AI don't trust techbros

Funny you should say that, I saw a commercial on YouTube just today for some tool called "Focal" or something that claims you can just feed it a script and it'll spit out a whole-ass movie.

There are definitely people who are going to champion this tech as an "equalizer", you know, now anyone can make their dreams a reality even if they're not some wealthy producer with Hollywood connections. Which sounds great, but in a world where everyone can create their own bespoke experiences, who's going to want to watch anyone else's?

Pocket said:

in a world where everyone can create their own bespoke experiences, who's going to want to watch anyone else's?

Click to expand...

Who else read this in Don LaFontaine's voice?

wonko the sane? said:

Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V. They modeled ONE leaf, then manipulated visible models on the tree and adjusted textures to make the majority dissimilar in the panning shot the camera does. Hundreds of hours on resources to make a set piece that (granted, tweaked and reused rampantly.) that gets 5 seconds of exposure.

Iterative tools will GREATLY help in cutting down the time needed to make backgrounds and set pieces... it's a jump similar to what computers did to special effects in general.

Problem is: they won't just use it to make backgrounds, eventually some suit will give the studio a starving artists budget and tell 'em to make a blockbuster and they'll have to entirely use AI to make it... and it's going to suck.

Click to expand...

Procedural generation of environments existed long before the current LLMs - see No Man's Sky. (Also Starfield, as that was developed before the latest AI craze)

I was more talking about movies rather than games, but yeah, true.

You'll also note it kinda sucked.

Procedural generation IS used in movies, and has been for a long time. Pixar developed a procedural hair system for Brave. The waves in Titanic, proceduraly generated by a set of rules. Only difference now is that they are moving the algorithms from the super-tedious things to the standard things. As far as who will watch other peoples 'ai created' content when they can just create their own.... I don't think that concern is fully valid. Humans are social creatures and have an inherent need for shared experiences. Bigger concern is how to we navigate a world where creative works can be generated by a few prompts. Generative AI takes a lot of computer power and, well, Moore's Law is at it's limit. The tech will only be usable by the big guys effectively due to cost. It won't be the democratizing force some people think it will be, at least not when it comes to movies. Once again, though, if we are intent, as a society, to go down the AI pipeline, we NEED to rethink vast swaths of how our society works. Modern capitalism just won't work in such a world, problem is modern capitalists are the ones pushing AI heavily....

Zuckerberg of course wants to replace following actual people with following AI bots. It basically reads to me as "Your friends are now obsolete - when they can't provide the content you want, we will."

Okay marky mark, I'll gladly pay you for the content and replace my friends with your bots... when your ******* bots can give me a hug.

Each one would use more energy than an entire state in Australia, all 5 of them together would more electricity than all of Australia itself.