all 23 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 21 points 1 week ago (1 child)

The people who love using Gen AI want easy shiny things, they want every area of every image to have detail, they want to use all those shots that they pumped their prompts and cash into, regardless of how well it serves the story.

This isn't compatible with the kind of measured, thoughtful approach to storytelling that makes a good film.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    Yeah exactly. Generative software makes a lot of sense for advertising and other short term distractions, but not much else. I think there will be a contingent of people who get addicted to LLM outputs and are willing to pay for it (like we're seeing with some chatbot boyfriends/girlfriends) but on the whole it's just... boring.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 week ago

    "Tough road ahead" as if there is even is a road ahead.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 1 week ago

    Cost the same a regular movie, used up a lot more power and water than a human-generated movie would have, and failed in a market that historically watches just about anytihing.

    The FUTURE!

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    I'm sure grok's odyssey movie will be a huge hit /s

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (13 children)

    my fear is that this is only because AI videos look like uninspired trash.

    So only the people who like it are people with zero taste, resulting in a shitty movie.

    My fear is that it's temporary, that in a few years AI video would be indistinguishable from artist made one, and by then, I don't know what will happen with movies

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    I mean, if a computer creates an artistic work that is truly indistinguishable from a human work, then that would imply the AI possesses sentience and is sharing it's individual perspective via said work. And honestly I consider that something to be celebrated, not feared.

    LLMs might be able to fool us for a minute or two into believing it is alive, but unless I'm fundamentally misunderstanding the technology they can't actually ever share a perspective and make art because they don't possess a perspective.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

    Or it just copied human works and made the sources it copied from obscure enough to not be sued, which is the best it can do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

    But I'm not talking about a copy machines. I'm saying that if a hypothetical synthetic being was able to retell an existing human story using its own voice then that qualifies as an original artistic work. Just as we don't consider Christopher Nolan's "The Odyssey" to be a "copy" even though the story has been told before. Without an artist you definitionally don't have art.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (3 children)

    Copy machine output doesn't count as original works.

    Movies that retell stories openly are adaptations that give credit to the original source. AI slop does not give attriution to what it is copying.

    Movies that are inspired by prior works, which is basically everything, but intentionally do a new take are art because they have intent and meaning even if done poorly. AI slop is just regurgitating stuff.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

    I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, I agree that a copy machine is not sentient. You can’t just decide that an inanimate object is "art" and then work backwards to say that the non-sentient tools that were used to create the work are the real artist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    It took some effort, but this seems to be a trailer of the movie.

    It runs into a lot of issues tied to AI (bad voices, glossly/weightlessness to everything, art style all over the place). Some things will be fixed over time, but I don't think the current AI trend can replace someone with a good eye for art direction, it certainly can't write scripts on its own, and the voices tied to the video frames will probably continue to prove challenging.

    That being said, this definitely wasn't created with some of the better models out there, and articles I was reading said something like 2/3rds of Chinese micro-dramas have heavy AI usage. So, maybe not the end of the world, but not great either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    How the fuck did they spend $1.5M on an entirely AI movie?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    entirely ai generated

    Why would I want to watch someone else's slop? I can prompt slop well enough myself, and it will be more interesting to me because it's my characters in my setting and my plot.

    So yeah, no wonder it flopped. They literally advertised it as having zero creative passion behind it.

  • source
  • 16 comments in c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 53 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    There is no tough road, we just dont want it.

    AI is like duping / hacking in items in a video game. Its just not the same as earning it yourself. When we watch a video that is clearly AI we know its an amalgamation of stolen material from real humans who you could have just hired.

    I was learning about that math problem AI "solved" recently (the one about fluid dynamics). It was so on brand for AI to swoop in at the end and solve the problem on the backs of every piece of research that came before it and then claim the win as if it earned its spot at the proverbial podium.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 week ago* (3 children)

    Thank you! What a shit headline, casting AI "filmmaking" as some sort of fucking plucky upstart.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    How did it cost $1.5 million dollars to input a prompt and then, when it doesn't generate what you want, retyping that prompt with a "what I meant wuz"?

    Seems like the Infinite Monkey Theorem, since it can try an infinite amount of times trying to create something a human would.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 1 week ago

    Who is funding this shit?

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 week ago

    I hope that in the future, we look back at "the world's first fully AI generated [X]" with the same kind of attitude how we look back at UFOlogists who kept saying "probably the most well-documented UFO encounter in history." (...they say that about all of them)

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 week ago
    [–] 8 points 1 week ago

    $181k scammed from victims.

    They'd have to pay me, by the minute, to watch AI slop.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago

    I love good news.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago

    If you thought this was a good idea, I'm glad that you lost your job.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    1.5m now, how much cheaper in 5 years?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments