How long until we see blockbuster movies produced by a guy in his basement for <$1000?
replies(17):
Three years ago we had a live streaming autogen-seinfeld twitch stream; some kind of coherent story telling via AI doesn't seem beyond reach today, the tools just haven't fully matured yet.
Younger generation who grow up with AI will just think it’s normal, like we think being connected to the internet via a rectangle you keep in your pocket is normal.
I think we'll see AGI first.
If you're talking about people firing up the ol' 5090 to make a "movie" about their favorite streamer falling madly in love with them for, ahem, personal use, I have no doubt that people will do that. And I will do everything in my power to avoid associating with such brain-rotted cretins.
AI is but a tool; if there is an artist using them, real art can be created, as with any other tool.
My point is that you and I will probably never accept it - but our kids will never even think it’s weird in the first place.
Probably never. If AI is good enough to cover all the skills needed to do what would currently make a blockbuster movie for less than $1000, the demand for movies will be small enough relative to supply that there will be no such thing as a “blockbuster movie”
Before we see this and higher level of quality accessible to enthusiasts, we'll see these tools adopted by mainstream studios first, which is starting to happen.
I'm a firm "AI" skeptic, but if this technology has revolutionized anything, it has been image generation. A few years ago it was science fiction to have the quality of upscaling we take for granted today. I reckon the same will happen with video generation as well a few years from now. Unlike "ASI" and "AGI", these improvements are achievable with better engineering, and don't necessarily require a breakthrough.
On the other hand, I think the quality of movies and expectations will be a lot higher.
So far not one commenter in this thread has articulated why AI movies are inevitable.
Most people would use these tools for personal use, if nothing else. Seeing a celebrity, themselves, their friends, etc., act out any scenario they can think of is quite an appealing proposition. And porn, of course, for better or worse.
In the long-term, this has the potential to significantly change how media is created and consumed. Feature films produced by large studios will undoubtedly continue to exist, and they will also leverage the technology, but it's not difficult to imagine a new branch of personalized media becoming popular. The tools are practically already there; they just need to become more accessible, and slightly better.
This is obviously true, but I don't see how it relates to the question being discussed. "Short videos" and "blockbuster movies" are clearly widely separated categories, despite both being audiovisual content of some kind.
> Most people would use these tools for personal use
Not what we're talking about. Not "personalized media", not large studios "leveraging the technology", not "visual effects".
See: "blockbuster movies produced by a guy in his basement for <$1000".
So far, Ai generated videos, and arguably photos seem to only please wishful thinkers, or untalented artists dreaming to make it.
I don't imply the tech will never get to the tipping point, but it so far provides so little value we are either many years to go, or it just won't happen.
Let's be an optimist. It will eventually get there. I doubt for any of parallels you made billions of people hammered daily by overblown posts about the upcoming revolution.
The reasons for critiques have a lot to do with promotion fatigue. Hyperboles eventually exhaust their impact.
https://reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1lq299r/postscarci...
https://reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/1o6ickx/dreaming_on...
https://reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/1n6mzig/how_to_buil...
https://reddit.com/r/aivideo/comments/1nwdjdn/the_perfect_bo...
https://reddit.com/r/aivideo/comments/1m8a9wz/pinkington_rop...
https://reddit.com/r/aivideo/comments/1n52kut/derek_the_agin...
https://reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/1muwyah/still_here_...
https://reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/comments/1mttoi4/my_not_...
I recall eerily similar things said about Google Glass..
Maybe AI generation will be used in popular media more often, but purely AI generated content or AI brain rot seems to only appeal to a small crowd of people right now, and I don't see that crowd growing significantly.
Maybe it's a technology problem, as Google Glass was, but I think that's inseparable from the content it actually generates at this non-AGI stage.
Regardless, it sounds very uncertain and perhaps even unlikely that what we see being created now is the future.
No, that would require a radically different argument, in pretty much every way.
> if everyone can upload videos that anyone can watch, nobody will really be famous because fame will become very evenly distributed, right?
No, Youtube makes distribution cheap, but it doesn't substitute for most of the other things that differentiate between videos; most of the skills that provide variation between videos are still there, and not cheaply substituted via YouTube.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bS5P_LAqiVg
Im sure more wil follow.
Edit: perhaps 12 angry men was good enough at the time.
(loud music warning)
It's inevitable because you won't be able to tell the difference.
they're not doing enough to optimize AI data generators for dopamine release with animalistic obsession. Instead they focus on scientific indistinguishablilitiness, and people aren't liking that. IMO that's has been an ongoing and growing costly mistake.
There is no line, and you never claimed there was in your original comment, so stop moving the goalposts. Vague language like "personalized media becoming popular" is not the same thing as "blockbuster movies".
Calling my answer "short-sighted" when you couldn't be bothered to read the thread or apparently even the thing I was replying to is, in fact, on you.
I see you responded to this point elsewhere in this thread, but frankly your reply is a non-sequitur. I'm not sure what you mean by it.
And yes, I'm well aware of the allegory of the cave. So is everyone. What I don't understand is why it's such a popular rhetorical device with people who have no discernible point but want to sound as if they do. It's actually quite ironic.
As a matter of fact, all the actually normal people I talk to about AI in person also find it offputting.
also, case in point, normal people don't dig through a random stranger's post history to look for an ad hominem opportunity, and instead evaluate individual posts by their contents. lol.
When AI slop figures out that formula, we are truly cooked
Porn is still taboo. It's understood that most people use it, but it's not exactly something you bring up in polite company.
Where on earth do you live that prostitution is "widely accepted by polite society"? You can go to jail for it where I am.
And I did address the rest of your comment. As I said, in my experience "normal" people do object to AI content. I don't know where you got the bit about "background checks" and being "allowed" to like stuff. Nobody I know had to be told to have an aversion to AI "art", it's a natural reaction.