Hollywood Writers Strike is Over - and about AI

[Orionblamblam]

"... making thousands more dollars for doing *nothing.* How is that not the dream?"

Ah. It's all clear to me now.

It's been clear to most of us for a while. A few elite actors getting paid *millions* to do little for a short time? Democratize the field. open it up to not just regular folks, but regular AI. Hollywood is a grift. But soon enough it'll be a grift that has ended. It'll be a dusty little burg, its glory days behind it, pining for the days when talentless hacks made millions to make crap.

Soon, actors will no longer have to put in those horrible hours learning lines and other such drudgery; they'll be able to spend their days improving themselves at meaningful tasks such as food preparation, lawn care, sanitation and the like. Much more fulfilling!

 

[edwest4]

There's that evil, evil word: DeMoCrATiZe.

A guy walking past the building I work at. I'll just hand him a football and tell him he'll be in a pro game that night.
I'll tell another guy walking by to build a rocket in a week out of scrap.
Yeah, just give Bob Nobody a *chance* even though he has no skill, no training and no nothing. That's the way forwar... off the cliff.

And you have no movies you love? The night I was at a comic convention and saw Star Wars the day it came out. Uh, uh. "Step right up and buy some crap."

I don't think so.

 

[Orionblamblam]

There's that evil, evil word: DeMoCrATiZe.

A guy walking past the building I work at. I'll just hand him a football and tell him he'll be in a pro game that night.

And he might well be! Football-based video games make *billions.* How many billions of dollars were made in the "Halo" series by letting regular people be genetically enhanced super-soldiers?

I'll tell another guy walking by to build a rocket in a week out of scrap.

Unlike acting, building stuff requires that those even tangentially involved have relevant skills. But "acting" now requires one mo-cap guy and any number of people who have been scanned just because they look pretty or weird. So, one skilled, a dozen unskilled Maybe 7% skill per person involved. And soon enough AI will be able to replace the mo-cap guy.

Yeah, just give Bob Nobody a *chance* even though he has no skill, no training and no nothing.

Correct! Movies are just images and sound. Bob Nobody has an image, be it spectacular or mundane. That's all he's needed for. The voice coming out of his mouth doesn't even need to be his.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Here's an example... some obscure Austrian, toiling away in obscurity, may now gain a measure of fame with an AI-generated cover of "Scatman." Left to the Hollywood elite, this sort of thing would never be possible.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG74RkyDb1g

 

[martinbayer]

From today's Hollywood Reporter:

"Can you specifically explain what regulations actors won on AI and why that ended up being a topics that SAG-AFTRA worked on seemingly until the very end of negotiations?


"I think that our members have made it very clear from the beginning that they expected to have a right of consent over their image, like a voice or performance, in the creation of any kind of digital replicas, including AI-based ones. And also [there was] the concern about how generative AI can be used in the future or even in the near future to create synthetic fakes of actors. So having set rights, having compensation rights, having guardrails around those issues was absolutely essential because if somebody can simply create a digital duplicate of you, then how do you feel like you have security in your job? And on top of that, how does it feel right that someone else can essentially own a [duplicate] of you? So we had to put fences around that and we were able to achieve that. And I think that’s one of reasons why it’s taken so long, is that it took a long time for us to get the industry to be willing to put the necessary protections in place."

Full article: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/b...eland-sag-aftra-deal-ai-streaming-1235643425/

As a legal layperson, it appears to me that actors essentially wanted and rightfully obtained copyrights on their visual and aural likenesses, which seems like a perfectly legitimate demand to me - why that was apparently ever even a point of contention in this age of patents and trademarks is somewhat mystifying to me though.

 

[Orionblamblam]

As a legal layperson, it appears to me that actors essentially wanted and rightfully obtained copyrights on their visual and aural likenesses, which seems like a perfectly legitimate demand to me - why that was apparently ever even a point of contention in this age of patents and trademarks is somewhat mystifying to me though.

It's my understanding that an acting unit's likeness remains the IP of their estate after death, for some length of time. That's fine, and it's probably been that way for generations. But it seems they were also spooked about wholly original CG "characters" eating into their profits. It's a little late for that, of course.

 

[edwest4]

As a legal layperson, it appears to me that actors essentially wanted and rightfully obtained copyrights on their visual and aural likenesses, which seems like a perfectly legitimate demand to me - why that was apparently ever even a point of contention in this age of patents and trademarks is somewhat mystifying to me though.

My company has dealt with Hollywood. "If it's not in the contract" - any contract - anything can be withheld at the discretion of your Hollywood employer. In this case, actors were 'encouraged' to sign a consent form allowing Hollywood to use their 'digital replica.' I mean, if you don't actually need to appear in a TV show or movie, Hollywood can pay you less. And "pay you less" is the name of Hollywood's game. Patents and trademarks do not apply. "Image rights" is something real but Hollywood does not appear on TV to explain how they wish to pay writers and actors less.

 

[Orionblamblam]

AI turning stills into very brief videos:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1723063315255988568

View: https://twitter.com/javilopen/status/1723063315255988568


Soon, this will be useful for modifications to brief scenes. Perhaps taking high-rez still photos and turning them into backdrops or something.

 

[Orionblamblam]

And "pay you less" is the name of Hollywood's game.

Suggestion: abandon Hollywood. Make the movies on your own.

AI can help with that!

 

[edwest4]

Suggestion: abandon Hollywood. Make the movies on your own.

AI can help with that!

Bob Nobody, complete with no skills, no experience and no nothing, is going to make a movie. Har-dee-har-har.

Here's my review of the movie, Bob Goes to Cleveland.

An idiotic idea has appeared: make movies using AI. Well, this outing is devoid of all the elements of real movies. It lacks intention, focus, a plot, protagonists and a number of other things. The "movie-maker" has no photographic skills whatsoever. He does not understand lighting or how to set a mood. In other words, this is a "movie" that wanders aimlessly in the named city. A 10 year old could have done better, but since a 10 year wasn't available, we have this. Strongly not recommended.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Bob Nobody, complete with no skills, no experience and no nothing, is going to make a movie. Har-dee-har-har.

Yup. How much did "The Blair Witch Project" make? "Monsters" only made $5M... but then, it only cost $15K to make, and used an army of random regular folks as most of the cast.

YouTube is *filled* with stuff made by one guy with zero budget that's more entertaining than hundred-million dollar Hollywood crap. Advancing tech will only make that more apparent, regardless of the "cultural elite" gatekeepers. "Rich Men North of Richmond" is just one of many recent examples of how no budget, a bit of talent and some access can sweep the world. Currently 92 million views:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqSA-SY5Hro

 

[Orionblamblam]

Bob Nobody, complete with no skills, no experience and no nothing, is going to make a movie. Har-dee-har-har.

Here's my review of the movie, Bob Goes to Cleveland.

Now review "Clerks."

 

[edwest4]

Now review "Clerks."

You mean "Slackers"?

 

[Orionblamblam]

You mean "Slackers"?

No. That's an entirely different movie than "Clerks," which was made by nobodies with no money and made buckets of cash because nobodies with no money can and often have made far better entertainment than the overfunded hacks of Hollywood, a truth that will become only more common as the technical ability to make movies will only get cheaper and easier.

 

[publiusr]

Orionblamblam, I have read your thread comments here of the last few days or so, and these are all supra-depressing. Even if your musings are currently fictional, I can see where the on-ramp leads....

I’m almost rooting for that second Carrington Event now.

 

[edwest4]

No. That's an entirely different movie than "Clerks," which was made by nobodies with no money and made buckets of cash because nobodies with no money can and often have made far better entertainment than the overfunded hacks of Hollywood, a truth that will become only more common as the technical ability to make movies will only get cheaper and easier.

Only in a fantasy world of your construction. "cheaper and easier" is the reason there is a mountain, nay, Lunar size amount of crap ebooks out there. I recently saw a TV commercial offering 'thousands of free ebooks.' So "cheaper and easier" rarely translates into "better."

"technical ability"? Where the heck do people get "technical ability"? Out of thin air? Here's a rifle. Take out the bad guys over there.

Imagining you can do something does not mean you can actually do it with your cell phone. To quote the great philosopher, Yogi Berra: "There should be no difference between theory and practice but in practice, there is."

 

[Orionblamblam]

Only in a fantasy world of your construction. "cheaper and easier" is the reason there is a mountain, nay, Lunar size amount of crap ebooks out there.

Yes, exactly. Soon there will be a mountain of AI generated movies. And in that pile will be a few good ones, and a couple gems. And since that ratio ain't far off from what Hollywood produces for many orders of magnitude more cost, people will spend their time and resources on perusing the cheap stuff... as they already do. I haven't turned my TV on in *weeks,* but YouTube gets a lot of background-noise time as I work away on my next book.

Younguns might spend much more of their time on TikTok. Shrug.

"technical ability"? Where the heck do people get "technical ability"?

AI provides, as the videos show.

Entertainment is just a series of ones and zeros.

Imagining you can do something does not mean you can actually do it with your cell phone.

To do a really *quality* production will require a netbook or an Ipad at the least. probably a secondhand laptop.

 

[edwest4]

More fantasy talk. I've been following Hollywood for a long time. Making money is job one. Accidental accidentalness is all you're advocating. Oh look, Joe Blow had a hit! I'll just believe I can do it too, and with little to no effort. From a 1960s magazine ad: "The lazy man's way to riches."

So, with all of your AI wisdom, are you rich? Why the heck not? *Anybody* should be able to use AI to make a *ton* of money, followed by spending your time laying on a beach in the Bahamas drinking Pina Colodas.

 

[Orionblamblam]

More fantasy talk.

So you believe I'm fantasizing when I told you I don't watch much "professional" TV/movies anymore, certainly not compared to "amateur" stuff?

So, with all of your AI wisdom, are you rich? Why the heck not? *Anybody* should be able to use AI to make a *ton* of money, followed by spending your time laying on a beach in the Bahamas drinking Pina Colodas.

Now it's you who's fantasizing. Nobody said that lots of people will make make buckets of money with AI. In fact, I have *repeatedly* told you the exact opposite. But for some reason, you are incapable of understanding any position but your own, so all you have to argue with are strawmen.

AI products are going to allow a LOT of people to make a LOT of content. The sum total income might remain the same, but it'll be spread so thin as to be essentially nonexistent for most involved. But they'll still do it. Why? because it will eventually allow them to make the movie they want to watch. I don;t need to have a profit motive to want to watch, say, a faithful 20-hour adaptation of the Silmarilion, and if some AI down the line can do that for me, I'll do it. If Hollywood would do it, great, I'll watch. But they won't. So they don't get my money.

 

[edwest4]

So you believe I'm fantasizing when I told you I don't watch much "professional" TV/movies anymore, certainly not compared to "amateur" stuff?


Now it's you who's fantasizing. Nobody said that lots of people will make make buckets of money with AI. In fact, I have *repeatedly* told you the exact opposite. But for some reason, you are incapable of understanding any position but your own, so all you have to argue with are strawmen.

AI products are going to allow a LOT of people to make a LOT of content. The sum total income might remain the same, but it'll be spread so thin as to be essentially nonexistent for most involved. But they'll still do it. Why? because it will eventually allow them to make the movie they want to watch. I don;t need to have a profit motive to want to watch, say, a faithful 20-hour adaptation of the Silmarilion, and if some AI down the line can do that for me, I'll do it. If Hollywood would do it, great, I'll watch. But they won't. So they don't get my money.

You are the one making predictions. Do you know how to write a real movie script? I have a friend who was a script editor at a major Hollywood studio. Guess what? He experienced the same thing I experienced as a book editor. The pattern has not changed and I base this on my and his personal experience: Out of 100 manuscripts, one, maybe, might be worth using - maybe.

Your contempt for Hollywood hides behind a thinly veiled attempt to appear even-handed but you can't have it both ways. If Hollywood makes it, you say, you'll watch it, whatever "it" happens to be, but you follow that with your final judgment - They won't.

Landfills also have "content" and lots of it. I don't think you're dealing with reality here.

 

[edwest4]

"... allow them to make the movie they want to watch." Really? I mean, REALLY? The tonnage of design work to make Star Wars. Industrial Light & Magic was a collection of amateurs? How about Ralph McQuarrie? That fiction is fiction.

For the record, EVERYONE starts as an amateur. I would never discourage anyone from trying to fulfill their dreams. That said, the AI snake oil I'm seeing peddled here is just that. Cheap? Is that it? Cheap is the way? The movie they want to watch? Look at the credits after any real movie. LOOK at them. AI has made all of those people useless now? Get over your worship of AI. Sure, it may be useful but only if you know how to use it. Yesterday, one of our lead graphic designers called me into his office to resolve a problem. We used specialized terms to communicate and solved the problem in two - literal - minutes. I have done graphic design work using cut-out letters, Zip-a-Tone and keylines by hand. We have technology to change hours into minutes. Useless to any but those who know how to use it. AND THAT IS MY POINT.

 

[Orionblamblam]

You are the one making predictions.

Yea, and you're the one denying reality. AI is improving nearly daily.

Do you know how to write a real movie script?

No. Nor do I need to.

I have a friend who was a script editor at a major Hollywood studio. Guess what? He experienced the same thing I experienced as a book editor. The pattern has not changed and I base this on my and his personal experience: Out of 100 manuscripts, one, maybe, might be worth using - maybe.

If AI can get one percent that good, then there will soon be *millions* of AI scripts worth using,

Your contempt for Hollywood hides behind a thinly veiled attempt to appear even-handed but you can't have it both ways. If Hollywood makes it, you say, you'll watch it, whatever "it" happens to be, but you follow that with your final judgment - They won't.

What about that means "can't have it both ways?" I would pick up a gold bar if one appeared on my doorstep, but that;s not goign to happen.

 

[Orionblamblam]

"... allow them to make the movie they want to watch." Really? I mean, REALLY?

Really. AI image generators are *currently* doing a bang-up job of creating Star Wars concept design spaceships. For some reason they suck at understanding Star Trek designs, but they also originally couldn't figure out hands, now they do them just fine.

 

[Orionblamblam]

you can't have it both ways.

A simple note on cognitive dissonance:
1) AI will never amount to anything, it's incapable of creativity, it'll get sued out of existence.
2) Actors and writers and those who make money from them need to be protected from AI.

Pick one.
You can't have it both ways.

 

[martinbayer]

Suggestion: abandon Hollywood. Make the movies on your own.

AI can help with that!

Star power is a very real thing - just check out the magazine rack at your supermarket cashier line the next time you buy groceries. A lot of people just seem to *love* (second hand) real life drama. But pretty much nobody's gonna care about purely digital character weddings, divorces, adulteries, car accidents, overdoses, babies, rehabs, surgeries, suicides, or any other random celebrity life events. Of course there will be always a fraction of Cones of Dunshire playing nerds that are open to geeking out over some completely not real life online events, but I'm fairly confident in predicting that live actors like oh say Rashida Jones won't have to fear for their livelyhood if they don't agree to being digitized.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Creating visuals at your complete control is one aspect. Having them tell a story that actually interests paying audiences is quite another.

Who says the audience is actually paying?

A mature AI will come to know *you.* It will know what sort of designs, characters, humor, etc. that you like. It will be able to alter existing movies to fit your pattern.... turn "Blazing Saddles" into a cosmic horror starring the Rat Pack, or "Casablanca" into a slapstick comedy. It need not do this for mass markets, or even to be sold; your personal AI will do this for *you* and you alone. No selling of the product. You will be able to tell it "Give me a 6 hour adaptation of 'Red Planet' with the cast of 'Friends'," and out it'll come.

There will still be sharing of some properties across the culture, but there'll be a *lot* of individually tailored stuff. Hell, in 20 years "Star Wars Episode 16" might be released not so much as a movie, but as a file... you will be able to select the cast.

If you think that's unlikely, look at the video game market. You can now select damn near every aspect of the design of "your character." Some games even let you determine the size of your characters junk. People now get upset if a new game *doesn't* allow you to tailor the designs sufficiently. And some of these games cost as much as Hollywood movies, and make as much. Video games are moving in on movies as culture. The recent "Jedi: Fallen order" game and its sequel seem to have as much impact on Star Wars fandom as any number of the Disney Star Wars TV series.

 

[martinbayer]

Who says the audience is actually paying?

A mature AI will come to know *you.* It will know what sort of designs, characters, humor, etc. that you like. It will be able to alter existing movies to fit your pattern.... turn "Blazing Saddles" into a cosmic horror starring the Rat Pack, or "Casablanca" into a slapstick comedy. It need not do this for mass markets, or even to be sold; your personal AI will do this for *you* and you alone. No selling of the product. You will be able to tell it "Give me a 6 hour adaptation of 'Red Planet' with the cast of 'Friends'," and out it'll come.

There will still be sharing of some properties across the culture, but there'll be a *lot* of individually tailored stuff. Hell, in 20 years "Star Wars Episode 16" might be released not so much as a movie, but as a file... you will be able to select the cast.

If you think that's unlikely, look at the video game market. You can now select damn near every aspect of the design of "your character." Some games even let you determine the size of your characters junk. People now get upset if a new game *doesn't* allow you to tailor the designs sufficiently. And some of these games cost as much as Hollywood movies, and make as much. Video games are moving in on movies as culture. The recent "Jedi: Fallen order" game and its sequel seem to have as much impact on Star Wars fandom as any number of the Disney Star Wars TV series.

Well, I have a hard time envisioning for example PBS going down that route, though FOX might definitely a candidate. But then again I'm already a diehard Simpsons fan anyway, so I'm completely ok with them hitting me with more completely computerized animation of that type .

 

[martinbayer]

Who says the audience is actually paying?

A mature AI will come to know *you.* It will know what sort of designs, characters, humor, etc. that you like. It will be able to alter existing movies to fit your pattern.... turn "Blazing Saddles" into a cosmic horror starring the Rat Pack, or "Casablanca" into a slapstick comedy. It need not do this for mass markets, or even to be sold; your personal AI will do this for *you* and you alone. No selling of the product. You will be able to tell it "Give me a 6 hour adaptation of 'Red Planet' with the cast of 'Friends'," and out it'll come.

There will still be sharing of some properties across the culture, but there'll be a *lot* of individually tailored stuff. Hell, in 20 years "Star Wars Episode 16" might be released not so much as a movie, but as a file... you will be able to select the cast.

If you think that's unlikely, look at the video game market. You can now select damn near every aspect of the design of "your character." Some games even let you determine the size of your characters junk. People now get upset if a new game *doesn't* allow you to tailor the designs sufficiently. And some of these games cost as much as Hollywood movies, and make as much. Video games are moving in on movies as culture. The recent "Jedi: Fallen order" game and its sequel seem to have as much impact on Star Wars fandom as any number of the Disney Star Wars TV series.

In any capitalistic society AI will of course have to turn a profit, so TANSTAAFL, either by paying directly or by having to sit through various car, dentist, pharmaceutical, or any other mind-numbing commercials. You will pay the piper one way or another - time, money, or both..

 

[Justo Miranda]

Who says the audience is actually paying?

A mature AI will come to know *you.* It will know what sort of designs, characters, humor, etc. that you like. It will be able to alter existing movies to fit your pattern.... turn "Blazing Saddles" into a cosmic horror starring the Rat Pack, or "Casablanca" into a slapstick comedy. It need not do this for mass markets, or even to be sold; your personal AI will do this for *you* and you alone. No selling of the product. You will be able to tell it "Give me a 6 hour adaptation of 'Red Planet' with the cast of 'Friends'," and out it'll come.

There will still be sharing of some properties across the culture, but there'll be a *lot* of individually tailored stuff. Hell, in 20 years "Star Wars Episode 16" might be released not so much as a movie, but as a file... you will be able to select the cast.

If you think that's unlikely, look at the video game market. You can now select damn near every aspect of the design of "your character." Some games even let you determine the size of your characters junk. People now get upset if a new game *doesn't* allow you to tailor the designs sufficiently. And some of these games cost as much as Hollywood movies, and make as much. Video games are moving in on movies as culture. The recent "Jedi: Fallen order" game and its sequel seem to have as much impact on Star Wars fandom as any number of the Disney Star Wars TV series.

A mature AI could turn our favorite books into movies, good writers could sell stories designed to be converted, and people interested in poetry could "see" it through AI. If any written text can be transformed into a script, people will prefer the quality of the classics to the trash of 2023. Game over.

 

[martinbayer]

This discussion reminds me a lot of some of the extremely optimistic rose colored glasses speculations of the 1970's where robots in factories would free workers on conveyor belts from their drudgery and everyone could just pursue their dreams, dance in the sunlight, and blow soap bubbles all day long. These fairy tale projections of course completely failed to take into account the basic economic conditions and relationships of the underlying system, and I think the same is happening right now again with respect to AI, only this time it's about brain power instead of physical power, but the underlying fallacies are in my view analogous.

 

[Orionblamblam]

In any capitalistic society AI will of course have to turn a profit, so TANSTAAFL, either by paying directly or by having to sit through various car, dentist, pharmaceutical, or any other mind-numbing commercials. You will pay the piper one way or another - time, money, or both..

You will buy the AI or, as seems more likely, pay for it by subscription. The AI would have to make *you* happy, but it wouldn't need to make movies that anybody else likes.

Again, video games: lots of people spend large sums on their games, and devote many hours to them and, presumably, enjoy the hell out of them. And while some twitch streamers make bank streaming their gameplay, the games companies make their money by just selling the players the games.

 

[Orionblamblam]

This discussion reminds me a lot of some of the extremely optimistic rose colored glasses speculations of the 1970's where robots in factories would free workers on conveyor belts from their drudgery and everyone could just pursue their dreams, dance in the sunlight, and blow soap bubbles all day long.

Those were never "optimistic" visions. They were always dystopian. As are projections of AI replacing the writers and artists. We will loose something when the machines replace them. Not quite sure how much we'll lose, but it'll be something.

These fairy tale projections of course completely failed to take into account the basic economic conditions and relationships of the underlying system, and I think the same is happening right now again with respect to AI, only this time it's about brain power instead of physical power, but the underlying fallacies are in my view analogous.

Maybe. But those arguing against AI are doing so from the position that they see AI as a definite threat to replace them. Otherwise they wouldn't worry about it to the point of going on strike.

 

[Orionblamblam]

A mature AI could turn our favorite books into movies, good writers could sell stories designed to be converted, and people interested in poetry could "see" it through AI. If any written text can be transformed into a script, people will prefer the quality of the classics to the trash of 2023. Game over.

Indeed. A fan of "The Iliad" could have a new movie every day for the rest of their life based on how they word the prompt.

"12 hour Iliad in the style of Kubrick, 95% text-accurate."

"5 hour Iliad in the style of Kurosawa, 50% text-accurate. Add kaiju."

"2 hour Iliad in the style of Star Wars. 10% text accurate."

"3 hour Iliad as a John Ford western. Surprise me on accuracy."

 

[edwest4]

Star power is a very real thing - just check out the magazine rack at your supermarket cashier line the next time you buy groceries. A lot of people just seem to *love* (second hand) real life drama. But pretty much nobody's gonna care about purely digital character weddings, divorces, adulteries, car accidents, overdoses, babies, rehabs, surgeries, suicides, or any other random celebrity life events. Of course there will be always a fraction of Cones of Dunshire playing nerds that are open to geeking out over some completely not real life online events, but I'm fairly confident in predicting that live actors like oh say Rashida Jones won't have to fear for their livelyhood if they don't agree to being digitized.

Martin,

You've hit the nail on the head. While we share this world with billions of other people, those dubbed celebrities hold a special place. People need role models - real, actual human beings, or people to admire. People need something to aspire to, not "OK, you mugs. Weese gonna take your digital pitcher and you get a one-time payment. Sign here."

 

[edwest4]

Indeed. A fan of "The Iliad" could have a new movie every day for the rest of their life based on how they word the prompt.

"12 hour Iliad in the style of Kubrick, 95% text-accurate."

"5 hour Iliad in the style of Kurosawa, 50% text-accurate. Add kaiju."

"2 hour Iliad in the style of Star Wars. 10% text accurate."

"3 hour Iliad as a John Ford western. Surprise me on accuracy."

Ever the advocate. OK, let's take a look at the proposed future. Midjourney turns into MidjourneyMovies. You, and thousands of others, make the same request: "Make me a movie with a dragon and a wizard." Two problems arise. One, since the database was probably illegally "scraped" off the internet, the PROGRAM will always draw water from the same well. Sameyness will be apparent. Soon, thousands of movies followed by thousands more will appear. The problem with that is human endurance. The fact that there are 24 hours in a day will not change. People will need to take time to eat and sleep and go to the bathroom/water closet. How many books does the average person read in a year? 10? 20? The same with movies. It will reach the point where finding a "gem" will be akin to getting a winning lottery ticket. The odds of "winning" a good - not even great - movie will keep going down.

And let's not forget that each and every person will have to pay for the privilege of using the service. Using round numbers, I'm thinking at least 1,000 USD, probably more. Billionaires could care less about your reasons for wanting to (not actually) make a movie. They just want your money.

 

[edwest4]

This discussion reminds me a lot of some of the extremely optimistic rose colored glasses speculations of the 1970's where robots in factories would free workers on conveyor belts from their drudgery and everyone could just pursue their dreams, dance in the sunlight, and blow soap bubbles all day long. These fairy tale projections of course completely failed to take into account the basic economic conditions and relationships of the underlying system, and I think the same is happening right now again with respect to AI, only this time it's about brain power instead of physical power, but the underlying fallacies are in my view analogous.

Martin,

The brain power you refer is all of the artists and writers whose work was illegally scraped off the internet, without their permission and without compensation. With all due respect, the term "underlying system" does not describe anything. The ruling billionaires know they must keep the peasants employed. They know that if the peasants are out of work, spending goes down. Amazon starts losing money. And that means the MOST IMPORTANT ENTITY IN THE WORLD - Wall Street - starts losing money. Can't have that. Does anyone want to see the U.S. turn into a Third World Country? I'm sure those in the U.S. who own assault rifles and multiple handguns, along with thousands of rounds of ammunition, will feel compelled to find food for their families and would consider using the means at their disposal to do so.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Ever the advocate. OK, let's take a look at the proposed future. Midjourney turns into MidjourneyMovies. You, and thousands of others, make the same request: "Make me a movie with a dragon and a wizard." Two problems arise. One, since the database was probably illegally "scraped" off the internet,

Nah, it just read the books and watched the movies it borrowed from the library. You know, like people do.

the PROGRAM will always draw water from the same well. Sameyness will be apparent.

Except that, as programs already do today, your AI will come to understand your preferences. YouTube and twitter and such present stuff they "think" you'll like, and they're generally not too far off. A mature AI will examine every aspect of your life. Hell, it'll probably monitor you home security cameras and FitBit and who knows what all to measure your real-time physiological reactions to various stimuli in order to dial it it.

Soon, thousands of movies followed by thousands more will appear. ...The odds of "winning" a good - not even great - movie will keep going down.

So? Perhaps every single movie the matured AI produces is objectively crap, which only ten people on the planet will actually enjoy. But it only needs to be enjoyed by *one* person. And if it can do that, people will happily employ the system to fill their hours.

And let's not forget that each and every person will have to pay for the privilege of using the service.

Yeah. Like Hulu. Or Netflix. Or Amazon Prime. Or Disney+. Or Max. Or Crunchyroll. Or Fubo. Or Vudu. Or Peacock. Or Shudder. Or AMC+.

Heck, last time I went to the movie theater (when the hell was *that*? A couple years? They closed that theater down quite some time ago), they wanted actual *money* before they let me drop my ass into a seat. Can you imagine.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Star power is a very real thing

*Was* a very real thing. Who are stars today?

- just check out the magazine rack at your supermarket cashier line the next time you buy groceries. A lot of people just seem to *love* (second hand) real life drama. But pretty much nobody's gonna care about purely digital character weddings, divorces, adulteries, car accidents, overdoses, babies, rehabs, surgeries, suicides, or any other random celebrity life events.

Ummm... people care *passionately* about fictional characters. Soap operas have made bank on that for decades.

live actors like oh say Rashida Jones

Who? Honestly... who?

"Movie Stars" are in many ways a thing of the past. Used to be people would just automatically pay to go see the latest Clint Eastwood movie or John Wayne flick or Marylin Monroe or Raquel Welch or whoever. Now people pay - or not, to go see a franchise. Look at the Marvel movies... fat stacks of cash, but does anyone flip out to go see the latest non-Marvel movie by any of the actors? The two "Avatar" movies made space programs worth of cash. Who are the stars? What else have they done?

 

[edwest4]

*Was* a very real thing. Who are stars today?



Ummm... people care *passionately* about fictional characters. Soap operas have made bank on that for decades.


Who? Honestly... who?

"Movie Stars" are in many ways a thing of the past. Used to be people would just automatically pay to go see the latest Clint Eastwood movie or John Wayne flick or Marylin Monroe or Raquel Welch or whoever. Now people pay - or not, to go see a franchise. Look at the Marvel movies... fat stacks of cash, but does anyone flip out to go see the latest non-Marvel movie by any of the actors? The two "Avatar" movies made space programs worth of cash. Who are the stars? What else have they done?

Trying to mold reality again? Like the laws of physics - reality doesn't work that way.

*You* tell people what *you* think about Hollywood, about actors. Many people, right now, are paying big money to see Taylor Swift. Her concerts were turned into a movie. She's a billionaire. I know a fan of hers who watches everything about her on 12 different internet locations. And she has the T-shirt... worth about 3 or 400 to collectors... Celebrities are still celebrities.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Trying to mold reality again? Like the laws of physics - reality doesn't work that way.

*You* tell people what *you* think about Hollywood, about actors. Many people, right now, are paying big money to see Taylor Swift. Her concerts were turned into a movie. She's a billionaire. I know a fan of hers who watches everything about her on 12 different internet locations. And she has the T-shirt... worth about 3 or 400 to collectors... Celebrities are still celebrities.

Taylor Swift is a movie star? Who Knew.