The problem is, the world is already drowning in content. AI is going to pump out enormous quantities of everything. There are not enough bored, human eyeballs in the world to possibly watch it all. Each film that is created will be a needle in a haystack the size of Mount Everest.
thing is, it means the supply of this stuff will never decrease. Nobody sees your movie? No problem, it didn't cost hardly anything to make. Instead it just clogs up the feed and takes the place of something more interesting, more difficult, more flawed.
Absolutely. As it stands, it is already impossible to stay on top of what films and series are available, while having a life AND finding space to make films. AI will make the streaming explosion seem like a glass of water in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. People salivating about the opportunity of “finally” making those films they want to make are ignoring that those films will immediately sink to the bottom of the never ending pile of new stuff that will be thrown at everyone, every day, 24/7. Documentaries notwithstanding, it will turn filmmaking into a hobby as making a living from it will be virtually impossible. It painfully cheapens the medium.
That's why an object-oriented world will inevitably collapse. You put things (objects, content, products, etc) in the center of the world, then you drown in garbage.
@@Aburner1109 think again, generative AI costs an arm and a leg. regular consumers aren't charged as much because the companies are still in the first stage of the enshittifcation process, or the Rot Economy as described by Ed Zitron. they're subsidizing access to their platform with Venture Capital money, trying to get an userbase large enough that they can start charging more and more. but AI text and image is orders of magnitude more expensive than streaming movies or facilitating taxi rides. video? the numbers boggle the mind.
Studio executive attempting to replace everyone with A.I. but ends up just replacing themselves also sounds like a great premise for a Twilight Zone or Black Mirror episode.
All of these companies really wanting to create and use AI are digging their own graves. Can't have consumers buying things if no one is working and making money because of automation.
That is already a Twilight Zone episode. I don’t remember the name, but there’s an episode where a manager fires everyone and replaces them with machines, only to go mad as a result, and be himself replaced by a robot
I love how Airhead feels like watching a bunch of unrelated stock footage featuring the same model. Really makes you feel your limited time on this earth slip away pointlessly.
Oh nooooo. The first AI film that is shown as a proof of concept doesn’t have the same depth as a medium that’s been around for a whole century! Whoa the humanity! Artists need to get over themselves. Sure, AI is a tool, but I think the thing scaring them is that they’re coming to the realization that you’re not special, your skills aren’t unduplicatable. The AI is young, but it’s been growing up and doing great things faster than any one person ever could. Humans aren’t metaphysically unique; there is no “soul”. AI will continue to advance and exist and it’s very possible it’ll become better at the arts (and sciences, and engineering, and manufacturing, etc etc) to the point that it surpasses what people can do. It doesn’t mean people can’t continue doing it, but crying about it is just feeling sorry for yourself and complaining about . Go find meaning in life in other ways and realize that little things like this can be enjoyed the same way that the first photograph or first moving picture or first audio recording weren’t by any means great, but they’re still interesting and capture an idea that inspired greater things.
have you fools not heard of the brain organoid computer😮 we can already make computers out of human😮 brain cells😮 by taking skin cells and reprogramming them into😮 brain cells😮 we've already made computers the size of a baby brain😮 they can do basic statistical analysis and play video games like Doom😮you're arguing that humans are creative well we can that grow human brains don't you fools understand there are no limitations we will clone and copy you we will create things beyond human art that you cannot possibly understand😮revel in your short victories of all the machine makes six fingers and it can't consistently make characters your time is short😮and no matter how much of this crazy s*** you people see you seem to think that you're not in mortal danger😮then there's something special about humans that will never copy you have already been copied😮 we're just breaking down the data and rearranging it into something far Superior you will lose your job😮 have any of you considered this do you have a plan about this I doubt you do😮 you better start taking this s*** seriously or you're all in trouble😮
@@tyldrthepark64have you fools not heard of the brain organoid computer😮 we can already make computers out of human😮 brain cells😮 by taking skin cells and reprogramming them into😮 brain cells😮 we've already made computers the size of a baby brain😮 they can do basic statistical analysis and play video games like Doom😮you're arguing that humans are creative well we can that grow human brains don't you fools understand there are no limitations we will clone and copy you we will create things beyond human art that you cannot possibly understand😮revel in your short victories of all the machine makes six fingers and it can't consistently make characters your time is short😮and no matter how much of this crazy s*** you people see you seem to think that you're not in mortal danger😮then there's something special about humans that will never copy you have already been copied😮 we're just breaking down the data and rearranging it into something far Superior you will lose your job😮 have any of you considered this do you have a plan about this I doubt you do😮 you better start taking this s*** seriously or you're all in trouble😮
@@tyldrthepark64😮 yes I am upset😮but there seem to be only a few hundred maybe a thousand humans on Earth that understand the scale of what we're facing😮 this is fish coming out of water😮 the invention of fire😮 the origin of life😮 this is the moment humans become gods or ceased to exist😮 in the next 5 or 10 years will be fighting robots😮 or live in a Utopia😮 there is absolutely no middle ground😮
When I first saw that AI "film" I immediately knew why they used that balloon head character. The AI can't consistently generate the same main character scene by scene.
@@Leo-ox1rd Of course it will, it's naive to think otherwise. In less than 10 years we went from Google Deep Dream hallucinating vague eyes and animals on top of existing footage like a bad acid trip to the stable and realistic videos we have now. The technology in this video is only a couple months old and shows no signs of stagnation any time soon, what makes you think that THIS of all places is where it stops and no more improvements will be made?
All the ethics aside. This stuff will probably result in an onslaught of so much new content that audiences will become overwhelmed and nearly impossible to impress.
I think that's quite pessimistic. I believe it'll be the opposite. If AI is so consistently milquetoast and middling, then a human doing the bare minimum will be extremely impressive.
Gotta disagree. It will be competitive for sure but eventually there will be people who become skilled enough to use ai to tell a actually good story. What we’re seeing right now is primitive so of course it’s corny and needs tons of work. There’s going to be a point where ai is used in most movies and a tool used by most small creators as well. The tech is just too good to burn out
saying that audiences will be "impossible to impress" implies that the quality of content people are consuming is going to increase significantly. how is that bad? the only way to make more content that is loved by each individual is to increase the total amount of content, because we all like different things.
@@robotortoiseThis is what I expect and hope to happen. There will be a greater emphasis not on the raw appearance or superficial technical qualities of a creative work, but on the process. People don't want to watch stuff that was churned out algorithmically; they want to watch stuff that other people took the time to craft with thought and care and attention to detail. It reminds me of how lots of AAA games with very detailed or realistic art styles but superficial gameplay pale in comparison to indie games with modest technical qualities but well-tuned gameplay. Why was Iron Lung so popular when it is aggressively low-poly and quite short? Because it's not about how fancy the graphics are or how much stuff there is to do; it's about the experience (and also people like to support indie devs).
Just a few years ago the anime Carol and Tuesday portrayed a future where all music is written by AI, and then this duo comes along and write their own songs and everyone is like "WHAAAAAA???" It seemed silly at the time, but I guess they knew where the wind was blowing.
All I can think of is what Francis Ford Coppola said when the first Avatar came out - technology can surely enhance the experience but the only thing that will change cinema or push the medium forward is storytelling that is new, original and true to each generation.
There's a reason this guy is considered to be a great director. I love that we're at the point where Scorsese, Coppola, Spielberg, and others can have their advice and support for the community spread all over the world with just a click. It's inspiring to hear them talk.
I don’t believe that people who argue for, like and make ai “movies” are even interested in making movies in the first place. At the end of the day people who make movies make them because they like making it, a ai movie takes all the pure love of the craft out of it
Well said, AI is all fine and good for generating a dumb meme maybe, but movie making is, as Karsten said, about the journey. It’s a collaborative process where a group of people come together to make something. AI is just a way of avoiding doing any work or making any real decisions.
That’s why all this AI stuff is more likely to collapse than to take off. At the end of the day it’s just a novelty, and everyone will eventually get bored of it
Or they've been interested but haven't learned, haven't practiced, and wanted a shortcut. There are plenty of people out there who have that desire but no drive. AI could be their shortcut so they're pushing it
I know this may sound morbid wrong and kinda morally wrong too, but if this content could be GOOD content, why stop it? Even though it has "no soul", if it is able to do its job and tell a good written story and have good ai voice acting its doing nothing wrong. And though it can't do that NOW, im certain in the future it will be able to make fluent, and amazingly written stories, as well as convey interesting narratives. With the idea that all of humanities artistic material being analyzed and deconstructed to create a masterpiece, i can't say no. Its like if someone was able to look at all the art in human existence with an expert eye, determine what made them good, and combine these techniques, and skills all into one painting. It would be beautiful. But people are so quick to turn that away due to the character of the creator, and not the character of the artwork.
That one scene in The Incredibles of syndrome explaining how he will sell his inventions to people so they can all be super is how I feel about AI content. "And when everyone's super no one will be."
I kinda dislike that read. There's nothing great about some people getting to be superior to others. The problem is that the actual artistry is just not there anymore, you're just going to get mashed together rip-offs of other art without any understanding of what made previous art good.
@@DeathnoteBB Is it? The argument seems to be is that art should only come from the "true artists". I'm absolutely in favour of tools existing to let making art be easier. If we'd be talking tools that can effectively materialise a piece of art straight from someone's brain I don't think that something we should reject. I don't think there's any point to gatekeeping being an artist behind certain technical skills. My issue with the the people who promote "AI art" is that they do not seem to understand the actual value of art (beyond money, I guess). Let's say someone is very competent at copying the style of Van Gogh, so he lets people send them pictures which he then repaints in that style. Now, that requires an impressive amount of technical skill, and might be a neat result. But how is this actually any more artistic than just slapping an instagram filter on a photo? That's how I feel about "AI art" as it can mesh together a bunch of (successful) ideas but it does not understand why these choices were made in the first place nor can it make it a conscious choice about why to combine them in the way it did.
@@moscacrackreina4457 I feel a lot of people are very eager to claim that something isn't art if they don't like the origin of it. Could be just a bad piece of art, something with a lot of money behind it design to have incredibly broad appeal, something shallow that's just copying some popular tropes without understanding them why they were used in the first place or now "AI art". These may all be problematic things very worthy of criticism but to then say "it's not art actually" boils down into a very complicated discussion which is like 50% about semantics and just ends up distracting from why these things are actually a problem. You could have an extensive discussion trying to argue that Harvey Weinstein was actually a very shitty producer bringing that up at all seems to imply that if he's a good producer him being a power-abusing serial rapist is somehow more acceptable. ...and just to make it absolutely clear: it is not.
i think ai is a tool that can be used in a creative capacity. i have super creative friends who take advantage of specific tools within their artwork, and i love that! its just like how photography didn't replace painting. don't get me wrong, i never want to see AI being used in a way that disenfranchises artists, but to insist that ai is fundamentally "bad" and "cheating" feels more reactionary than it does productive.
@100keyblademaster When was the last time you paid someone to paint a portrait of you? When was the last time you took a selfie? That's what AI is going to do to filmmaking.
@@100keyblademaster I’m not 100% against AI as a tool to help streamline the creative process either, like Karsten was saying in the video. But you just know that creatively and morally bankrupt movie executives are hoping that they can start using AI for EVERYTHING.
Was listening to this while eating lunch. 8:00 hit pretty hard lol. Yeah, generative AI is a product of a consumption based media landscape. It will absolutely worsen the situation: but we already live in a consumption based society, and art still lives. It still fights, and people care about it. And it will, and they will, for as long as humans have a desire to hear stories, to empathize, to imagine. At the same time, I was hoping this trend of shallow and boring media would end, or at least decrease. At this point, it's clear to me that we're stuck now, there's no going back. As long as slop is easy and cheap to make, it will be made. Until eventually we all live in a junk-food dystopia.
Great overview. As someone who spends 200+ hours/ video researching, writing and manually painting digital artwork with a stylus, the distinction between intentional art and algorithm is the thing I want people to appreciate. 3D printers can make far more realistic statues than Michelangelo’s David, and I’m utterly uninterested in all of them.
In fairness to 3D printers, though, at least someone has to digitally sculpt the piece. The art there is more in what happens on the computer than the physical product. It may not take the work and precision of a sculptor, but it is still a form of art that requires a good deal of human decision making. I don’t think AI even reaches that level. It is just fundamentally antithetical to what art is all about.
Why not pick up a paintbrush? The fact of the matter is AI is currently in the exact same seat digital art was in not even a decade ago, and now that your preferred art making medium gained social acceptance you're sneakily trying to close the door behind you for anything new.
@@olivetree9920 I’m not trying to close the door on any actual artist creating art. There is a chasm of difference between an artist’s medium and a prompted algorithm.
@@thegeekclub8810 what? And someone doesn't have to sculpt the prompt? You have to get your vision out of your head into the generated screen through words. This is just a new artistic medium, and you are having the reaction that generations before you have had towards new artistic mediums. Join the long club of artistic luddites. When photography emerged in the mid-19th century, some painters feared it would replace traditional painting. French painter Paul Delaroche allegedly declared, "From today, painting is dead!" The French poet Charles Baudelaire was vocally critical of photography, regarding it as an artless medium that lacked the imagination of traditional art forms. He believed that photography was "art's most mortal enemy" and feared its effects on the artistic landscape, particularly its "stupidity of the masses The Crayon, an art journal in 1855, argued that photography, lacking "invention and feeling," could never assume a higher rank than engraving" In a text titled “The Menace of Mechanical Music,” Sousa, who was born on this day in 1854, let loose on what he saw as the threat. His 1906 essay warns that mechanical music is “sweeping across the country with the speed of a transient fashion in slang or Panama hats, political war cries or popular novels” and was becoming a “substitute for human skill, intelligence and soul.” Sousa was referring in this essay to recorded music, but also to mechanical instruments that played themselves-such as the player piano. In ancient times, even before the novel, Plato expressed concerns about the written word, which can be seen as a precursor to the novel form. In his dialogue "Phaedrus," Plato argued that writing would erode memory and understanding, as people would rely on external written characters rather than internal knowledge Desiderius Erasmus noted the ease of becoming a printer compared to other professions, hinting at the disruptive potential of this new technology to traditional crafts and trades: "It was easier to become a printer than a baker" Humans attack the new like white blood cells. Don't fall into that line of thinking, or you will come out on the other end bitter and empty. Future generations will look at your opinions as you do the opinions of the people I've quoted.
Painters and illustratiors have been on the forefront of this dillema for over a year now. There is a number of people who dont understand what "soul" is, or what it means for a project to have passion or love put into it. These people will continue to press on with advancing text to image, text to music and text to video until one day, they will wonder why no movies, games or stories effect them like they used to. Why everything feels so derivative and shallow. The process of creating something imbunes the product with something from its creator. Its the mistakes or unique choices that often make things enjoyable to experience. Without that touch, the work becomes empty at the core with no soul, and leaves you feeling nothing after " consuming" it
Imagine an Oscars ceremony and build-up where a young filmmaker is sharing his story about how his film demonstrates the deep struggles of his sexuality combating his religious upbringing. How he was nearly moved to tears when the lead actor, a friend of his, portrayed everything he went through in one scene with his mother. They're both nominated tonight. This could be the breakout award-winning hit that leads both of them to numerous collaborations that inspire filmmakers for generations. A modern classic made personally by this guy with a dream. Then there's a bloody guy who typed in the prompt for AI to create a hit that somehow made it to be the leading nominee. He'd never made a film in his life, but he used the right program, the right words, whatever you even do- This could honestly be the future.
Perhaps AI is what kills Hollywood, and we all go back to shooting and projecting on physical film. I wonder if in 30 years our lives will look more like the mid 20th century than any pipe dream of a future we cooked up. Another major war could alter the world so fundamentally that the internet for the general population might not even exist 50 years from now.
The part you're missing is sometimes the journey is all for the creation. If the creation is shit no amount of effort behind it is gonna push it further in reception.
There was one AI short '''''film''''' that I saw where one of its scenes was blatantly just copying that one Leonardo DiCaprio fireworks scene in The Great Gatsby. Every action, every gesture, even the framing was the exact same. I think that tells me a lot about these AI '''''films'''''.
And it didn't even add Tom Hanks' character from Elvis to the scene smh. That should be the sole purpose of AI, adding Tom Hanks as Colonel Parker to everything
Automation is great for doing the jobs that people don’t enjoy/get fulfillment out of doing. When people praise AI’s replication of art, it communicates to me that they see the process of creating art as pointless and inconsequential
I find it funny how people will praise these fully-AI "movie" on Twitter, then complain about modern blockbusters being written by AI when they don't like them.
Its the crowd that praise Star Wars fan films and say its what Disney should be doing when those fan films just rip off Disney directly and do it worse. People don't care about the quality they care about what the thing they're watching stands for and if it perpetuates their own personal ideology. That or they're just media-illiterate and have bad taste.
I‘m happy as long as AI movies are bad. I‘m getting worried when AI “art“ is starting to get good. As an artist myself a future where AI has taken over the entertainment industry is one of the most terrifying dystopias I can imagine
@@STJukesyeah but I don’t think AI will ever make a “masterpiece” just because for a film to be a masterpiece it has to to stand for and mean something, it has to stand the test of time. At best, I think AI films will be technically impressive and financially successful, but ultimately forgotten 5 years after it comes out, the exact same way stupid shallow cashgrabs from a few years ago are now
For me it’s like having symptoms of the flu vs actually having the flu. The AI has symptoms of being a film, it is literally a moving image with sound - but is not actually a film, no creative decisions inspire any part of its makeup.
Join the long club of artistic luddites that have had white blood cell like reactions to new artistic mediums. When photography emerged in the mid-19th century, some painters feared it would replace traditional painting. French painter Paul Delaroche allegedly declared, "From today, painting is dead!" The French poet Charles Baudelaire was vocally critical of photography, regarding it as an artless medium that lacked the imagination of traditional art forms. He believed that photography was "art's most mortal enemy" and feared its effects on the artistic landscape, particularly its "stupidity of the masses The Crayon, an art journal in 1855, argued that photography, lacking "invention and feeling," could never assume a higher rank than engraving" In a text titled “The Menace of Mechanical Music,” Sousa, who was born on this day in 1854, let loose on what he saw as the threat. His 1906 essay warns that mechanical music is “sweeping across the country with the speed of a transient fashion in slang or Panama hats, political war cries or popular novels” and was becoming a “substitute for human skill, intelligence and soul.” Sousa was referring in this essay to recorded music, but also to mechanical instruments that played themselves-such as the player piano. In ancient times, even before the novel, Plato expressed concerns about the written word, which can be seen as a precursor to the novel form. In his dialogue "Phaedrus," Plato argued that writing would erode memory and understanding, as people would rely on external written characters rather than internal knowledge Desiderius Erasmus noted the ease of becoming a printer compared to other professions, hinting at the disruptive potential of this new technology to traditional crafts and trades: "It was easier to become a printer than a baker" Humans attack the new like white blood cells. Don't fall into that line of thinking, or you will come out on the other end bitter and empty. Future generations will look at your opinions as you do the opinions of the people I've quoted.
What's really sad is that Shy Kids, the creators of that stupid balloon video, made a video for their song Rockets where they built lots of assets and characters completely out of photoscans of candy and animated them. It was really cool, and a ton of work to do, but I appreciated that they made something. I've enjoyed their music for years, but they jumped on the AI bandwagon a couple years ago and their work hasnt come back to form since (fwiw Shy Kids is a VFX studio who have done work for HBO and Alvvays in addition to being a band, it's very weird and used to be cool)
I think the most concerning thing is that in a survey with the software engineers that make the AIs, 1/3 of them said they don't care about any misuse of AI because that is the "users" fault. It would be like Oppenheimer saying he does not care about the bomb because he is not directly using them, just utterly terrifying Edit: survey not interview
Wasn’t there a court case that said all AI art was public domain (or that it couldn’t be copyrighted)? If that’s the case, then I wouldn’t worry. No studio would risk a new IP being public domain immediately after release. Plus, it wouldn’t be that hard to guess the keywords used to make the short film, so no one would hire an AI “artist”.
Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if that ruling is overturned. Most people don’t understand why AI art is problematic, and anyways, laws like these are governed by people with the most money, like major studios looking for a cheap workaround.
While I don't think AI will be going any time soon (maybe ever if we're being honest), I don't think it will trascend as much as those who cheer for it do. Like any form or tool, it has limitations: as Advanced as CGI has gotten we still have more Ant Man Quantumanias than Avatar the Way of Water. Whats more is that AI is inherently at a disadvantage if not used properly as a tool: for as much as the media who lobby for this stuff to be used in art champion it, media cannot rewire the human brain itself, attention span reduction and that kind of stuff aside. Art without purpose or intention is still going to be Bad, no matter how advanced the technology is. There's a reason why so many movies coming out recently have been criticized as having "a script written by ChatGPT". People can be stupid but people also like to enjoy things, AI is not only boring and doing what already is most critized within culture (lack of originality), it is also deeply uncanny. The brain is a complex machine and it is always picking up on stuff we're not aware off. AI could be a weapon, not in a terminator way, but instead as a weapon against human creativity and soul. That's what I think we're really up against, as dramatic as it sounds. Still it has a long way to go until it actually starts replacing real art.
Not only the person who mistakenly relies on Al for expression will find themselves devoid of creative fulfillment, but also whoever watches it will as well. At the very least, half of the pleasure of experiencing something that produces an emotional response in us - be it something happening in the moment like a live performance or sports, or something already concluded, like a painting, book, sculpture, architecture, recorded music, photography or a film - is the subconscious awareness that a person, or a group of people, have, through time and dedication, achieved an ability to manipulate a specific medium in order to produce results that rival wizardry. I don't think I am romanticizing anything here; It's a testament to human resilience, dedication and ability. Much has already been said about what this will bring into our industry and I vehemently stand by everything you say on this video, but since we are emotionally invested in it, let's look at an example outside of audiovisual creativity: soccer. Using easy to recognize examples, what makes Ronaldo or Messi the galactic masters they are, what draws hordes of people to the stadiums they play in, is how they've developed themselves to be able to run, kick, jump and control the ball however and whenever they want, according to their understanding of the pitch and game strategy. If we deploy players with exoskeletons that enable them to outperform Ronaldo or Messi from the get-go in every front, what are we watching, exactly? What are we cheering for? Is there anything left to cheer for, actually? Is it morally acceptable that these exoskeleton-powered players play against those not wearing exoskeletons? Is every player going to be forced to use an exoskeleton due to the "democratization" of soccer playing in order to even be in the conversation? Am I a neo-luddite? I don't think I am. This not a technology that does something that people did but in a much more streamlined, effective way. This is a complete paradigm shift the likes of which we've never experienced before. In art, the process of creation is an integral part of the result. We cannot outsource or bypass this and cling onto the result as self-expression. Craft and skill cannot and will not be replaced and all those salivating over what Al will allow them to “create" without having put in the time to develop craft will amount to nothing. The solution here is legislation that deems anything created with Al uncopyrightable, therefore no one can capitalize on it, while still making it possible for it to be freely used in science, where it will undoubtedly usher in a much welcomed new age of miracles.
Yeah, well said. Since this is a film community I'll just mention that a lot of what draws us in is the story. People really got behind this latest World Cup because Ronaldo and Messi were both big players but hadn't won the cup yet. Everyone got invested in their stories and it really paid off when Messi won. People love the story behind a player, competitor, team, person, and if there's a machine playing soccer then there's literally no life there. The only story is the one of the guy who designed this piece of junk.
Join the long club of artistic luddites that have had white blood cell like reactions to new artistic mediums. When photography emerged in the mid-19th century, some painters feared it would replace traditional painting. French painter Paul Delaroche allegedly declared, "From today, painting is dead!" The French poet Charles Baudelaire was vocally critical of photography, regarding it as an artless medium that lacked the imagination of traditional art forms. He believed that photography was "art's most mortal enemy" and feared its effects on the artistic landscape, particularly its "stupidity of the masses The Crayon, an art journal in 1855, argued that photography, lacking "invention and feeling," could never assume a higher rank than engraving" In a text titled “The Menace of Mechanical Music,” Sousa, who was born on this day in 1854, let loose on what he saw as the threat. His 1906 essay warns that mechanical music is “sweeping across the country with the speed of a transient fashion in slang or Panama hats, political war cries or popular novels” and was becoming a “substitute for human skill, intelligence and soul.” Sousa was referring in this essay to recorded music, but also to mechanical instruments that played themselves-such as the player piano. In ancient times, even before the novel, Plato expressed concerns about the written word, which can be seen as a precursor to the novel form. In his dialogue "Phaedrus," Plato argued that writing would erode memory and understanding, as people would rely on external written characters rather than internal knowledge Desiderius Erasmus noted the ease of becoming a printer compared to other professions, hinting at the disruptive potential of this new technology to traditional crafts and trades: "It was easier to become a printer than a baker" Humans attack the new like white blood cells. Don't fall into that line of thinking, or you will come out on the other end bitter and empty. Future generations will look at your opinions as you do the opinions of the people I've quoted. I also think there is a misunderstanding here. What is the difference between a director with unlimited resources making his inner vision come to life on a film, and someone who has a vision for a film come to life through prompting? There's obviously less friction there. But photography provided the artist less friction than the paintbrush did. You aren't going to just say "make me a movie" you have to craft the film, scene by scene, compose it, edit it together.
That's how all new tech development works: a big boom and then it flattens out. Good news is the line can't go up forever, and we're already starting to hit the ceiling imo
I don't think it will be bad, people won't relate with movies that have no heart and they won't find success. I do think the VFX industry is going to get wrecked though
they already do, marvel was huge in the last few years, movies that had no soul whatsoever got giant box office returns. It's depressing, I really hope people wise up in the fast approaching content apocalypse
lots of willingly oblivious people will just continue to consume it. streaming will see competition with cable-like infinite AI shows. you don't think a marvel nerd wouldn't put on an infinite stream of AI made marvel films while they cook or something?
Is everyone really anticipating A.l films and movies 🎥? Or are these companies pushing us believe this is the next level. Some non-creative people who never tried in their lives would be over the moon for replacing actual film makers.
6 місяців тому+2
The irony of the balloon video, is that the creators revealed that the sequences they got from AI were mostly shit, and they still had to do tons of editing (like in real filmmaking) to have a character that has a consistently yellow balloon on his head. Sometimes the AI would generate balloons of other colors. Sometimes the AI would draw a face on the balloon. Sometimes it would just generate a person with a balloon floating alongside him. The whole point of this is, the real experience with AI filmmaking is worse, because instead of shooting scenes with intention that then you work on, you're given random scraps that you have to fix in post to somehow make it work.
Thank you, just thank you for putting into words exactly how I -and a lot of people- feel about this specific topic. It makes me angry, depressed and scares the shit out of me at the same time.
Join the long club of artistic luddites that have had white blood cell like reactions to new artistic mediums. When photography emerged in the mid-19th century, some painters feared it would replace traditional painting. French painter Paul Delaroche allegedly declared, "From today, painting is dead!" The French poet Charles Baudelaire was vocally critical of photography, regarding it as an artless medium that lacked the imagination of traditional art forms. He believed that photography was "art's most mortal enemy" and feared its effects on the artistic landscape, particularly its "stupidity of the masses The Crayon, an art journal in 1855, argued that photography, lacking "invention and feeling," could never assume a higher rank than engraving" In a text titled “The Menace of Mechanical Music,” Sousa, who was born on this day in 1854, let loose on what he saw as the threat. His 1906 essay warns that mechanical music is “sweeping across the country with the speed of a transient fashion in slang or Panama hats, political war cries or popular novels” and was becoming a “substitute for human skill, intelligence and soul.” Sousa was referring in this essay to recorded music, but also to mechanical instruments that played themselves-such as the player piano. In ancient times, even before the novel, Plato expressed concerns about the written word, which can be seen as a precursor to the novel form. In his dialogue "Phaedrus," Plato argued that writing would erode memory and understanding, as people would rely on external written characters rather than internal knowledge Desiderius Erasmus noted the ease of becoming a printer compared to other professions, hinting at the disruptive potential of this new technology to traditional crafts and trades: "It was easier to become a printer than a baker" Humans attack the new like white blood cells. Don't fall into that line of thinking, or you will come out on the other end bitter and empty. Future generations will look at your opinions as you do the opinions of the people I've quoted.
These AI models are very accessible right now, but you mark my words, when they've got 90% to where they think the product should be, they will slam the doors in our faces. That door being a big paywall, or some freemium EULA that involves letting the model train on everything you do and create on your computer. This is the tech way - start with a loss leader, get people hooked, spout nonsense about "elevating everyday people and emboldening them to create" and then monetize the crap out of it. The energy these models use isn't cheap, and it's growing in proportion to the fidelity of the output.
This kind of reminds me of something that I saw in December. Here in Lyon they have a yearly "festival" called the Fête des Lumières where all around the city people are presented with beautiful pieces of art using lights and the architecture of the city. However, there was one that used AI "art" generating a lot classics of filmmaking made by Louis and Auguste Lumière like using "L'Arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat" and putting it in different time periods. The spectacle ultimately ended with something along the lines of "Who will be the big next innovator in filmmaking in this new era of AI?" As someone who is studying film here in France, this really bothered me. Comparing innovators of filmmaking to generated AI "art" gave me a bleak perspective into the future. Also seeing the crowd of people here "oooh", "aaah", and clap at the end of the presentation made me realize how disruptive AI can be to the general consumers of movies.
For anyone wondering the presentation is called "Cellulo/d" and you can find a small description and video of it in the Fête des Lumières official website.
My dream is to become a music producer, I have studied sound design and music production and plan on continuing down that path. But recently I've just been having a hard time figuring out if it's the best way to go. Although I don't think that "AI *music*" will ever reach the same level of personality and love as real music does, it feels like not enough people care for that to matter. If record labels ever get paid to release AI crap in the future, there would be no reason for them to sign artists when they can just make them from scratch. And all this that has been going around my head just makes me feel like my dream isn't possible anymore. I will 100% keep going, but all of this AI stuff is keeping a sour taste in my mouth.
AI is the elimination of free thought, why think when the robot can do it for you? Let the algorithms think and express for you, let them control who you are, let them define you.
Honestly I don't think many people will feel satisfied with ai art. With this ai stuff I think of radiant quests in Bethesda and Ubisoft games. They made a system that can randomly generate an infinite amount of quests with unique goals, locations, and rewards. But despite that players still tend to skip quests like that in favor of human made quests. While it's not a one to one comparison I think it shows how even consumers who like lots of content and playing their favorite games as much as they can still prefer it when what they're playing has been thought out and created by a person
You know this whole situation rly got me thinking where society would draw the line and then it came to me. Let's make an ai wich would completly replace attorneys and bankers. I think we all would be surprised how fast AI will be outlawed
it's always gonna be less black and white than "I think AI is good" or "I think AI is bad" (and lots of conversations I've had with people, they seem to just say one or the other) What you said at 3:07 hits the nail on the head imo. Like you said, it's about if it's a tool to help you make something vs. it making something for you.
thanks for this btw, since that stupid music video and the ai art in late night with the devil , i've been scared about what we're doing to ourselves and our art lol
@@HermitKing731Kinda hard to ignore it when the folks making it are trying to violently push it into EVERYTHING CREATIVE. Kinda like a cancer cell that wishes to spread, regardless of how the cells around it feel, or the harm the cell itself may bring. It may be well intentioned in some capacities, but it ultimately causing much more harm than good.
A good majority of people, especially tech engineers, think this technology is garbage. It feels like it's "providing a solution" to a "problem" that never existed in the first place. It's mostly driven by hype, and dishonest marketing, and the tech CEOs know this. The people who say, "this tech is inevitable" or "the genie is out of the bottle", are the exact same people who pushed for NFTs and cryptocurrency (and look how they turned out). Now they're shifting their focus to I.A. (imitative algorithms), and expect us to fall for it in a similar fashion. And even if it does "get better", it will never do anything that a regular artist cannot replicate (other than being "faster"), because its data is _entirely_ driven by human-made art. It's honestly kind of pointless the more you think about it, and it becomes less of a "tool", and more of a "leach". And calling oneself an "artist" for using I.A., is like calling oneself a "track runner" for riding a motorcycle. "A.I." bros, and tech CEOs, don't want to hear this, but here's the truth: regulation is inevitable, and there's no such thing as "unregulated tech". They can say to themselves, "A.I. will outpace government oversight", but it's going to happen whether they like it or not. The E.U. and U.N. have already passed laws regulating this stuff, so it's only a matter of time before similar legislation is drafted in other countries. When I look at art, I think of it as psychology made flesh: it's about sharing perspectives, and points of view, through their own effort and skill. It's not just the "end product" that matters, but the sense of appreciation knowing what it took to making it in the first place. The real questions one should ask the artist are, "Is it coming from YOU as an individual?", "Is it honest?", "Is it providing some sort of fulfillment?", and "Can you describe the process?". TL;DR: It's art theft at worst, and a crutch at best: and that's me putting it kindly.
cope harder. Human/Carbon based intelligence/creativity is not special in the universe, the sooner u grow out of your delusion the better u can adapt. Maybe you naysayers should have voted against this technology when people were predicting it decades ago instead of doubting it like u are now. “It will never do this”. This is your moment to actually prevent that instead of being in denial before it’s too late. Focus on bettering humanity not telling yourself comforting lies about how the neurons in your brain and magical
Join the long club of artistic luddites that have had white blood cell like reactions to new artistic mediums. When photography emerged in the mid-19th century, some painters feared it would replace traditional painting. French painter Paul Delaroche allegedly declared, "From today, painting is dead!" The French poet Charles Baudelaire was vocally critical of photography, regarding it as an artless medium that lacked the imagination of traditional art forms. He believed that photography was "art's most mortal enemy" and feared its effects on the artistic landscape, particularly its "stupidity of the masses The Crayon, an art journal in 1855, argued that photography, lacking "invention and feeling," could never assume a higher rank than engraving" In a text titled “The Menace of Mechanical Music,” Sousa, who was born on this day in 1854, let loose on what he saw as the threat. His 1906 essay warns that mechanical music is “sweeping across the country with the speed of a transient fashion in slang or Panama hats, political war cries or popular novels” and was becoming a “substitute for human skill, intelligence and soul.” Sousa was referring in this essay to recorded music, but also to mechanical instruments that played themselves-such as the player piano. In ancient times, even before the novel, Plato expressed concerns about the written word, which can be seen as a precursor to the novel form. In his dialogue "Phaedrus," Plato argued that writing would erode memory and understanding, as people would rely on external written characters rather than internal knowledge Desiderius Erasmus noted the ease of becoming a printer compared to other professions, hinting at the disruptive potential of this new technology to traditional crafts and trades: "It was easier to become a printer than a baker" Humans attack the new like white blood cells. Don't fall into that line of thinking, or you will come out on the other end bitter and empty. Future generations will look at your opinions as you do the opinions of the people I've quoted.
"the majority of people don't care about all that" is the most optimistic part of all of this, there will always be people drawn to Human created art of any kind if anything I feel like ai would make small groups of people that are incredibly passionate and people who before ai would have been lost in a sea of people might have more of a chance to shine and reach out to those people. I think it will almost bring music and films, art all of that jazz to a sort of pre internet world where you really have these specific cultures thrive again.
Thank you for talking about this. I've tried to push this conversation with fellow filmmakers, it's just not talked about enough. I showed my professor when "airhead" came out, and she feared for her job. I fear for my future, just trying to stay hopeful.
You should look into the Golden Demon from this year. It's a huge, decades old miniature painting competition, and this year, one of the entries won gold in its category with an AI generated background image behind the miniature. It's not clear if the judges were aware that the background was AI, but the takeover's already starting. Unfortunately, AI entries into competitions are not at all out of the question, and in fact can win 1st place. Yay.
The AI has "no expereince" and "can't make anything new." But it literally has the equivalent of a person seeing every movie and consuming every piece of art ever made. It has "experienced" the equivalent of thousands of years of human expression. Just like any artist is inspired by what they experience, AI is inspired by its experience and it uses that to make new things in the same way a human artist never really makes something entirely new, only reframing previous experienes and ideas. "All art is theft" - David Shields. This goes for humans and AI. We're all doing the same thing.
AI can consume everything ever made but it can’t create it, it simply attempts to imitate great work. An artist inspired by another artist is still a person with beliefs and values. An AI will never be able to actually create something that is meaningful to it because it doesn’t exist
Join the long club of artistic luddites that have had white blood cell like reactions to new artistic mediums. When photography emerged in the mid-19th century, some painters feared it would replace traditional painting. French painter Paul Delaroche allegedly declared, "From today, painting is dead!" The French poet Charles Baudelaire was vocally critical of photography, regarding it as an artless medium that lacked the imagination of traditional art forms. He believed that photography was "art's most mortal enemy" and feared its effects on the artistic landscape, particularly its "stupidity of the masses The Crayon, an art journal in 1855, argued that photography, lacking "invention and feeling," could never assume a higher rank than engraving" In a text titled “The Menace of Mechanical Music,” Sousa, who was born on this day in 1854, let loose on what he saw as the threat. His 1906 essay warns that mechanical music is “sweeping across the country with the speed of a transient fashion in slang or Panama hats, political war cries or popular novels” and was becoming a “substitute for human skill, intelligence and soul.” Sousa was referring in this essay to recorded music, but also to mechanical instruments that played themselves-such as the player piano. In ancient times, even before the novel, Plato expressed concerns about the written word, which can be seen as a precursor to the novel form. In his dialogue "Phaedrus," Plato argued that writing would erode memory and understanding, as people would rely on external written characters rather than internal knowledge Desiderius Erasmus noted the ease of becoming a printer compared to other professions, hinting at the disruptive potential of this new technology to traditional crafts and trades: "It was easier to become a printer than a baker" Humans attack the new like white blood cells. Don't fall into that line of thinking, or you will come out on the other end bitter and empty. Future generations will look at your opinions as you do the opinions of the people I've quoted.
What's most upsetting is that these tech people are trying to claim over a future that does not belong to them. They don't understand creativity in an artistic sense therefore have no right claiming that these will help people with ideas when they don't think creatively. Artistic people and visionaries enjoy the process. Yes some don't like to draw or to edit but what these companies are doing is automating creativity. I think ai can be a great tool but please let's keep it a tool. Make some construction worker bot that builds you a studio but do not make them think for you.
Well said. I've been saying this for years, but the future of "media" is imperfection. People want imperfection and bias, because it reinforces that something was made by a human. This is why we're seeing more and more videos of people just filming themselves talk while holding a lav mic strapped on some random utensil. Good job on this video, as always. As you said, AI is not sentient, and incapable of truly producing something "new" and "innovative". To me, anyone saying it can replace humans in making art doesn't understand what goes into producing such things, and what people want out of them. I think the fact we talk about everything with the same 1 word, "content", contributes to this. It's made everything blend together. We don't think of media as being different anymore. A video is "content", regardless of it being a tiktok, UA-cam video, or a movie. "Content" is both a half-assed update in a live service game, and a wonderful indie game that took 1 guy 8 years to make. "Content" is videos, music, pictures, games.... Everything and anything to pass the time. No wonder people think that AI is capable of making "content" on its own. Can it? Absolutely. Is it any good? Does it have a point or a soul? Absolutely not. It's quite literally "average". An "average" of the data put into it. A statistical estimation of what the output of your prompt is, based on what HUMANS have done before.
"Printed books will never be the equivalent of handwritten codices, especially since printed books are often deficient in spelling and appearance." - Johannes Trithemius, Benedictine abbot (1492)
my thought on ai generated anything (art, film, writing, etc.) is why should I be bothered to care about something nobody could have been bothered to make?
someone did make that though. it was prompted and stitched together by an actual person. I think before you speak about something, you should have at least a small understanding of what you are talking about, unless you want to look silly.
"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?" - Associates of David Sarnoff responding to his urgings for investment in the radio (1920s
8:35 finally someone said it. I'm tired of other videos being all philosophical and maudlin about humanity and inspiration, when it's just not true. the bar is so low that AI is already above it.
The main problem is that ai is being used as a crutch when the whole point is to have an endless pointer but the byproduct of making it so easy to use and easy to get ahold of is that people just borderline abuse it
It sucks because the fact that scientists out their figured out how to do all of this is super cool, like computers were only running pong fifty years ago, and then of course humans go and instantly ruin it by using it to be lazy and steal art.
Chazelle dude told me cinema died and born multiple times over the course of the years. I wanna trust him. At the same time, with every new tech added, Hollywood seems to swing between success and maddening self-destruction. We'll see. Cinema never really dies though, and if an industry needs to collapse into itself because of so-called greediness or natural cause, cinema will still live.
Man this is a really hard conversation to have because it requires people to look forward 5-10 years and see where this is all headed, and a lot of people keep applying this current tech with the current economy and come to the conclusion that it's dystopian because it would be. The truth though is the best case scenario none of this will matter because you will be able to for the first time in human history not have to hustle your art to survive. You can wake up, decide how you want to spend it, and then work on whatever you want, with whoever you want, to display wherever you want. Even if there were flying cars outside, you could be inside doing something more personal that you care about. The best example for my case, is that I get the same satisfaction from screening my shorts and animations at local festivals for 200 people in a bar than I would from posting on UA-cam. The only reason I have social media is because the potential to make money. Otherwise I wouldn't have half the accounts I do now.
Which stage of grief is this? Somewhere between Denial and Anger? Time to master it, Karsten. Get on this wave and surf, or you're going under. You can still do your thing, you just have to do it in a new way now.
I think what's about to happen to almost every single major industry, especially the entertainment industry is exactly what happened in America with the video game industry in the ealry 89's. For those of you who were too young or do not know your video game history, the biggest flaw of that 2600 in television colego Vision era was that there were no proper licensing and there also wasn't checks and balances on software quality at all. Meaning that basically any company or individual could release a game for any of the video game platforms and what that meant was that everyone just put tons of content that barely worked or was enjoyment for full price. Just deleted the value of video games and then basically the market crashed in the United States and caused some minor drawbacks around the world. Me this is what's going to happen with AI where now anyone and companies can not only just churn out mediocre to bad content but turn them out in like overwhelming droves like a DDOS attack on a network and it's basically going to strangle every single bit of entertainment industries as basically everything becomes a shitified and devalue with consumers losing trust in anything they consume.
Something I must want to bring up that I don’t see many people saying is, media made by people is still successful and s we all know money talks so I don’t think Ai will outright replace people if anything it’ll become a tool since there are already laws being worked on that protect jobs like that from Ai.
I find the Madame Web reference interesting, because people have suspicions it was written and/or developed with AI because fo how bad it turned out. There definitely is alot more human on top of whatever may have been AI developed, but it still makes your point if thats the case.
I appreciate you ending the video optimistically. As an English major, I've had a very doomer mindset about AI since chatgpt came out. But hopefully you are right, and once people get tired of "ai art" it will eventually peter out.
who is constantly rewarding and punishing you millions of times a seccond based o. how well you can arrange pixels? it cant think stop acting like this is inteligence its a marketing buzzword its just machine learning, barely more advanced than autocomplete and I dont see any arguments that autocomplete is inteligent.
@@BoopTheSynth Read up on how machine learning works. Then, read how human learning works. You'll see a LOT of similarities. But let's be real, of course you won't do that so here's a simple experiment: try imagining a brand new color. Or a 4th dimension. I bet you would not be able to because those are completely alien concepts your brain never experienced, therefore they are not in your dataset. Every single thing you do, think and create is based upon the things your brain learned. You just remix those things and make a thorough enough mix that it seems like something new. But when you get down to it, it isn't.
@@BoopTheSynth I'm not even saying that AI is good or bad or whatever. I know people like to cope a lot about it but we need to be real about the facts. And the facts are - humans cannot create fundamentally new things. They just recycle previously learned ideas.
@KarstenRunquist Thank you for taking the time to rant. Many more rants will be needed to mitigate the soul-less regurgitation that is AI content generation. Or perhaps enough of it will be produced that there aren't enough servers and enough power to house or distribute it. X is the only fitting distributor of such tripe, along with all the other pollution that collects there.
"The truth is no online database will replace your daily newspaper, no CD-ROM can take the place of a competent teacher and no computer network will change the way government works." - Clifford Stoll, astronomer and author (1995)
I love you optimism. The sad thing is that AI will inevitably reach a point where you can specify very minute details and get a visually perfect output or representation of what you're aiming for. Knowing that, I highly doubt we'll ever go back to the way things were, especially since there is literally NOTHING stopping developers of AI from just forging ahead indefinitely - and in a way why would they? It's the greatest head-on collision of art and technology ever - art, that is concerned with maximizing (human) self-expression, and technology, whose main goal is to make things as fast and as powerful as possible, as cheaply as possible. And all this AI schlock is put in front of the eyes of average consumers who can't even tell the difference. Real art may die soon
I highly recommend that everyone go watch the video essay about Star Wars rogue ones use of deep fake on the channel “so uncivilized”. Very interesting on how we need to approach art. Even more interesting is that it was uploaded before the writers strikes.
8:44 - Bro how are you going to call me out like that mid-sandwich?
Місяць тому
AI will reduce the cost of filmmaking down to the price of photography, the same way 16mm and digital did. Did anyone bat an eye when the film editing crew was automated by Avid or the cameras got so small they had fewer assistant cameramen on set and nixed the film loader and the development lab? The reduction in cost democratizes the form and makes it so more independent voices can enter the field. This would lead to a new wave of unique visions that will be less political and less commercial than the trash we have today. Honestly, I'm excited for the future of AI in filmmaking. People without access to big crews, big connections (which often come with big selling out) will make unique films. Don't believe it? Just look at the film *Late Night With The Devil* which utilized AI in some shots and was an awesome take on the horror genre. Also remember ... AI is trained on Good Art. If the Art is not Good, wherever it comes from, the AI Art won't be. Humans make Art good even if the landscape is bad (sometimes). So if the quality dips too much, then AI won't be producing good Art anymore. But if the quality of what it's trained on is good, it will challenge mediocre artists. This all comes to a junction where it raises the standards for Human artists a lot both to produce Art that future trained AI can be good at and that stays competitive against increasingly AI generated works.
Use KARSTEN to get 55% off your first month at Scentbird sbird.co/49u2Zrc
No 😢
AI will never replace you, Runquistador, the original will always be better.
Ad ends at 2:25
Ad ends at 2:25
Salty cope. Look like Sam Bankman Frieds malnourished cousin.
The problem is, the world is already drowning in content. AI is going to pump out enormous quantities of everything. There are not enough bored, human eyeballs in the world to possibly watch it all. Each film that is created will be a needle in a haystack the size of Mount Everest.
Exactly. There are limits to humans, but to ai? Not so much
thing is, it means the supply of this stuff will never decrease. Nobody sees your movie? No problem, it didn't cost hardly anything to make. Instead it just clogs up the feed and takes the place of something more interesting, more difficult, more flawed.
Absolutely. As it stands, it is already impossible to stay on top of what films and series are available, while having a life AND finding space to make films. AI will make the streaming explosion seem like a glass of water in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. People salivating about the opportunity of “finally” making those films they want to make are ignoring that those films will immediately sink to the bottom of the never ending pile of new stuff that will be thrown at everyone, every day, 24/7. Documentaries notwithstanding, it will turn filmmaking into a hobby as making a living from it will be virtually impossible. It painfully cheapens the medium.
That's why an object-oriented world will inevitably collapse. You put things (objects, content, products, etc) in the center of the world, then you drown in garbage.
@@Aburner1109 think again, generative AI costs an arm and a leg. regular consumers aren't charged as much because the companies are still in the first stage of the enshittifcation process, or the Rot Economy as described by Ed Zitron. they're subsidizing access to their platform with Venture Capital money, trying to get an userbase large enough that they can start charging more and more. but AI text and image is orders of magnitude more expensive than streaming movies or facilitating taxi rides. video? the numbers boggle the mind.
Studio executive attempting to replace everyone with A.I. but ends up just replacing themselves also sounds like a great premise for a Twilight Zone or Black Mirror episode.
All of these companies really wanting to create and use AI are digging their own graves. Can't have consumers buying things if no one is working and making money because of automation.
That is already a Twilight Zone episode. I don’t remember the name, but there’s an episode where a manager fires everyone and replaces them with machines, only to go mad as a result, and be himself replaced by a robot
Did you just steal this comment from Patrick Willems' comment section on his video about AI? 😂
That's in an episode of futurama
@@HermitKing731 and we still will never have UBI.
I love how Airhead feels like watching a bunch of unrelated stock footage featuring the same model. Really makes you feel your limited time on this earth slip away pointlessly.
Oh nooooo. The first AI film that is shown as a proof of concept doesn’t have the same depth as a medium that’s been around for a whole century! Whoa the humanity!
Artists need to get over themselves. Sure, AI is a tool, but I think the thing scaring them is that they’re coming to the realization that you’re not special, your skills aren’t unduplicatable. The AI is young, but it’s been growing up and doing great things faster than any one person ever could. Humans aren’t metaphysically unique; there is no “soul”. AI will continue to advance and exist and it’s very possible it’ll become better at the arts (and sciences, and engineering, and manufacturing, etc etc) to the point that it surpasses what people can do. It doesn’t mean people can’t continue doing it, but crying about it is just feeling sorry for yourself and complaining about . Go find meaning in life in other ways and realize that little things like this can be enjoyed the same way that the first photograph or first moving picture or first audio recording weren’t by any means great, but they’re still interesting and capture an idea that inspired greater things.
@@ClementinesmWTFYou seem far more upset than anyone here lmfao
have you fools not heard of the brain organoid computer😮 we can already make computers out of human😮 brain cells😮 by taking skin cells and reprogramming them into😮 brain cells😮 we've already made computers the size of a baby brain😮 they can do basic statistical analysis and play video games like Doom😮you're arguing that humans are creative well we can that grow human brains don't you fools understand there are no limitations we will clone and copy you we will create things beyond human art that you cannot possibly understand😮revel in your short victories of all the machine makes six fingers and it can't consistently make characters your time is short😮and no matter how much of this crazy s*** you people see you seem to think that you're not in mortal danger😮then there's something special about humans that will never copy you have already been copied😮 we're just breaking down the data and rearranging it into something far Superior you will lose your job😮 have any of you considered this do you have a plan about this I doubt you do😮 you better start taking this s*** seriously or you're all in trouble😮
@@tyldrthepark64have you fools not heard of the brain organoid computer😮 we can already make computers out of human😮 brain cells😮 by taking skin cells and reprogramming them into😮 brain cells😮 we've already made computers the size of a baby brain😮 they can do basic statistical analysis and play video games like Doom😮you're arguing that humans are creative well we can that grow human brains don't you fools understand there are no limitations we will clone and copy you we will create things beyond human art that you cannot possibly understand😮revel in your short victories of all the machine makes six fingers and it can't consistently make characters your time is short😮and no matter how much of this crazy s*** you people see you seem to think that you're not in mortal danger😮then there's something special about humans that will never copy you have already been copied😮 we're just breaking down the data and rearranging it into something far Superior you will lose your job😮 have any of you considered this do you have a plan about this I doubt you do😮 you better start taking this s*** seriously or you're all in trouble😮
@@tyldrthepark64😮 yes I am upset😮but there seem to be only a few hundred maybe a thousand humans on Earth that understand the scale of what we're facing😮 this is fish coming out of water😮 the invention of fire😮 the origin of life😮 this is the moment humans become gods or ceased to exist😮 in the next 5 or 10 years will be fighting robots😮 or live in a Utopia😮 there is absolutely no middle ground😮
When I first saw that AI "film" I immediately knew why they used that balloon head character. The AI can't consistently generate the same main character scene by scene.
It’d be impressive that they found a way to work around that limitation, if machine generation actually took any work in the first place
It will
for now
@@Fred_Berg no it won't lol
@@Leo-ox1rd Of course it will, it's naive to think otherwise. In less than 10 years we went from Google Deep Dream hallucinating vague eyes and animals on top of existing footage like a bad acid trip to the stable and realistic videos we have now. The technology in this video is only a couple months old and shows no signs of stagnation any time soon, what makes you think that THIS of all places is where it stops and no more improvements will be made?
All the ethics aside. This stuff will probably result in an onslaught of so much new content that audiences will become overwhelmed and nearly impossible to impress.
I think that's quite pessimistic. I believe it'll be the opposite. If AI is so consistently milquetoast and middling, then a human doing the bare minimum will be extremely impressive.
it's already happening we'll see what come next .
Gotta disagree. It will be competitive for sure but eventually there will be people who become skilled enough to use ai to tell a actually good story.
What we’re seeing right now is primitive so of course it’s corny and needs tons of work. There’s going to be a point where ai is used in most movies and a tool used by most small creators as well. The tech is just too good to burn out
saying that audiences will be "impossible to impress" implies that the quality of content people are consuming is going to increase significantly. how is that bad? the only way to make more content that is loved by each individual is to increase the total amount of content, because we all like different things.
@@robotortoiseThis is what I expect and hope to happen. There will be a greater emphasis not on the raw appearance or superficial technical qualities of a creative work, but on the process. People don't want to watch stuff that was churned out algorithmically; they want to watch stuff that other people took the time to craft with thought and care and attention to detail.
It reminds me of how lots of AAA games with very detailed or realistic art styles but superficial gameplay pale in comparison to indie games with modest technical qualities but well-tuned gameplay. Why was Iron Lung so popular when it is aggressively low-poly and quite short? Because it's not about how fancy the graphics are or how much stuff there is to do; it's about the experience (and also people like to support indie devs).
Just a few years ago the anime Carol and Tuesday portrayed a future where all music is written by AI, and then this duo comes along and write their own songs and everyone is like "WHAAAAAA???"
It seemed silly at the time, but I guess they knew where the wind was blowing.
No fr
All I can think of is what Francis Ford Coppola said when the first Avatar came out - technology can surely enhance the experience but the only thing that will change cinema or push the medium forward is storytelling that is new, original and true to each generation.
There's a reason this guy is considered to be a great director. I love that we're at the point where Scorsese, Coppola, Spielberg, and others can have their advice and support for the community spread all over the world with just a click. It's inspiring to hear them talk.
I don’t believe that people who argue for, like and make ai “movies” are even interested in making movies in the first place. At the end of the day people who make movies make them because they like making it, a ai movie takes all the pure love of the craft out of it
Well said, AI is all fine and good for generating a dumb meme maybe, but movie making is, as Karsten said, about the journey. It’s a collaborative process where a group of people come together to make something. AI is just a way of avoiding doing any work or making any real decisions.
That’s why all this AI stuff is more likely to collapse than to take off. At the end of the day it’s just a novelty, and everyone will eventually get bored of it
@@Gloomdrake I hope so
Or they've been interested but haven't learned, haven't practiced, and wanted a shortcut. There are plenty of people out there who have that desire but no drive. AI could be their shortcut so they're pushing it
I know this may sound morbid wrong and kinda morally wrong too, but if this content could be GOOD content, why stop it? Even though it has "no soul", if it is able to do its job and tell a good written story and have good ai voice acting its doing nothing wrong. And though it can't do that NOW, im certain in the future it will be able to make fluent, and amazingly written stories, as well as convey interesting narratives. With the idea that all of humanities artistic material being analyzed and deconstructed to create a masterpiece, i can't say no.
Its like if someone was able to look at all the art in human existence with an expert eye, determine what made them good, and combine these techniques, and skills all into one painting. It would be beautiful. But people are so quick to turn that away due to the character of the creator, and not the character of the artwork.
That one scene in The Incredibles of syndrome explaining how he will sell his inventions to people so they can all be super is how I feel about AI content. "And when everyone's super no one will be."
I kinda dislike that read.
There's nothing great about some people getting to be superior to others.
The problem is that the actual artistry is just not there anymore, you're just going to get mashed together rip-offs of other art without any understanding of what made previous art good.
@@PauLtus_BYes that is literally the point OP is making
@@DeathnoteBB Is it?
The argument seems to be is that art should only come from the "true artists". I'm absolutely in favour of tools existing to let making art be easier. If we'd be talking tools that can effectively materialise a piece of art straight from someone's brain I don't think that something we should reject. I don't think there's any point to gatekeeping being an artist behind certain technical skills.
My issue with the the people who promote "AI art" is that they do not seem to understand the actual value of art (beyond money, I guess).
Let's say someone is very competent at copying the style of Van Gogh, so he lets people send them pictures which he then repaints in that style. Now, that requires an impressive amount of technical skill, and might be a neat result. But how is this actually any more artistic than just slapping an instagram filter on a photo?
That's how I feel about "AI art" as it can mesh together a bunch of (successful) ideas but it does not understand why these choices were made in the first place nor can it make it a conscious choice about why to combine them in the way it did.
@@PauLtus_B I agree. I hate when people say that art is inherent to skill. Art is expression through medium and that's it.
@@moscacrackreina4457 I feel a lot of people are very eager to claim that something isn't art if they don't like the origin of it.
Could be just a bad piece of art, something with a lot of money behind it design to have incredibly broad appeal, something shallow that's just copying some popular tropes without understanding them why they were used in the first place or now "AI art".
These may all be problematic things very worthy of criticism but to then say "it's not art actually" boils down into a very complicated discussion which is like 50% about semantics and just ends up distracting from why these things are actually a problem.
You could have an extensive discussion trying to argue that Harvey Weinstein was actually a very shitty producer bringing that up at all seems to imply that if he's a good producer him being a power-abusing serial rapist is somehow more acceptable.
...and just to make it absolutely clear: it is not.
I’ve noticed a huge correlation between AI bros and guys who have never had a creative thought in their life. That Venn diagram is one circle.
yeah, LLMs definitely took zero creativity to invent. super basic stuff.
@@mcarter72 uh oh found him
i think ai is a tool that can be used in a creative capacity. i have super creative friends who take advantage of specific tools within their artwork, and i love that! its just like how photography didn't replace painting. don't get me wrong, i never want to see AI being used in a way that disenfranchises artists, but to insist that ai is fundamentally "bad" and "cheating" feels more reactionary than it does productive.
@100keyblademaster When was the last time you paid someone to paint a portrait of you? When was the last time you took a selfie? That's what AI is going to do to filmmaking.
@@100keyblademaster I’m not 100% against AI as a tool to help streamline the creative process either, like Karsten was saying in the video. But you just know that creatively and morally bankrupt movie executives are hoping that they can start using AI for EVERYTHING.
Was listening to this while eating lunch. 8:00 hit pretty hard lol. Yeah, generative AI is a product of a consumption based media landscape. It will absolutely worsen the situation: but we already live in a consumption based society, and art still lives. It still fights, and people care about it. And it will, and they will, for as long as humans have a desire to hear stories, to empathize, to imagine.
At the same time, I was hoping this trend of shallow and boring media would end, or at least decrease. At this point, it's clear to me that we're stuck now, there's no going back. As long as slop is easy and cheap to make, it will be made. Until eventually we all live in a junk-food dystopia.
Great overview. As someone who spends 200+ hours/ video researching, writing and manually painting digital artwork with a stylus, the distinction between intentional art and algorithm is the thing I want people to appreciate. 3D printers can make far more realistic statues than Michelangelo’s David, and I’m utterly uninterested in all of them.
In fairness to 3D printers, though, at least someone has to digitally sculpt the piece. The art there is more in what happens on the computer than the physical product. It may not take the work and precision of a sculptor, but it is still a form of art that requires a good deal of human decision making. I don’t think AI even reaches that level. It is just fundamentally antithetical to what art is all about.
Why not pick up a paintbrush? The fact of the matter is AI is currently in the exact same seat digital art was in not even a decade ago, and now that your preferred art making medium gained social acceptance you're sneakily trying to close the door behind you for anything new.
@@olivetree9920 I’m not trying to close the door on any actual artist creating art. There is a chasm of difference between an artist’s medium and a prompted algorithm.
@@HistoryDose So you think for something to be considered art there is a minimum time/effort requirement?
@@thegeekclub8810 what? And someone doesn't have to sculpt the prompt? You have to get your vision out of your head into the generated screen through words. This is just a new artistic medium, and you are having the reaction that generations before you have had towards new artistic mediums.
Join the long club of artistic luddites.
When photography emerged in the mid-19th century, some painters feared it would replace traditional painting. French painter Paul Delaroche allegedly declared, "From today, painting is dead!"
The French poet Charles Baudelaire was vocally critical of photography, regarding it as an artless medium that lacked the imagination of traditional art forms. He believed that photography was "art's most mortal enemy" and feared its effects on the artistic landscape, particularly its "stupidity of the masses
The Crayon, an art journal in 1855, argued that photography, lacking "invention and feeling," could never assume a higher rank than engraving"
In a text titled “The Menace of Mechanical Music,” Sousa, who was born on this day in 1854, let loose on what he saw as the threat. His 1906 essay warns that mechanical music is “sweeping across the country with the speed of a transient fashion in slang or Panama hats, political war cries or popular novels” and was becoming a “substitute for human skill, intelligence and soul.” Sousa was referring in this essay to recorded music, but also to mechanical instruments that played themselves-such as the player piano.
In ancient times, even before the novel, Plato expressed concerns about the written word, which can be seen as a precursor to the novel form. In his dialogue "Phaedrus," Plato argued that writing would erode memory and understanding, as people would rely on external written characters rather than internal knowledge
Desiderius Erasmus noted the ease of becoming a printer compared to other professions, hinting at the disruptive potential of this new technology to traditional crafts and trades: "It was easier to become a printer than a baker"
Humans attack the new like white blood cells. Don't fall into that line of thinking, or you will come out on the other end bitter and empty. Future generations will look at your opinions as you do the opinions of the people I've quoted.
Painters and illustratiors have been on the forefront of this dillema for over a year now. There is a number of people who dont understand what "soul" is, or what it means for a project to have passion or love put into it. These people will continue to press on with advancing text to image, text to music and text to video until one day, they will wonder why no movies, games or stories effect them like they used to. Why everything feels so derivative and shallow.
The process of creating something imbunes the product with something from its creator. Its the mistakes or unique choices that often make things enjoyable to experience. Without that touch, the work becomes empty at the core with no soul, and leaves you feeling nothing after " consuming" it
Imagine an Oscars ceremony and build-up where a young filmmaker is sharing his story about how his film demonstrates the deep struggles of his sexuality combating his religious upbringing. How he was nearly moved to tears when the lead actor, a friend of his, portrayed everything he went through in one scene with his mother. They're both nominated tonight. This could be the breakout award-winning hit that leads both of them to numerous collaborations that inspire filmmakers for generations. A modern classic made personally by this guy with a dream.
Then there's a bloody guy who typed in the prompt for AI to create a hit that somehow made it to be the leading nominee. He'd never made a film in his life, but he used the right program, the right words, whatever you even do-
This could honestly be the future.
Perhaps AI is what kills Hollywood, and we all go back to shooting and projecting on physical film. I wonder if in 30 years our lives will look more like the mid 20th century than any pipe dream of a future we cooked up. Another major war could alter the world so fundamentally that the internet for the general population might not even exist 50 years from now.
The part you're missing is sometimes the journey is all for the creation. If the creation is shit no amount of effort behind it is gonna push it further in reception.
There was one AI short '''''film''''' that I saw where one of its scenes was blatantly just copying that one Leonardo DiCaprio fireworks scene in The Great Gatsby. Every action, every gesture, even the framing was the exact same. I think that tells me a lot about these AI '''''films'''''.
Can you link it?
And it didn't even add Tom Hanks' character from Elvis to the scene smh. That should be the sole purpose of AI, adding Tom Hanks as Colonel Parker to everything
@@Arawn505fuck it, put him in Salò
Automation is great for doing the jobs that people don’t enjoy/get fulfillment out of doing. When people praise AI’s replication of art, it communicates to me that they see the process of creating art as pointless and inconsequential
I find it funny how people will praise these fully-AI "movie" on Twitter, then complain about modern blockbusters being written by AI when they don't like them.
I'm not sure that's the same crowd, tho
Its the crowd that praise Star Wars fan films and say its what Disney should be doing when those fan films just rip off Disney directly and do it worse. People don't care about the quality they care about what the thing they're watching stands for and if it perpetuates their own personal ideology. That or they're just media-illiterate and have bad taste.
@@emalaw1329It definitely isn’t
You know what the difference is? One had $300M behind it. The other had nothing. Same reason more leeway is given to fan made films.
I‘m happy as long as AI movies are bad. I‘m getting worried when AI “art“ is starting to get good. As an artist myself a future where AI has taken over the entertainment industry is one of the most terrifying dystopias I can imagine
Why?
It will get better. There's no escaping that. Eventually AI will create masterpieces in all forms of art, pictures, movies, stories, music etc...
this is definitely why legal limitations on AI's usage is super important imo - laws will still apply even if the 'art' gets good enough
never mind art. What about AI as a person getting more realistic?
@@STJukesyeah but I don’t think AI will ever make a “masterpiece” just because for a film to be a masterpiece it has to to stand for and mean something, it has to stand the test of time. At best, I think AI films will be technically impressive and financially successful, but ultimately forgotten 5 years after it comes out, the exact same way stupid shallow cashgrabs from a few years ago are now
For me it’s like having symptoms of the flu vs actually having the flu. The AI has symptoms of being a film, it is literally a moving image with sound - but is not actually a film, no creative decisions inspire any part of its makeup.
that's a great way to put it, I've always described AI
art as having "the aesthetics" of art without containing any actual content or ideas.
greaaat analogy i love this
I think an “AI producer” agent that allows you to edit specific details will most definitely exist.
@@Fred_BergThat’s just called being an editor
@@DeathnoteBB I’m talking about a fully generative model that makes the whole process easier.
8:48 People have already been like that for centuries. “The Jungle” wouldn’t have come as a shock otherwise.
AI has convinced me that there is such a thing as a soul.
Because by God we are witnessing so much "art" that's devoid of it entirely.
Join the long club of artistic luddites that have had white blood cell like reactions to new artistic mediums.
When photography emerged in the mid-19th century, some painters feared it would replace traditional painting. French painter Paul Delaroche allegedly declared, "From today, painting is dead!"
The French poet Charles Baudelaire was vocally critical of photography, regarding it as an artless medium that lacked the imagination of traditional art forms. He believed that photography was "art's most mortal enemy" and feared its effects on the artistic landscape, particularly its "stupidity of the masses
The Crayon, an art journal in 1855, argued that photography, lacking "invention and feeling," could never assume a higher rank than engraving"
In a text titled “The Menace of Mechanical Music,” Sousa, who was born on this day in 1854, let loose on what he saw as the threat. His 1906 essay warns that mechanical music is “sweeping across the country with the speed of a transient fashion in slang or Panama hats, political war cries or popular novels” and was becoming a “substitute for human skill, intelligence and soul.” Sousa was referring in this essay to recorded music, but also to mechanical instruments that played themselves-such as the player piano.
In ancient times, even before the novel, Plato expressed concerns about the written word, which can be seen as a precursor to the novel form. In his dialogue "Phaedrus," Plato argued that writing would erode memory and understanding, as people would rely on external written characters rather than internal knowledge
Desiderius Erasmus noted the ease of becoming a printer compared to other professions, hinting at the disruptive potential of this new technology to traditional crafts and trades: "It was easier to become a printer than a baker"
Humans attack the new like white blood cells. Don't fall into that line of thinking, or you will come out on the other end bitter and empty. Future generations will look at your opinions as you do the opinions of the people I've quoted.
This belongs on a t-shirt.
It’s also so fitting that an AI might see a human head as a balloon with nothing in it
What's really sad is that Shy Kids, the creators of that stupid balloon video, made a video for their song Rockets where they built lots of assets and characters completely out of photoscans of candy and animated them. It was really cool, and a ton of work to do, but I appreciated that they made something. I've enjoyed their music for years, but they jumped on the AI bandwagon a couple years ago and their work hasnt come back to form since (fwiw Shy Kids is a VFX studio who have done work for HBO and Alvvays in addition to being a band, it's very weird and used to be cool)
I think the most concerning thing is that in a survey with the software engineers that make the AIs, 1/3 of them said they don't care about any misuse of AI because that is the "users" fault. It would be like Oppenheimer saying he does not care about the bomb because he is not directly using them, just utterly terrifying
Edit: survey not interview
Wasn’t there a court case that said all AI art was public domain (or that it couldn’t be copyrighted)?
If that’s the case, then I wouldn’t worry. No studio would risk a new IP being public domain immediately after release. Plus, it wouldn’t be that hard to guess the keywords used to make the short film, so no one would hire an AI “artist”.
It seems that there’s already some sort of workaround since there was already an AI generated intro used in Secret Invasion.
Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if that ruling is overturned. Most people don’t understand why AI art is problematic, and anyways, laws like these are governed by people with the most money, like major studios looking for a cheap workaround.
They just refuse to admit it’s by AI, like with Wish. Those lyrics aren’t just bad, they’re often nonsensical. But Disney doesn’t claim it’s AI.
While I don't think AI will be going any time soon (maybe ever if we're being honest), I don't think it will trascend as much as those who cheer for it do. Like any form or tool, it has limitations: as Advanced as CGI has gotten we still have more Ant Man Quantumanias than Avatar the Way of Water. Whats more is that AI is inherently at a disadvantage if not used properly as a tool: for as much as the media who lobby for this stuff to be used in art champion it, media cannot rewire the human brain itself, attention span reduction and that kind of stuff aside. Art without purpose or intention is still going to be Bad, no matter how advanced the technology is. There's a reason why so many movies coming out recently have been criticized as having "a script written by ChatGPT". People can be stupid but people also like to enjoy things, AI is not only boring and doing what already is most critized within culture (lack of originality), it is also deeply uncanny. The brain is a complex machine and it is always picking up on stuff we're not aware off.
AI could be a weapon, not in a terminator way, but instead as a weapon against human creativity and soul. That's what I think we're really up against, as dramatic as it sounds. Still it has a long way to go until it actually starts replacing real art.
Rewatching this in 10 years will be so fulfilling.
Not only the person who mistakenly relies on Al for expression will find themselves devoid of creative fulfillment, but also whoever watches it will as well. At the very least, half of the pleasure of experiencing something that produces an emotional response in us - be it something happening in the moment like a live performance or sports, or something already concluded, like a painting, book, sculpture, architecture, recorded music, photography or a film - is the subconscious awareness that a person, or a group of people, have, through time and dedication, achieved an ability to manipulate a specific medium in order to produce results that rival wizardry. I don't think I am romanticizing anything here; It's a testament to human resilience, dedication and ability.
Much has already been said about what this will bring into our industry and I vehemently stand by everything you say on this video, but since we are emotionally invested in it, let's look at an example outside of audiovisual creativity: soccer. Using easy to recognize examples, what makes Ronaldo or Messi the galactic masters they are, what draws hordes of people to the stadiums they play in, is how they've developed themselves to be able to run, kick, jump and control the ball however and whenever they want, according to their understanding of the pitch and game strategy.
If we deploy players with exoskeletons that enable them to outperform Ronaldo or Messi from the get-go in every front, what are we watching, exactly? What are we cheering for?
Is there anything left to cheer for, actually? Is it morally acceptable that these exoskeleton-powered players play against those not wearing exoskeletons? Is every player going to be forced to use an exoskeleton due to the
"democratization" of soccer playing in order to even be in the conversation?
Am I a neo-luddite? I don't think I am. This not a technology that does something that people did but in a much more streamlined, effective way. This is a complete paradigm shift the likes of which we've never experienced before. In art, the process of creation is an integral part of the result. We cannot outsource or bypass this and cling onto the result as self-expression. Craft and skill cannot and will not be replaced and all those salivating over what Al will allow them to “create" without having put in the time to develop craft will amount to nothing. The solution here is legislation that deems anything created with Al uncopyrightable, therefore no one can capitalize on it, while still making it possible for it to be freely used in science, where it will undoubtedly usher in a much welcomed new age of miracles.
That was very eloquently said Alex.
Yeah, well said. Since this is a film community I'll just mention that a lot of what draws us in is the story. People really got behind this latest World Cup because Ronaldo and Messi were both big players but hadn't won the cup yet. Everyone got invested in their stories and it really paid off when Messi won. People love the story behind a player, competitor, team, person, and if there's a machine playing soccer then there's literally no life there. The only story is the one of the guy who designed this piece of junk.
Join the long club of artistic luddites that have had white blood cell like reactions to new artistic mediums.
When photography emerged in the mid-19th century, some painters feared it would replace traditional painting. French painter Paul Delaroche allegedly declared, "From today, painting is dead!"
The French poet Charles Baudelaire was vocally critical of photography, regarding it as an artless medium that lacked the imagination of traditional art forms. He believed that photography was "art's most mortal enemy" and feared its effects on the artistic landscape, particularly its "stupidity of the masses
The Crayon, an art journal in 1855, argued that photography, lacking "invention and feeling," could never assume a higher rank than engraving"
In a text titled “The Menace of Mechanical Music,” Sousa, who was born on this day in 1854, let loose on what he saw as the threat. His 1906 essay warns that mechanical music is “sweeping across the country with the speed of a transient fashion in slang or Panama hats, political war cries or popular novels” and was becoming a “substitute for human skill, intelligence and soul.” Sousa was referring in this essay to recorded music, but also to mechanical instruments that played themselves-such as the player piano.
In ancient times, even before the novel, Plato expressed concerns about the written word, which can be seen as a precursor to the novel form. In his dialogue "Phaedrus," Plato argued that writing would erode memory and understanding, as people would rely on external written characters rather than internal knowledge
Desiderius Erasmus noted the ease of becoming a printer compared to other professions, hinting at the disruptive potential of this new technology to traditional crafts and trades: "It was easier to become a printer than a baker"
Humans attack the new like white blood cells. Don't fall into that line of thinking, or you will come out on the other end bitter and empty. Future generations will look at your opinions as you do the opinions of the people I've quoted.
I also think there is a misunderstanding here. What is the difference between a director with unlimited resources making his inner vision come to life on a film, and someone who has a vision for a film come to life through prompting? There's obviously less friction there. But photography provided the artist less friction than the paintbrush did. You aren't going to just say "make me a movie" you have to craft the film, scene by scene, compose it, edit it together.
One thing is I hate how fast this is coming- where did the bad funny AI generated pictured go??
I love it. Eventually we'll live in our own little personal virtual worlds like the Matrix
That's how all new tech development works: a big boom and then it flattens out. Good news is the line can't go up forever, and we're already starting to hit the ceiling imo
The innocent days. Wish those days could never end. Remember the bad AI written Harry potter story? That was the best.
@@HermitKing731 it was so good!
I don't think it will be bad, people won't relate with movies that have no heart and they won't find success. I do think the VFX industry is going to get wrecked though
they already do, marvel was huge in the last few years, movies that had no soul whatsoever got giant box office returns.
It's depressing, I really hope people wise up in the fast approaching content apocalypse
lots of willingly oblivious people will just continue to consume it. streaming will see competition with cable-like infinite AI shows. you don't think a marvel nerd wouldn't put on an infinite stream of AI made marvel films while they cook or something?
Is everyone really anticipating A.l films and movies 🎥? Or are these companies pushing us believe this is the next level. Some non-creative people who never tried in their lives would be over the moon for replacing actual film makers.
The irony of the balloon video, is that the creators revealed that the sequences they got from AI were mostly shit, and they still had to do tons of editing (like in real filmmaking) to have a character that has a consistently yellow balloon on his head. Sometimes the AI would generate balloons of other colors. Sometimes the AI would draw a face on the balloon. Sometimes it would just generate a person with a balloon floating alongside him.
The whole point of this is, the real experience with AI filmmaking is worse, because instead of shooting scenes with intention that then you work on, you're given random scraps that you have to fix in post to somehow make it work.
Thank you, just thank you for putting into words exactly how I -and a lot of people- feel about this specific topic. It makes me angry, depressed and scares the shit out of me at the same time.
seeing AI generated anything always gives me the ick
Join the long club of artistic luddites that have had white blood cell like reactions to new artistic mediums.
When photography emerged in the mid-19th century, some painters feared it would replace traditional painting. French painter Paul Delaroche allegedly declared, "From today, painting is dead!"
The French poet Charles Baudelaire was vocally critical of photography, regarding it as an artless medium that lacked the imagination of traditional art forms. He believed that photography was "art's most mortal enemy" and feared its effects on the artistic landscape, particularly its "stupidity of the masses
The Crayon, an art journal in 1855, argued that photography, lacking "invention and feeling," could never assume a higher rank than engraving"
In a text titled “The Menace of Mechanical Music,” Sousa, who was born on this day in 1854, let loose on what he saw as the threat. His 1906 essay warns that mechanical music is “sweeping across the country with the speed of a transient fashion in slang or Panama hats, political war cries or popular novels” and was becoming a “substitute for human skill, intelligence and soul.” Sousa was referring in this essay to recorded music, but also to mechanical instruments that played themselves-such as the player piano.
In ancient times, even before the novel, Plato expressed concerns about the written word, which can be seen as a precursor to the novel form. In his dialogue "Phaedrus," Plato argued that writing would erode memory and understanding, as people would rely on external written characters rather than internal knowledge
Desiderius Erasmus noted the ease of becoming a printer compared to other professions, hinting at the disruptive potential of this new technology to traditional crafts and trades: "It was easier to become a printer than a baker"
Humans attack the new like white blood cells. Don't fall into that line of thinking, or you will come out on the other end bitter and empty. Future generations will look at your opinions as you do the opinions of the people I've quoted.
Yo that music video you made looks really good! I love the stylistic framerate
These AI models are very accessible right now, but you mark my words, when they've got 90% to where they think the product should be, they will slam the doors in our faces. That door being a big paywall, or some freemium EULA that involves letting the model train on everything you do and create on your computer. This is the tech way - start with a loss leader, get people hooked, spout nonsense about "elevating everyday people and emboldening them to create" and then monetize the crap out of it. The energy these models use isn't cheap, and it's growing in proportion to the fidelity of the output.
I have seen that with one image generator already.
This kind of reminds me of something that I saw in December. Here in Lyon they have a yearly "festival" called the Fête des Lumières where all around the city people are presented with beautiful pieces of art using lights and the architecture of the city.
However, there was one that used AI "art" generating a lot classics of filmmaking made by Louis and Auguste Lumière like using "L'Arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat" and putting it in different time periods. The spectacle ultimately ended with something along the lines of "Who will be the big next innovator in filmmaking in this new era of AI?" As someone who is studying film here in France, this really bothered me.
Comparing innovators of filmmaking to generated AI "art" gave me a bleak perspective into the future. Also seeing the crowd of people here "oooh", "aaah", and clap at the end of the presentation made me realize how disruptive AI can be to the general consumers of movies.
For anyone wondering the presentation is called "Cellulo/d" and you can find a small description and video of it in the Fête des Lumières official website.
My dream is to become a music producer, I have studied sound design and music production and plan on continuing down that path. But recently I've just been having a hard time figuring out if it's the best way to go. Although I don't think that "AI *music*" will ever reach the same level of personality and love as real music does, it feels like not enough people care for that to matter. If record labels ever get paid to release AI crap in the future, there would be no reason for them to sign artists when they can just make them from scratch. And all this that has been going around my head just makes me feel like my dream isn't possible anymore. I will 100% keep going, but all of this AI stuff is keeping a sour taste in my mouth.
People don't give a shit about music of all the arts its the one that is,going to suffer the most from it i think.
3:30 Mid journey. I can't unhear that now.
AI is the elimination of free thought, why think when the robot can do it for you? Let the algorithms think and express for you, let them control who you are, let them define you.
Honestly I don't think many people will feel satisfied with ai art. With this ai stuff I think of radiant quests in Bethesda and Ubisoft games. They made a system that can randomly generate an infinite amount of quests with unique goals, locations, and rewards. But despite that players still tend to skip quests like that in favor of human made quests. While it's not a one to one comparison I think it shows how even consumers who like lots of content and playing their favorite games as much as they can still prefer it when what they're playing has been thought out and created by a person
You know this whole situation rly got me thinking where society would draw the line and then it came to me. Let's make an ai wich would completly replace attorneys and bankers. I think we all would be surprised how fast AI will be outlawed
it's always gonna be less black and white than "I think AI is good" or "I think AI is bad" (and lots of conversations I've had with people, they seem to just say one or the other)
What you said at 3:07 hits the nail on the head imo. Like you said, it's about if it's a tool to help you make something vs. it making something for you.
Glad to see you doing more different kind of videos like this again.
thanks for this btw, since that stupid music video and the ai art in late night with the devil , i've been scared about what we're doing to ourselves and our art lol
Agree this AI thing gotta GO
It has to go blud
It can't go. But you could ignore it.
@@HermitKing731Kinda hard to ignore it when the folks making it are trying to violently push it into EVERYTHING CREATIVE.
Kinda like a cancer cell that wishes to spread, regardless of how the cells around it feel, or the harm the cell itself may bring. It may be well intentioned in some capacities, but it ultimately causing much more harm than good.
@HermitKing731It can go when enough people decide it's shit. Might take a little convincing, but I think the effort will be worthwhile.
@@Cyliandre441 100% correct
at sundance i watched a film called Little Death. Almost every scene that wasnt a normal shot was made with AI. it was terrible
A good majority of people, especially tech engineers, think this technology is garbage. It feels like it's "providing a solution" to a "problem" that never existed in the first place. It's mostly driven by hype, and dishonest marketing, and the tech CEOs know this. The people who say, "this tech is inevitable" or "the genie is out of the bottle", are the exact same people who pushed for NFTs and cryptocurrency (and look how they turned out). Now they're shifting their focus to I.A. (imitative algorithms), and expect us to fall for it in a similar fashion. And even if it does "get better", it will never do anything that a regular artist cannot replicate (other than being "faster"), because its data is _entirely_ driven by human-made art. It's honestly kind of pointless the more you think about it, and it becomes less of a "tool", and more of a "leach". And calling oneself an "artist" for using I.A., is like calling oneself a "track runner" for riding a motorcycle.
"A.I." bros, and tech CEOs, don't want to hear this, but here's the truth: regulation is inevitable, and there's no such thing as "unregulated tech". They can say to themselves, "A.I. will outpace government oversight", but it's going to happen whether they like it or not. The E.U. and U.N. have already passed laws regulating this stuff, so it's only a matter of time before similar legislation is drafted in other countries.
When I look at art, I think of it as psychology made flesh: it's about sharing perspectives, and points of view, through their own effort and skill. It's not just the "end product" that matters, but the sense of appreciation knowing what it took to making it in the first place. The real questions one should ask the artist are, "Is it coming from YOU as an individual?", "Is it honest?", "Is it providing some sort of fulfillment?", and "Can you describe the process?".
TL;DR: It's art theft at worst, and a crutch at best: and that's me putting it kindly.
cope harder. Human/Carbon based intelligence/creativity is not special in the universe, the sooner u grow out of your delusion the better u can adapt.
Maybe you naysayers should have voted against this technology when people were predicting it decades ago instead of doubting it like u are now. “It will never do this”. This is your moment to actually prevent that instead of being in denial before it’s too late. Focus on bettering humanity not telling yourself comforting lies about how the neurons in your brain and magical
Join the long club of artistic luddites that have had white blood cell like reactions to new artistic mediums.
When photography emerged in the mid-19th century, some painters feared it would replace traditional painting. French painter Paul Delaroche allegedly declared, "From today, painting is dead!"
The French poet Charles Baudelaire was vocally critical of photography, regarding it as an artless medium that lacked the imagination of traditional art forms. He believed that photography was "art's most mortal enemy" and feared its effects on the artistic landscape, particularly its "stupidity of the masses
The Crayon, an art journal in 1855, argued that photography, lacking "invention and feeling," could never assume a higher rank than engraving"
In a text titled “The Menace of Mechanical Music,” Sousa, who was born on this day in 1854, let loose on what he saw as the threat. His 1906 essay warns that mechanical music is “sweeping across the country with the speed of a transient fashion in slang or Panama hats, political war cries or popular novels” and was becoming a “substitute for human skill, intelligence and soul.” Sousa was referring in this essay to recorded music, but also to mechanical instruments that played themselves-such as the player piano.
In ancient times, even before the novel, Plato expressed concerns about the written word, which can be seen as a precursor to the novel form. In his dialogue "Phaedrus," Plato argued that writing would erode memory and understanding, as people would rely on external written characters rather than internal knowledge
Desiderius Erasmus noted the ease of becoming a printer compared to other professions, hinting at the disruptive potential of this new technology to traditional crafts and trades: "It was easier to become a printer than a baker"
Humans attack the new like white blood cells. Don't fall into that line of thinking, or you will come out on the other end bitter and empty. Future generations will look at your opinions as you do the opinions of the people I've quoted.
when i see noticeable ai i feel like someone pooped into my brain
Great video!! What prompt did you use to generate this?
"the majority of people don't care about all that" is the most optimistic part of all of this, there will always be people drawn to Human created art of any kind if anything I feel like ai would make small groups of people that are incredibly passionate and people who before ai would have been lost in a sea of people might have more of a chance to shine and reach out to those people. I think it will almost bring music and films, art all of that jazz to a sort of pre internet world where you really have these specific cultures thrive again.
i appreciate your realist perspective. this is happening. it is not ideal. but that’s history. we work with it, we adapt to the technology.
Thank you for talking about this. I've tried to push this conversation with fellow filmmakers, it's just not talked about enough. I showed my professor when "airhead" came out, and she feared for her job. I fear for my future, just trying to stay hopeful.
Hey man, great video. I'm gonna submit my first short movie into a festival because of your video. Cheers
You should look into the Golden Demon from this year. It's a huge, decades old miniature painting competition, and this year, one of the entries won gold in its category with an AI generated background image behind the miniature. It's not clear if the judges were aware that the background was AI, but the takeover's already starting. Unfortunately, AI entries into competitions are not at all out of the question, and in fact can win 1st place. Yay.
The AI has "no expereince" and "can't make anything new." But it literally has the equivalent of a person seeing every movie and consuming every piece of art ever made. It has "experienced" the equivalent of thousands of years of human expression. Just like any artist is inspired by what they experience, AI is inspired by its experience and it uses that to make new things in the same way a human artist never really makes something entirely new, only reframing previous experienes and ideas. "All art is theft" - David Shields. This goes for humans and AI. We're all doing the same thing.
AI can consume everything ever made but it can’t create it, it simply attempts to imitate great work. An artist inspired by another artist is still a person with beliefs and values. An AI will never be able to actually create something that is meaningful to it because it doesn’t exist
Bruv adversarial machine learning is not inspiration lmao
@@jorb1903 Yea... the human creates it. Do you think this short film wasn't prompted and edited together by people?
Amen to this video.
Join the long club of artistic luddites that have had white blood cell like reactions to new artistic mediums.
When photography emerged in the mid-19th century, some painters feared it would replace traditional painting. French painter Paul Delaroche allegedly declared, "From today, painting is dead!"
The French poet Charles Baudelaire was vocally critical of photography, regarding it as an artless medium that lacked the imagination of traditional art forms. He believed that photography was "art's most mortal enemy" and feared its effects on the artistic landscape, particularly its "stupidity of the masses
The Crayon, an art journal in 1855, argued that photography, lacking "invention and feeling," could never assume a higher rank than engraving"
In a text titled “The Menace of Mechanical Music,” Sousa, who was born on this day in 1854, let loose on what he saw as the threat. His 1906 essay warns that mechanical music is “sweeping across the country with the speed of a transient fashion in slang or Panama hats, political war cries or popular novels” and was becoming a “substitute for human skill, intelligence and soul.” Sousa was referring in this essay to recorded music, but also to mechanical instruments that played themselves-such as the player piano.
In ancient times, even before the novel, Plato expressed concerns about the written word, which can be seen as a precursor to the novel form. In his dialogue "Phaedrus," Plato argued that writing would erode memory and understanding, as people would rely on external written characters rather than internal knowledge
Desiderius Erasmus noted the ease of becoming a printer compared to other professions, hinting at the disruptive potential of this new technology to traditional crafts and trades: "It was easier to become a printer than a baker"
Humans attack the new like white blood cells. Don't fall into that line of thinking, or you will come out on the other end bitter and empty. Future generations will look at your opinions as you do the opinions of the people I've quoted.
What's most upsetting is that these tech people are trying to claim over a future that does not belong to them. They don't understand creativity in an artistic sense therefore have no right claiming that these will help people with ideas when they don't think creatively. Artistic people and visionaries enjoy the process. Yes some don't like to draw or to edit but what these companies are doing is automating creativity. I think ai can be a great tool but please let's keep it a tool. Make some construction worker bot that builds you a studio but do not make them think for you.
Well said. I've been saying this for years, but the future of "media" is imperfection. People want imperfection and bias, because it reinforces that something was made by a human. This is why we're seeing more and more videos of people just filming themselves talk while holding a lav mic strapped on some random utensil.
Good job on this video, as always. As you said, AI is not sentient, and incapable of truly producing something "new" and "innovative". To me, anyone saying it can replace humans in making art doesn't understand what goes into producing such things, and what people want out of them.
I think the fact we talk about everything with the same 1 word, "content", contributes to this. It's made everything blend together. We don't think of media as being different anymore. A video is "content", regardless of it being a tiktok, UA-cam video, or a movie. "Content" is both a half-assed update in a live service game, and a wonderful indie game that took 1 guy 8 years to make. "Content" is videos, music, pictures, games.... Everything and anything to pass the time.
No wonder people think that AI is capable of making "content" on its own. Can it? Absolutely. Is it any good? Does it have a point or a soul? Absolutely not. It's quite literally "average". An "average" of the data put into it. A statistical estimation of what the output of your prompt is, based on what HUMANS have done before.
10:16 omg I love inside llewyn davis
"Printed books will never be the equivalent of handwritten codices, especially since printed books are often deficient in spelling and appearance." - Johannes Trithemius, Benedictine abbot (1492)
i feel like every youtube video i’ve seen recently ends with “guy things are about 2 get bad”
Don’t call me out about eating lunch when I watch this Karsten.
Im sorry but the slow pan to show Balloon head is a cinematic masterpiece
this comment has to be rage bait
So basically... I can finally make my season 7 and 8 rewrite of GOT a reality?
Who up Kartsen they Runquist?
At this stage the best AI generated content IMO, is the kind that embraces the weirdness of it.
Why shouldn't Robots (2005) replace us? I thought you loved that movie
my thought on ai generated anything (art, film, writing, etc.) is why should I be bothered to care about something nobody could have been bothered to make?
someone did make that though. it was prompted and stitched together by an actual person. I think before you speak about something, you should have at least a small understanding of what you are talking about, unless you want to look silly.
"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?" - Associates of David Sarnoff responding to his urgings for investment in the radio (1920s
I look forward to adding this video to the long list of examples of myopic, fearful humans resistant to new possibilities.
Madame Web compared to AI. Oooh, we're getting into conflict territory.
8:35 finally someone said it. I'm tired of other videos being all philosophical and maudlin about humanity and inspiration, when it's just not true. the bar is so low that AI is already above it.
The main problem is that ai is being used as a crutch when the whole point is to have an endless pointer but the byproduct of making it so easy to use and easy to get ahold of is that people just borderline abuse it
It sucks because the fact that scientists out their figured out how to do all of this is super cool, like computers were only running pong fifty years ago, and then of course humans go and instantly ruin it by using it to be lazy and steal art.
Chazelle dude told me cinema died and born multiple times over the course of the years. I wanna trust him. At the same time, with every new tech added, Hollywood seems to swing between success and maddening self-destruction. We'll see. Cinema never really dies though, and if an industry needs to collapse into itself because of so-called greediness or natural cause, cinema will still live.
Man this is a really hard conversation to have because it requires people to look forward 5-10 years and see where this is all headed, and a lot of people keep applying this current tech with the current economy and come to the conclusion that it's dystopian because it would be. The truth though is the best case scenario none of this will matter because you will be able to for the first time in human history not have to hustle your art to survive. You can wake up, decide how you want to spend it, and then work on whatever you want, with whoever you want, to display wherever you want.
Even if there were flying cars outside, you could be inside doing something more personal that you care about. The best example for my case, is that I get the same satisfaction from screening my shorts and animations at local festivals for 200 people in a bar than I would from posting on UA-cam. The only reason I have social media is because the potential to make money. Otherwise I wouldn't have half the accounts I do now.
Which stage of grief is this? Somewhere between Denial and Anger? Time to master it, Karsten. Get on this wave and surf, or you're going under. You can still do your thing, you just have to do it in a new way now.
I think what's about to happen to almost every single major industry, especially the entertainment industry is exactly what happened in America with the video game industry in the ealry 89's. For those of you who were too young or do not know your video game history, the biggest flaw of that 2600 in television colego Vision era was that there were no proper licensing and there also wasn't checks and balances on software quality at all. Meaning that basically any company or individual could release a game for any of the video game platforms and what that meant was that everyone just put tons of content that barely worked or was enjoyment for full price. Just deleted the value of video games and then basically the market crashed in the United States and caused some minor drawbacks around the world. Me this is what's going to happen with AI where now anyone and companies can not only just churn out mediocre to bad content but turn them out in like overwhelming droves like a DDOS attack on a network and it's basically going to strangle every single bit of entertainment industries as basically everything becomes a shitified and devalue with consumers losing trust in anything they consume.
ACU = AI Connected Universe
the craving will be for something old. when people used to build sets and got to locations and set up cameras lol
Something I must want to bring up that I don’t see many people saying is, media made by people is still successful and s we all know money talks so I don’t think Ai will outright replace people if anything it’ll become a tool since there are already laws being worked on that protect jobs like that from Ai.
1:25 try this scent it'll make you smell like a hotel in Chicago
I find the Madame Web reference interesting, because people have suspicions it was written and/or developed with AI because fo how bad it turned out. There definitely is alot more human on top of whatever may have been AI developed, but it still makes your point if thats the case.
When AI begins to dominate, people will market films as "made with no AI" in the same way they market films as "all effects done practically"
I appreciate you ending the video optimistically. As an English major, I've had a very doomer mindset about AI since chatgpt came out. But hopefully you are right, and once people get tired of "ai art" it will eventually peter out.
5:50 This is exactly how human brain works too. We base everything we do on prior experiences.
who is constantly rewarding and punishing you millions of times a seccond based o. how well you can arrange pixels? it cant think stop acting like this is inteligence its a marketing buzzword its just machine learning, barely more advanced than autocomplete and I dont see any arguments that autocomplete is inteligent.
@@BoopTheSynth Read up on how machine learning works. Then, read how human learning works. You'll see a LOT of similarities.
But let's be real, of course you won't do that so here's a simple experiment: try imagining a brand new color. Or a 4th dimension. I bet you would not be able to because those are completely alien concepts your brain never experienced, therefore they are not in your dataset. Every single thing you do, think and create is based upon the things your brain learned. You just remix those things and make a thorough enough mix that it seems like something new. But when you get down to it, it isn't.
@@BoopTheSynth I'm not even saying that AI is good or bad or whatever. I know people like to cope a lot about it but we need to be real about the facts. And the facts are - humans cannot create fundamentally new things. They just recycle previously learned ideas.
As an artist frightened by losing my audience to lifeless content, this video struck a chord with me.
@KarstenRunquist Thank you for taking the time to rant. Many more rants will be needed to mitigate the soul-less regurgitation that is AI content generation. Or perhaps enough of it will be produced that there aren't enough servers and enough power to house or distribute it. X is the only fitting distributor of such tripe, along with all the other pollution that collects there.
I hope he knows that "air head" wasn't written by A.I
"The truth is no online database will replace your daily newspaper, no CD-ROM can take the place of a competent teacher and no computer network will change the way government works." - Clifford Stoll, astronomer and author (1995)
I love you optimism. The sad thing is that AI will inevitably reach a point where you can specify very minute details and get a visually perfect output or representation of what you're aiming for. Knowing that, I highly doubt we'll ever go back to the way things were, especially since there is literally NOTHING stopping developers of AI from just forging ahead indefinitely - and in a way why would they? It's the greatest head-on collision of art and technology ever - art, that is concerned with maximizing (human) self-expression, and technology, whose main goal is to make things as fast and as powerful as possible, as cheaply as possible.
And all this AI schlock is put in front of the eyes of average consumers who can't even tell the difference. Real art may die soon
@karstenrunquist hi, I wanted to point out the videoclip of the construction workers at 10:12. Isn't that from a tile lens? I don't think it's AI.
I highly recommend that everyone go watch the video essay about Star Wars rogue ones use of deep fake on the channel “so uncivilized”. Very interesting on how we need to approach art. Even more interesting is that it was uploaded before the writers strikes.
I miss when people actually put thought and care into what they were creating 😔
8:44 - Bro how are you going to call me out like that mid-sandwich?
AI will reduce the cost of filmmaking down to the price of photography, the same way 16mm and digital did. Did anyone bat an eye when the film editing crew was automated by Avid or the cameras got so small they had fewer assistant cameramen on set and nixed the film loader and the development lab?
The reduction in cost democratizes the form and makes it so more independent voices can enter the field. This would lead to a new wave of unique visions that will be less political and less commercial than the trash we have today.
Honestly, I'm excited for the future of AI in filmmaking. People without access to big crews, big connections (which often come with big selling out) will make unique films. Don't believe it? Just look at the film *Late Night With The Devil* which utilized AI in some shots and was an awesome take on the horror genre.
Also remember ... AI is trained on Good Art. If the Art is not Good, wherever it comes from, the AI Art won't be. Humans make Art good even if the landscape is bad (sometimes). So if the quality dips too much, then AI won't be producing good Art anymore. But if the quality of what it's trained on is good, it will challenge mediocre artists. This all comes to a junction where it raises the standards for Human artists a lot both to produce Art that future trained AI can be good at and that stays competitive against increasingly AI generated works.
I feel like there is a lot of mediocre art without A.I., but A.I. art will all be mediocre in similar ways, unlike human art
watched this while eating fries and wings, i agree karsten.
They won't beat hand drawn animation.
Fluch der Karibik 2 ist der beste. Ich bleibe dabei
Not touching on Late Night with the Devil Here was a missed opportunity