robots.")

I think AI is impactful but I'll judge it by what it can currently or imminently do rather than their far-flung predictions. Already, people like Altman are walking back their predictions for the timeline and capabilities of things like AGI: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnb...-we-think.html
 
Last edited:
eh, really depends on what with the writing; I don't think it's as important as it once was.
 
I was actually thinking about this the other day and what it's all come to. I saw this guy's reaction videos and noticed he was gaining massive subs over the months (I think about 900K in under a year after he changed up his content, IIRC).

You can watch any and you'll get the idea of what all of them are like. He picks something random or something that's trending on (usually) TikTok and has a reaction to it. Most of the videos are about 6-7 seconds long.


 
and don't put your typical weird spin on things and say this is writing, lol

if you want to do that, okay, it's writing
 
NorBro said:
and don't put your typical weird spin on things and say this is writing, lol

if you want to do that, okay, it's writing
Click to expand...

Yes, this is definitely writing. Writing basically encompasses everything besides performance. It's not Shakespeare or poetry. But it is a novel experiment with form (unless somebody did this already). One of the interesting challenges in making videos that are so short is how to communicate the idea and the joke with just a few words and images, which he has mastered.

If you want to say "it's not writing" then what you really mean is that it's not good writing or not what you traditionally think of as writing. But you'd be wrong in either case.
 
were you home schooled by any chance?

really none of my business but just wondering if you care to answer
 
I think the problem here is that you never tried to write anything so you don't get what it is

Obviously, that guy's content is very immature. But that doesn't mean that it's poorly written or easy to write. Many people try for the same goal but with worse results
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top