Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Sashinii t1_ir23un6 wrote

So which famous filmmaker's going to claim that "AI movies aren't real movies" next year when text to video synthesis is as advanced as text to image synthesis is today?

Hayao Miyazaki has already made it clear that he hates AI having anything to do with art, and that was before AI art became phenomenal, so he will likely whine about it.

46

TheDividendReport t1_ir257m4 wrote

Hayao Miyazaki disapproves of everything, including his own son. AI could get perfect grades and pay for humanity’s retirement and he still wouldn’t approve of it.

49

Shelfrock77 OP t1_ir26ix7 wrote

There is a point where it doesn’t even matter to try convincing them, let the results speak for themselves.

24

moonstne t1_ir2un3n wrote

AI movies have no soul!! Humans screenplay with intent. This movie is not art. /s

5

ThroawayBecauseIsuck t1_ir2lozt wrote

Calm down, even text-to-text can't come close to writing a long story coherently as of today. Honestly AI storylines get lost in just two or three paragraphs. It is not just about audio and video, the story is the most important thing about a movie.

Which means we still have to see book writers complaining about AI generated books before we get to see movie directors doing the same.

4

Sashinii t1_ir2n57m wrote

I'm factoring in exponential growth, which others can ignore if they want to, but I won't.

15

Artanthos t1_ir2x9n7 wrote

Free form text tends to get lost, but what would happen if you optimized it to flesh out an outline?

The same with text-to-videos; you might get more coherent results earlier if you had the AI start with a script and storyboards.

You need to walk before you can run.

4

Rumianti6 t1_ir3r2o2 wrote

You really think that filmmaker's are going to feel threatened from AI? Artists are one thing, we already have trouble making a living so we might get scared of anything.

But filmmakers? You have any idea what it takes for a quality movie to be made anything at all. AI can't even generate hands correctly for it to generate movies they would have to make it look like real life.

You have no idea how much AI can't make movies.

0

Sashinii t1_ir4unah wrote

You're in denial about AI and the fact you're trivializing AI art proves that; neo-luddites just keep moving the goalposts because they know that progress will continue happening.

6

Rumianti6 t1_ir5e7ju wrote

Bro, I'm not moving goalposts, I'm just showing reality. AI is far from viable and it will take a while if ever for it to be truly be viable. The bar for viable is much harder then you think. If AI makes like a completely accurate diagram of all the human organs and skeleton from scratch with no artifacts or mistakes then I'll be scared but I just can't see that happening. For movies the AI would have to know all real life physics so I doubt filmmakers would be worried.

I am also not a "neo-luddite" whatever that means, I welcome technology, I also know that stuff like art can't be replaced by AI because art is experience. There is also some theories that AI are stealing art. You like anime don't you. Only a human could have created Steins;Gate. An AI couldn't generate it because it would have to understand stuff qualitatively.

0

MarginCalled1 t1_ir3xb8w wrote

I give it to 2030, repeat after me: Converging exponential technologies.

1