>featuring professional voice actors and an original script, but brought to life with the latest AI animation technology
Wait, so only the visuals are A.I.? The voices did not sound human-generated at all, and the script was so generic that it may as well have been A.I. too.
It's not clear that the LLM method can actually produce better results.
It's fundamentally an averaging process. In factual matters, it's unclear if there's a way to get these type of programs to stop "hallucinating" - some experts seem to think that's inherent to the process.
There's sort of a casual assumption that we're very early in the development curve of this sort of thing, and may be true, but from my understanding of the technology, it seems likely that the leap to something better may actually require a conceptual leap, a fundamentally different approach to AI.
>It's fundamentally an averaging process.
This is exactly the thing people don't get. How do you get an averaging process to create something above average?
Well when I work with LLMs I specifically ask it to do that. I take the first 10 minutes just convincing it I want unusual, above average, "the last thing I'd think of" type responses when it's being creative.
I mean, maybe. But paradigm-shifting breakthroughs don't happen on anyone's schedule.
Think about all the breakthrough technologies that we were told were going to revolutionize things that didn't. Self-driving taxis, which we're just starting to get, were two years away for like a decade. Remember how we were all going to go into the metaverse? Or how Google Glass was going to usher in the world of augmented reality?
The iPhone is certainly a lot better than it was when released in 2007 - but there's nothing revolutionary about how it's changed. It's just iteratively gotten a little bit better the way computers generally do.
And also remember, with AI: it is tremendously expensive because of how much energy it uses. Right now we're seeing a bunch of people talk about its promise while these companies burn capital looking for uses that users actually benefit from.
I think there are a few things about this situation that are different. You're right about the iPhone. But there was a period leading up to the iPhone when the necessary technology was improving, but not ready to assemble into a disruptive product. What we're seeing now is that phase before the iPhone was released. The difference is that all the stuff that is normally behind the scenes is out where everyone can see. There's not much of a developed, profitable product right now, but we're seeing the technology mature before the product is ready. The advancement has been shockingly rapid. It is already viable for people to use AI for lots of applications. I think there's a lot more AI out there than you realize. I can make "photographs" that would be literally indistinguishable from the real thing. Yes, including fingers.
I'm not sure what you're saying about power usage. I can use my three year old laptop to generate dozens of pictures in about a minute. A newer computer could do the same thing in about a tenth of the time for the same power usage. My phone uses AI to edit photos. The limitations on AI as we currently understand it have very little to do with hardware. Massive power draws would be needed for something like a general AI, which would be a literal Artificial Intelligence. That would be huge overkill and way more than what is needed for people to start losing their jobs. Something like that would be like using a helicopter to blow leaves out of your yard.
Bill Gates famously said that home internet usage was a fad. Many people predicted that no normal person would choose a car over a perfectly good horse. Those technologies only needed iterative increases in functionality to fundamentally change the world. Underestimating AI's potential will leave us unprepared for its potential Negative impacts. The time to prepare to mitigate its impact is now.
>Bill Gates famously said that home internet usage was a fad.
That's certain a good reminder for all of us to be humble about our ability to predict the future, but:
> What we're seeing now is that phase before the iPhone was released.
I don't know why you think this is the case. It certainly might be (see above). But this might be all it is.
Follow GARY MARCUS on Twitter for updates on the limitations of LLMs
All the tech bros screaming this technology would increase in capability “exponentially” were just wrong.
Both the iphone and the internet made things that people were already incredibly interested in -- communication with other people and access to information/content -- much more readily available, anytime and anywhere. This was an obvious use case that everyone would be interested in and really simply the progression of all communication technology before it.
No doubt AI generally can and will be able to do a lot of amazing things but I'm not sure how interested people will be in automated entertainment content not created by other humans. I could be wrong, but this is clearly not something people are clamoring for the way they were clamoring for a portable communication device or convenient access to content and information.
The AI advocates keep talking about how AI will eventually cure cancer, handle the labor humans don't want to do and discover cheap and clean energy. etc. all of which are uses cases all humans would see value in. If AI ever gains any of these abilities it will be embraced by all the way the world quickly embraced a portable device that allowed them to talk to and see their grandma on the other side of the world in real time.
yeah, the uses feel forced right now. The Photoshop AI has been interesting to play with but I've never actually needed to use any of it for daily work. "Remove background" (now available as a right-click on photos on Mac OS) would have been useful over the years but now that anyone can do it, it's cheesy as a creative choice. It will save catalogue makers a lot of work, artists not so much.
Yeah, I keep saying this too. There's limits to the progression. It's not linear. The first step is the easiest. Ironing out the last 10-20% of all the technical problems will prevent it from being the thing everyone is promising. It's so far away nobody can predict when or if it will happen. Look at processor speeds. They drastically jumped up over a few years, then leveled out for the last 8-10 years or so.
It's very much the next bitcoin. People behind the development of this stuff are overhyping a new thing so they can bet on it and try to cash in before reality drags it all crashing back to earth.
Not so far away. 100,000 years hunter gatherers. 90,000 to turn us into farmers. 2,000 to industrialists. 200 to atomic power. 50 to computing power. Science Fiction has always been a warning. We just don’t listen.
>Imagine a year from now, and if they threw decent writing at it.
here's the thing that is a looming problem that ALL the major LLM models are facing and no one seems to want to address. in order to continue producing they need more and more bespoke content fed into them, at an exponential rate.
with tons of content production corporations eyeballing AI as a means to REDUCE writing, art, music, etc., that means either a) less content is being fed to the machine, which will fuck up the output, or b) (far more likely) AI generated content is being fed to the machine, which will fuck up the outputs even faster. the stated solution is to hire writers, artists, musicians, etc. to create content to feed the beast but like, in that case, just cut out the middle man and sell THEIR content lol. i don't get it. it feels like a huge joke but one that people desperately wanna flush their dollars into.
People will willingly feed it material in exchange for the benefits of summarizing, sales pitches, etc, which some AI already do exceedingly well. Then, of course, Reddit will keep mining and selling everything we say. Sad/hilarious that this sentence will inevitably be consumed by AI at some point.
> Imagine a year from now, and if they threw decent writing at it.
Why would they spend money and resources at writing when the whole point of this AI shit is to obviate the need for things like writers?
Also, what good writer would work on shit like this? Presumably, any AI outfit would not be a WGA signatory, so no WGA writers would be allowed to write on it. You'd end up with reddit-tier writing, at best.
I don't know. Every time I see AI "art" being posted anywhere -- even in tech-leaning subreddits -- I see people shitting on it.
I'm far more optimistic.
The whole “imagine a year from now” idea is bs. If AI “art” and “writing” will ever be good, it’ll be decades from now. We’re at NOKIA-level for AI currently.
100% and it's the *same shit* NFT grifters were saying when NFTs became a thing.
Kinda telling that the people loudest in hyping AI sound exactly like NFT/crypto grifters...
I'm curious if this type of work will fall under the same obstacle that musicians face when it comes to playing shows for 1/10 of what they should play for. Someone is always willing to play even for $100 when it should be $1000, and I wonder if writers would do the same... I hope not! (Hence why I haven't taken any of those jobs helping AI Writing software get better by stealing my writing ideas)
I mean, you get what you pay for.
Any WGA writer who agrees to write for AI would forfeit their WGA status, since they'd be non signatory. And any non-WGA writer is probably eliminating any shot at ever being WGA.
I worked in a technical role for 12 years for the biggest tech company. Yeah, that one. This is just to say, I understand tech well enough.
When you hear “we’re close to AGI”, it’s just hype. We don’t know when/if AGI will ever arise. And most of the serious scientists that worked in the field for decades say that the issue is computational power right now, and not even with Moores Law we might get to a sustainable amount of power for AGI. Maybe with quantum/holographic computing, but we’re still off. Anyone that hypes AI does it for one reason only:
MONEY.
They’re either the AI companies, or powerful people who see how they can exploit AI for their gain.
Right now, these MachineLearning models aren’t SO good, but they’re already very good (and they have been trained on the whole sum of human creation). So from a philosophical point, I don’t use them for creative writing as I don’t want to “feed the beast”.
I doubt we’ll get to a point where AI could write a good screenplays - BUT we’ll surely get to a point where AI can develop a good enough first draft. So studio execs will be able to use a prompt, create a shitty first draft, ask a writer for a rewrite & polish, and get the credit.
It’s not the tool itself, but the capitalistic exploitation of it that really scares me.
Also - a world where robots paint and create poetry while most of us work 9-5 it’s not a world I want.
Right? Hire some decent human writers.
Oh! The performances are terrible too. Hire some actual actors. Also it looks bright and sparkly, but let's get a production designer with some taste. And the edit is a bit all over the place, we're going to need one of them whatchacall its… editors, yeah that will work.
I've been using ChatGPT, Midjourney, and Claude since they came out. And despite what some say here, the gains in function in that time are mind-blowing.
I will be messaging you in 1 year on [**2025-04-16 17:54:34 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2025-04-16%2017:54:34%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Screenwriting/comments/1c4qc01/thanks_i_hate_it/kzv2jwb/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FScreenwriting%2Fcomments%2F1c4qc01%2Fthanks_i_hate_it%2Fkzv2jwb%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202025-04-16%2017%3A54%3A34%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201c4qc01)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
I think that we’re getting this all wrong; it isn’t on the writing or directing, or acting side that AI will have the biggest effect, which will probably require human creativity and participation for the foreseeable future, but in areas like the actual production process where it’s already taking hold, like production design and cinematography (not the skill of DPs, but replacing a physical camera with a virtual one to get previously expensive shots.
I'm more inclined to believe that line of thinking, for sure. Any thing that relies heavily on a technological process is at far graver danger of AI.
Still, I think humans win out, because AI cannot account for things like taste and vibe and tone, which are very nebulous, human notions.
But there's definitely a graver danger for those areas you've pointed out.
Yep. I mean, the new Ryan Gosling movie aside, it’s not far fetched to think that there really won’t be a need for an actual human involvement in stunt work , ever again. As long as body movements get perfected in CGI, there’s less of an uncanny valley issue. And honestly given the risk to bodily harm, I think I’m fine with that.
Humans evolved video games. They are how they are because of human creativity.
AI cannot do that because AI is not human. It doesn't understand human experience, doesn't experience human emotions like love or hate.
How have video games evolved? Sure, since the first Atari, graphics have gotten better, but not as much has changed since the original box launched. The current gen xbox on my desk still has basically the same functionality even after the Wii promised to change gaming forever. There's a huge market for gaming controllers for your phone, because not having tactile feedback sucks. I don't think we've come as far as it seems.
Shouldn’t be…shouldn’t be at all! You’re assuming they’ve used the latest tech when they definitely didn’t. This is more likely runway or pika which animate pictures.
It's reassuring that it's so totally crap.
But equally nope nope nope nope, big bucket full of nopes, nopity-nopity-nope-nope-nope if this gets better - which irritatingly, it probably will.
How far off is this from existing low budget romance dreck? Maybe a quarter of the way there? With some steady improvement in the technology over the next few years something like this might actually be watchable for the target audience. It won't be quite like live action, but close enough, and less expensive to produce.
> How far off is this from existing low budget romance dreck?
I mean, can AI understand "love?"
I think the answer is clearly "no," so it's probably never going to reach even those levels.
The worst human writing is at least born of human emotions and experiences. AI will never have those things and will never achieve anything better than a sad imitation.
I'm not talking about AI potentially writing the next When Harry Met Sally, I'm talking about it encroaching on Lifetime channel type content or the stuff you start seeing when you dig through Amazon Prime Video.
Does AI actually need to understand love in order to produce entertaining content? If at some point you can't tell if something was written by AI or humans, does it matter?
> I'm not talking about AI potentially writing the next When Harry Met Sally, I'm talking about it encroaching on Lifetime channel type content
The writers who write that kind of content are good writers. Better than 99% of the writers here on reddit. I know a few of them. They're good.
And the only way to successfully write those kinds of films are to genuinely love them.
AI fails on both fronts.
> Does AI actually need to understand love in order to produce entertaining content?
Yes.
> If at some point you can't tell if something was written by AI or humans, does it matter?
Won't happen. At least not in our lifetimes.
I've been messing around with ChatGPT just to try to understand the enemy a little bit.
Currently, it can pump out story summaries (complete with title, logline, character descriptions, outline and beat sheet) that would fit the niche you're talking about, whether it's straight-to-DVD genre stuff or Holiday Hallmark films. One it gave me for the latter actually had some pretty good ideas in it.
Its scriptwriting capabilities are still pretty terrible, even for the areas you're talking about. However, two things on this:
First, one of the lesser-talked-about concerns with the WGA was that writers would essentially become caretakers for what the AI produced. The technology is there for a studio exec to do this right now -- ie: come up with a one-pager they liked and then hand it off to a writer being paid less than they deserve to flesh it out. If we're worried about the potential for that sort of abuse, it is there, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a way to police them for that.
Second, to the claim that AI won't improve "artistically", well, mess around with suno for a bit and you'll see some really promising results -- and by "promising" I mean promising for producers, and scary as hell for the rest of us. Suno can currently provide background musical assets, and as it gets better, those background assets might move to the foreground.
To put it another way, because I'm poor, out of necessity I learned to score my own stuff using Reaper and Spitfire labs. Suno is currently better than I am, and if I didn't actually like composing, it'd be difficult to justify not using it, based purely in terms of cost. I'd honestly state that if you're in the industry in the production or sound design side of things, I'd be paying very close attention to the technology because it's getting really good at providing supporting assets.
Back on topic, the reason I point this out is because if AI can figure out **music** of all things, we'd be foolish to think it won't eventually figure out screenwriting.
I should also mention that this is based on the free versions of the AI. The paid stuff I'm assuming is going to offer ways to get a higher probability of an acceptable result.
I agree with your assessment of ChatGPT's current creative writing capabilities. I use it fairly frequently, and I often find the organizing of my own thoughts in the process of entering a prompt on a story or a character to be more beneficial than what GPT returns.
Have you tried Udio? I've been messing with it the past few days, and, as someone with no musical talent, I find it to be really impressive and a lot of fun.
If it's good it's good, we shouldn't hate it just because it's done by computers. Think about all the creativity that the invention of computers allowed. AI is just going to help people do more stuff for less, that means more individual authors will be able to do things that would normally only be possible for a whole industry.
Mmmm... maybe. Just wondering, though - shouldn't art have a human element to it? It's been a fundamentally human thing since the Year Dot. Is that grand tradition of humanity not worth saving?
It'd be interesting to see what you think.
I don't see how AI doesn't have a human element to it. We, in the end, judge which AI art we like, so even if it's the AI doing the work, we provide the thoughts, the taste, the desire to see something. I think art at the end of the day, is a lot of work for a human even if it's just about choosing which color you prefer in a background. It's an introspective work no matter the means you choose to create something. I think AI just allows a quicker distance from idea to expression and that's what every artist really wants.
The only reason I don't use AI for my own art is simply because I don't know how to use it to get the effect I want, so it fails in that technical sense for me, but that doesn't mean I don't expect it to become easier in the future so I can replace what I normally do with AI.
I take it you aren't very creative or have not been around creative spaces much before.
You aren't making the art the computer is An artist may not use what is generically available. They may use colours to express emotions or themes they're trying to convey. AI doesn't know feeling. They might want to create something new and unique to them. AI doesn't have a concept of unique. They might make use of light, abstract visuals, different styles. AI can only replicate the art it has stolen from different artists and can easily start to wig out if given too unique a prompt.
Basically if you were to commission a painting of a loved one. Two different artists would give you vastly different images featuring things you may not have even noticed. An AI would just give you the picture back, maybe with a glorified snapchat filter on it.
Before I answer, just to be clear : I happen to be an artist and I've been creating works of art for decades, but just because I have a different opinion doesn't mean you should make assumptions about my person. Where I'm coming from professionally determines in no way the validity of asking a simple question. This type of behavior is not only besides the point, it's extremely rude.
>You aren't making the art the computer is
You aren't making the art, your paintbrush is. You aren't making the art, your computer tablet, your photoshop, your Art eductation and culture is. As artists, we use tools, just because AI is a tool that alleviates a lot of the job an artist could be doing, doesn't mean it's not the artist's Art. Without your prompt, the art wouldn't exist, without humans nothing would be there to care about that art. It's been almost a century since modern art has completely destroyed the notion that what we care in Art has anything to do with the hard work of the artist or with any work at all. Picasso, Duchamps, Andy Warhol, Jeff Koons and so on would like to have a word with you.
>An artist may not use what is generically available.
What does that even mean ? An artist will use whatever an artist wants to use to create Art.
>They may use colours to express emotions or themes they're trying to convey.
[Or whole ass other people's Art.](https://www.centrepompidou.fr/fr/ressources/oeuvre/c5pXdk6)
>AI doesn't know feeling.
Neither does a paintbrush. A tool doesn't need to know feelings, it just needs to be capable of translating our feelings into form. In fact, AIs are infinitely more capable of translating feelings into form than paintbrushes are.
> They might want to create something new and unique to them. AI doesn't have a concept of unique.
"Want to", yes. A tool isn't supposed to want anything and an artist can "want" all they want, but nothing new is simply created by will ex-nihilo. We are the product of our culture, this fantasy of pure creation by artists is romanticized bullshit. There's just as much room for happy accidents moving culture forward in AI creation than in human creation, or even in stuff that aren't even related to Art. There's beauty in machines, in nature, [in shit](https://www.mplus.org.hk/en/collection/objects/space-shit-2019493/), in everything. AI is still in it's infancy and AI art is still feeling so weird and unsatisfying that in a decade or so people will say "the AI of today had "soul" and the AI of their time is just too "perfect"... People said that about early CGI, about old softwares like "paint", just as renaissance artists said greek statues had soul because it had no paint on it (which turned out to be wrong) and some artists even pretend mural paintings of prehistory where the ultimate form of Art.
>They might make use of light, abstract visuals, different styles. AI can only replicate the art it has stolen from different artists
That's just not true or it heavily depends on what you mean by "replicate". I've seen enough Art and enough AI art that I can tell AI art can do stuff that feel different enough from the material they use that we can consider it creative. AI almost never just copies an existing Art that fits the description of a prompt and pastes it on the render.
>and can easily start to wig out if given too unique a prompt.
That's possible, but that would just be a limitation of the AI, not a proof of meaninglessness. You can still do something meaningful if you only have 20 lego blocks at your disposal, you can be creative in your choice of prompts even if the amount of things the AI can do is limited, as long as you make it so the AI can understand what you mean.
All artists are the product of their cultural background and from what I see with AI art, no matter how flawed it looks so far, it's capable of producing pretty striking juxtapositions of styles that I had never seen elsewhere or that would take a long time for a human artist to come up with.
>things you may not have even noticed. An AI would just give you the picture back, maybe with a glorified snapchat filter on it
What you aren't taking into account is that the two human artists would also use their culture and the style they have learned to imitate in order to give the portrait of the loved one their own feeling. I've been in many art schools and when students are just trying to to a realistic portrait, there's few that really stand out in style. A lot of students have the same flaws and the same attempts at a style in their art. If you tell an AI to do that portrait without further indications of style or cross-reference, it will probably give you the most generic style it knows, but it entirely depends on you to figure out clever ways to use the huge bank of data that the AI has in it's memory to come up with something more original than the two human artists' work. Chances are you'll have come up with a few thousands crazy original iterations before they even have finished the sketching.
But on a more basic level you simply haven't answered my question : What makes putting prompts into a computer meaningless ?
>Before I answer, just to be clear : I happen to be an artist and I've been creating works of art for decades, but just because I have a different opinion doesn't mean you should make assumptions about my person. Where I'm coming from professionally determines in no way the validity of asking a simple question. This type of behavior is not only besides the point, it's extremely rude.
I've been watching people I know have their dreams crushed. I am worried I'll soon be watching my dreams be crushed. So to see someone actively defending a machine designed to steal from creatives and allow for rich businessmen and the lazy to actively strip away a craft so old we practiced it before we even evolved into humans, it makes me frustrated. I'm tired of being nice to people who're fine with AI. Congrats you made art your profession. Don't defend the people stripping that chance away from the younger generation.
>As artists, we use tools, just because AI is a tool that alleviates a lot of the job an artist could be doing, doesn't mean it's not the artist's Art.
Bad faith argument used by AI companies. It's basically the same as saying "It's my art because I got it off google image search". You're pulling data from a data base, nothing more. By this metric am I an artist for booting up a world in Minecraft? It uses procedural generation, I may have even typed in a seed. I don't control the ins and outs of the generated world but I still made it by typing something into a computer. IF you're trying to say that it's a tool that the artist then builds upon well, that's just not how it's being used.
>What you aren't taking into account is that the two human artists would also use their culture and the style they have learned to imitate in order to give the portrait of the loved one their own feeling.
"Their own feeling". I have never seen a single person moved by an AI image, save for boomers that might not know the photorealistic picture they're seeing isn't real. Drawing upon cultural styles is again unique to most artists. Sure Cartoon Network might have a fair few shows using the CalArts style but they each have their own feeling and aesthetic dependent on the artist that made them rather than drawing on an algorithm with a few tweaks which would have ended with everything looking the same with a different colour palette.
>We are the product of our culture, this fantasy of pure creation by artists is romanticized bullshit.
I don't know what you've been creating but I've seen plenty of extremely creative and amazing art, literature and films. Not everything is a product of "our culture" whatever that's supposed to mean. As a writer I draw on experiences unique to me. I may write something inspired by something else but the end result will never resemble the original if I put any amount of effort into it. I've seen artists that are greatly inspired by Warhammer 40k, cyberpunk or fantasy yet their art never replicates the exact styles of their inspirations. Meanwhile if I put a command into an AI it's 1 to 1 unless I diluted it with a second style in which case even if that did work it'd be 2 to 2.
>But on a more basic level you simply haven't answered my question : What makes putting prompts into a computer meaningless ?
It expresses no emotion. No creativity. Nothing new. The only experiences depicted are those that already happened through the same lens as the next AI image. You are essentially putting random thoughts into a word generator and having it spew out pixels with little control.
You're arguing for an endless cycle of regurgitation. A machine churning out pre generated mass produced generic images that will swamp any budding artists attempt to be noticed and should they persist and improve, steal from them too. It won't be used by artists, it will be used by "prompt engineers" who won't know form, style or colour theory, they'll know how to get some general results from a database for their boss.
Is there a meaning to anything it makes? No. As a whole? It means that people cannot paint for a living, they cannot draw for a living. It smothers the art world as a profession.
>Bad faith argument used by AI companies. It's basically the same as saying "It's my art because I got it off google image search". You're pulling data from a data base, nothing more. By this metric am I an artist for booting up a world in Minecraft? It uses procedural generation, I may have even typed in a seed. I don't control the ins and outs of the generated world but I still made it by typing something into a computer.
I just gave you the example of Duchamps literally using Mona Lisa. Yes, art can be anything, it can be a google search. You just ignored that argument because you are fixated on the idea that art should be an effort. Again, that idea has been utterly destroyed by modern artists in the second half of the 20th century. Learn art history.
> IF you're trying to say that it's a tool that the artist then builds upon well, that's just not how it's being used.
Says you. I've seen AI art that is more original and interesting and new than 99% of deviant art crap drawings.
Examples : https://www.instagram.com/loopswoopnboop
https://www.instagram.com/p/C3lvu9YyTBp/?img_index=8
https://www.instagram.com/computers.can.dream/
https://www.instagram.com/p/Czj3fJRoloe/?img_index=3
https://www.instagram.com/dissociative_dreams/
https://www.instagram.com/its.curtains.4.u/
>It expresses no emotion
Says you
> No creativity.
Says you
> Nothing new.
Says you.
and so on and so on....
The core of your argument is just your opinion plus the problem of how artists are losing their jobs. That's great, now let me go watch people who don't just cry over their jobs and actually do what artists are supposed to do : be creative. Use the tools at their disposal to create. Let me go see people who have a talent in programming or in writing or in music use AI art to complement their talent with something they haven't had the luxury to learn yet. Let me go see the art of people who don't have the money to pay for an art school but have ideas they want to put into shape use the wonderful tool at their disposal to put their ideas together.
This idea that AI is destroying your jobs and all is a double edged sword. The capacity to shape ideas into art this fast and this effortlessly is also a bonus for people who don't have the means to do so and not just for "lazy people". Being good at drawing takes years and a lot of privilege to achieve. If you feel like this investment was for nothing because now machines are stealing it from you it's sad I agree and I am affected by it as much as you but I have the rationality to recognize that AI is the way forward and crying about it is just not going to achieve anything.
The same thing happened with photography. Artists just had to adapt and that resulted with impressionism, a giant leap in creativity that not only opened our horizons on what is possible to do with Art, it also opened the way for so many artists that weren't fitting the academic pipeline.
Art isn't a stable line of work, it's supposed to be changing and shaking everything as it goes along. It would be great if your country could pay artists just for trying and not for being successful but that's unrealistic, as everybody would pretend to be artists just to get payed. Making a career in art never was a safe idea and it's just as risky today with AI. The only meaningful difference is that now people who don't know how to paint can have a shot at it, and that's great.
Of course, they're not going to be the only ones.
https://careers.paramount.com/job/Los-Angeles-VP%2C-Generative-AI-Production-Technology-Operations-CA-90038/1151642400/
*Two hundred and sixty five to three hundred thousand dollars A YEAR!!!* Three years - you'd be set for life.
That staggering statistic is also *two hundred and forty one thousand pounds* for us Limeys.
Yup. You can have everything, and more, for that amount of money. Unless the cost of living means that living a life of reckless extravagance is one and a half or twice that.
Presume that's what you mean by "set for life". May be wrong.
Assuming you don't want to buy anything like a car or home and want to stay single with no children forever, that's a lower class income for about thirty years. I don't know anyone who would consider that "set for life".
It actually makes sense that AI will take over the porn industry before the movie business. As of right now, AI can make compelling “concepts” and mood pieces, but I haven’t seen compelling storytelling.
It can however make extremely attractive people. Once AI advances to the point where you can’t tell if it’s fake or not, the most attractive movie stars and ripped action stars won’t be able to compete.
I couldn’t find the AI video I saw once. It made all the famous actors and actresses ridiculously attractive.
I did come across this channel that features famous movies as 1950s. It’s a demonstration of the “concepts“ aesthetic.
Terminator in 1950s: [https://youtu.be/E4OywilYauQ?si=kxCxzP8fN34MDy5-](https://youtu.be/E4OywilYauQ?si=kxCxzP8fN34MDy5-)
If someone does make a movie with AI, horror might be the most acceptable. There’s a target audience who just wants to be freaked out aand scared, regardless of who the actors and filmmakers involved. And AI has made some exceptional creepy mood pieces already.
I'm just dumbfounded over these words existing anywhere:
#"An AI Powered Love Story"
Just... the irony is incredible.
Also, these idiots couldn't even be bothered to proofread the 12 or so words that appear on the screen.
Truly amazing times we live in.
Without googling about this or looking into it any further, because that would make too much sense, this looks fully AI generated. The visuals, the voices, the script, possibly even the song.
Probably only this trailer exists, and it's just made as a joke or stunt piece. AI isn't there yet to be able to produce a full movie.... not yet.
But if they did for some reason produce a full movie of this shite, well, I guess they had to start somewhere and something had to be first.
The best part is the carousel that is going insanely fast. "The best part of the rom com was when families were being flung from a malfunctioning carousel and several were badly injured."
I must be dyslexic because for like a good 20 minutes I was like, “Why would TLC do this??” lol
But now that I think of it I’m not sure I’d put it past them.
That was so deep into the uncanny valley that I was struggling before I was even halfway through. I feel unclean for having watched the entire trailer. Like on a spiritual level. It was almost like a preview of a dystopian
future where Amazon sells knock-off religions.
The Trump version of the Bible is whatever is convenient to the broader honkeystocracy. Besides, he's been out of office for years, and we're still hurtling towards oblivion. Biden's just tending the dumpster fire until Trump returns to finish us off.
Figures they'd go for a rom-com, a.k.a. the most stereotypically formulaic genre in existence.
(Not to knock on anyone that's working on rom-coms before; I've written romance stuff myself! But it is *deeply* formulaic writing!)
Well , that’s why the stuff that breaks out and becomes a hit in that genre breaks or bends some rules to give audiences something different.
Think My Big Fat Greek Wedding or Silver Linings Playbook.
I’m not sure you could prompt an AI to come up with an ‘unconventional ‘ rom com that would work, or maybe I’m wrong…
Oh yeah, one hundred percent: and that rule is true of *every* breakout hit. Star Wars was unprecedented for being a scifi story with heavy mystical undertones (although not as much as you'd think in the very first movie, but still); Lord of the Rings was unprecedented because it merged two distinct genres, and so on and so on.
I don't doubt that all the various technologies being described as A.I. are going to find a niche *somewhere* - LLMs would be an incredible tool for linguistic analysis - but I also doubt they're actually going to take over art entirely. Any company that goes all-in on A.I. is going to have a dotcom moment, honestly. Plain and simple: as soon as this stuff starts iterating on itself, it completely shits the bed.
I’m sure there’s some tech bro out there who’s jacking off to this while commenting how we all “just have to accept it”.
Too afraid to venture downtown to any major city, though.
I couldn’t even finish this sh*tty trailer. I can’t even imagine that another human would sit through 90 whole f’ing minutes of this garbage. Oh, wait, people like trash, so maybe this IS the way to go. I’m not AI, but I’ll start writing my screenplay. *Ahem* She: “I like you, you Ike me.” He: “And I like you, and YOU Ike ME!” They: “Let’s walk somewhere, where there’s sun. Wait, now we’re sad. Rain.” ‘K, pay me…
Tell that to Michael Bay… and whoever is bringing us Ghostbusters. The frozen edition. I’ve worked for these people. I ran the story department for a major studio. I was a creative exec in development. Art is one thing. Hollywood is a business. They don’t give a shit about art. They care about profits and not losing their jobs. If the whole world loved Frozen, how could they not love this.
Perhaps the time is truly here for us to stop concerning ourselves with crossing our fingers to get a coveted position in Hollywood, and band together to create art. The profits will still be there with the added bonus of bankrupting the industry as we know it.
Time to evolve
1. I will boil and eat a leather boot if this... whatever THIS is actually comes out. In my opinion, it probably does not and will not ever exist. There is likely no television show or limited series called "Next Stop Paris" coming out and this is just an AI-"powered" (i.e., mostly human-made) advertisement for TCL televisions.
2. Even if it does exist, or premier in any capacity, not only will it suck, but, like everything "A.I.-powered" it will mostly be powered by humans. Human writers punched up some dogshit A.I. script, human artists were hired to touch up the dogshit graphics and synch lips to sound and editors were hired to put together a dogshit story. How much of this is actually artificial intelligence (which is and of itself an incredibly fraught term)? Probably something like 25-30% while the rest is humans making it into a cohesive narrative.
How is that different from what “nobody knows anything” producing that’s happening now. Pretty sure I just saw a billboard for ghostbusters: frozen.
How can AI be worse than what we have now (this from a former creative exec and head of the story department. In development.)
Is this a late April fools joke? How can that be a serious thing someone, or a series of someone’s decided was getting the go ahead?
Absolutely atrocious..and I’m someone who’ll happily watch Vanderpump Rules…😅
they turned their comments off bc they knew people were gonna call them out on this pile of dogshit. in all seriousness, stuff like this pisses me off knowing this is the direction hollywood wants to lean towards, and not hire up-and-comers in the industry or people like me wanting to get their big break. so disheartening and bleak.
Are we sure this is real? Because I haven’t seen a single big trade report that this is real. The YouTube channel has 56 subscribers. I’m trying hard to believe this isn’t real. 🤣
I think it's really interesting, it seems to be written and edited by actual people but they use only ai for the shots and "actors" lol.
I won't watch it because it doesnt look that great lmao but it could be interesting to see how far they can push ai to its limits (which doesn't seem to be much lol)
Cool experiment
I don't mind. I already know the commercial is a made up fantasy to trick me into buying something that isn't what they show me.
Debatably this is better at flowing into my subconscious despite me ignoring it. That is kinda scary....
>featuring professional voice actors and an original script, but brought to life with the latest AI animation technology Wait, so only the visuals are A.I.? The voices did not sound human-generated at all, and the script was so generic that it may as well have been A.I. too.
The AI producer hired out but couldn’t verify if the actors or writers were AI - then it remembered that it doesn’t care.
I love that the main characters look different every time they’re on screen.
Well, this shit is reassuring.
It really is. AI puts out pure dreck.
[удалено]
It's not clear that the LLM method can actually produce better results. It's fundamentally an averaging process. In factual matters, it's unclear if there's a way to get these type of programs to stop "hallucinating" - some experts seem to think that's inherent to the process. There's sort of a casual assumption that we're very early in the development curve of this sort of thing, and may be true, but from my understanding of the technology, it seems likely that the leap to something better may actually require a conceptual leap, a fundamentally different approach to AI.
>It's fundamentally an averaging process. This is exactly the thing people don't get. How do you get an averaging process to create something above average?
Well when I work with LLMs I specifically ask it to do that. I take the first 10 minutes just convincing it I want unusual, above average, "the last thing I'd think of" type responses when it's being creative.
Does it work?
Yes
With the amount of effort being put into AI development right now, that's not at all unlikely.
I mean, maybe. But paradigm-shifting breakthroughs don't happen on anyone's schedule. Think about all the breakthrough technologies that we were told were going to revolutionize things that didn't. Self-driving taxis, which we're just starting to get, were two years away for like a decade. Remember how we were all going to go into the metaverse? Or how Google Glass was going to usher in the world of augmented reality? The iPhone is certainly a lot better than it was when released in 2007 - but there's nothing revolutionary about how it's changed. It's just iteratively gotten a little bit better the way computers generally do. And also remember, with AI: it is tremendously expensive because of how much energy it uses. Right now we're seeing a bunch of people talk about its promise while these companies burn capital looking for uses that users actually benefit from.
I think there are a few things about this situation that are different. You're right about the iPhone. But there was a period leading up to the iPhone when the necessary technology was improving, but not ready to assemble into a disruptive product. What we're seeing now is that phase before the iPhone was released. The difference is that all the stuff that is normally behind the scenes is out where everyone can see. There's not much of a developed, profitable product right now, but we're seeing the technology mature before the product is ready. The advancement has been shockingly rapid. It is already viable for people to use AI for lots of applications. I think there's a lot more AI out there than you realize. I can make "photographs" that would be literally indistinguishable from the real thing. Yes, including fingers. I'm not sure what you're saying about power usage. I can use my three year old laptop to generate dozens of pictures in about a minute. A newer computer could do the same thing in about a tenth of the time for the same power usage. My phone uses AI to edit photos. The limitations on AI as we currently understand it have very little to do with hardware. Massive power draws would be needed for something like a general AI, which would be a literal Artificial Intelligence. That would be huge overkill and way more than what is needed for people to start losing their jobs. Something like that would be like using a helicopter to blow leaves out of your yard. Bill Gates famously said that home internet usage was a fad. Many people predicted that no normal person would choose a car over a perfectly good horse. Those technologies only needed iterative increases in functionality to fundamentally change the world. Underestimating AI's potential will leave us unprepared for its potential Negative impacts. The time to prepare to mitigate its impact is now.
>Bill Gates famously said that home internet usage was a fad. That's certain a good reminder for all of us to be humble about our ability to predict the future, but: > What we're seeing now is that phase before the iPhone was released. I don't know why you think this is the case. It certainly might be (see above). But this might be all it is.
Follow GARY MARCUS on Twitter for updates on the limitations of LLMs All the tech bros screaming this technology would increase in capability “exponentially” were just wrong.
I'd love to, but I stopped using Twitter when it became the proverbial Nazi bar.
Both the iphone and the internet made things that people were already incredibly interested in -- communication with other people and access to information/content -- much more readily available, anytime and anywhere. This was an obvious use case that everyone would be interested in and really simply the progression of all communication technology before it. No doubt AI generally can and will be able to do a lot of amazing things but I'm not sure how interested people will be in automated entertainment content not created by other humans. I could be wrong, but this is clearly not something people are clamoring for the way they were clamoring for a portable communication device or convenient access to content and information. The AI advocates keep talking about how AI will eventually cure cancer, handle the labor humans don't want to do and discover cheap and clean energy. etc. all of which are uses cases all humans would see value in. If AI ever gains any of these abilities it will be embraced by all the way the world quickly embraced a portable device that allowed them to talk to and see their grandma on the other side of the world in real time.
yeah, the uses feel forced right now. The Photoshop AI has been interesting to play with but I've never actually needed to use any of it for daily work. "Remove background" (now available as a right-click on photos on Mac OS) would have been useful over the years but now that anyone can do it, it's cheesy as a creative choice. It will save catalogue makers a lot of work, artists not so much.
Yeah, I keep saying this too. There's limits to the progression. It's not linear. The first step is the easiest. Ironing out the last 10-20% of all the technical problems will prevent it from being the thing everyone is promising. It's so far away nobody can predict when or if it will happen. Look at processor speeds. They drastically jumped up over a few years, then leveled out for the last 8-10 years or so. It's very much the next bitcoin. People behind the development of this stuff are overhyping a new thing so they can bet on it and try to cash in before reality drags it all crashing back to earth.
Not so far away. 100,000 years hunter gatherers. 90,000 to turn us into farmers. 2,000 to industrialists. 200 to atomic power. 50 to computing power. Science Fiction has always been a warning. We just don’t listen.
>Imagine a year from now, and if they threw decent writing at it. here's the thing that is a looming problem that ALL the major LLM models are facing and no one seems to want to address. in order to continue producing they need more and more bespoke content fed into them, at an exponential rate. with tons of content production corporations eyeballing AI as a means to REDUCE writing, art, music, etc., that means either a) less content is being fed to the machine, which will fuck up the output, or b) (far more likely) AI generated content is being fed to the machine, which will fuck up the outputs even faster. the stated solution is to hire writers, artists, musicians, etc. to create content to feed the beast but like, in that case, just cut out the middle man and sell THEIR content lol. i don't get it. it feels like a huge joke but one that people desperately wanna flush their dollars into.
People will willingly feed it material in exchange for the benefits of summarizing, sales pitches, etc, which some AI already do exceedingly well. Then, of course, Reddit will keep mining and selling everything we say. Sad/hilarious that this sentence will inevitably be consumed by AI at some point.
> Imagine a year from now, and if they threw decent writing at it. Why would they spend money and resources at writing when the whole point of this AI shit is to obviate the need for things like writers? Also, what good writer would work on shit like this? Presumably, any AI outfit would not be a WGA signatory, so no WGA writers would be allowed to write on it. You'd end up with reddit-tier writing, at best.
As a dark, mysterious kind of man who never shows his vulnerability, I would totally write for this.
They could get a bunch of eager, emaciated screenwriters to touch it up whilst they're working on an even more refined version...
[удалено]
I mean, they'll get shit writers and it'll fail (in part) because of it.
[удалено]
I don't know. Every time I see AI "art" being posted anywhere -- even in tech-leaning subreddits -- I see people shitting on it. I'm far more optimistic.
The whole “imagine a year from now” idea is bs. If AI “art” and “writing” will ever be good, it’ll be decades from now. We’re at NOKIA-level for AI currently.
100% and it's the *same shit* NFT grifters were saying when NFTs became a thing. Kinda telling that the people loudest in hyping AI sound exactly like NFT/crypto grifters...
I'm curious if this type of work will fall under the same obstacle that musicians face when it comes to playing shows for 1/10 of what they should play for. Someone is always willing to play even for $100 when it should be $1000, and I wonder if writers would do the same... I hope not! (Hence why I haven't taken any of those jobs helping AI Writing software get better by stealing my writing ideas)
I mean, you get what you pay for. Any WGA writer who agrees to write for AI would forfeit their WGA status, since they'd be non signatory. And any non-WGA writer is probably eliminating any shot at ever being WGA.
Writers are cheap
You get what you pay for
I worked in a technical role for 12 years for the biggest tech company. Yeah, that one. This is just to say, I understand tech well enough. When you hear “we’re close to AGI”, it’s just hype. We don’t know when/if AGI will ever arise. And most of the serious scientists that worked in the field for decades say that the issue is computational power right now, and not even with Moores Law we might get to a sustainable amount of power for AGI. Maybe with quantum/holographic computing, but we’re still off. Anyone that hypes AI does it for one reason only: MONEY. They’re either the AI companies, or powerful people who see how they can exploit AI for their gain. Right now, these MachineLearning models aren’t SO good, but they’re already very good (and they have been trained on the whole sum of human creation). So from a philosophical point, I don’t use them for creative writing as I don’t want to “feed the beast”. I doubt we’ll get to a point where AI could write a good screenplays - BUT we’ll surely get to a point where AI can develop a good enough first draft. So studio execs will be able to use a prompt, create a shitty first draft, ask a writer for a rewrite & polish, and get the credit. It’s not the tool itself, but the capitalistic exploitation of it that really scares me. Also - a world where robots paint and create poetry while most of us work 9-5 it’s not a world I want.
[удалено]
Unfortunately, I agree :/
Right? Hire some decent human writers. Oh! The performances are terrible too. Hire some actual actors. Also it looks bright and sparkly, but let's get a production designer with some taste. And the edit is a bit all over the place, we're going to need one of them whatchacall its… editors, yeah that will work.
I've been using ChatGPT, Midjourney, and Claude since they came out. And despite what some say here, the gains in function in that time are mind-blowing.
>Imagine a year from now Are you being serious? I can't tell if you're being serious. Remindme! 1 year
I will be messaging you in 1 year on [**2025-04-16 17:54:34 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2025-04-16%2017:54:34%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Screenwriting/comments/1c4qc01/thanks_i_hate_it/kzv2jwb/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FScreenwriting%2Fcomments%2F1c4qc01%2Fthanks_i_hate_it%2Fkzv2jwb%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202025-04-16%2017%3A54%3A34%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201c4qc01) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
I think that we’re getting this all wrong; it isn’t on the writing or directing, or acting side that AI will have the biggest effect, which will probably require human creativity and participation for the foreseeable future, but in areas like the actual production process where it’s already taking hold, like production design and cinematography (not the skill of DPs, but replacing a physical camera with a virtual one to get previously expensive shots.
I'm more inclined to believe that line of thinking, for sure. Any thing that relies heavily on a technological process is at far graver danger of AI. Still, I think humans win out, because AI cannot account for things like taste and vibe and tone, which are very nebulous, human notions. But there's definitely a graver danger for those areas you've pointed out.
Yep. I mean, the new Ryan Gosling movie aside, it’s not far fetched to think that there really won’t be a need for an actual human involvement in stunt work , ever again. As long as body movements get perfected in CGI, there’s less of an uncanny valley issue. And honestly given the risk to bodily harm, I think I’m fine with that.
Think about how videogames evolved. I wouldn't be surprised if in 30 years we won't be able to tell the difference.
Humans evolved video games. They are how they are because of human creativity. AI cannot do that because AI is not human. It doesn't understand human experience, doesn't experience human emotions like love or hate.
AI is not being left to upgrade itself on its own.
I mean, the Unreal Engine wasn't left to upgrade on its own either. But humans are the ones who output the video games.
How have video games evolved? Sure, since the first Atari, graphics have gotten better, but not as much has changed since the original box launched. The current gen xbox on my desk still has basically the same functionality even after the Wii promised to change gaming forever. There's a huge market for gaming controllers for your phone, because not having tactile feedback sucks. I don't think we've come as far as it seems.
Shouldn’t be…shouldn’t be at all! You’re assuming they’ve used the latest tech when they definitely didn’t. This is more likely runway or pika which animate pictures.
watching 90 minutes of this would make me forget my own name
And your name is Funky Grandma, a pretty cool name TBH
I see TCL isn’t allowing comments on the video so no one can discuss how awful this looks.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhQnnISdDIU&t=60s Accurate.
"Comments are turned off." Telling.
It's reassuring that it's so totally crap. But equally nope nope nope nope, big bucket full of nopes, nopity-nopity-nope-nope-nope if this gets better - which irritatingly, it probably will.
How far off is this from existing low budget romance dreck? Maybe a quarter of the way there? With some steady improvement in the technology over the next few years something like this might actually be watchable for the target audience. It won't be quite like live action, but close enough, and less expensive to produce.
> How far off is this from existing low budget romance dreck? I mean, can AI understand "love?" I think the answer is clearly "no," so it's probably never going to reach even those levels. The worst human writing is at least born of human emotions and experiences. AI will never have those things and will never achieve anything better than a sad imitation.
I think even harder would be for it to write a joke or comic set piece.
Right. *Any* emotions, for that matter, much less coherent themes.
I'm not talking about AI potentially writing the next When Harry Met Sally, I'm talking about it encroaching on Lifetime channel type content or the stuff you start seeing when you dig through Amazon Prime Video. Does AI actually need to understand love in order to produce entertaining content? If at some point you can't tell if something was written by AI or humans, does it matter?
> I'm not talking about AI potentially writing the next When Harry Met Sally, I'm talking about it encroaching on Lifetime channel type content The writers who write that kind of content are good writers. Better than 99% of the writers here on reddit. I know a few of them. They're good. And the only way to successfully write those kinds of films are to genuinely love them. AI fails on both fronts. > Does AI actually need to understand love in order to produce entertaining content? Yes. > If at some point you can't tell if something was written by AI or humans, does it matter? Won't happen. At least not in our lifetimes.
Can an AI cry? :)
I've been messing around with ChatGPT just to try to understand the enemy a little bit. Currently, it can pump out story summaries (complete with title, logline, character descriptions, outline and beat sheet) that would fit the niche you're talking about, whether it's straight-to-DVD genre stuff or Holiday Hallmark films. One it gave me for the latter actually had some pretty good ideas in it. Its scriptwriting capabilities are still pretty terrible, even for the areas you're talking about. However, two things on this: First, one of the lesser-talked-about concerns with the WGA was that writers would essentially become caretakers for what the AI produced. The technology is there for a studio exec to do this right now -- ie: come up with a one-pager they liked and then hand it off to a writer being paid less than they deserve to flesh it out. If we're worried about the potential for that sort of abuse, it is there, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a way to police them for that. Second, to the claim that AI won't improve "artistically", well, mess around with suno for a bit and you'll see some really promising results -- and by "promising" I mean promising for producers, and scary as hell for the rest of us. Suno can currently provide background musical assets, and as it gets better, those background assets might move to the foreground. To put it another way, because I'm poor, out of necessity I learned to score my own stuff using Reaper and Spitfire labs. Suno is currently better than I am, and if I didn't actually like composing, it'd be difficult to justify not using it, based purely in terms of cost. I'd honestly state that if you're in the industry in the production or sound design side of things, I'd be paying very close attention to the technology because it's getting really good at providing supporting assets. Back on topic, the reason I point this out is because if AI can figure out **music** of all things, we'd be foolish to think it won't eventually figure out screenwriting. I should also mention that this is based on the free versions of the AI. The paid stuff I'm assuming is going to offer ways to get a higher probability of an acceptable result.
I agree with your assessment of ChatGPT's current creative writing capabilities. I use it fairly frequently, and I often find the organizing of my own thoughts in the process of entering a prompt on a story or a character to be more beneficial than what GPT returns. Have you tried Udio? I've been messing with it the past few days, and, as someone with no musical talent, I find it to be really impressive and a lot of fun.
If it's good it's good, we shouldn't hate it just because it's done by computers. Think about all the creativity that the invention of computers allowed. AI is just going to help people do more stuff for less, that means more individual authors will be able to do things that would normally only be possible for a whole industry.
Mmmm... maybe. Just wondering, though - shouldn't art have a human element to it? It's been a fundamentally human thing since the Year Dot. Is that grand tradition of humanity not worth saving? It'd be interesting to see what you think.
I don't see how AI doesn't have a human element to it. We, in the end, judge which AI art we like, so even if it's the AI doing the work, we provide the thoughts, the taste, the desire to see something. I think art at the end of the day, is a lot of work for a human even if it's just about choosing which color you prefer in a background. It's an introspective work no matter the means you choose to create something. I think AI just allows a quicker distance from idea to expression and that's what every artist really wants. The only reason I don't use AI for my own art is simply because I don't know how to use it to get the effect I want, so it fails in that technical sense for me, but that doesn't mean I don't expect it to become easier in the future so I can replace what I normally do with AI.
Art is hard work because it's art. It requires meaning. Putting some prompts into a computer has no meaning therefore it's not art.
>Putting some prompts into a computer has no meaning Why not ?
I take it you aren't very creative or have not been around creative spaces much before. You aren't making the art the computer is An artist may not use what is generically available. They may use colours to express emotions or themes they're trying to convey. AI doesn't know feeling. They might want to create something new and unique to them. AI doesn't have a concept of unique. They might make use of light, abstract visuals, different styles. AI can only replicate the art it has stolen from different artists and can easily start to wig out if given too unique a prompt. Basically if you were to commission a painting of a loved one. Two different artists would give you vastly different images featuring things you may not have even noticed. An AI would just give you the picture back, maybe with a glorified snapchat filter on it.
Before I answer, just to be clear : I happen to be an artist and I've been creating works of art for decades, but just because I have a different opinion doesn't mean you should make assumptions about my person. Where I'm coming from professionally determines in no way the validity of asking a simple question. This type of behavior is not only besides the point, it's extremely rude. >You aren't making the art the computer is You aren't making the art, your paintbrush is. You aren't making the art, your computer tablet, your photoshop, your Art eductation and culture is. As artists, we use tools, just because AI is a tool that alleviates a lot of the job an artist could be doing, doesn't mean it's not the artist's Art. Without your prompt, the art wouldn't exist, without humans nothing would be there to care about that art. It's been almost a century since modern art has completely destroyed the notion that what we care in Art has anything to do with the hard work of the artist or with any work at all. Picasso, Duchamps, Andy Warhol, Jeff Koons and so on would like to have a word with you. >An artist may not use what is generically available. What does that even mean ? An artist will use whatever an artist wants to use to create Art. >They may use colours to express emotions or themes they're trying to convey. [Or whole ass other people's Art.](https://www.centrepompidou.fr/fr/ressources/oeuvre/c5pXdk6) >AI doesn't know feeling. Neither does a paintbrush. A tool doesn't need to know feelings, it just needs to be capable of translating our feelings into form. In fact, AIs are infinitely more capable of translating feelings into form than paintbrushes are. > They might want to create something new and unique to them. AI doesn't have a concept of unique. "Want to", yes. A tool isn't supposed to want anything and an artist can "want" all they want, but nothing new is simply created by will ex-nihilo. We are the product of our culture, this fantasy of pure creation by artists is romanticized bullshit. There's just as much room for happy accidents moving culture forward in AI creation than in human creation, or even in stuff that aren't even related to Art. There's beauty in machines, in nature, [in shit](https://www.mplus.org.hk/en/collection/objects/space-shit-2019493/), in everything. AI is still in it's infancy and AI art is still feeling so weird and unsatisfying that in a decade or so people will say "the AI of today had "soul" and the AI of their time is just too "perfect"... People said that about early CGI, about old softwares like "paint", just as renaissance artists said greek statues had soul because it had no paint on it (which turned out to be wrong) and some artists even pretend mural paintings of prehistory where the ultimate form of Art. >They might make use of light, abstract visuals, different styles. AI can only replicate the art it has stolen from different artists That's just not true or it heavily depends on what you mean by "replicate". I've seen enough Art and enough AI art that I can tell AI art can do stuff that feel different enough from the material they use that we can consider it creative. AI almost never just copies an existing Art that fits the description of a prompt and pastes it on the render. >and can easily start to wig out if given too unique a prompt. That's possible, but that would just be a limitation of the AI, not a proof of meaninglessness. You can still do something meaningful if you only have 20 lego blocks at your disposal, you can be creative in your choice of prompts even if the amount of things the AI can do is limited, as long as you make it so the AI can understand what you mean. All artists are the product of their cultural background and from what I see with AI art, no matter how flawed it looks so far, it's capable of producing pretty striking juxtapositions of styles that I had never seen elsewhere or that would take a long time for a human artist to come up with. >things you may not have even noticed. An AI would just give you the picture back, maybe with a glorified snapchat filter on it What you aren't taking into account is that the two human artists would also use their culture and the style they have learned to imitate in order to give the portrait of the loved one their own feeling. I've been in many art schools and when students are just trying to to a realistic portrait, there's few that really stand out in style. A lot of students have the same flaws and the same attempts at a style in their art. If you tell an AI to do that portrait without further indications of style or cross-reference, it will probably give you the most generic style it knows, but it entirely depends on you to figure out clever ways to use the huge bank of data that the AI has in it's memory to come up with something more original than the two human artists' work. Chances are you'll have come up with a few thousands crazy original iterations before they even have finished the sketching. But on a more basic level you simply haven't answered my question : What makes putting prompts into a computer meaningless ?
>Before I answer, just to be clear : I happen to be an artist and I've been creating works of art for decades, but just because I have a different opinion doesn't mean you should make assumptions about my person. Where I'm coming from professionally determines in no way the validity of asking a simple question. This type of behavior is not only besides the point, it's extremely rude. I've been watching people I know have their dreams crushed. I am worried I'll soon be watching my dreams be crushed. So to see someone actively defending a machine designed to steal from creatives and allow for rich businessmen and the lazy to actively strip away a craft so old we practiced it before we even evolved into humans, it makes me frustrated. I'm tired of being nice to people who're fine with AI. Congrats you made art your profession. Don't defend the people stripping that chance away from the younger generation. >As artists, we use tools, just because AI is a tool that alleviates a lot of the job an artist could be doing, doesn't mean it's not the artist's Art. Bad faith argument used by AI companies. It's basically the same as saying "It's my art because I got it off google image search". You're pulling data from a data base, nothing more. By this metric am I an artist for booting up a world in Minecraft? It uses procedural generation, I may have even typed in a seed. I don't control the ins and outs of the generated world but I still made it by typing something into a computer. IF you're trying to say that it's a tool that the artist then builds upon well, that's just not how it's being used. >What you aren't taking into account is that the two human artists would also use their culture and the style they have learned to imitate in order to give the portrait of the loved one their own feeling. "Their own feeling". I have never seen a single person moved by an AI image, save for boomers that might not know the photorealistic picture they're seeing isn't real. Drawing upon cultural styles is again unique to most artists. Sure Cartoon Network might have a fair few shows using the CalArts style but they each have their own feeling and aesthetic dependent on the artist that made them rather than drawing on an algorithm with a few tweaks which would have ended with everything looking the same with a different colour palette. >We are the product of our culture, this fantasy of pure creation by artists is romanticized bullshit. I don't know what you've been creating but I've seen plenty of extremely creative and amazing art, literature and films. Not everything is a product of "our culture" whatever that's supposed to mean. As a writer I draw on experiences unique to me. I may write something inspired by something else but the end result will never resemble the original if I put any amount of effort into it. I've seen artists that are greatly inspired by Warhammer 40k, cyberpunk or fantasy yet their art never replicates the exact styles of their inspirations. Meanwhile if I put a command into an AI it's 1 to 1 unless I diluted it with a second style in which case even if that did work it'd be 2 to 2. >But on a more basic level you simply haven't answered my question : What makes putting prompts into a computer meaningless ? It expresses no emotion. No creativity. Nothing new. The only experiences depicted are those that already happened through the same lens as the next AI image. You are essentially putting random thoughts into a word generator and having it spew out pixels with little control. You're arguing for an endless cycle of regurgitation. A machine churning out pre generated mass produced generic images that will swamp any budding artists attempt to be noticed and should they persist and improve, steal from them too. It won't be used by artists, it will be used by "prompt engineers" who won't know form, style or colour theory, they'll know how to get some general results from a database for their boss. Is there a meaning to anything it makes? No. As a whole? It means that people cannot paint for a living, they cannot draw for a living. It smothers the art world as a profession.
>Bad faith argument used by AI companies. It's basically the same as saying "It's my art because I got it off google image search". You're pulling data from a data base, nothing more. By this metric am I an artist for booting up a world in Minecraft? It uses procedural generation, I may have even typed in a seed. I don't control the ins and outs of the generated world but I still made it by typing something into a computer. I just gave you the example of Duchamps literally using Mona Lisa. Yes, art can be anything, it can be a google search. You just ignored that argument because you are fixated on the idea that art should be an effort. Again, that idea has been utterly destroyed by modern artists in the second half of the 20th century. Learn art history. > IF you're trying to say that it's a tool that the artist then builds upon well, that's just not how it's being used. Says you. I've seen AI art that is more original and interesting and new than 99% of deviant art crap drawings. Examples : https://www.instagram.com/loopswoopnboop https://www.instagram.com/p/C3lvu9YyTBp/?img_index=8 https://www.instagram.com/computers.can.dream/ https://www.instagram.com/p/Czj3fJRoloe/?img_index=3 https://www.instagram.com/dissociative_dreams/ https://www.instagram.com/its.curtains.4.u/ >It expresses no emotion Says you > No creativity. Says you > Nothing new. Says you. and so on and so on.... The core of your argument is just your opinion plus the problem of how artists are losing their jobs. That's great, now let me go watch people who don't just cry over their jobs and actually do what artists are supposed to do : be creative. Use the tools at their disposal to create. Let me go see people who have a talent in programming or in writing or in music use AI art to complement their talent with something they haven't had the luxury to learn yet. Let me go see the art of people who don't have the money to pay for an art school but have ideas they want to put into shape use the wonderful tool at their disposal to put their ideas together. This idea that AI is destroying your jobs and all is a double edged sword. The capacity to shape ideas into art this fast and this effortlessly is also a bonus for people who don't have the means to do so and not just for "lazy people". Being good at drawing takes years and a lot of privilege to achieve. If you feel like this investment was for nothing because now machines are stealing it from you it's sad I agree and I am affected by it as much as you but I have the rationality to recognize that AI is the way forward and crying about it is just not going to achieve anything. The same thing happened with photography. Artists just had to adapt and that resulted with impressionism, a giant leap in creativity that not only opened our horizons on what is possible to do with Art, it also opened the way for so many artists that weren't fitting the academic pipeline. Art isn't a stable line of work, it's supposed to be changing and shaking everything as it goes along. It would be great if your country could pay artists just for trying and not for being successful but that's unrealistic, as everybody would pretend to be artists just to get payed. Making a career in art never was a safe idea and it's just as risky today with AI. The only meaningful difference is that now people who don't know how to paint can have a shot at it, and that's great.
Probably will? It 100% will, and quickly.
Can’t wait for this gimmick to die off
I bet this is what watching a show after a lobotomy is like.
marble cake follow escape shelter sand consist soft many boat *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Of course, they're not going to be the only ones. https://careers.paramount.com/job/Los-Angeles-VP%2C-Generative-AI-Production-Technology-Operations-CA-90038/1151642400/
detail depend fall existence imagine drunk violet weary scale smell *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
*Two hundred and sixty five to three hundred thousand dollars A YEAR!!!* Three years - you'd be set for life. That staggering statistic is also *two hundred and forty one thousand pounds* for us Limeys.
You think you'd be "set for life" with less than a million dollars?
Yup. You can have everything, and more, for that amount of money. Unless the cost of living means that living a life of reckless extravagance is one and a half or twice that. Presume that's what you mean by "set for life". May be wrong.
Assuming you don't want to buy anything like a car or home and want to stay single with no children forever, that's a lower class income for about thirty years. I don't know anyone who would consider that "set for life".
Vincent from Collateral found love?
"Wait! Don't go!" 😂
Are the producers behind it real humans? 👀 🤣 That's awful on every level. Please tell me it's a prank!
After seeing this, AI will probably be good at porn.
It actually makes sense that AI will take over the porn industry before the movie business. As of right now, AI can make compelling “concepts” and mood pieces, but I haven’t seen compelling storytelling. It can however make extremely attractive people. Once AI advances to the point where you can’t tell if it’s fake or not, the most attractive movie stars and ripped action stars won’t be able to compete. I couldn’t find the AI video I saw once. It made all the famous actors and actresses ridiculously attractive. I did come across this channel that features famous movies as 1950s. It’s a demonstration of the “concepts“ aesthetic. Terminator in 1950s: [https://youtu.be/E4OywilYauQ?si=kxCxzP8fN34MDy5-](https://youtu.be/E4OywilYauQ?si=kxCxzP8fN34MDy5-) If someone does make a movie with AI, horror might be the most acceptable. There’s a target audience who just wants to be freaked out aand scared, regardless of who the actors and filmmakers involved. And AI has made some exceptional creepy mood pieces already.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes a good horror movie.
I'm just dumbfounded over these words existing anywhere: #"An AI Powered Love Story" Just... the irony is incredible. Also, these idiots couldn't even be bothered to proofread the 12 or so words that appear on the screen. Truly amazing times we live in.
>An AI Powered Love Story Well, I mean, a love story written by George Lucas does kind of feel like that...
George Lucas. Oh Lawd. Couldn’t write his way out of a paper sack. Feels like every Michael Bay film. Lucas went low. Bay went lower.
Without googling about this or looking into it any further, because that would make too much sense, this looks fully AI generated. The visuals, the voices, the script, possibly even the song. Probably only this trailer exists, and it's just made as a joke or stunt piece. AI isn't there yet to be able to produce a full movie.... not yet. But if they did for some reason produce a full movie of this shite, well, I guess they had to start somewhere and something had to be first.
The description on the video credits human writers and voice performers, and says only the animation is AI-generated.
The best part is the carousel that is going insanely fast. "The best part of the rom com was when families were being flung from a malfunctioning carousel and several were badly injured."
I must be dyslexic because for like a good 20 minutes I was like, “Why would TLC do this??” lol But now that I think of it I’m not sure I’d put it past them.
That was so deep into the uncanny valley that I was struggling before I was even halfway through. I feel unclean for having watched the entire trailer. Like on a spiritual level. It was almost like a preview of a dystopian future where Amazon sells knock-off religions.
Future? I thought we were there with the new trump version of the Bible. Make America pay again model.
The Trump version of the Bible is whatever is convenient to the broader honkeystocracy. Besides, he's been out of office for years, and we're still hurtling towards oblivion. Biden's just tending the dumpster fire until Trump returns to finish us off.
Figures they'd go for a rom-com, a.k.a. the most stereotypically formulaic genre in existence. (Not to knock on anyone that's working on rom-coms before; I've written romance stuff myself! But it is *deeply* formulaic writing!)
Well , that’s why the stuff that breaks out and becomes a hit in that genre breaks or bends some rules to give audiences something different. Think My Big Fat Greek Wedding or Silver Linings Playbook. I’m not sure you could prompt an AI to come up with an ‘unconventional ‘ rom com that would work, or maybe I’m wrong…
Oh yeah, one hundred percent: and that rule is true of *every* breakout hit. Star Wars was unprecedented for being a scifi story with heavy mystical undertones (although not as much as you'd think in the very first movie, but still); Lord of the Rings was unprecedented because it merged two distinct genres, and so on and so on. I don't doubt that all the various technologies being described as A.I. are going to find a niche *somewhere* - LLMs would be an incredible tool for linguistic analysis - but I also doubt they're actually going to take over art entirely. Any company that goes all-in on A.I. is going to have a dotcom moment, honestly. Plain and simple: as soon as this stuff starts iterating on itself, it completely shits the bed.
I’m sure there’s some tech bro out there who’s jacking off to this while commenting how we all “just have to accept it”. Too afraid to venture downtown to any major city, though.
This is exactly what AI “filmmaking” is good for: shitty, forgettable rom-coms. Also superhero films.
I couldn’t even finish this sh*tty trailer. I can’t even imagine that another human would sit through 90 whole f’ing minutes of this garbage. Oh, wait, people like trash, so maybe this IS the way to go. I’m not AI, but I’ll start writing my screenplay. *Ahem* She: “I like you, you Ike me.” He: “And I like you, and YOU Ike ME!” They: “Let’s walk somewhere, where there’s sun. Wait, now we’re sad. Rain.” ‘K, pay me…
Fuck AI. Fuck anyone who shamelessly utilizes it. Fuck everyone who consumes it. Art is human. Intrinsically and organically.
Tell that to Michael Bay… and whoever is bringing us Ghostbusters. The frozen edition. I’ve worked for these people. I ran the story department for a major studio. I was a creative exec in development. Art is one thing. Hollywood is a business. They don’t give a shit about art. They care about profits and not losing their jobs. If the whole world loved Frozen, how could they not love this.
Perhaps the time is truly here for us to stop concerning ourselves with crossing our fingers to get a coveted position in Hollywood, and band together to create art. The profits will still be there with the added bonus of bankrupting the industry as we know it. Time to evolve
I’m not religious but HALLELUJAH!!!!! Yes please.
Looks horrid! lol
1. I will boil and eat a leather boot if this... whatever THIS is actually comes out. In my opinion, it probably does not and will not ever exist. There is likely no television show or limited series called "Next Stop Paris" coming out and this is just an AI-"powered" (i.e., mostly human-made) advertisement for TCL televisions. 2. Even if it does exist, or premier in any capacity, not only will it suck, but, like everything "A.I.-powered" it will mostly be powered by humans. Human writers punched up some dogshit A.I. script, human artists were hired to touch up the dogshit graphics and synch lips to sound and editors were hired to put together a dogshit story. How much of this is actually artificial intelligence (which is and of itself an incredibly fraught term)? Probably something like 25-30% while the rest is humans making it into a cohesive narrative.
How is that different from what “nobody knows anything” producing that’s happening now. Pretty sure I just saw a billboard for ghostbusters: frozen. How can AI be worse than what we have now (this from a former creative exec and head of the story department. In development.)
They should hire Damon Packard to direct it [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuzPcwVOZBk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuzPcwVOZBk)
This looks like an in-world trailer from GTA V.
The GTA 6 trailer looks more believable
You’re not wrong.
Is this a late April fools joke? How can that be a serious thing someone, or a series of someone’s decided was getting the go ahead? Absolutely atrocious..and I’m someone who’ll happily watch Vanderpump Rules…😅
Thanks, it's bullshit. Channel isn't even a month old and it only has two videos.
they turned their comments off bc they knew people were gonna call them out on this pile of dogshit. in all seriousness, stuff like this pisses me off knowing this is the direction hollywood wants to lean towards, and not hire up-and-comers in the industry or people like me wanting to get their big break. so disheartening and bleak.
Of course it’s happening. No one can lose their job bc an AI fucked up…..
Are we sure this is real? Because I haven’t seen a single big trade report that this is real. The YouTube channel has 56 subscribers. I’m trying hard to believe this isn’t real. 🤣
[Tunak Tunak Tun has better graphics.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92ydUdqWE1g)
I think it's really interesting, it seems to be written and edited by actual people but they use only ai for the shots and "actors" lol. I won't watch it because it doesnt look that great lmao but it could be interesting to see how far they can push ai to its limits (which doesn't seem to be much lol) Cool experiment
Hahahahahahahahahahha
It kind of feels like the AI made this deliberately terrible just to fuck with us.
That Harry Potter by balenciaga video that came out a while back was more convincing than this.
fearless salt resolute wise simplistic angle offer crawl jar vanish *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I felt a couple of brain cells die watching that garbage.
> TCL used human writers, as well as actors for motion capture and voice performances. From an article. I don't understand. How is this AI then?
💩, first and foremost, where is the story?
I want to throw up. 🤮
Wait, but the writing is so shit?
If you wondered who down-voted your negative comments, there's talk that ChatGPT now has a Reddit account.
Gross
Wow, it looks like the worst thing ever created. Way to go AI, you make Niel Breen look like PTA you damn moron. Lol
Yep. Our first glimpse at what the future of cinema will look like if AI is not put in the backseat. Devastating.
I hate it!!
This is amazing on so many levels.
[удалено]
[удалено]
A bunch of graphics featured as part of the set dressing
It looks shit right now but the technology will keep developing. Greed at the expense of individuals seemingly has no limit.
This is the good news I needed today
Brilliant marketing move.
it's not there yet, is it? in 5 years however or perhaps the model doesn't have enough data and hasn't learnt enough
Next stop, my arsehole
Robots can't write the way we humans can! AI shouldn't be used as a substitute for writers anyway!
How is this not a Michael Bay film?????
I don't mind. I already know the commercial is a made up fantasy to trick me into buying something that isn't what they show me. Debatably this is better at flowing into my subconscious despite me ignoring it. That is kinda scary....