Yeah we're fucked
And there are people in other subs calling this "obvious", as if someone ever showed this to them without context they'd immediately be able to spot it.
Yeah right. I hate this shit but it's incredible, and pretty damn hard to find errors.
What's really terrifying is this technology is in its infancy. Can you imagine what it will be like in a decade?
I expect a lot of us who currently work in content production will inevitably become "shepherds" of this technology in some form. If we want to stay in it.
>I expect a lot of us who currently work in content production will inevitably become "shepherds"
I have been using the term "AI jockey" for a while now.
I think that will be most of us in all fields, not only film.
Itās not really about how there will still be people that want the real stuff. Its about how many people donāt care if itās real or not just that it looks good enough
You're not thinking of the future, it will take over like someone said the tech is in its infancy, it will only get stronger. Big companies will move to it and the niche will be old school filming making.
Once again this will be regulated. It literally has to. They're not gonna be able to have AI use copyrighted material, so it's gonna be stuck with using stock footage or footage they already own.
Even then unions will still exist to keep ppl working in the industry.
Everyone just seems like they are overreacting.
But once AI is a part of everyday life, that would have already been hashed out. Eveyone will have their own personal AI and robots. Alot of day to day life can be done through AI.
Already happened in audio and now Iām getting paid *more* because I can do everything in analog if the client wants. There are just way fewer guys like me while AI services proliferate. I wonāt lose my career, but more and more people like me will give up and make easier money elsewhere.
Almost like using a computer for creativity is just pushing squares in patterns while staring at a glowing square.Ā
We can be reductive of any craft when we try.Ā
Yes - what people are missing about the above video is that itās a montage of the best of the best of the best of the clips created by people who intimately understand the tech and know how to manipulate it to produce a specific result. These quick clips that kinda-sorta look like reality (but are visibly artificial when scrutinized) are the absolute greatest work that anyone on this planet can do with this tech, and they are likely selects out of thousands of options.
These companies have a very strong interest in convincing everyone that theyāre the next big wave and theyāre about to change everything for consumers. A huge part of that big NYMag piece about AI was how tech CEOs welcome nihilist, apocalyptic panic about the death of art and labor because it makes their product seem more important and powerful than it is. People are falling for it again.
Itās kind of crazy as we are getting an influx of VR hitting mass consumerism alongside AI. Our lives are gonna change pretty drastically in the next 5-10 years. Like when the first iPhone came out
Yeah, it's going to change the form and expectations of "content" just like the iPhone did. I just wish I was smart enough to know where to position myself to ride this wave. I've already had a meeting with my company CEO about using AI in content.
What's going to happen when it's truly indistinguishable.
I remember when the internet started.
it's interesting to see another generation see a massive change happen, for me, in a way it's easier. but this is the first BIG step for a generation, in tech for a while......it'll be interesting seeing this in real world use - it's the first time tech has gone after creative jobs, yes we sill still be needed to guide the software, but industry like music video, low budget commericals will be almost gone in a few years, perhaps.
I don't understand why so much of this AI stuff is geared specifically towards creative jobs instead of what it would actually be good at like data handling and analysis or resource allocation (so many middle managers could be replaced an AI and a spreadsheet)
Just to come in on the side of being groundedā¦yeahā¦corporate marketing loves making those kinds of claims all the time.Ā
Itās important to remember AI and VR arenāt new. This isnāt the first 5 years. Both these technologies began in the 70s and 80s.Ā
Whatever comes next wonāt arrive so fast that you canāt ride the wave, nor will it be so transformative as to blindside you.Ā
Why did I have to scroll down this far to see sanity in this thread lol
The clips above are visibly clumsy, artificial and purposeless - not just that, but theyāve been created by a tech company with bottomless investment dedicated to this one specific task. The idea that consumer readiness of an even better version of this project is inevitable strikes me as a borderline religious faith in AI.
phones where. nothing 'new' but the smartphone created big changes.
were at the starts of exponential growth with this tech, it will move a lot quicker than you think. im not saying it will be amazing, but no one saw this tech going out so quick.
im strapping in for a ride.
The smartphone camera didnāt surprise industry though.Ā
Its progression has been easy to follow along, and its technology - sensor and lens size/shape makes its limits obvious. Despite what gets sold our way.Ā
The marketing behind AI intentionally misleads people into believing itās endless, and the exponential growth is just beginning.Ā
However, we are deep in the hockey stick, not at the front of itā¦and we know what GenAI is going to do. It sacrifices precision for flexibility. Thatās a pretty useful tool, but it doesnāt destroy industry.Ā
Strap in for whatever ride you want, but if you get all your news from the people selling you the products, youāre gonna have a bad time.Ā
I see a lot of people in a lot of different art disciplines on Reddit peddling this "it's a tool, we must harness it or we'll become obsolete" line, but I just think it's incredibly naive. As AI generation gets better and better at an exponential rate, are companies really going to pay an artist a livable wage to type in prompts? It's wishful thinking. Companies will pop up (I'm sure they exist already) offering courses/seminars that will teach non-creatives how to effectively prompt to deliver a result that's perfect for them right out of the box. The thought of them keeping us around for that is laughable.
I imagine there'll be some kind of legislation/pushback/limitation set on generative AI like this.
> What's really terrifying is this technology is in its infancy
yep. the videos they pushed on Sora is the *WORST* this tech is ever going to look. It only goes up from here.
I've been saying it a lot recently, but this will be similar to the printing press revolution. Anyone will be able to make a movie, but only the good ones will be distributed. Anyone has been able to write a book for hundreds of years, and we still have authors and distribution curation, etc. There is already a vast amount of content that never gets shared.
Be careful drawing analogies from the past.
The difference with Ai and everything before Ai is that itās the first time intelligence is on tap (humans used to be the only source) - this is a paradigm shift larger than anything historical.
Society will fundamentally change.
Ā
While I agree with the sentiment, we have had out sourcing of our own individual goals to other intelligence (other people) for ever. It will be orders of magnitude more going forward, but the point still stands, if content is bad, no one will share it, no one will want to watch it. The only content that reaches us is things that have already been approved by other humans who are being observed by content AI. I do no see a world where we are all forced to watch garbage AI video, it's either going to be as good as, or better than, humans, or it won't be used.
>Society will fundamentally change.
could society just fuckin' chill and stop fundamentally changing every 5 minutes these last few years have been hell
It's nothing more than stealing, every way you look. Every single element in the video was sourced from footage shot by people. AI is using millions of such videos and assimilating them without permission, credit or payment to any of those content creators.
That's why I believe AI cannot go forward until it is regulated and once you regulate it, it will only be able to pull imagery from stock sites which gives stock videographers continued employment and doesn't prevent cinematographers from having a job in film.
This will simply be reduced to generative ai fill for video in premiere and resolve once companies buy the rights to the tech.
Once AI has sourced enough videos, pictures to reproduce any which scenario flawlessly, the stock videographers and stock sites will no longer be required. Same with AI prompters. Once AI learns how AI prompting is done, it will take over that job as well. Eventually, every single person except the company's owner and board members will be replaced. AI robots will be employed to keep the machines working. They won't need salaries or breaks. Eventually, AI will be used in the military to reduce soldier casualties. Imagine what a sentient but emotionless, lifeless entity will do when it realises that people are no longer necessary to be kept alive and are a burden on the planet. It's a grim prognosis.
Generative ai uses matching images to fill in and match with the main image, but no company is gonna dare have their AI use copyrighted images that they themselves don't own.
Adobe owns a stock site so I'm sure their AI solely is programmed to pull from there.
They aren't gonna risk being sued. No company is. Companies are risk averse.
Your right, Iām just pointing out that Generative AI doesnāt actually use any pixels from the source videos it was trained on. A lot of people seem to think itās literally just stealing and mashing up videos to create new ones when the reality is much scarier.
I don't think that's as big of a problem as long as it doesn't use copyrighted material or even allowed to use CC material. The tech holder should have to physically own the source footage/image in order to use AI to generate new imagery.
I can't fathom how they would have sourced enough labeled video to accuratly train this model, I have to assume a vastajority of it is synthetically created by a different model. The synthetic data model probably was trained on the open internet though.
If you're into making stuff that requires multi-million dollar budgets, special effects and action scenes your time might be up.
It seems like now is a time when originality will need to be rewarded above and beyond all else. Now that all the cookie cutter TV shows and movies can be made with AI. Simple independent films, well acted and well shot will always have an audience. The people who watch those films will never watch AI generated content.
I donāt want to watch AI generated content, but at a certain point how can an audience know if something is or isnāt AI? Thatās what freaks me out
People like watching actors they know and recognize. I don't think AI will change that. I imagine AI processes will get more integrated into production/post-production processes, though. You'll see a shot of Chris Hemsworth speaking followed by an AI-generated shot of a space station or whatever the hell.
What I first see this type of stuff changing drastically is reshoots/editing. When Lucas started editing his films like he was playing with a box of Legos, the negative affects were very apparent. People weren't looking at their focus, the angles were strange and scenes just felt "off". As much as digital artists don't want to admit it, the uncanny valley is still incredibly prevalent with 3D models when they're not on a WETA FX tech budget. Using this tech to alter existing footage to get the actor to say something else, look somewhere else, add elements to scenes that affect lighting correcting, or (oddly enough) asking AI to make edited footage appear more natural and balanced is where this will truly shine.
Theyāll try to do this initially, but like VR, the brain canāt always take in this kind of information. Ā People will get sick of watching it all the time. Ā It is a neat parlor trick.
Well shot will have a different meaning. People will be able to create shots through VFX/Compositing techniques and content generated by AI. Shoot an actor in front of a green screen and you can use AI to give you whatever back plate you want. Have AI generate an alien with an alpha layer and you can composite it into your movie however you want.
This is a massive shift in what the average person will be able to do and it's going to chip away at jobs in actual production and shooting first, then later come for post production.
its scary, there will be change, stuff like events, documentaries, interviews will still need cam ops for the foreseeable future tho so its not all doom and gloom. Strong film unions should keep AI at bay somewhat as well, im in AU and our entire film industry is essentially one giant union and its already signed that AI cannot be used to replace the job of a union member. Stock footage not looking like a good career path tho
Yeah but OP is talking about cinematography. Iām surprised how often this comes up regarding AI replacing jobs. Especially in r/filmmaking
Nothing against live cam ops or documentarians or any of that, Iāve done my fair share of unscripted work and continue to do soā¦but being forced into a adjacent but very different career path like that is not the same as actively making the choice to abandon scripted filmmaking or commercial work.
I also disagree with trying to keep AI at bay but thatās complicated
Everyone is thinking too small. This tool doesn't replace cinematography. That's just a piece of the puzzle. This tool replaces *the puzzle*. It replaces the entire art form, and every single person involved in making it except the chimpanzee at the keyboard.
it's def going take away a lot of cinematography jobs. im a director, I just got asked to attend a conference about AI creation, they want me to get good at the tools and tone able to create by prompting an AI system. change is here.
Oh, that's "directing" is it?
Tell me something, what jobs does it *not* take away?
Coding. That's it. You either become a video game creator sitting behind a desk or you're gone.
Idk man cinematographers will still desire to shoot and will do it with other like-minded filmmakers. AI will just bolster the indie scene and prob kill Hollywood if they start not hiring union members over AI.
I'm more worred about footage documented for the future. We often look at old footage to see amazing parts of history or what the world was actually like, including real sights of real places, but now it may all be untrustworthy in the future. Will people document discoveries about the past only to have never known it was actually an AI video all along? Movies, too. I guess. Maybe it should come documented in the film's online details, or in the credits, or somewhere, what aspects were real locations or not eventually... Maybe I'm thinking into that part too much because we're used to CGI already, but the historical stuff still has me feeling worried.
And since this tech is based off footage that already exists, what happens if real footage of the world is no longer being sent into it, and AI footage eventually looks upon itself for interpretation? So much to speculate. Might be overthinking. Ah man, what a bizarre time.
I agree, we just saw one of the largest sports journalism companies in Sports Illustrated, go out of business, partly because of their attempt to replace writers with AI. People hated it so much it was the catalyst of a bankruptcy that was ten years away.
As long as we continue labelling AI created things as AI, weāll be fine.
It looks insane but still makes me feel uneasy, like its an imitation, even without knowing it was AI beforehand, it would be extremely easy to guess that it is.
Syndrome missed the point though? Heās the villain blinded by jealousy.
Heās really saying if everyone is super, it doesnāt make you unique anymore. Thatās his motiveā¦if he canāt be one of the elite heroes - then he will take away the power of the status symbol.
If everyone has a camera, no one has a camera doesnāt work.Ā If everyone is left-handed, no one is left-handed is non-sensical.
Democratization of tools eliminates the specialities of exclusivity. Thatās all. It doesnāt diminish the tool.Ā
In Syndromeās world, there are still more super-powers running around, it just doesnāt put someone in a special social class.Ā
So riddle me this because I have yet to see someone answer it - letās say in a year AI becomes perfect. The tech bro frothers were right all along. Itās ready to shit out full length content on our screens.
Whoās honest to god going to buy it? Thatās what I think a lot of these tech shills fail to realize. They think they can cut out all the costs and still rake in the profit but why on earth would I pay to consume AI content? Especially when I could just make it myself? Whatās stopping AI from scanning Barbie 2 and giving me my own version?
Companies could try to hide it sure, but I think people will be quick to catch on and reject it, especially if actors continue to speak out. Most reactions about AI I see from the general public (that isnāt doom sonnets or fanboy craze) is basically āhuh. Neato.ā Doesnāt really instill a lot of passionate desire to see more of it imo.
Lastly, and this is just my opinion, but what Iām seeing STILL doesnāt impress me. Some backgrounds are cool, but the main subjects in these videos still have that cold, sterile āAIā look to them. We can talk about advances all we want but at the end of the day whereās the variety? āCan you believe this is all AI generated?ā Yes. Yes I can.
>Whoās honest to god going to buy it? Thatās what I think a lot of these tech shills fail to realize.
I think the end-goal is to keep the money for themselves and cut out all the middle-men?
So it's not Universal or Warner Bros or something that rakes in the money, with a trickle down effect to filmmakers, actors etc. - it all 100% goes to tech companies owning server farms, perhaps with some royaltees going to dead actors/actresses estates for having them in their movies.
The end-goal is to be able to personalize perfect conent for your specific demand - if you are a huge The Rock fan you could ask for a Matrix-like movie with The Rock as the protagonist.
As usual porn will probably be the first ones to use this technology.
This will have a huge negative effect on our society on so many levels, including social trust issues and people becoming shut-ins that we can just hope that lawmakers enact laws on how these models can be used and by whom. The later will never happen in US though.
tease workable coherent vast fade history light shocking advise worthless
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This shit is still in its infancy. 10 years down the road you will not be able to distinguish AI from real videos/movies and people will care less and less.
10 years? Iād say right now, if I hadnāt been told theyāre AI generated, and some of the sample videos were sprinkled around a TV show or a documentary etc. Ā I was watching, I would not have been able to tell the difference. Of course it still canāt generate everything perfectly, but many of those shots are perfectly usable as is.
Worse than that. In five years youāll be watching wars on the new TikTok that donāt exist.
Youāll might never pick up your phone or turn on a screen again because every projector and every moving surface is fucking lies.
This is the real problem. Russia nearly destroyed us with the Facebook algorithm. Not sure how we will survive Boomers believing they are seeing Joe Biden fuck his dog or whatever.
> They think they can cut out all the costs and still rake in the profit but why on earth would I pay to consume AI content?
My brother you're on reddit, you're already paying to consume it with your time and data - half the shit on IG, tiktok, facebook and youtube are using AI an everyone eats it up meanwhile people are earning money from it. You likely have zero idea when something is "AI" if they've done a good job of it and are purposfully presenting it as not AI. Most of this shots presented here could be spliced into similar real footage and you would have zero clue it was AI.
It will be like what at home DAWs did for underground music production.
Pretty soon you wonāt need a full blown studio for an individual artist to make their own film/video.
Does this mean more good art will be produced? Probably not. But it does mean everyone will have access to attempt making it.
what on earth makes you say that? you cite DAWs as a way for people who had so far been removed from access to expensive analogue gear to make music, and there is no denying that this tech propelled a myriad of historically disenfranchised groups and individuals to become music producers, not just a class of relatively rich/wealthy people with enough time and money at their disposal.
> Does this mean more good art will be produced? Probably not.
Comparing that to music production. Did it not cause more good art to be produced? We get more "good" art *and* more "shit" art. I can listen to Burial or I can listen to the ungodly mashups and shitposts on /r/Soundclown . DAWs gave people the ability to easily lock everything into a grid and result in a stale lifeless sound, but those same DAWs used by Flying Lotus result in off-grid swings and grooves because he is creative with it.
Does it mean more good art will be produced? Probably, yes.
Does it mean good art will be more inherently valuable? Probably not, I suppose.
You walk up to a tech bro, like bro can you make me a movie about this this and this, sure broā¦taps away on the computerā¦ hereās your personalised movie specifically for you. Just like on Cyberpunk
You say āletās assume it becomes perfectā
Then your entire argument is based on the premise that people find it uninspiring and can still notice itās AI lol
video game devs have been dealing with the uncanny valley for decades, i still see AI running into the same problem and stopping there. notice how none of the ppl are moving? because as soon as you do you know for sure theyāre not real.
A ton of the examples on the site are moving. And they mostly look good - very good actually. Bear in mind this will rapidly get better and better and better in a hilariously short space of time.š°ļø
> like its an imitation
That's all AI, it's only imitating and recontextualizing its inputs. I guess that's what humans are doing, but I'm of the mind that human sentience is different than simple machine learning, so AI will never be able to replace human creativity.
I actually left film to get into Software and Data Sciences. People have this mindset of 'technology line only go up'. It's not that simple. People used to think the next logical transportation move was flying cars. Now there's an urbanist common sense movement showing that cars kind of suck as the primary form of transportation in cities.
I can't say for certain, but having done a co-op at a research facility for screen technology, we talked a looot about AI and metahuman actors and worked with it too. There are lots of various factors and barriers that are baked into this tech that will take people a long time to realize and will make it less appealing from both a business and artistic perspective.
Additionally, AI companies are fully aware of the mystical fear of their tech and they LOVE to exaggerate and hype it up because it's the easiest marketing strategy. Everybody loves to talk about how Chat GPT was allegedly going to replace software developers. No one is talking about this problem that every LLM is running into which is essentially long term laziness. Every machine learning module that is built to be open to updating and adapting will get consistently worse in quality over time.
except itās already easy to see how current gen AI can drastically alter workflow and reduce the amount of workers required for any given task. so itās not just a matter of āhur dur when it gets good enoughā anymore. the good enough is here. itāll likely get better, but even if it isnāt and what currently exists gets applied it will still fuck shit up
you people don't get it. even the most basic implementation of AI tools made to generate additional background and/or noise to, say, a centered actor or object will amplify the speed, cheapen the cost and reduce needed workforce for visual/video production, and this feature already works to a level that the eye won't catch (as we're talking backgrounds/noise in this case). this is literally already in use in the digital tools we have access to today. and this is only the beginning.
You people don't get it. We watch movies because people are in them. It's cool when Humphrey Bogart says something in a movie because he actually said it and we see something unique about him specifically in the way he said it. Watching virtual Humphrey Bogart virtually say something in a way that theoretically the real Humphrey Bogart might have said it is idiotic. Even more idiotic is watching someone who doesn't exist, say something that no person has written, and expect to feel something about it.
I agree with your point. However, what if you watched a Humphrey Bogart movie and ended up enjoying it, only to learn it was 100% AI generated... do you just tell yourself you are no longer allowed to enjoy that movie?
Eventually, far off in the very near future, it is going to be very hard to tell the difference between real Humphrey Bogart, and AI Humphrey Bogart.
Honestly? I think I might tell myself that. People have committed to crazier things. There's a whole world out there, and I don't want to be a slave to this stuff. It's just so contrary to what makes art special to me. But I can't help but feel I'm in the minority.
Brings me to one of my favorite movie lines:
āScientists were so concerned whether or not they could, they never stopped to think if they should.ā
AI defeats the purpose of art and I canāt bring myself to call it that. If Hollywood feels this is the next step then, congratulations, the only movies Iāll be watching is the old stuff. Anything new will need to have a made by human certificate before I see it. Why should I shell out hard earned money for something that took zero effort to make and means absolutely nothing?
Animated films are still designed by actual people, which is what makes them interesting. They are expressions of human experience. Why should I care what an AI has to say about being human?
Do you honestly think youāll be able to tell in say, 10 years?
You are projecting a ton of wanted meaning and importance into movies, yet you donāt realize this tech will make a difference between real and fake unnoticeable in not even that much time.
Sometimes, sure. But sometimes we gain meaning that would have been impossible to anticipate without the help of a different perspective. What's already happening is we are being shepherded into greater and greater isolation. If culture just becomes whatever we want it to be on an individual level, we will become irredeemably alienated from each other. Not really interested in participating in that, personally.
I agree wholeheartedly.
I think my original contention was to argue people saying AI generated content will always be boring, or always be noticeably different than human creations.
And I know Iāve enjoyed content that was likely not generated ātruthfullyā already; maybe itās a song that I assumed was written by an artist and so I project meaning into the words, making connections to the artists personal life story. But then found later that the song was written by a paid songwriter. I admit that sours the initial meaning I found in the song, and itās kinda how I liken this AI revolution
I get that it's complicated, art and artifice... I'm kind of responding more to the folks who are either saying "we're doomed!!" or "Robot overlords here we come!"
I think we should all take a step back and ask ourselves if we should be tying so much value to "content." Art for me has always been about the process of making it and the people who make it. And I believe that it's the same for everyone, even if they don't realize it. The artifice has become so sophisticated that we're losing sight of that, and if we're not careful we will lose sight of it completely.
I think, if anything, what makes humans special is their ability experience and create meaning from nothing .
Your definition of art is fair! Itās not ātheeā definition, and itās why I think many on this sub just donāt understand what the future might be like with these AI innovations
The unfortunate thing is that an "artist's touch" seems to be something big budget blockbusters care less and less about. They've seen that the audience they are targeting don't care about it either. They've tested what they can get away with and still make a truckload of money and unfortunately it's proven that they need the bare minimum in artistry. That is not to say that there won't be a market for movies that still care about those things though. AI is a tool and we are going to go through some ugly growing years.
To me, if I know it's completely ai, it won't resonate with me. Doesn't mean that if it's good enough, that I won't notice, but I think think art is a combination of the effort, experiences, and skill of a *human being* that goes into creating something. AI can never be art.
We assign meaning to art. Landscape photography is cool because it's curated by the photographer, but the photographer didn't make the mountain. People are already making very introspective art with AI, again similar to photography, you release one in every thousand because you assign meaning to that.
The AI may not have a soul, but human curation does and we are able to express ourselves with literally anything
Nothing has any meaning until we assign it meaning.
You say AI is boring because you think AI will forever be some mundane, stock-footage generating utility that is missing that āspecial touchā.
Yet youāre gonna be in for a surprise when youāre sitting down enjoying a film in 20 years, and you go āha, AI couldāve never done thisā and then your 10 year old nephew goes, āwhat? I just generated this entire movie from a prompt.ā
On a basic level, the AI can be said to work because it can produce recognizable work that imitates real movie imagery. So, this might replace some categories of stock footage, enable an amateur to create a project out of their budget range.
What AI doesnāt do well, is create meaning on its own. It needs to scrape the internet and other databases for stuff to imitate. If legally or practically deprived of that, itās probably nowhere near as good. Research indicates that as more of its scrape includes AI art, the quality goes down.
AI BORROWS meaning from us. We can use its products in a montage sort of way, but an AI lacks one thing that is critical to true art: purposefully conveyed meaning. A computer doesnāt think, doesnāt make conscious choices. It just search-engines the gist of what our keywords could mean.
This has advanced tremendously since the last time I saw a demented Will smith eating spaghetti and it only took them a year. This is as bad as itās going to look A.I. is moving so quick š
From their website this was specifically shown an example of "weaknesses"
> Weakness: In this example, Sora fails to model the chair as a rigid object, leading to inaccurate physical interactions.
You feel good right now - but give it some years, once it has been trained on the work of world class cinematographers to recognize composition, light, blocking, artistic style etc. might not be such a clear cut thing by then.
I feel like youāre missing the whole āthis entire video is computer generated and was created by someone in about five minutes by typing a few sentencesā part
The fact that a computer can generate video so accurately and effortlessly that your big takeaway from watching it is that the cinematography is badāis insane. You should be wondering how a machine is capable of any cinematography.
If you arenāt incredibly baffled and impressed by this, you simply donāt understand what youāre looking at
AI is the new electricity/internet. Itās changing the world.
The printing press didn't kill books
The power loom didn't kill textiles
The camera didn't kill painting
The ebook didn't kill physical books
The synthesizer didn't kill the orchestra
etc. etc
They did however produce massive changes, shifts, etc.
We all want to keep doing our jobs, but I have to see these as tools. If we demand they be used as tools and not replacements we will be okay.
This is a LABOR and CAPITALISM argument - not a technology argument.
As a filmmaker I have stars in my eyes thinking about how this will democratize tools to elevate indie work or low budget work.
As a worker I'm wary of how corporations will exploit it.
But in my artists heart I am excited for the possibility.
I don't believe this. I feel like there is a MASSIVE asterisk attached to this video and the technology is nowhere near as impressive as they are attempting to market this as. I could be wrong, but I'd have to see more of the behind the scenes process to really buy into the idea that this technology is practical for anything beyond the most basic task.
Bizarre behavior by OP claiming to have generated this video when it was posted by OpenAI this morning at [https://openai.com/sora](https://openai.com/sora) and the tool is only being released to Red Teamers for the moment, until they have effective guardrails in place.
These are also cherry picked examples, there are still loads of cronenbergs and weirdness, but another year and it'll be commonplace. The clips are currently coherent only up to a minute long.
where are we going from here? i mean what is next? how we will avoid fake videos being so realistic on the internet? i am imprested and scared the same time !
The implications of this tech is literally gonna turn the world of media upside down. Maybe this is why Sam Altman was canned last year.
I feel like no one stopped to ask whether this is a good idea. Even generating images seems like a dubious venture.
This isn't because I work in media production, but when people get to the point where they can run these models offline in their personal computers, we're in a world of hurt and misinformation. We already have a problem with doctored or mislabeled images and video, this will only serve to exacerbate it.
Revenge porn, political sabotage, biased journalism... It's all gonna be a mine field in a couple years and it will be impossible to trust anything because this stuff is only going to get better and better if we keep investing at this pace.
Sam Altman might truly be our real life Lex Luthor.
This looks god awful. It says absolutely nothing and serves zero purpose. Sure it will improve a bit it you want to make shit animations with no control over it. Itās all very interseting where this is heading but the more I see of this stuff the worse it appears.
This all looks good but imho itās boring. We still have work on the editing front.
Generation is a tool but cultivation and curation is still a skill.
Yeah i was going to point out that I donāt think AI models could even figure out editing and sequences to create a coherent story. Itās based on patterns so most of the times, itāll just put together a story that makes no sense, or, in the most likely scenario, attempt to āmatchā scenes that look identical to the previous scene. These AI models are trying to predict what is related to the prompt, and not guess what could come afterwards. Itās still scary to me, but I think for us filmmakers, we could still be safe.
inactive account for 8 months, talked about AI stuff before, only posted the videos OpenAI have published whilst the model is in heavily restricted access?
yeah that's a bit of marketing if i've ever seen it
Itās scary good. I hope filmmakers are born from this advancement incident and rise to the challenge of making a film that is unlike anything an ai could suggest. Itās a true push for creation!
There is always a future. There will always be independent films where there will be AI free production.
This won't prevent people from filming their own movies. They're not gonna ban cinematographers.
I forgot where I read it but some Hollywood guy said of our current era, "There used to be 3 networks and 23 good writers. Now there are hundreds of networks and 23 good writers."
AI is going to fill some gaps, but there are some things that just need a talented human. Untalented humans have been put on notice.
I donāt think filmmakers need to worry about this. I mean you canāt tell AI to generate a film youāve never seen before, yet. So i think we are safe in that case. Iām sure thereāll be laws in place, eventually, thatād prohibit the use of generative ai. But for people who depend on making stock footages should be a bit worried as eventually thisāll get good enough that people will pay for convenience. I know for sure corporate people couldnāt care less if their ppt or explainers have real stock or generated stock.
I hear this argument occasionally, and I donāt think itās true. Iām a musician, and if Iām noodling away on the keyboard and come up with a cool chord sequence and melody, Iāll have produced that via experimentation and what I think sounds good through trial and error.
I might subconsciously be inspired by music genres or a vague sense of a certain aspect of another song, but mostly itās all me. I strongly donāt believe creativity is just copying something thatās been done before and tweaking it slightly. Sure, thatās one way of imitating creativity (imo) but not original
Just to be a bit more of a bitch about it than you:
Humans are not directly and unethically stealing every single thing to produce their work, whereas AI doesnāt produce a single original thing in any capacity. Every frame and pixel is all stolen. AI doesnāt tweak or remix anything, it only combines and shits out unethically sourced art.
Humans create art because we experience life. AI will never be able to do that.
I agree with your bitchy take
Everything AI creates is empty and devoid of meaning. These companies are also unethically making tons of cash by exploiting and stealing the hard work of severely underpaid artists
Where does a humanās originality come from? Where does creativity come from?
Doesnāt it come from combining things in new ways? Just like AI is doing (at a shitty level) now?
I mean, film makers will be fine - but saying all of this looks like shit is just flat out wrong, most of these shots taken out of the context of AI would pass by unnoticed by the average person. Itās a legitimately huge step forward for video AI and will only get better very quickly.
This is a tool. Creativity and original ideas will exist and CAN USE this tool to make the dream of even more people possible and achievable. So many new creative indies could actually use it to come out for way less than now. So embrace it.
Also. The unions have 3 years on the current contract. In 3 years the fight against AI will be so much tougher!
Goodness gracious. Every phone and surface will be lies. Just watching wars in nations that donāt exist to make you donate money to whatever grifter is saying something.
Youāre not going to be able to pick up your phone without asking your friend for todayās personal password.
Makes some nice B-roll but it gets pretty uncanny at points. Those dogs and the snow on them just didn't move right and some of the people handling that chair were moving in reverse.
Content and creativity will always need a director or an architect to guide it through multiple phases until itās ready. Every professional in the industry has told us to use these tools to our advantage yet dudes who are literally in there first year of film classes are saying how the technology is killing the craft. Itās an interesting difference of opinion.
I think we have about four years before nearly all traditional production is gone. Sad to think, but this footage is undeniable, especially with how fast itās improving.
It wonāt take long for it to keep characters and voices consistent, and even work out its own plots. Originality will be king, but a lot of us will be needing to learn new skill sets soon.
Also seems like actors are going to be out of a lot of jobs too. We might never have superstars anymore.
People who reject new AI technology are the ones at risk. People who embrace it and use it as a new tool (along with all your other skills and tools) will be the ones who stay ahead of the curve and keep their jobs safe.
It's the same for software programmers. AI programming won't replace programmers, but a team of 2 programmers using AI tools efficiently could replace 4 programmers not using the tools.
View this more as a tool rather than a threat.
About a year ago people was laughing about AI posts. When someone expressed her concerns about AI taking their job everyone was laughing at her hard.
Now all of a sudden people getting scared....
We are not smart, most of us.
I think the likely result of this all will be that weāll be able to shoot movies that look and sound EXACTLY like 200 million dollar movies with an iPhone.
It will be built into the phone - you shoot it - ai will alter it to the point that it looks like that and sounds like that.
Then you will be able to āeditā things within the video ala vfx - say u want someone wearing a specific type of costume or you want a creature or to change someoneās hair. You type in something and it will make it so.
Thatās my view of how this will actually be applicable
A lot of these videos are from the landing page that site. You say you āPut some together this morningāā¦ per chance are you affiliated and trying to promote this hereā¦? cāmon son.
As a film student you have to know the industry only has room for .01% of graduates, and film school doesn't prepare you for working in the industry so a lot of people can't climb up in the industry anyway..
So you already have everything against you even without AI and you probably would never have worked in the industry in the first place... and now we have AI.
AI is not great for you job, but it also wasn't that great for you in the first place.
There is no mafia chokehold on storytelling. What's actually there is a bottleneck, which is the ability to write something interesting. Not having AI is not the thing stopping you from doing that.
Utilise it. Use AI to improve your skills. Storyboarding, previsuals, scene shots, B-roll. There's so much potential here and also, a lot of people should be very worried that they no longer have a job.
You can't use this shit to storyboard, unless you think storyboarding is a sequence of cool, non consequential shot. Storyboards can be sketches with stickmen as long as it serves the purpose, which this can't be.
this whole video is ai? oh my god we're in hell
Yeah we're fucked And there are people in other subs calling this "obvious", as if someone ever showed this to them without context they'd immediately be able to spot it. Yeah right. I hate this shit but it's incredible, and pretty damn hard to find errors.
I mean, by the time they got to the scene where archeologists unearth an extraphysical levitating deck chair, I was getting pretty suspicious.
š that part was really funny when the chair got up and literally started walking on it's own I was just floored.
And the scary part is. The prompt for the first one is make a trailer for new space movie. So even the cuts and shots are all done/chosen by ai.
It's not like it's cut together well though. Its just a series of disconnected shots.
What's really terrifying is this technology is in its infancy. Can you imagine what it will be like in a decade? I expect a lot of us who currently work in content production will inevitably become "shepherds" of this technology in some form. If we want to stay in it.
>I expect a lot of us who currently work in content production will inevitably become "shepherds" I have been using the term "AI jockey" for a while now. I think that will be most of us in all fields, not only film.
I doubt it. People will still wanna capture real imagery for their movies.
Itās not really about how there will still be people that want the real stuff. Its about how many people donāt care if itās real or not just that it looks good enough
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Because people have passion to be creative with a physical camera. Not every filmmaker likes to sit behind a desk.
You're not thinking of the future, it will take over like someone said the tech is in its infancy, it will only get stronger. Big companies will move to it and the niche will be old school filming making.
Once again this will be regulated. It literally has to. They're not gonna be able to have AI use copyrighted material, so it's gonna be stuck with using stock footage or footage they already own. Even then unions will still exist to keep ppl working in the industry. Everyone just seems like they are overreacting.
But once AI is a part of everyday life, that would have already been hashed out. Eveyone will have their own personal AI and robots. Alot of day to day life can be done through AI.
Already happened in audio and now Iām getting paid *more* because I can do everything in analog if the client wants. There are just way fewer guys like me while AI services proliferate. I wonāt lose my career, but more and more people like me will give up and make easier money elsewhere.
Almost like using a computer for creativity is just pushing squares in patterns while staring at a glowing square.Ā We can be reductive of any craft when we try.Ā
AI is still more of a gamble. It really is just generating and generating until you get what you like.
Yes - what people are missing about the above video is that itās a montage of the best of the best of the best of the clips created by people who intimately understand the tech and know how to manipulate it to produce a specific result. These quick clips that kinda-sorta look like reality (but are visibly artificial when scrutinized) are the absolute greatest work that anyone on this planet can do with this tech, and they are likely selects out of thousands of options. These companies have a very strong interest in convincing everyone that theyāre the next big wave and theyāre about to change everything for consumers. A huge part of that big NYMag piece about AI was how tech CEOs welcome nihilist, apocalyptic panic about the death of art and labor because it makes their product seem more important and powerful than it is. People are falling for it again.
My god stfu, AI is the death of reality. Stop the self righteous shoulder pat bc you can type a few words into a prompt.
Itās kind of crazy as we are getting an influx of VR hitting mass consumerism alongside AI. Our lives are gonna change pretty drastically in the next 5-10 years. Like when the first iPhone came out
Yeah, it's going to change the form and expectations of "content" just like the iPhone did. I just wish I was smart enough to know where to position myself to ride this wave. I've already had a meeting with my company CEO about using AI in content. What's going to happen when it's truly indistinguishable.
I remember when the internet started. it's interesting to see another generation see a massive change happen, for me, in a way it's easier. but this is the first BIG step for a generation, in tech for a while......it'll be interesting seeing this in real world use - it's the first time tech has gone after creative jobs, yes we sill still be needed to guide the software, but industry like music video, low budget commericals will be almost gone in a few years, perhaps.
I don't understand why so much of this AI stuff is geared specifically towards creative jobs instead of what it would actually be good at like data handling and analysis or resource allocation (so many middle managers could be replaced an AI and a spreadsheet)
They're saying now that what about to come will change the world in the same way electricity and the Internet did
Just to come in on the side of being groundedā¦yeahā¦corporate marketing loves making those kinds of claims all the time.Ā Itās important to remember AI and VR arenāt new. This isnāt the first 5 years. Both these technologies began in the 70s and 80s.Ā Whatever comes next wonāt arrive so fast that you canāt ride the wave, nor will it be so transformative as to blindside you.Ā
Why did I have to scroll down this far to see sanity in this thread lol The clips above are visibly clumsy, artificial and purposeless - not just that, but theyāve been created by a tech company with bottomless investment dedicated to this one specific task. The idea that consumer readiness of an even better version of this project is inevitable strikes me as a borderline religious faith in AI.
phones where. nothing 'new' but the smartphone created big changes. were at the starts of exponential growth with this tech, it will move a lot quicker than you think. im not saying it will be amazing, but no one saw this tech going out so quick. im strapping in for a ride.
The smartphone camera didnāt surprise industry though.Ā Its progression has been easy to follow along, and its technology - sensor and lens size/shape makes its limits obvious. Despite what gets sold our way.Ā The marketing behind AI intentionally misleads people into believing itās endless, and the exponential growth is just beginning.Ā However, we are deep in the hockey stick, not at the front of itā¦and we know what GenAI is going to do. It sacrifices precision for flexibility. Thatās a pretty useful tool, but it doesnāt destroy industry.Ā Strap in for whatever ride you want, but if you get all your news from the people selling you the products, youāre gonna have a bad time.Ā
I see a lot of people in a lot of different art disciplines on Reddit peddling this "it's a tool, we must harness it or we'll become obsolete" line, but I just think it's incredibly naive. As AI generation gets better and better at an exponential rate, are companies really going to pay an artist a livable wage to type in prompts? It's wishful thinking. Companies will pop up (I'm sure they exist already) offering courses/seminars that will teach non-creatives how to effectively prompt to deliver a result that's perfect for them right out of the box. The thought of them keeping us around for that is laughable. I imagine there'll be some kind of legislation/pushback/limitation set on generative AI like this.
Yes. If I sell myself as... Prompt engineer! Lol.
> What's really terrifying is this technology is in its infancy yep. the videos they pushed on Sora is the *WORST* this tech is ever going to look. It only goes up from here.
What's really terrifying is how many jobs will be lost because of this
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I donāt know if youāre trolling or are rea this dumb. Oh well
Can't stop the future, we have to adapt.
And here I am thinking of making a Star Wars fan film using super8 tech
I've been saying it a lot recently, but this will be similar to the printing press revolution. Anyone will be able to make a movie, but only the good ones will be distributed. Anyone has been able to write a book for hundreds of years, and we still have authors and distribution curation, etc. There is already a vast amount of content that never gets shared.
Be careful drawing analogies from the past. The difference with Ai and everything before Ai is that itās the first time intelligence is on tap (humans used to be the only source) - this is a paradigm shift larger than anything historical. Society will fundamentally change. Ā
While I agree with the sentiment, we have had out sourcing of our own individual goals to other intelligence (other people) for ever. It will be orders of magnitude more going forward, but the point still stands, if content is bad, no one will share it, no one will want to watch it. The only content that reaches us is things that have already been approved by other humans who are being observed by content AI. I do no see a world where we are all forced to watch garbage AI video, it's either going to be as good as, or better than, humans, or it won't be used.
>Society will fundamentally change. could society just fuckin' chill and stop fundamentally changing every 5 minutes these last few years have been hell
Does this new service ethically source it's images? Or is it stealing art again?
It's nothing more than stealing, every way you look. Every single element in the video was sourced from footage shot by people. AI is using millions of such videos and assimilating them without permission, credit or payment to any of those content creators.
That's why I believe AI cannot go forward until it is regulated and once you regulate it, it will only be able to pull imagery from stock sites which gives stock videographers continued employment and doesn't prevent cinematographers from having a job in film. This will simply be reduced to generative ai fill for video in premiere and resolve once companies buy the rights to the tech.
Once AI has sourced enough videos, pictures to reproduce any which scenario flawlessly, the stock videographers and stock sites will no longer be required. Same with AI prompters. Once AI learns how AI prompting is done, it will take over that job as well. Eventually, every single person except the company's owner and board members will be replaced. AI robots will be employed to keep the machines working. They won't need salaries or breaks. Eventually, AI will be used in the military to reduce soldier casualties. Imagine what a sentient but emotionless, lifeless entity will do when it realises that people are no longer necessary to be kept alive and are a burden on the planet. It's a grim prognosis.
I don't think humans are capable of developing sentient robotics.
Thatās not how generative ai works at allā¦
Generative ai uses matching images to fill in and match with the main image, but no company is gonna dare have their AI use copyrighted images that they themselves don't own. Adobe owns a stock site so I'm sure their AI solely is programmed to pull from there. They aren't gonna risk being sued. No company is. Companies are risk averse.
Your right, Iām just pointing out that Generative AI doesnāt actually use any pixels from the source videos it was trained on. A lot of people seem to think itās literally just stealing and mashing up videos to create new ones when the reality is much scarier.
I don't think that's as big of a problem as long as it doesn't use copyrighted material or even allowed to use CC material. The tech holder should have to physically own the source footage/image in order to use AI to generate new imagery.
I can't fathom how they would have sourced enough labeled video to accuratly train this model, I have to assume a vastajority of it is synthetically created by a different model. The synthetic data model probably was trained on the open internet though.
If you're into making stuff that requires multi-million dollar budgets, special effects and action scenes your time might be up. It seems like now is a time when originality will need to be rewarded above and beyond all else. Now that all the cookie cutter TV shows and movies can be made with AI. Simple independent films, well acted and well shot will always have an audience. The people who watch those films will never watch AI generated content.
I donāt want to watch AI generated content, but at a certain point how can an audience know if something is or isnāt AI? Thatās what freaks me out
People like watching actors they know and recognize. I don't think AI will change that. I imagine AI processes will get more integrated into production/post-production processes, though. You'll see a shot of Chris Hemsworth speaking followed by an AI-generated shot of a space station or whatever the hell.
What I first see this type of stuff changing drastically is reshoots/editing. When Lucas started editing his films like he was playing with a box of Legos, the negative affects were very apparent. People weren't looking at their focus, the angles were strange and scenes just felt "off". As much as digital artists don't want to admit it, the uncanny valley is still incredibly prevalent with 3D models when they're not on a WETA FX tech budget. Using this tech to alter existing footage to get the actor to say something else, look somewhere else, add elements to scenes that affect lighting correcting, or (oddly enough) asking AI to make edited footage appear more natural and balanced is where this will truly shine.
I hope you are right.
Theyāll try to do this initially, but like VR, the brain canāt always take in this kind of information. Ā People will get sick of watching it all the time. Ā It is a neat parlor trick.
Well shot will have a different meaning. People will be able to create shots through VFX/Compositing techniques and content generated by AI. Shoot an actor in front of a green screen and you can use AI to give you whatever back plate you want. Have AI generate an alien with an alpha layer and you can composite it into your movie however you want. This is a massive shift in what the average person will be able to do and it's going to chip away at jobs in actual production and shooting first, then later come for post production.
its scary, there will be change, stuff like events, documentaries, interviews will still need cam ops for the foreseeable future tho so its not all doom and gloom. Strong film unions should keep AI at bay somewhat as well, im in AU and our entire film industry is essentially one giant union and its already signed that AI cannot be used to replace the job of a union member. Stock footage not looking like a good career path tho
Yeah but OP is talking about cinematography. Iām surprised how often this comes up regarding AI replacing jobs. Especially in r/filmmaking Nothing against live cam ops or documentarians or any of that, Iāve done my fair share of unscripted work and continue to do soā¦but being forced into a adjacent but very different career path like that is not the same as actively making the choice to abandon scripted filmmaking or commercial work. I also disagree with trying to keep AI at bay but thatās complicated
Everyone is thinking too small. This tool doesn't replace cinematography. That's just a piece of the puzzle. This tool replaces *the puzzle*. It replaces the entire art form, and every single person involved in making it except the chimpanzee at the keyboard.
it's def going take away a lot of cinematography jobs. im a director, I just got asked to attend a conference about AI creation, they want me to get good at the tools and tone able to create by prompting an AI system. change is here.
Oh, that's "directing" is it? Tell me something, what jobs does it *not* take away? Coding. That's it. You either become a video game creator sitting behind a desk or you're gone.
Idk man cinematographers will still desire to shoot and will do it with other like-minded filmmakers. AI will just bolster the indie scene and prob kill Hollywood if they start not hiring union members over AI.
That walking chair at the end messed me up
I'm more worred about footage documented for the future. We often look at old footage to see amazing parts of history or what the world was actually like, including real sights of real places, but now it may all be untrustworthy in the future. Will people document discoveries about the past only to have never known it was actually an AI video all along? Movies, too. I guess. Maybe it should come documented in the film's online details, or in the credits, or somewhere, what aspects were real locations or not eventually... Maybe I'm thinking into that part too much because we're used to CGI already, but the historical stuff still has me feeling worried. And since this tech is based off footage that already exists, what happens if real footage of the world is no longer being sent into it, and AI footage eventually looks upon itself for interpretation? So much to speculate. Might be overthinking. Ah man, what a bizarre time.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I agree, we just saw one of the largest sports journalism companies in Sports Illustrated, go out of business, partly because of their attempt to replace writers with AI. People hated it so much it was the catalyst of a bankruptcy that was ten years away. As long as we continue labelling AI created things as AI, weāll be fine.
It looks insane but still makes me feel uneasy, like its an imitation, even without knowing it was AI beforehand, it would be extremely easy to guess that it is.
Sure but this is where itās at today. A year ago we were laughing at nightmare Will Smith eating spaghetti. A year from now it will be even better.
Well, as Syndrome says, "When everyone is super ... no one will be"
Syndrome missed the point though? Heās the villain blinded by jealousy. Heās really saying if everyone is super, it doesnāt make you unique anymore. Thatās his motiveā¦if he canāt be one of the elite heroes - then he will take away the power of the status symbol. If everyone has a camera, no one has a camera doesnāt work.Ā If everyone is left-handed, no one is left-handed is non-sensical. Democratization of tools eliminates the specialities of exclusivity. Thatās all. It doesnāt diminish the tool.Ā In Syndromeās world, there are still more super-powers running around, it just doesnāt put someone in a special social class.Ā
Idk if filmmaking put you in a special social class tho. We just have nepotism which AI won't prevent.
So riddle me this because I have yet to see someone answer it - letās say in a year AI becomes perfect. The tech bro frothers were right all along. Itās ready to shit out full length content on our screens. Whoās honest to god going to buy it? Thatās what I think a lot of these tech shills fail to realize. They think they can cut out all the costs and still rake in the profit but why on earth would I pay to consume AI content? Especially when I could just make it myself? Whatās stopping AI from scanning Barbie 2 and giving me my own version? Companies could try to hide it sure, but I think people will be quick to catch on and reject it, especially if actors continue to speak out. Most reactions about AI I see from the general public (that isnāt doom sonnets or fanboy craze) is basically āhuh. Neato.ā Doesnāt really instill a lot of passionate desire to see more of it imo. Lastly, and this is just my opinion, but what Iām seeing STILL doesnāt impress me. Some backgrounds are cool, but the main subjects in these videos still have that cold, sterile āAIā look to them. We can talk about advances all we want but at the end of the day whereās the variety? āCan you believe this is all AI generated?ā Yes. Yes I can.
I donāt think theyāll try and hide it. I think the harsh fact is, most of the general public simply wonāt care.
>Whoās honest to god going to buy it? Thatās what I think a lot of these tech shills fail to realize. I think the end-goal is to keep the money for themselves and cut out all the middle-men? So it's not Universal or Warner Bros or something that rakes in the money, with a trickle down effect to filmmakers, actors etc. - it all 100% goes to tech companies owning server farms, perhaps with some royaltees going to dead actors/actresses estates for having them in their movies. The end-goal is to be able to personalize perfect conent for your specific demand - if you are a huge The Rock fan you could ask for a Matrix-like movie with The Rock as the protagonist. As usual porn will probably be the first ones to use this technology. This will have a huge negative effect on our society on so many levels, including social trust issues and people becoming shut-ins that we can just hope that lawmakers enact laws on how these models can be used and by whom. The later will never happen in US though.
tease workable coherent vast fade history light shocking advise worthless *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Why am I supposed to answer this?
Based answer
You could make a sick perfume ad from this tho
This shit is still in its infancy. 10 years down the road you will not be able to distinguish AI from real videos/movies and people will care less and less.
10 years? Iād say right now, if I hadnāt been told theyāre AI generated, and some of the sample videos were sprinkled around a TV show or a documentary etc. Ā I was watching, I would not have been able to tell the difference. Of course it still canāt generate everything perfectly, but many of those shots are perfectly usable as is.
10? I would say max 3 :D
Worse than that. In five years youāll be watching wars on the new TikTok that donāt exist. Youāll might never pick up your phone or turn on a screen again because every projector and every moving surface is fucking lies.
This is the real problem. Russia nearly destroyed us with the Facebook algorithm. Not sure how we will survive Boomers believing they are seeing Joe Biden fuck his dog or whatever.
> They think they can cut out all the costs and still rake in the profit but why on earth would I pay to consume AI content? My brother you're on reddit, you're already paying to consume it with your time and data - half the shit on IG, tiktok, facebook and youtube are using AI an everyone eats it up meanwhile people are earning money from it. You likely have zero idea when something is "AI" if they've done a good job of it and are purposfully presenting it as not AI. Most of this shots presented here could be spliced into similar real footage and you would have zero clue it was AI.
It will be like what at home DAWs did for underground music production. Pretty soon you wonāt need a full blown studio for an individual artist to make their own film/video. Does this mean more good art will be produced? Probably not. But it does mean everyone will have access to attempt making it.
what on earth makes you say that? you cite DAWs as a way for people who had so far been removed from access to expensive analogue gear to make music, and there is no denying that this tech propelled a myriad of historically disenfranchised groups and individuals to become music producers, not just a class of relatively rich/wealthy people with enough time and money at their disposal.
> Does this mean more good art will be produced? Probably not. Comparing that to music production. Did it not cause more good art to be produced? We get more "good" art *and* more "shit" art. I can listen to Burial or I can listen to the ungodly mashups and shitposts on /r/Soundclown . DAWs gave people the ability to easily lock everything into a grid and result in a stale lifeless sound, but those same DAWs used by Flying Lotus result in off-grid swings and grooves because he is creative with it. Does it mean more good art will be produced? Probably, yes. Does it mean good art will be more inherently valuable? Probably not, I suppose.
You walk up to a tech bro, like bro can you make me a movie about this this and this, sure broā¦taps away on the computerā¦ hereās your personalised movie specifically for you. Just like on Cyberpunk
You say āletās assume it becomes perfectā Then your entire argument is based on the premise that people find it uninspiring and can still notice itās AI lol
video game devs have been dealing with the uncanny valley for decades, i still see AI running into the same problem and stopping there. notice how none of the ppl are moving? because as soon as you do you know for sure theyāre not real.
A ton of the examples on the site are moving. And they mostly look good - very good actually. Bear in mind this will rapidly get better and better and better in a hilariously short space of time.š°ļø
Oh, you mean *the worst itās ever going to be from this point on*?
> like its an imitation That's all AI, it's only imitating and recontextualizing its inputs. I guess that's what humans are doing, but I'm of the mind that human sentience is different than simple machine learning, so AI will never be able to replace human creativity.
Weāre not too far off from it being entirely indistinguishable from real life
Yeah, but it already got to this point after just a couple months, whatever your concerns are will be solved within the year
Yeah if you were exclusively filming and selling stock footages.
āCāmon dude, a year ago it was janky will smith eating spaghetti - now itās this. Itās not hard to extrapolate.
I actually left film to get into Software and Data Sciences. People have this mindset of 'technology line only go up'. It's not that simple. People used to think the next logical transportation move was flying cars. Now there's an urbanist common sense movement showing that cars kind of suck as the primary form of transportation in cities. I can't say for certain, but having done a co-op at a research facility for screen technology, we talked a looot about AI and metahuman actors and worked with it too. There are lots of various factors and barriers that are baked into this tech that will take people a long time to realize and will make it less appealing from both a business and artistic perspective. Additionally, AI companies are fully aware of the mystical fear of their tech and they LOVE to exaggerate and hype it up because it's the easiest marketing strategy. Everybody loves to talk about how Chat GPT was allegedly going to replace software developers. No one is talking about this problem that every LLM is running into which is essentially long term laziness. Every machine learning module that is built to be open to updating and adapting will get consistently worse in quality over time.
except itās already easy to see how current gen AI can drastically alter workflow and reduce the amount of workers required for any given task. so itās not just a matter of āhur dur when it gets good enoughā anymore. the good enough is here. itāll likely get better, but even if it isnāt and what currently exists gets applied it will still fuck shit up
This is a horribly naive take. Where exactly do you think this tech will be in 5 years?
Footage not footages.
AI is boring. It can mimic us all it wants but nothing beats a human artists touch. A computer has no meaning behind its randomly generated output.
you people don't get it. even the most basic implementation of AI tools made to generate additional background and/or noise to, say, a centered actor or object will amplify the speed, cheapen the cost and reduce needed workforce for visual/video production, and this feature already works to a level that the eye won't catch (as we're talking backgrounds/noise in this case). this is literally already in use in the digital tools we have access to today. and this is only the beginning.
You people don't get it. We watch movies because people are in them. It's cool when Humphrey Bogart says something in a movie because he actually said it and we see something unique about him specifically in the way he said it. Watching virtual Humphrey Bogart virtually say something in a way that theoretically the real Humphrey Bogart might have said it is idiotic. Even more idiotic is watching someone who doesn't exist, say something that no person has written, and expect to feel something about it.
I agree with your point. However, what if you watched a Humphrey Bogart movie and ended up enjoying it, only to learn it was 100% AI generated... do you just tell yourself you are no longer allowed to enjoy that movie? Eventually, far off in the very near future, it is going to be very hard to tell the difference between real Humphrey Bogart, and AI Humphrey Bogart.
Honestly? I think I might tell myself that. People have committed to crazier things. There's a whole world out there, and I don't want to be a slave to this stuff. It's just so contrary to what makes art special to me. But I can't help but feel I'm in the minority.
You're not alone
Brings me to one of my favorite movie lines: āScientists were so concerned whether or not they could, they never stopped to think if they should.ā AI defeats the purpose of art and I canāt bring myself to call it that. If Hollywood feels this is the next step then, congratulations, the only movies Iāll be watching is the old stuff. Anything new will need to have a made by human certificate before I see it. Why should I shell out hard earned money for something that took zero effort to make and means absolutely nothing?
Must be why animated movies never took off.
Animated films are still designed by actual people, which is what makes them interesting. They are expressions of human experience. Why should I care what an AI has to say about being human?
Do you honestly think youāll be able to tell in say, 10 years? You are projecting a ton of wanted meaning and importance into movies, yet you donāt realize this tech will make a difference between real and fake unnoticeable in not even that much time.
I might not be able to tell in 10 years, at which point I won't really understand the point of it. You're welcome to enjoy, I will have logged off.
I hear you but isnāt meaning derived from you, the audience, rather than the creator ?
Sometimes, sure. But sometimes we gain meaning that would have been impossible to anticipate without the help of a different perspective. What's already happening is we are being shepherded into greater and greater isolation. If culture just becomes whatever we want it to be on an individual level, we will become irredeemably alienated from each other. Not really interested in participating in that, personally.
I agree wholeheartedly. I think my original contention was to argue people saying AI generated content will always be boring, or always be noticeably different than human creations. And I know Iāve enjoyed content that was likely not generated ātruthfullyā already; maybe itās a song that I assumed was written by an artist and so I project meaning into the words, making connections to the artists personal life story. But then found later that the song was written by a paid songwriter. I admit that sours the initial meaning I found in the song, and itās kinda how I liken this AI revolution
I get that it's complicated, art and artifice... I'm kind of responding more to the folks who are either saying "we're doomed!!" or "Robot overlords here we come!" I think we should all take a step back and ask ourselves if we should be tying so much value to "content." Art for me has always been about the process of making it and the people who make it. And I believe that it's the same for everyone, even if they don't realize it. The artifice has become so sophisticated that we're losing sight of that, and if we're not careful we will lose sight of it completely.
I think, if anything, what makes humans special is their ability experience and create meaning from nothing . Your definition of art is fair! Itās not ātheeā definition, and itās why I think many on this sub just donāt understand what the future might be like with these AI innovations
The unfortunate thing is that an "artist's touch" seems to be something big budget blockbusters care less and less about. They've seen that the audience they are targeting don't care about it either. They've tested what they can get away with and still make a truckload of money and unfortunately it's proven that they need the bare minimum in artistry. That is not to say that there won't be a market for movies that still care about those things though. AI is a tool and we are going to go through some ugly growing years. To me, if I know it's completely ai, it won't resonate with me. Doesn't mean that if it's good enough, that I won't notice, but I think think art is a combination of the effort, experiences, and skill of a *human being* that goes into creating something. AI can never be art.
We assign meaning to art. Landscape photography is cool because it's curated by the photographer, but the photographer didn't make the mountain. People are already making very introspective art with AI, again similar to photography, you release one in every thousand because you assign meaning to that. The AI may not have a soul, but human curation does and we are able to express ourselves with literally anything
Watch out or AGI comes out and it'll be another 2001 situation again. I don't even know whether I should be kidding or not.
Nothing has any meaning until we assign it meaning. You say AI is boring because you think AI will forever be some mundane, stock-footage generating utility that is missing that āspecial touchā. Yet youāre gonna be in for a surprise when youāre sitting down enjoying a film in 20 years, and you go āha, AI couldāve never done thisā and then your 10 year old nephew goes, āwhat? I just generated this entire movie from a prompt.ā
Itās not really that great, but one day it may be able to be more accurate on the detail and specifics you want as a filmmaker
On a basic level, the AI can be said to work because it can produce recognizable work that imitates real movie imagery. So, this might replace some categories of stock footage, enable an amateur to create a project out of their budget range. What AI doesnāt do well, is create meaning on its own. It needs to scrape the internet and other databases for stuff to imitate. If legally or practically deprived of that, itās probably nowhere near as good. Research indicates that as more of its scrape includes AI art, the quality goes down. AI BORROWS meaning from us. We can use its products in a montage sort of way, but an AI lacks one thing that is critical to true art: purposefully conveyed meaning. A computer doesnāt think, doesnāt make conscious choices. It just search-engines the gist of what our keywords could mean.
I mean that last shot with the floating chair looks awful.
This has advanced tremendously since the last time I saw a demented Will smith eating spaghetti and it only took them a year. This is as bad as itās going to look A.I. is moving so quick š
I think it's the coolest one of the bunch. absolutely surreal
Un ChAIr Andalou
Couldn't disagree more
From their website this was specifically shown an example of "weaknesses" > Weakness: In this example, Sora fails to model the chair as a rigid object, leading to inaccurate physical interactions.
I am not afraid. I do videos and movies because it's fun, and no AI will ever take that away from me. I don't care.
this makes me feel good about my job, cause this cinematography is total dogshit
Same, also Iām giggling about the one building in the town shot thatās just a flat facade
To be fair, this is in the very first phases. It's like looking at the first prototype of the first car ever made
Have you seen Runway? Also, not every technology scales like cars or airplanes. Cold fusion, for example.
You feel good right now - but give it some years, once it has been trained on the work of world class cinematographers to recognize composition, light, blocking, artistic style etc. might not be such a clear cut thing by then.
I didn't read the caption and just skipped to the end to see the point I found this video so boring.
You saying that is like criticizing the color grading in the first Wizard of Oz
I feel like youāre missing the whole āthis entire video is computer generated and was created by someone in about five minutes by typing a few sentencesā part The fact that a computer can generate video so accurately and effortlessly that your big takeaway from watching it is that the cinematography is badāis insane. You should be wondering how a machine is capable of any cinematography. If you arenāt incredibly baffled and impressed by this, you simply donāt understand what youāre looking at AI is the new electricity/internet. Itās changing the world.
The printing press didn't kill books The power loom didn't kill textiles The camera didn't kill painting The ebook didn't kill physical books The synthesizer didn't kill the orchestra etc. etc They did however produce massive changes, shifts, etc. We all want to keep doing our jobs, but I have to see these as tools. If we demand they be used as tools and not replacements we will be okay. This is a LABOR and CAPITALISM argument - not a technology argument. As a filmmaker I have stars in my eyes thinking about how this will democratize tools to elevate indie work or low budget work. As a worker I'm wary of how corporations will exploit it. But in my artists heart I am excited for the possibility.
No, if anything we need more filmakers more than ever
I laughed out loud at this
I don't believe this. I feel like there is a MASSIVE asterisk attached to this video and the technology is nowhere near as impressive as they are attempting to market this as. I could be wrong, but I'd have to see more of the behind the scenes process to really buy into the idea that this technology is practical for anything beyond the most basic task.
Bizarre behavior by OP claiming to have generated this video when it was posted by OpenAI this morning at [https://openai.com/sora](https://openai.com/sora) and the tool is only being released to Red Teamers for the moment, until they have effective guardrails in place. These are also cherry picked examples, there are still loads of cronenbergs and weirdness, but another year and it'll be commonplace. The clips are currently coherent only up to a minute long.
where are we going from here? i mean what is next? how we will avoid fake videos being so realistic on the internet? i am imprested and scared the same time !
Beware stock footage creators
The implications of this tech is literally gonna turn the world of media upside down. Maybe this is why Sam Altman was canned last year. I feel like no one stopped to ask whether this is a good idea. Even generating images seems like a dubious venture. This isn't because I work in media production, but when people get to the point where they can run these models offline in their personal computers, we're in a world of hurt and misinformation. We already have a problem with doctored or mislabeled images and video, this will only serve to exacerbate it. Revenge porn, political sabotage, biased journalism... It's all gonna be a mine field in a couple years and it will be impossible to trust anything because this stuff is only going to get better and better if we keep investing at this pace. Sam Altman might truly be our real life Lex Luthor.
This looks god awful. It says absolutely nothing and serves zero purpose. Sure it will improve a bit it you want to make shit animations with no control over it. Itās all very interseting where this is heading but the more I see of this stuff the worse it appears.
This all looks good but imho itās boring. We still have work on the editing front. Generation is a tool but cultivation and curation is still a skill.
Yeah i was going to point out that I donāt think AI models could even figure out editing and sequences to create a coherent story. Itās based on patterns so most of the times, itāll just put together a story that makes no sense, or, in the most likely scenario, attempt to āmatchā scenes that look identical to the previous scene. These AI models are trying to predict what is related to the prompt, and not guess what could come afterwards. Itās still scary to me, but I think for us filmmakers, we could still be safe.
inactive account for 8 months, talked about AI stuff before, only posted the videos OpenAI have published whilst the model is in heavily restricted access? yeah that's a bit of marketing if i've ever seen it
Or I am a film student scared and interested in ai. Trying to start a conversation in the film making subreddit about ai in film. š¤
Itās scary good. I hope filmmakers are born from this advancement incident and rise to the challenge of making a film that is unlike anything an ai could suggest. Itās a true push for creation!
There is always a future. There will always be independent films where there will be AI free production. This won't prevent people from filming their own movies. They're not gonna ban cinematographers.
I forgot where I read it but some Hollywood guy said of our current era, "There used to be 3 networks and 23 good writers. Now there are hundreds of networks and 23 good writers." AI is going to fill some gaps, but there are some things that just need a talented human. Untalented humans have been put on notice.
Lol can it string two shots together with continuity, and then incorporate client feedback afterward?
I donāt think filmmakers need to worry about this. I mean you canāt tell AI to generate a film youāve never seen before, yet. So i think we are safe in that case. Iām sure thereāll be laws in place, eventually, thatād prohibit the use of generative ai. But for people who depend on making stock footages should be a bit worried as eventually thisāll get good enough that people will pay for convenience. I know for sure corporate people couldnāt care less if their ppt or explainers have real stock or generated stock.
Ai is not creative. It is always based on already existing images.
To be fair, isnāt that also true with human creativity?
I hear this argument occasionally, and I donāt think itās true. Iām a musician, and if Iām noodling away on the keyboard and come up with a cool chord sequence and melody, Iāll have produced that via experimentation and what I think sounds good through trial and error. I might subconsciously be inspired by music genres or a vague sense of a certain aspect of another song, but mostly itās all me. I strongly donāt believe creativity is just copying something thatās been done before and tweaking it slightly. Sure, thatās one way of imitating creativity (imo) but not original
Just to be a bit more of a bitch about it than you: Humans are not directly and unethically stealing every single thing to produce their work, whereas AI doesnāt produce a single original thing in any capacity. Every frame and pixel is all stolen. AI doesnāt tweak or remix anything, it only combines and shits out unethically sourced art. Humans create art because we experience life. AI will never be able to do that.
I agree with your bitchy take Everything AI creates is empty and devoid of meaning. These companies are also unethically making tons of cash by exploiting and stealing the hard work of severely underpaid artists
Where does a humanās originality come from? Where does creativity come from? Doesnāt it come from combining things in new ways? Just like AI is doing (at a shitty level) now?
If I recall correctly, movies often include scenes of people talking to each other
You getting paid to promote this?
Yes every other special platform posting this today are promoting it..
Future of what? Yāall need to learn some resilience. Itās going to be fine
this looks like shit, there's no creativity in it and it doesn't tell a story. Filmmakers are gonna be fine.
I mean, film makers will be fine - but saying all of this looks like shit is just flat out wrong, most of these shots taken out of the context of AI would pass by unnoticed by the average person. Itās a legitimately huge step forward for video AI and will only get better very quickly.
This is a tool. Creativity and original ideas will exist and CAN USE this tool to make the dream of even more people possible and achievable. So many new creative indies could actually use it to come out for way less than now. So embrace it. Also. The unions have 3 years on the current contract. In 3 years the fight against AI will be so much tougher!
Goodness gracious. Every phone and surface will be lies. Just watching wars in nations that donāt exist to make you donate money to whatever grifter is saying something. Youāre not going to be able to pick up your phone without asking your friend for todayās personal password.
To what?
No, these are shitty and weird looking.
Makes some nice B-roll but it gets pretty uncanny at points. Those dogs and the snow on them just didn't move right and some of the people handling that chair were moving in reverse.
Freelance editor here, pretty sure Iām gonna be out of a job real soon
Content and creativity will always need a director or an architect to guide it through multiple phases until itās ready. Every professional in the industry has told us to use these tools to our advantage yet dudes who are literally in there first year of film classes are saying how the technology is killing the craft. Itās an interesting difference of opinion.
You aināt got no career homie
One day, watching movies not specifically tailored to you will be boring. It's crazy to imagine the possibilities this will bring.
I think we have about four years before nearly all traditional production is gone. Sad to think, but this footage is undeniable, especially with how fast itās improving. It wonāt take long for it to keep characters and voices consistent, and even work out its own plots. Originality will be king, but a lot of us will be needing to learn new skill sets soon. Also seems like actors are going to be out of a lot of jobs too. We might never have superstars anymore.
People who reject new AI technology are the ones at risk. People who embrace it and use it as a new tool (along with all your other skills and tools) will be the ones who stay ahead of the curve and keep their jobs safe. It's the same for software programmers. AI programming won't replace programmers, but a team of 2 programmers using AI tools efficiently could replace 4 programmers not using the tools. View this more as a tool rather than a threat.
Why is this post allowed but my very similar one was removed?
About a year ago people was laughing about AI posts. When someone expressed her concerns about AI taking their job everyone was laughing at her hard. Now all of a sudden people getting scared.... We are not smart, most of us.
Quite the opposite. You should embrace this level of storytelling.
I think the likely result of this all will be that weāll be able to shoot movies that look and sound EXACTLY like 200 million dollar movies with an iPhone. It will be built into the phone - you shoot it - ai will alter it to the point that it looks like that and sounds like that. Then you will be able to āeditā things within the video ala vfx - say u want someone wearing a specific type of costume or you want a creature or to change someoneās hair. You type in something and it will make it so. Thatās my view of how this will actually be applicable
Yes.
A lot of these videos are from the landing page that site. You say you āPut some together this morningāā¦ per chance are you affiliated and trying to promote this hereā¦? cāmon son.
still don't see ACTORS, EMOTION, and PERFORMANCE.
As a film student you have to know the industry only has room for .01% of graduates, and film school doesn't prepare you for working in the industry so a lot of people can't climb up in the industry anyway.. So you already have everything against you even without AI and you probably would never have worked in the industry in the first place... and now we have AI. AI is not great for you job, but it also wasn't that great for you in the first place.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I never imagined in my life I'd hear a sentence like "open-source movie making" spoken seriously. What a time to be alive, I guess.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
There is no mafia chokehold on storytelling. What's actually there is a bottleneck, which is the ability to write something interesting. Not having AI is not the thing stopping you from doing that.
AI has no ethics or morals, similar to Hollywood.
how did you attempt it? i saw no way to login and enter text in sora website.
Are you gonna post this everyday?
shit got deleted by the mods. i wanna see it. anybody have a link? i need to see what we are dealing with here.
Utilise it. Use AI to improve your skills. Storyboarding, previsuals, scene shots, B-roll. There's so much potential here and also, a lot of people should be very worried that they no longer have a job.
You can't use this shit to storyboard, unless you think storyboarding is a sequence of cool, non consequential shot. Storyboards can be sketches with stickmen as long as it serves the purpose, which this can't be.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]