tadpole: https://sea.ign.com/star-wars-episo...cial-intelligence-in-filmmaking-is-inevitable
does he also think the SAG AFTRA deal sooner or later will be irrelevant?
tadpole: https://sea.ign.com/star-wars-episo...cial-intelligence-in-filmmaking-is-inevitable
does he also think the SAG AFTRA deal sooner or later will be irrelevant?
I wish people would stop generalizing it as "AI". It's like saying "it's inevitable that math will be used in filmmaking."
Like, sure "AI" as a concept is so broad that I'm sure it will (and already is, because the recent uptick in AI bullshit is just a branding exercise), be used in "good ways", but that's just hedging your bets and not really saying what you think.
If someone says "we're using machine learning to better simulate diffuse smoke or explosions or film grain or mask outlines" or whatever, fine. That's not what most people are really worried about, though, and that's not what some of the shittiest people on earth are selling.
Like, sure "AI" as a concept is so broad that I'm sure it will (and already is, because the recent uptick in AI bullshit is just a branding exercise), be used in "good ways", but that's just hedging your bets and not really saying what you think.
If someone says "we're using machine learning to better simulate diffuse smoke or explosions or film grain or mask outlines" or whatever, fine. That's not what most people are really worried about, though, and that's not what some of the shittiest people on earth are selling.
This, it makes the conversations so irritating because while AI could certainly be used to make film making, effects and such easier there is also the very obvious and much less humane act of outright replacing people and their work with AI generated things. In turn costing jobs, livelihoods and severely impacting the art.
Brut mentionned on Era! Yay!
Yeah, "AI" is so broad. I KNOW it's about generative AI, but I generaly have opinions on outlets pitching "AI did this" or "This, seen by AI" I mean Quake foes had AI as well so what are we talking about here, please be precise.
Yeah, "AI" is so broad. I KNOW it's about generative AI, but I generaly have opinions on outlets pitching "AI did this" or "This, seen by AI" I mean Quake foes had AI as well so what are we talking about here, please be precise.
Exactly. All AI features in software making the life of an already employed person easier are amazing. Like the VFX examples you mentioned. I mean, yes please!
But where it's a big no-no is the generative kind of AI that companies want to deploy with the goal of making a buck by cutting jobs. Or, like with the very recent example of Google, some generative AI that's so often wrong that all it does is spreading misinformation and give dangerous advises to people. That's the type of AI people are rightfully worried about.
Horses also had their own issues though. Not 100% sure car's are a net good, probably will be given the impact it has had on rising living standards for at least some of us. Maybe fucked some others over.
For sure, and cars have a lot of plusses, but "look what happened when we went from cars to horses" is more of an argument for "there's good to be had here, but we should move forward with judgement and forethought rather than just opening everything up and plowing ahead until it's impossible to change trajectory because everything is so entrenched and embedded."
It's exactly what the AI players are trying now. Rush in everywhere before slow governments/the populace can react and then (never) deal with issues later because there are too many monied interests who stand to lose.
