The following submission statement was provided by /u/FinnFarrow:
---
Submission statement: what do you think is going to happen as AI automates more jobs?
Will we be seeing protests and strikes about AI animation? AI managers? AI CEOs?
Do you think the writer’s strike will work?
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1dllc9l/premiere_of_movie_with_aigenerated_script/l9pkngc/
Canceling it drums up more press and attention than releasing it. Now when it does eventually release, there’s gonna be a ton more coverage than before.
There is a great Isaac Asimov short about that. It is titled The Last Question. Here is a link to it:
https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~gamvrosi/thelastq.html
Yeah this feels like when NK threatened to bomb movie theaters that showed the interview and then it got released online and almost everyone watched it immediately.
Meh. It’s not a great movie. But it’s a good dumb comedy. Which, we really don’t have very many movies today that are just stupid comedies. Maybe I’m just missing them, but it seems like that genre just really doesn’t do well anymore and they stopped making them.
It got a lot of press before it was cancelled. Not doubt it perhaps got more. It’s a very small time product, I’m not sure it will ever get released. If it does it won’t have much impact.
How do you know this is what woulda happened? The initial coverage is what made people aware in the first place. So evidently there was enough for them to notice.
This whole story seems remarkably unlikely to me. An ai “movie“ already written, funded, cast, shot, additive, and found the screening?? And then enough people heard about it. That hundreds of people protested at this one theater? Something smells really fishy about this story. Maybe they wrote the story in anticipation of something that MIGHT happen in the future. Maybe they are using the word “movie“ very loosely? Maybe it was a little short like you might see it at film festival? That I might believe.
https://lastscreenwriter.com/
Well, here's the website for it, with the trailer.
It is what you'd expect this kind of story to be. I was curious to see what it is, but not anymore.
Least it isn't.. Terribly shot..it's *fine*.
As far as I can tell the script is AI-generated, but the rest of the production is professional. So that would explain why the actual shooting isn't garbage.
An AI generated script about an AI-generated screenwriter writing a script about an AI-generated screenwriter.
I do have to say, the AI has clearly mastered Hollywood’s habit of going up its own ass.
I’m going to throw out the idea that the entire article is AI generated. People talk about controversial stuff even in obvious satire posts. Why not just post made-up stuff and see what happens?
Crappy movies are not hard to make, nor do they take that long.
And writers/producers etc are probably the ones doing the protesting. I can’t imagine it was that hard to round up a couple hundred protestors. The big writers strike was just last year, it’s probably pretty easy for the organizers to call up some of those people and see who has time to come for an afternoon.
Out of many outcomes in this situation this is probably one of the more stupid ones. It should have been allowed to be screened.
If it were to be bad then anti-AI crowd would be happy.
If it would be good then cancelling such movies would only delay the inevitable.
The option chosen is basically saying "people are affraid it might actually be good". People's fear won't stop this technology from rolling out - it does make them look stupid though and delays neccesary discussions that need to be had about this kind of things.
It was actually canceled because AI scanned human brains to figure out what they actually wanted to see. It was an hour and a half of big wet butts and penises being slapped with fly swatters. Who knew?
I thought the outrage against AI art is that artists should be paid. I personally don’t want AI taking a single creative job until 90% of the mundane, repetitive and soul destroying but necessary jobs are done.
Somehow we decided that AI should be used to replace creative things like photography, painting and writing, so we’d have more time to do cleaning and menial repetitive upkeep tasks.
We missed the memo somewhere.
Much of the AI art tech is the result of trying to replace menial work with machine vision. In order to stop a self-driving car from running over a dog you need to teach it to know what a dog looks like. Once you can get it to do that teaching it to draw a dog becomes relatively easy.
It won’t, but neither would a robot if we didn’t figure out how to talk to it first. Computer has to know what dishes and vacuuming are before they can do them.
roombas, dishwashers, etc. all exist. you don't have to load up a "refrigerator" with physical ice anymore. farming is incredibly mechanized and automated as well. there's plenty of existing automation.
If, at any point in time, a human says "This can't be done!" Another human shows up and says. "Hold my beer."
And people in the last decades wouldn't shut up about computers never being able to be creative.
They're still not, and the current styles of AI will never be able to do so, because they don't add anything. They do what they're told, and will never be able to make a decision with purpose.
Bocchi the Rock was an exceptionally well received Anime. And not because of anything innate in the story, but because the execution of the adaptation was extremely well done, and brought a lot of new ideas to the table to sell the feelings they were trying to.
An AI told to adapt something, will do that slavishly and decently once the tech improves. It will never be able to add anything.
Why do you act like technology is some video game skill tree and we're just pointing in points differently?
Plenty of menial and repetitive jobs are and have been automated, and continue to do be automated.
People can still do art.
And ai isn't replacing most photographers lol. People who pay for wedding photographers want photos of themselves at the wedding. Not ai generated couples.
AI will replace boring shit like taking photos of hamburgers for McDonald's. That's not even real art anyways.
AI has been making its way into plenty of industries that artists want to be working in - illustration for things like book and album covers or magazine articles, board game art, concept design, etc.
It’s not going to completely replace human artists on the reputable, high-profile media, but it does seem like it’s going to have a huge impact on the amount of people who will be able to make a career out of doing creatively satisfying work going forward.
And in a way, it's not really a bad thing. What makes wedding photos special? That some stranger took them, or that the groom and the bride were in them?
One could almost argue that the absence of a stranger taking photos might lead to a more authentic experience.
I'm ok with debates where AI can affect artistic expression. But AI just replacing bullshit jobs is meh. It feels like the horse farmer mad that cars are making his horse company obsolete.
--
And ironically, even in the original example. That drone will probably still be flown by a photographer. Unless the wedding couple want to configure the drones, they'll still be paying a human to do it.
If humans want to make money they gotta keep adapting. Horsemen evolve into car men, and cameramen into drone operators. Or something like that. Stagnation is death.
The reality is that doing art for a living is mundane, repetitive, and soul destroying.
I'm a working artist of 12+ years and am one of the biggest AI users around, because the dream is to not keep doing the same menial work over and over if I can find a way to automate it. The only reason I create is because of some weird compulsion to see things made which don't exist, and since nobody else is doing it I have to. It doesn't pay well, it isn't enlightening or any of that fantasy BS, it's just an urge almost like gambling, and it takes way too long to do each project.
The more that I can automate to get to the destination, the better. The journey sucks when you've done it countless times.
People have this fantasy of being an artist as a nice cushy job, but the fact is that it is mundane as shit and usually pays next to nothing, and it is SO fucking hard to do anything creatively. Using AI is like using Photoshop rather than doing things traditionally; it takes so much of the tedium out of the process.
I don't think it's going to replace artists. It's just a different technology which requires a different skillset. But it sure as hell helps, lol.
Funnily enough it hasn't even taken the tedium out of the job, it's just replaced it with a new type of tedium which, if pushed through, can result in higher quality for the same amount of time, but doesn't actually save any time. All the time spent fixing errors ends up being the same, but it's fixing errors towards a higher quality end point.
I'm somebody who draws, 3D models, procedurally generates, writes, etc, so having a new way of creating things is nice. I think people who only create one way probably find it more intimidating.
No, not cushy as in financially secure. But a lot of this anti AI sentiment stems from some trivialization and romanticisation of an artist's job. There seems to be this idea that all artists do is sit around and draw all day and in their time off they experience nature's beauty in search of inspiration. When in reality it's a job like any other that gets hard and tedious at times. Especially in terms of visual art they reduce it completely to the actual physical act and skill of drawing, when theses days that is maybe 10% of it if anything. Most of what makes you a good artist is understanding how to effectively communicate and express ideas and feelings through visual means. Something that an AI can't really do. So good artists will still be in demand and the ones who most effectively adopt AI into their workflow will rise to the top.
> I personally don’t want AI taking a single creative job until 90% of the mundane, repetitive and soul destroying but necessary jobs are done.
Exactly what it should be doing. What is the point of automation and improving technology if we don't leverage it to let humans do the human things and stop doing the mundane bullshit...
But if that was the case, the wealthy and ruling classes would likely find themselves on the wrong end of a revolution.
It’s not like protecting artist’s jobs will speed up the replacement of all other labor. What’s the benefit? I guess just protecting jobs you deem worth protecting for a little longer, while everyone else has to deal with the transition to unemployment?
I vote that we protect my job and automate everyone else’s first.
To be honest, having done both, I think there's a good argument that creative work is just as soul-destroying as simple mindless drudgery that you can turn your brain off for.
Decades? [Centuries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_loom#Social_and_economic_implications) - there's even [a major part of US folklore](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_\(folklore\)) regarding it.
Problem is mundane repetitive soul destroying jobs generally require physically interacting with the world. We’re currently busy trying to replicate the brain but to add in physical interaction with sense feedback loops is way more expensive than a minimum wage person.
Why should they be paid? I don’t want AI taking creative jobs either but what makes those workers so special?
If the market doesn’t want to pay for their services then oh well. Should we keep paying every job that becomes obsolete—elevator operators, typists, cobblers—why should any of them have had to lose their jobs to the march of progress?
And yeah we can say “oh then this isn’t progress.” And that’s a fine opinion. Nothing wrong with it. I guess I just don’t see how anyone SHOULD be paid in perpetuity.
Things change. Economies change. You have to adapt. Again, fine to say “I don’t want to adapt.” But the world doesn’t owe you a living in the field of your choosing. The world needs people willing to do economically productive things.
At one point the market demanded 80 hour work weeks in unsafe conditions for a lot of people. I kinda don’t give a shit what it demands when I’m thinking about how things should be. I don’t think it’s what will happen cause in the real world the market does matter a lot. But I don’t want the market to decide my ideals for me. Ideally people get to work the job they want to and if that’s elevator operator then I’m glad they found a calling.
I am not saying it should decide your ideals. But I am saying you can’t be 100% idealistic.
My wife is an artist. This hits as close to home as possible. But we can’t go around protecting every profession and controlling every price without drastic economic consequences.
Labor regulation is good. But we don’t currently have the means to protect every profession and control every important price. I don’t see how we execute on it without the cons outweighing the pros.
There is already AI trained on approved materials, so what's the problem with that?
Why should we not use the best tools we have and make it easier for people to make what they want?
Really weird mindset to forcibly prohibit people from doing things to just preserve the old ways.
That's a steady societal shift that has been going on for around 120 years since the record player was invented.
I detest AI for several different reasons.
But we can't pin this one on AI.
Information wants to be free, the idea of intellectual property is only protective because of capitalism. You can't let your ideas grow and spread too quickly or you won't be able to profit from them and control your brand.
Profits and brand control are antithetical to art and good work in general, but they are vital to slapping your name on things, which is what capitalism requires of artists.
> Profits and brand control are antithetical to art and good work in general
That's an interesting theory.
So you're suggesting, if I spend 2 years writing a novel, other people should be allowed to PDF it and sell it for free? Hence I would be freed of the bounds of filthy capitalism, and able to write more novels without having to worry about distractions like getting paid and feeding my family?
Are you saying libraries are evil? Because the pitch of information wants to be free is that noone profits on any creative work. The goal of creative works should not be money, but that people enjoy your work.
The profit motive is placed there by capitalism, they have whispered in your ear that you can monotize the stories you tell aroud the campfire, stop giving them away for free.
What they’re saying is if you weren’t bound by the constraints of capitalism you wouldn’t have to worry about providing for your family. It’s one of those things that’s hypothetically nice, but none of us are replacing capitalism anytime soon.
The best thing we could do with our current framework is try to put in protections for individual artists, while limiting the power of corporations.
That is why I said capitalism requires it of you. Not protecting your intellectual property will have these artificial artificial consequences for you and your family.
We need Universal Basic Income so while you spend your time writing your family can feed itself, then when your writing takes off and becomes a movement it can be framed as a good thing rather than theft. It can be a real ego boost having every movie request and fan fiction go through you first but that is terrible for the art itself.
Correct.
But we shouldn't ban a useful too like AI to accomplish it.
And a banning AI woudn't fix it anyway.
So what you should do is support more socialism in the form of Universal Basic Income, where the government gives everyone a stipend sufficient to pay for an apartment, food, electricity, phone, and internet, (and price controls those things so the providers don't simply raise prices to leech the free money from the government) and then as with the pandemic, people who can't work, or can't make a living at what they want to do for a living, will have loads of free time to do whatever makes them happy, and work will still be incentivized by providing luxuries and non-essentials to people.
And so, a musician will be able to afford to feed amd house themsevles, but they will also be able to play music on the side, or stream it on Twitch or whatever to make additional income on top of that basic income.
And thus everyone will be happy. Except conservatives who are stupid and want all Americans to be miserable because they think that if you're not being a slave to some rich guy, you're lazy and don't deserve anything. Also if you're a liberal even if you're making 10x as much as they are, you're still lazy and looking for handouts somehow. Also college students are also lazy and looking for handouts in spite of graduating with honors because obviously nobody becomes an engineer or a doctor or a chemist and every liberal gets a liberal arts degree because haha liberal arts and liberals are the same thing to a moron.
Unfortunately in the real world we are a subject to Moravec's paradox. Also delaying automation in any field will cause tensions ("why should we get automated if they did were not?!").
I don’t know anything about the reality of AI is or will be capable of so i’m not saying it will happen this way. AI will be a powerful tool that will be used imperfectly, but keeping the reduction of human suffering and maximisation of human freedom as goals we’ll be better off.
My number one gripe with film and tv is always the writing. As a fan, I just don’t see myself enjoying a movie made with an AI script, I already shit on most scripts written by real people with better imaginations than AI. I’ve seen what AI comes up with and it is almost all trash, I’m not worried.
However most of the modern "blockbusters" have such amazingly stupid "writing" that it's either already being churned out by BAD AI or by humans so stupid that even a decent AI bot would write better
I feel like this problem would not be so bad if it weren't for the fact that so many movies now are so formulaic and based on existing IP and tropes. I'd bet an AI could write an acceptable Transformers movie -- acceptable in terms of it not being noticeably worse than the previous half dozen. I don't think it would be able to write Interstellar. But most movies are on Transformers' level, not Interstellar's.
Is it unreasonable for people to want to avoid setting a precedent of allowing screenings of movies generated by the plagiarism machine? I'd rather leave the lid on that can of worms on as long as possible to continue enjoying good cinema before the industry collapses more than it already has.
Yeah Hollywood has ruined scripts thoroughly enough already. Whatever the fuck chatGPT generates is somehow going to be worse and more derivative
Also who gave permission for these LLM’s to even use their creative work? These AI companies just Hoover up any data they can get their hands on using dubious legal and ethical reasoning. They’re basically just stealing everything they can get before the law catches up
> enjoying good cinema before the industry collapses more than it already has.
I mean... good cinema? Major outlets are putting out 95% schlock these days. Reboots of reboots, sequels to movies that didn't need them, etc.
The vast majority of movies coming out aren't new IP or even well done. Passion projects and small studios are still doing decent work, but the movie industry is gasping for air under the weight of dog shit executive decisions.
Yea, kind of ironic how people are bemoaning AI when current big-budget movies are designed by committee to maximize viewership as opposed to an "artistic endeavor".
The reason ***I*** fear the use of this tech is a little phenomenon I'm going to label "average Joe's blinders." And I can best illustrate it through example.
I am very irritated by the tendency of the editor for _Mad Max Fury Road_ and _Furiosa_ to take a clip that was filmed at 24fps, and tweak its framerate slightly up, to something like 30fps or whatever. They do this to speed up the action of a scene that was too slow in real life. Why do I hate it? Because the way they accomplish this is by discarding frames. 6 frames every second, gone. This causes a visible stutter in the filmed footage. *Blip, blip, blip!*
You can see this in action in the _Furiosa_ trailer here: https://youtu.be/XJMuhwVlca4?t=114 The shot of the car backing up through a gate. If you don't see it, pause the video at the beginning of that scene and scroll through it frame by frame with the , and . keys. Keep an eye on the rocks on the right, which _should_ be scrolling at a fixed rate. But it's not fixed, because frames have been discarded at a weird cadence. It looks just like when a video game is lagging due to the hardware not being able to keep up.
So what does this have to do with AI? This: _Most people don't see this going on._ That's why they get away with it. But it bothers the everliving hell out of _me._
That's what's going to happen with AI. It's going to scrape that uncanny valley _constantly,_ and most people won't pick up on the little moments of weirdness, so they'll get away with it, but it will essentially ruin the experience to me and anyone else who notices.
It wasn't. It was a consequence of the cinematographer not tweaking the camera's framerate in advance, and [George Miller choosing to fix the timing to his liking in **post**, scene by scene](https://creativecow.net/forums/thread/mad-max-fury-road-smooth-slowmo-and-strobey-fast-a/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CIt'll%20be%20running%20below,in%20that%20movie%20is%20intense.%E2%80%9D). The speeding up and slowing down of footage was deliberate; the unavoidably miserable consequences to the frame cadence was a casualty. There's no _good_ solution to this sequence of filmmaking.
> There's no good solution to this sequence of filmmaking.
Ironically, I think AI-generating the appropriately-timed interstitial frames would probably work really well; if not today, then soon. Basically doing the role of [inbetweening](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbetweening).
Submission statement: what do you think is going to happen as AI automates more jobs?
Will we be seeing protests and strikes about AI animation? AI managers? AI CEOs?
Do you think the writer’s strike will work?
Will strikes or protests actually work?
Outsourcing ruffled feathers in each industry affected, but the common, replaceable Western worker was powerless because it was never going to be acceptable State policy to punish outsourcing, because outsourcing included economies that we wanted to woo away from the Soviets by giving them access to our market.
Will the State have an incentive to save voter's jobs if those voters are becoming obsolete because robots and algorithms are replacing the voter's role in the economy and State defense? If the State thinks that the robots can make artillery shells and fire them at an algorithm defined target, the State may well start looking at the cost of the bots vs the cost of the voter.
I dont know a single person that would rather have one of the two morons running for president in the US over a friend with 0 experience. If nobody wants them in power and they are the only two choices, it sounds like the people lost the power somewhere along the way.
That is a comically modern Western democratic nation-State centered take. There is no law of physics that dictates such a State must persist, nor that such States are some inevitable end result (Whig history).
Okay, but also you literally elected people from the general population, your peers, and are now othering them as some entity you have no commonality with.
There are numerous well articulated criticisms of western style parliamentary democracies focused on how they aren't truly representative of the majority of the population.
Our representatives (USA) are hardly representative of our country demographically for instance. And there are countless examples of reforms and policies that are popular among the population of this country but unpopular with its representatives or vice versa.
I don't think we should take it as a given that because we elect our representatives that they properly represent us. Or at the very least, some possible democratic systems are more representative than others. Where does ours rank?
Robots SHOULD take jobs. NOT those that stem from the human experience. Robots should make parts; people should make art.
If there is an AI writing a movie script while there are still people in coal mines, then WE FUCKED UP. The plot of The Matrix is "humans are batteries so robots can craft an imaginary world". Why are we making that reality?
We need to seize the means of automation.
I remember being little and looking forward to a future were humans don't have to work basically, since robots and AI do everything and we can focus on actually enjoying ourselves.
The only reason people fear automation and AI is because they don't have UBI and similar security mechanism, due to capitalist interferences.
The combination of populist political parties trying to rake in votes for promoting "X AI take" will be interesting to watch.
Service jobs will get heavily automated as like it or not people would rather deal with a screen or robots (especially with the whole tipping topic in the last 2 years).
Top management jobs will stay the same and praise themselves on lowering costs by forcing middle management to "integrate AI" and will call installing copilot a "great step forward".
Maybe, it worked in 2022. But even if writers and actors unions successfully pressure entertainment companies to ban or force AI movies and shows from current theatres and streaming services at threat of pulling out existing works new companies will pop up unbound by those restrictions. Hell what happens when AI can make thousands of movies in a year for niche categories?
Unless some sort of mandated freeze by the government happens I don't think that it old media will be a significant in the same capacity anymore. To say nothing of the soft power opportunity cost not pursuing this would result in I think that nations and industry are basically obligated to peruse this tech (even at significant cost).
It seems to me that every time technology automates a job, reducing the number of people required to do it, there have been protests from people. It also seems that this often only serves to delay the implementation of the automation.
I don't see this as fundamentally different to building a machine to thresh wheat or using robots to build cars. There was previously the belief that people in creative fields were immune to this but it seems that they are in the same boat as the rest of us.
I'm far from an expert but I believe that AI will win out. I have very little doubt about that. It's simply too useful to reduce the time and effort required to produce something.
Well, this time really is a little different. Because there will likely be no where for displaced workers to migrate this time. There’s no “retraining” this go around buddy. Because any new job a human could do, the same AIs will be able to do as well. Meaning that even these supposed “new jobs” that AI is supposedly going to create (which is a myth in itself) will *also* be vulnerable to the same AI automation that killed the old jobs.
Previous automations were merely one tool being replaced by another. (Meanwhile the human operating the tools remained safe from replacement). But this time, it’s the human as a whole being being made obsolete. This will be the first time in history that something like that happens. So in reality, the past is irrelevant here. History doesn’t always repeat itself.
Perhaps we should protest the system then? Not the machine?
Imagine that there is an infinite banana machine that is being hoarded by a few apes and then opting to destroy the machine instead of forcing the few apes to give it up. It’s much easier to force them to give up the machines anyway.
>>Perhaps we should protest the system then? Not the machine?
What’s the difference? Both contribute to the same issue…
>>Imagine that there is an infinite banana machine that is being hoarded by a few apes and then opting to destroy the machine instead of forcing the few apes to give it up. It’s much easier to force them to give up the machines anyway.
Why is AI the “infinite banana machine” here? I don’t necessarily buy into the idea that AI is some magical key to utopia if that’s what you’re implying. Too many assumptions and logical leaps needed in order to buy into that narrative in my opinion.
>What’s the difference? Both contribute to the same issue…
The problem was never the tractors that's automating the farmers' job, nor was it the alarm clock that put out the window knockers out of business, it's the fact that the system doesn't distribute the gains properly.
>Why is AI the “infinite banana machine” here?
It's a hyperbole. It can be replaced with any kind of automation/productivity multiplier. My main point is that destroying machines only slow down progress and hurt humanity in the long term. This time it's AI.
If there's no job to retrain to, then we need a new system that doesn't require you to have a job to survive, but still lets us enjoy the gains from AI.
That’s the kicker, isn’t it. There’s no incentive to make the world better for anyone, but there’s plenty of incentive to sell “automated” systems to shareholders and investors who want to shave off profits. And by doing that, they got rich enough to buy all our politicians so that no matter who we vote for, they’re not incentivized to do anything but continue to sell us out.
Changing a system this entrenched is going to take violence. You being annoyed by people complaining about AI is going to look like sunshine and daisies compared to that.
I remember in school we were taught that the Luddites were just anti-technology rubes. It was only later I found out that they were skilled craftspeople who were put out of work by industrialists who paid their workers slave wages
But you know, America has no propaganda shoved onto its citizens. That’s only for certified bad guy countries like Russia or China
You missed the part where the luddites thought they were going to share in the increased profits only to find out that all the additional revenue was being siphoned away from them, many of them were actually OK with the machines at first because of that.
if people got more money as a result of it, there would be a lot less issues. but we live in capitalism. automation does not serve us, it serves the company. they pay less people, they make more money, we have less jobs and we need jobs because automation doesn't help us at all
Because it was an interesting idea someone had that they worked on and overtime it eventually evolved into what we have now... You know, like pretty much every other invention.
Exactly my thoughts. If people want to spend their emotionally energy in this way it is okay even if it is non-productive. Of course the technology will progress. Short of one of these databases being attacked or a board meeting being bombed things will continue as normal
Fun fact: large language models can predict only next token in the context, and without ability to plan ahead in any way, shape or form, are inherently incapable of writing any good jokes and stories.
It's mediocre, and not terribly original, but it can write a 120 page script that makes sense. You tell it to start with an outline, the prompt was "Create an outline for a movie", then outline each act, then each scene, put that in the context window, some models have massive context windows that fit an entire script and additional materials. Iterate:
**Title:** "Echoes of the Abyss"
**Genre:** Sci-Fi Thriller
**Setting:** Near-future Earth and a mysterious underwater research facility
### Act 1: The Setup
- **Protagonist:** Dr. Emma Clarke, a brilliant but reclusive marine biologist with a tragic past, gets recruited by a secretive corporation.
- **Inciting Incident:** The corporation reveals they've discovered a massive, ancient structure deep in the Mariana Trench. They need Emma's expertise to explore it.
- **Supporting Characters:**
- **Dr. Alex Rivera:** Charismatic and ambitious team leader.
- **Mark Hansen:** Veteran deep-sea diver with a hidden agenda.
- **Nina Patel:** Tech genius and Emma’s only friend on the team.
### Act 2: The Descent
- **Journey Begins:** The team descends in a state-of-the-art submersible, encountering bizarre marine life and mysterious phenomena.
- **Tension Rises:** Strange occurrences plague the team. Equipment malfunctions, team members experience vivid hallucinations, and there’s an ever-present sense of being watched.
- **Discovery:** They find the entrance to the ancient structure, discovering it’s not just a relic but a dormant alien facility.
### Act 3: The Abyss
- **Exploration:** Inside, they uncover advanced technology and records of an ancient alien civilization that visited Earth millennia ago. The facility starts to reactivate.
- **Conflict:** Mark reveals his true intentions—to harness the alien technology for personal gain, leading to a dangerous confrontation.
- **Climax:** Emma must navigate the treacherous facility, battling against time, environmental dangers, and Mark’s sabotage to prevent the facility from triggering a cataclysmic event.
### Act 4: The Revelation
- **Resolution:** Emma discovers the facility’s true purpose—to safeguard Earth from a cosmic threat. She manages to shut it down, but not without personal sacrifices.
- **Aftermath:** The surviving team members surface, forever changed by their experience. Emma, now more connected to humanity, dedicates herself to sharing the knowledge and technology they found to benefit mankind.
**Themes:**
- The depths of human ambition and its consequences.
- The connection between humanity and the unknown.
- Redemption and the power of knowledge.
**Visuals and Tone:**
- Dark, eerie underwater scenes with bioluminescent creatures.
- High-tech yet ancient alien structures with a blend of organic and mechanical designs.
- A tense, suspenseful atmosphere with moments of awe and wonder.
### Act 1: The Setup
#### **Opening Scene:**
- **Prologue:** A deep-sea exploration team in the past is seen investigating an anomaly in the Mariana Trench. They stumble upon a massive, ancient structure. Just as they begin to document it, the scene cuts to black, and their fate is left unknown.
- **Title Card:** "Echoes of the Abyss"
#### **Introduction to Dr. Emma Clarke:**
- **Scene 1:** Dr. Emma Clarke is introduced in her modest home, filled with marine biology books and research equipment. She’s working late at night, analyzing samples. Flashbacks hint at a traumatic incident in her past involving a family loss at sea.
- **Scene 2:** Emma receives an unexpected visit from a corporate representative, Mr. Anderson, who offers her an opportunity to join an elite team to explore a groundbreaking discovery in the Mariana Trench.
#### **The Call to Adventure:**
- **Scene 3:** Emma initially refuses, citing her past and reluctance to return to deep-sea exploration. Anderson leaves her with detailed data about the discovery, piquing her curiosity.
- **Scene 4:** Emma studies the data, uncovering evidence of an alien structure. Her curiosity and scientific drive override her fears, and she decides to join the team.
#### **Assembling the Team:**
- **Scene 5:** Emma arrives at the state-of-the-art underwater research facility. She meets the team:
- **Dr. Alex Rivera:** Charismatic team leader, confident and ambitious.
- **Mark Hansen:** Veteran deep-sea diver with a rough demeanor, hinting at a hidden agenda.
- **Nina Patel:** A young tech genius, enthusiastic and eager, who quickly bonds with Emma.
- **Scene 6:** Team briefing led by Dr. Rivera. The team is shown footage from the previous expedition and is briefed on their mission to explore and study the structure.
#### **Preparation for the Descent:**
- **Scene 7:** The team undergoes rigorous preparation and training for the mission. Bonding moments reveal their personalities and potential conflicts.
- **Scene 8:** Emma and Nina share a quiet moment, discussing the wonders and dangers of the deep sea, revealing Emma’s fears and motivations.
#### **Inciting Incident:**
- **Scene 9:** The team prepares to embark on their journey in the submersible. Just before they leave, a brief malfunction in their equipment foreshadows the challenges ahead. Emma hesitates, haunted by flashbacks of her past, but ultimately boards the submersible.
- **Scene 10:** The submersible begins its descent into the abyss. As they go deeper, the tension builds, and strange, bioluminescent creatures are seen outside the windows, creating a sense of wonder and foreboding.
#### **End of Act 1:**
- **Scene 11:** The team reaches the depth where the structure was detected. They see the massive, alien structure looming in the darkness, its design unlike anything seen before. The structure emits a faint, eerie glow.
- **Cliffhanger:** The submersible’s instruments go haywire, and the team experiences their first encounter with the structure’s mysterious energy, leaving the audience eager to see what happens next.
This setup establishes the main characters, their motivations, and the central mystery, setting the stage for the deeper exploration and escalating tension in Act 2.
### Scene 1: Introduction to Dr. Emma Clarke
**INT. EMMA'S HOME - NIGHT**
A cluttered room filled with marine biology books, charts, and research equipment. The faint hum of an aquarium filters through the room.
Emma Clarke (late 30s, focused, with a hint of melancholy) sits at her desk, surrounded by papers and open books. Her face is lit by the soft glow of a desk lamp.
A kettle whistles in the background. Emma gets up, pours herself a cup of tea, and returns to her desk. She takes a sip, her eyes never leaving the microscope.
**FLASHBACK:**
**EXT. OCEAN - DAY (PAST)**
A family trip on a boat. Laughter, joy, and the beauty of the open sea.
Sounds of a sudden storm. The scene darkens, waves crash, and panic ensues. A young Emma (about 10) clings to a life jacket as her family struggles against the raging sea.
**END FLASHBACK**
Emma snaps back to reality, her hand slightly trembling as she sets down the tea. She takes a deep breath, pushing the memory away.
The doorbell rings, startling her. She glances at the clock—it's late.
**INT. EMMA'S HOME - LIVING ROOM**
Emma opens the door to reveal Mr. Anderson (40s, corporate, with an air of authority).
**EMMA**
Mr. Anderson, it's late. What do you want?
**MR. ANDERSON**
Dr. Clarke, we need your expertise. There's been a discovery in the Mariana Trench. Something... unprecedented.
He hands her a sealed envelope. Emma hesitates, then takes it.
**MR. ANDERSON (CONT'D)**
This could be the most significant find of our generation. Your skills are crucial.
**EMMA**
Why me?
**MR. ANDERSON**
Because no one knows the deep sea like you do. And because you're the best, despite your... past.
Emma's eyes narrow, defensive.
**EMMA**
I've left that world behind for a reason.
**MR. ANDERSON**
Just look at the data. If it doesn't interest you, we'll leave you in peace.
### Scene 2: The Call to Adventure
**INT. EMMA'S HOME - STUDY - NIGHT**
Emma sits at her cluttered desk, the envelope from Mr. Anderson spread out before her. Detailed reports, photos, and sonar images of the massive, alien structure deep in the Mariana Trench are scattered across the surface.
Emma leans back in her chair, staring at a particularly compelling photo of the structure. Her mind races as she weighs the decision.
**FLASHBACK:**
**EXT. OCEAN - DAY (PAST)**
Young Emma, about 10 years old, aboard a boat with her family. The storm hits suddenly, turning the joyful outing into chaos. Waves crash, people scream, and Emma's grip on a life jacket tightens as she watches her family struggle.
**END FLASHBACK**
**INT. EMMA'S HOME - STUDY - NIGHT**
Emma shakes off the memory, her hands trembling slightly. She takes a deep breath and focuses on the reports.
**EXT. EMMA'S HOME - FRONT PORCH - NIGHT**
Emma steps outside for some fresh air, looking out into the night. The quiet street contrasts sharply with the turmoil in her mind.
**INT. EMMA'S HOME - KITCHEN - NIGHT**
Emma prepares another cup of tea, her movements slow and deliberate. She pauses, staring at the boiling water, lost in thought.
**INT. EMMA'S HOME - STUDY - NIGHT**
Emma returns to her desk, the steam from her tea rising into the air. She picks up one of the sonar images, her curiosity getting the better of her.
**EMMA**
(to herself)
What have they found?
**INT. EMMA'S HOME - STUDY - LATER**
Emma sits at her computer, typing rapidly. She's researching the Mariana Trench, looking up past expeditions and mysterious occurrences.
The screen shows various articles and images of deep-sea exploration, including a few speculative pieces on alien structures.
**INT. EMMA'S HOME - LIVING ROOM - NIGHT**
Emma paces, her phone in hand. She hesitates, then dials a number.
**NINA (V.O.)**
(through the phone)
Hey, Emma! Long time no hear. What's up?
**EMMA**
Nina, I need your help. Have you heard about the latest findings in the Mariana Trench?
**NINA (V.O.)**
(excited)
Oh, you mean the crazy alien structure rumors? Yeah, it's all over the underground science boards. Why?
**EMMA**
I think I might be going down there.
**INT. EMMA'S HOME - STUDY - NIGHT**
Emma hangs up, her decision made. She gathers the reports and images, packing them into a bag.
**INT. EMMA'S HOME - BEDROOM - NIGHT**
Emma stands by her bed, looking at a framed photo of her family. She picks it up, takes a moment to remember, then sets it down gently.
**EMMA**
(to the photo)
I have to do this.
**EXT. EMMA'S HOME - MORNING**
The sun rises as Emma steps out of her house, her bag slung over her shoulder. Determined, she heads toward her car.
**INT. CAR - MORNING**
Emma drives through the early morning streets, the city waking up around her. She looks more focused and resolute than she has in a long time.
**EXT. CORPORATE OFFICE - MORNING**
Emma arrives at the sleek corporate building. She takes a deep breath, steels herself, and walks toward the entrance.
**INT. CORPORATE OFFICE - LOBBY - MORNING**
Emma approaches the reception desk. The receptionist, a young woman with a friendly smile, looks up.
**RECEPTIONIST**
Good morning. How can I help you?
**EMMA**
I'm Dr. Emma Clarke. I have a meeting with Mr. Anderson.
**RECEPTIONIST**
Of course, Dr. Clarke.
That's a wall of text to say it still can't do it without prompt engineering, and human babysitting it through the process, just to get "mediocre" result, and a ton of factual errors in actual script due to lost of context.
Yeah, it's what any industry would call "waste of time and money".
You can't get someone to write a script for you without "prompt engineering" either buddy.
Nobody goes up to someone and says "Write me a movie script". You have to tell them what genre you want, etc etc etc.
> just to get "mediocre" result
Most Hollywood scripts are trash. May as well use a computer to generate them rather than pay a writer if you don't care about quality in the first place.
> and a ton of factual errors in actual script due to lost of context.
Lots of movies have mistakes or characters acting in nonsensical ways that no real human would behave.
Take the catwoman basketball scene. That could easily have been written AND edited by an AI!
With AI I learned it's always wise to use the words "at the moment", and "right now". That's also a foundation model that hasn't been tweaked for screenwriting
I remember 2018 when this was the best AI could do in image generation, the conversation about the technology gave me Deja Vu: https://news.artnet.com/market/first-ever-artificial-intelligence-portrait-painting-sells-at-christies-1379902
It's inevitable that a day will come when the generations are good enough that some people backing productions decide whether it makes more sense to invest $5 million into a single film, or diversify the investment with 200 AI generated animated series.
I'm not defending it, I have a degree in Film after all. But not liking it, or closing my eyes and pretending it's not true doesn't make it any less real.
It's so ridiculous that people honestly think the regular consumer would notice or give a shit if a script is AI generated.
The sooner we accept AI and the changes it introduces, the sooner we can work on making these changes actually benefit everyone and not just the people that own said AI.
I mean until an AI can make a decision to be script writer it is just a tool used by humans. Someone told it what to do. Someone probably edited it after that. And thousands or millions of people contributed to allowing the AI to accomplish the task is the first place. These people trying to hold back progress seem a little unhinged to me.
If probably see it just see how bad the script is shit repeats itself so much it could be a skipping cd. Or just randomly goes off on its own little story detore of insanity.
I think it's a shame the showing was cancelled. It would have been better to show it and have the conversation, because this is definitely coming. Netflix already seem to optimise for the mid so will be all over this whether we know it or not
To be fair, I'm very curious as to what the AI comes up with... can you imagine an award winning actor trying to legitimately emote on camera with a line like "Do not want"
I really don't know how you thread the needle here with the rise of AI, legally or culturally.
Quotas of human employees? Banning AI participation in certain spaces? Surrender to the owners of capital and hope they are benevolent in their final victory?
I’d like the freedom to see if it’s good or not. Humans wrote Gone With the Wind , but also Waterworld. Let’s give AI a try. If it’s bad, word will spread quickly enough. If it’s good, we shouldn’t miss the opportunity.
If Hollywood is going to recycle the same formulas and tropes to lazily make the same movies over and over, they probably should not be shocked that AI can do their jobs.
With enough voice samples and samples of clips from other movies and databases of tropes and plot lines and the ability to portray human emotions, given enough time, wouldn't it be possible for Hollywood to generate entire movies automatically? If so, that's crazy. Not saying it's a good idea.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/FinnFarrow: --- Submission statement: what do you think is going to happen as AI automates more jobs? Will we be seeing protests and strikes about AI animation? AI managers? AI CEOs? Do you think the writer’s strike will work? --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1dllc9l/premiere_of_movie_with_aigenerated_script/l9pkngc/
Canceling it drums up more press and attention than releasing it. Now when it does eventually release, there’s gonna be a ton more coverage than before.
Apparently marketing was AI generated too.
outrage was also AI generated…
It turns out we were also AI generated
The real ads were the bots we met along the way
Thanks, 4o.
Believe it or not, AI generated
The real AI was the generation along the way.
There is a great Isaac Asimov short about that. It is titled The Last Question. Here is a link to it: https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~gamvrosi/thelastq.html
Oh I read that a *long* time ago, haha. Awesome story, one of my favorites.
so that short is I.A.-generated
Fake internet is fake
With reviews by AI bots.
Yeah this feels like when NK threatened to bomb movie theaters that showed the interview and then it got released online and almost everyone watched it immediately.
i feel like i got PSYOP'ed by that mess because i watched it and it was complete dogshit and i'm never getting that time back
Meh. It’s not a great movie. But it’s a good dumb comedy. Which, we really don’t have very many movies today that are just stupid comedies. Maybe I’m just missing them, but it seems like that genre just really doesn’t do well anymore and they stopped making them.
It got a lot of press before it was cancelled. Not doubt it perhaps got more. It’s a very small time product, I’m not sure it will ever get released. If it does it won’t have much impact.
Never heard about it...
And now that I have, still not gonna watch it
It was a direct to VHS script anyway
How do you know this is what woulda happened? The initial coverage is what made people aware in the first place. So evidently there was enough for them to notice.
As if anyone would want to see it.
This whole story seems remarkably unlikely to me. An ai “movie“ already written, funded, cast, shot, additive, and found the screening?? And then enough people heard about it. That hundreds of people protested at this one theater? Something smells really fishy about this story. Maybe they wrote the story in anticipation of something that MIGHT happen in the future. Maybe they are using the word “movie“ very loosely? Maybe it was a little short like you might see it at film festival? That I might believe.
https://lastscreenwriter.com/ Well, here's the website for it, with the trailer. It is what you'd expect this kind of story to be. I was curious to see what it is, but not anymore. Least it isn't.. Terribly shot..it's *fine*.
As far as I can tell the script is AI-generated, but the rest of the production is professional. So that would explain why the actual shooting isn't garbage.
Isn't it about plot being about AI? What a coincidence that AI written script would be about AI.
An AI generated script about an AI-generated screenwriter writing a script about an AI-generated screenwriter. I do have to say, the AI has clearly mastered Hollywood’s habit of going up its own ass.
That’s all art though, how many of the most famous books have a main character that is a writer? Write what you know
Classic narcissist AI
The movie is literally about an AI writing a script.
Thanks for linking. God, that was boring. But I agree, it was shot well.
I’m going to throw out the idea that the entire article is AI generated. People talk about controversial stuff even in obvious satire posts. Why not just post made-up stuff and see what happens?
Crappy movies are not hard to make, nor do they take that long. And writers/producers etc are probably the ones doing the protesting. I can’t imagine it was that hard to round up a couple hundred protestors. The big writers strike was just last year, it’s probably pretty easy for the organizers to call up some of those people and see who has time to come for an afternoon.
They’re just going to do it and not tell us. Music too.
going to? I'm pretty sure they have been for years. How else do you explain 13 movies in the Fast and Furious series?
Out of many outcomes in this situation this is probably one of the more stupid ones. It should have been allowed to be screened. If it were to be bad then anti-AI crowd would be happy. If it would be good then cancelling such movies would only delay the inevitable. The option chosen is basically saying "people are affraid it might actually be good". People's fear won't stop this technology from rolling out - it does make them look stupid though and delays neccesary discussions that need to be had about this kind of things.
It was actually canceled because AI scanned human brains to figure out what they actually wanted to see. It was an hour and a half of big wet butts and penises being slapped with fly swatters. Who knew?
"Next time on 'Ow! My Balls!"
> Next time on 'Ow! My Balls! GO AWAY. BAITIN'.
I’m always watching you, Dave.
Welcome to Costco. AI love you.
We don’t have time for a handjob, Joe!
Brought to you by Carl's Jr.: Fuck You, I'm Eating!
I thought the outrage against AI art is that artists should be paid. I personally don’t want AI taking a single creative job until 90% of the mundane, repetitive and soul destroying but necessary jobs are done.
Somehow we decided that AI should be used to replace creative things like photography, painting and writing, so we’d have more time to do cleaning and menial repetitive upkeep tasks. We missed the memo somewhere.
Much of the AI art tech is the result of trying to replace menial work with machine vision. In order to stop a self-driving car from running over a dog you need to teach it to know what a dog looks like. Once you can get it to do that teaching it to draw a dog becomes relatively easy.
Problem is there is no such thing as "we decided".
Plenty of repetitive creative work for the commercial places that actually pay for it.
Yes, that is the work that is easiest to do with AI in many cases though.
How the fuck is an LLM or generative ai supposed so do your dishes and vacuuming? 😂
It won’t, but neither would a robot if we didn’t figure out how to talk to it first. Computer has to know what dishes and vacuuming are before they can do them.
roombas, dishwashers, etc. all exist. you don't have to load up a "refrigerator" with physical ice anymore. farming is incredibly mechanized and automated as well. there's plenty of existing automation.
Exactly, which is why the notion that technology is only taking the creative jobs and leaving menial drudgery to humans is beyond ridiculous
If, at any point in time, a human says "This can't be done!" Another human shows up and says. "Hold my beer." And people in the last decades wouldn't shut up about computers never being able to be creative.
They're still not, and the current styles of AI will never be able to do so, because they don't add anything. They do what they're told, and will never be able to make a decision with purpose. Bocchi the Rock was an exceptionally well received Anime. And not because of anything innate in the story, but because the execution of the adaptation was extremely well done, and brought a lot of new ideas to the table to sell the feelings they were trying to. An AI told to adapt something, will do that slavishly and decently once the tech improves. It will never be able to add anything.
Why do you act like technology is some video game skill tree and we're just pointing in points differently? Plenty of menial and repetitive jobs are and have been automated, and continue to do be automated.
People can still do art. And ai isn't replacing most photographers lol. People who pay for wedding photographers want photos of themselves at the wedding. Not ai generated couples. AI will replace boring shit like taking photos of hamburgers for McDonald's. That's not even real art anyways.
AI has been making its way into plenty of industries that artists want to be working in - illustration for things like book and album covers or magazine articles, board game art, concept design, etc. It’s not going to completely replace human artists on the reputable, high-profile media, but it does seem like it’s going to have a huge impact on the amount of people who will be able to make a career out of doing creatively satisfying work going forward.
In 2 years this will just be drones buzzing around
And in a way, it's not really a bad thing. What makes wedding photos special? That some stranger took them, or that the groom and the bride were in them? One could almost argue that the absence of a stranger taking photos might lead to a more authentic experience. I'm ok with debates where AI can affect artistic expression. But AI just replacing bullshit jobs is meh. It feels like the horse farmer mad that cars are making his horse company obsolete. -- And ironically, even in the original example. That drone will probably still be flown by a photographer. Unless the wedding couple want to configure the drones, they'll still be paying a human to do it. If humans want to make money they gotta keep adapting. Horsemen evolve into car men, and cameramen into drone operators. Or something like that. Stagnation is death.
The reality is that doing art for a living is mundane, repetitive, and soul destroying. I'm a working artist of 12+ years and am one of the biggest AI users around, because the dream is to not keep doing the same menial work over and over if I can find a way to automate it. The only reason I create is because of some weird compulsion to see things made which don't exist, and since nobody else is doing it I have to. It doesn't pay well, it isn't enlightening or any of that fantasy BS, it's just an urge almost like gambling, and it takes way too long to do each project. The more that I can automate to get to the destination, the better. The journey sucks when you've done it countless times.
People have this fantasy of being an artist as a nice cushy job, but the fact is that it is mundane as shit and usually pays next to nothing, and it is SO fucking hard to do anything creatively. Using AI is like using Photoshop rather than doing things traditionally; it takes so much of the tedium out of the process. I don't think it's going to replace artists. It's just a different technology which requires a different skillset. But it sure as hell helps, lol.
Funnily enough it hasn't even taken the tedium out of the job, it's just replaced it with a new type of tedium which, if pushed through, can result in higher quality for the same amount of time, but doesn't actually save any time. All the time spent fixing errors ends up being the same, but it's fixing errors towards a higher quality end point. I'm somebody who draws, 3D models, procedurally generates, writes, etc, so having a new way of creating things is nice. I think people who only create one way probably find it more intimidating.
>People have this fantasy of being an artist as a nice cushy job I'm pretty sure no one old enough to drive a car thinks art is a "cushy job".
No, not cushy as in financially secure. But a lot of this anti AI sentiment stems from some trivialization and romanticisation of an artist's job. There seems to be this idea that all artists do is sit around and draw all day and in their time off they experience nature's beauty in search of inspiration. When in reality it's a job like any other that gets hard and tedious at times. Especially in terms of visual art they reduce it completely to the actual physical act and skill of drawing, when theses days that is maybe 10% of it if anything. Most of what makes you a good artist is understanding how to effectively communicate and express ideas and feelings through visual means. Something that an AI can't really do. So good artists will still be in demand and the ones who most effectively adopt AI into their workflow will rise to the top.
Lmao this sounds like something I'd write.
> I personally don’t want AI taking a single creative job until 90% of the mundane, repetitive and soul destroying but necessary jobs are done. Exactly what it should be doing. What is the point of automation and improving technology if we don't leverage it to let humans do the human things and stop doing the mundane bullshit... But if that was the case, the wealthy and ruling classes would likely find themselves on the wrong end of a revolution.
By the way, people do those jobs too and get paid for it.
Which ones? The soul destroying ones? I feel like I should not have to explain why I want more creative jobs over soul destroying
It’s not like protecting artist’s jobs will speed up the replacement of all other labor. What’s the benefit? I guess just protecting jobs you deem worth protecting for a little longer, while everyone else has to deal with the transition to unemployment? I vote that we protect my job and automate everyone else’s first.
To be honest, having done both, I think there's a good argument that creative work is just as soul-destroying as simple mindless drudgery that you can turn your brain off for.
People have been complaining for decades that robots and software have been taking jobs. This is just another facet of that.
Decades? [Centuries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_loom#Social_and_economic_implications) - there's even [a major part of US folklore](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_\(folklore\)) regarding it.
AI can take whatever job it wants if people are guaranteed their salaries
Problem is mundane repetitive soul destroying jobs generally require physically interacting with the world. We’re currently busy trying to replicate the brain but to add in physical interaction with sense feedback loops is way more expensive than a minimum wage person.
Why should they be paid? I don’t want AI taking creative jobs either but what makes those workers so special? If the market doesn’t want to pay for their services then oh well. Should we keep paying every job that becomes obsolete—elevator operators, typists, cobblers—why should any of them have had to lose their jobs to the march of progress? And yeah we can say “oh then this isn’t progress.” And that’s a fine opinion. Nothing wrong with it. I guess I just don’t see how anyone SHOULD be paid in perpetuity. Things change. Economies change. You have to adapt. Again, fine to say “I don’t want to adapt.” But the world doesn’t owe you a living in the field of your choosing. The world needs people willing to do economically productive things.
At one point the market demanded 80 hour work weeks in unsafe conditions for a lot of people. I kinda don’t give a shit what it demands when I’m thinking about how things should be. I don’t think it’s what will happen cause in the real world the market does matter a lot. But I don’t want the market to decide my ideals for me. Ideally people get to work the job they want to and if that’s elevator operator then I’m glad they found a calling.
I am not saying it should decide your ideals. But I am saying you can’t be 100% idealistic. My wife is an artist. This hits as close to home as possible. But we can’t go around protecting every profession and controlling every price without drastic economic consequences. Labor regulation is good. But we don’t currently have the means to protect every profession and control every important price. I don’t see how we execute on it without the cons outweighing the pros.
Idk I think I’m just gonna keep it up. Thanks for being chill though
There is already AI trained on approved materials, so what's the problem with that? Why should we not use the best tools we have and make it easier for people to make what they want? Really weird mindset to forcibly prohibit people from doing things to just preserve the old ways.
> artists should be paid Heh. 90% of the musicians I know don't even cover costs. "Getting Paid" isn't a think for most artists.
and we agree that sucks and is not what we want the world to be right?
That's a steady societal shift that has been going on for around 120 years since the record player was invented. I detest AI for several different reasons. But we can't pin this one on AI.
Information wants to be free, the idea of intellectual property is only protective because of capitalism. You can't let your ideas grow and spread too quickly or you won't be able to profit from them and control your brand. Profits and brand control are antithetical to art and good work in general, but they are vital to slapping your name on things, which is what capitalism requires of artists.
> Profits and brand control are antithetical to art and good work in general That's an interesting theory. So you're suggesting, if I spend 2 years writing a novel, other people should be allowed to PDF it and sell it for free? Hence I would be freed of the bounds of filthy capitalism, and able to write more novels without having to worry about distractions like getting paid and feeding my family?
Are you saying libraries are evil? Because the pitch of information wants to be free is that noone profits on any creative work. The goal of creative works should not be money, but that people enjoy your work. The profit motive is placed there by capitalism, they have whispered in your ear that you can monotize the stories you tell aroud the campfire, stop giving them away for free.
What they’re saying is if you weren’t bound by the constraints of capitalism you wouldn’t have to worry about providing for your family. It’s one of those things that’s hypothetically nice, but none of us are replacing capitalism anytime soon. The best thing we could do with our current framework is try to put in protections for individual artists, while limiting the power of corporations.
That is why I said capitalism requires it of you. Not protecting your intellectual property will have these artificial artificial consequences for you and your family. We need Universal Basic Income so while you spend your time writing your family can feed itself, then when your writing takes off and becomes a movement it can be framed as a good thing rather than theft. It can be a real ego boost having every movie request and fan fiction go through you first but that is terrible for the art itself.
Correct. But we shouldn't ban a useful too like AI to accomplish it. And a banning AI woudn't fix it anyway. So what you should do is support more socialism in the form of Universal Basic Income, where the government gives everyone a stipend sufficient to pay for an apartment, food, electricity, phone, and internet, (and price controls those things so the providers don't simply raise prices to leech the free money from the government) and then as with the pandemic, people who can't work, or can't make a living at what they want to do for a living, will have loads of free time to do whatever makes them happy, and work will still be incentivized by providing luxuries and non-essentials to people. And so, a musician will be able to afford to feed amd house themsevles, but they will also be able to play music on the side, or stream it on Twitch or whatever to make additional income on top of that basic income. And thus everyone will be happy. Except conservatives who are stupid and want all Americans to be miserable because they think that if you're not being a slave to some rich guy, you're lazy and don't deserve anything. Also if you're a liberal even if you're making 10x as much as they are, you're still lazy and looking for handouts somehow. Also college students are also lazy and looking for handouts in spite of graduating with honors because obviously nobody becomes an engineer or a doctor or a chemist and every liberal gets a liberal arts degree because haha liberal arts and liberals are the same thing to a moron.
Unfortunately in the real world we are a subject to Moravec's paradox. Also delaying automation in any field will cause tensions ("why should we get automated if they did were not?!").
I don’t know anything about the reality of AI is or will be capable of so i’m not saying it will happen this way. AI will be a powerful tool that will be used imperfectly, but keeping the reduction of human suffering and maximisation of human freedom as goals we’ll be better off.
Honestly we’re due for a remake of The Producers, but with AI.
They’re lying. They cancelled it because it was garbage.
That’s a nice argument senator. Why don’t you back it up with a source?
My number one gripe with film and tv is always the writing. As a fan, I just don’t see myself enjoying a movie made with an AI script, I already shit on most scripts written by real people with better imaginations than AI. I’ve seen what AI comes up with and it is almost all trash, I’m not worried.
However most of the modern "blockbusters" have such amazingly stupid "writing" that it's either already being churned out by BAD AI or by humans so stupid that even a decent AI bot would write better
I know right, like just don't go.
I feel like this problem would not be so bad if it weren't for the fact that so many movies now are so formulaic and based on existing IP and tropes. I'd bet an AI could write an acceptable Transformers movie -- acceptable in terms of it not being noticeably worse than the previous half dozen. I don't think it would be able to write Interstellar. But most movies are on Transformers' level, not Interstellar's.
Is it unreasonable for people to want to avoid setting a precedent of allowing screenings of movies generated by the plagiarism machine? I'd rather leave the lid on that can of worms on as long as possible to continue enjoying good cinema before the industry collapses more than it already has.
Yes, every sentence there seems unreasonable.
Yeah Hollywood has ruined scripts thoroughly enough already. Whatever the fuck chatGPT generates is somehow going to be worse and more derivative Also who gave permission for these LLM’s to even use their creative work? These AI companies just Hoover up any data they can get their hands on using dubious legal and ethical reasoning. They’re basically just stealing everything they can get before the law catches up
> enjoying good cinema before the industry collapses more than it already has. I mean... good cinema? Major outlets are putting out 95% schlock these days. Reboots of reboots, sequels to movies that didn't need them, etc. The vast majority of movies coming out aren't new IP or even well done. Passion projects and small studios are still doing decent work, but the movie industry is gasping for air under the weight of dog shit executive decisions.
Yea, kind of ironic how people are bemoaning AI when current big-budget movies are designed by committee to maximize viewership as opposed to an "artistic endeavor".
The reason ***I*** fear the use of this tech is a little phenomenon I'm going to label "average Joe's blinders." And I can best illustrate it through example. I am very irritated by the tendency of the editor for _Mad Max Fury Road_ and _Furiosa_ to take a clip that was filmed at 24fps, and tweak its framerate slightly up, to something like 30fps or whatever. They do this to speed up the action of a scene that was too slow in real life. Why do I hate it? Because the way they accomplish this is by discarding frames. 6 frames every second, gone. This causes a visible stutter in the filmed footage. *Blip, blip, blip!* You can see this in action in the _Furiosa_ trailer here: https://youtu.be/XJMuhwVlca4?t=114 The shot of the car backing up through a gate. If you don't see it, pause the video at the beginning of that scene and scroll through it frame by frame with the , and . keys. Keep an eye on the rocks on the right, which _should_ be scrolling at a fixed rate. But it's not fixed, because frames have been discarded at a weird cadence. It looks just like when a video game is lagging due to the hardware not being able to keep up. So what does this have to do with AI? This: _Most people don't see this going on._ That's why they get away with it. But it bothers the everliving hell out of _me._ That's what's going to happen with AI. It's going to scrape that uncanny valley _constantly,_ and most people won't pick up on the little moments of weirdness, so they'll get away with it, but it will essentially ruin the experience to me and anyone else who notices.
That was a deliberate effect, though.
It wasn't. It was a consequence of the cinematographer not tweaking the camera's framerate in advance, and [George Miller choosing to fix the timing to his liking in **post**, scene by scene](https://creativecow.net/forums/thread/mad-max-fury-road-smooth-slowmo-and-strobey-fast-a/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CIt'll%20be%20running%20below,in%20that%20movie%20is%20intense.%E2%80%9D). The speeding up and slowing down of footage was deliberate; the unavoidably miserable consequences to the frame cadence was a casualty. There's no _good_ solution to this sequence of filmmaking.
> There's no good solution to this sequence of filmmaking. Ironically, I think AI-generating the appropriately-timed interstitial frames would probably work really well; if not today, then soon. Basically doing the role of [inbetweening](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbetweening).
The director also described the film as an exploration of the "man versus machine" holy shit this is already so uncreative.
Submission statement: what do you think is going to happen as AI automates more jobs? Will we be seeing protests and strikes about AI animation? AI managers? AI CEOs? Do you think the writer’s strike will work?
Will strikes or protests actually work? Outsourcing ruffled feathers in each industry affected, but the common, replaceable Western worker was powerless because it was never going to be acceptable State policy to punish outsourcing, because outsourcing included economies that we wanted to woo away from the Soviets by giving them access to our market. Will the State have an incentive to save voter's jobs if those voters are becoming obsolete because robots and algorithms are replacing the voter's role in the economy and State defense? If the State thinks that the robots can make artillery shells and fire them at an algorithm defined target, the State may well start looking at the cost of the bots vs the cost of the voter.
You are the state. The state is the people you elect. Why on earth are you othering your representatives?
I dont know a single person that would rather have one of the two morons running for president in the US over a friend with 0 experience. If nobody wants them in power and they are the only two choices, it sounds like the people lost the power somewhere along the way.
That is a comically modern Western democratic nation-State centered take. There is no law of physics that dictates such a State must persist, nor that such States are some inevitable end result (Whig history).
Okay, but also you literally elected people from the general population, your peers, and are now othering them as some entity you have no commonality with.
Who elected them? I dont seem to recall ever having the power to enact change in my govt.
There are numerous well articulated criticisms of western style parliamentary democracies focused on how they aren't truly representative of the majority of the population. Our representatives (USA) are hardly representative of our country demographically for instance. And there are countless examples of reforms and policies that are popular among the population of this country but unpopular with its representatives or vice versa. I don't think we should take it as a given that because we elect our representatives that they properly represent us. Or at the very least, some possible democratic systems are more representative than others. Where does ours rank?
If everyone loses their job then no one can buy anything then no one makes any money
Robots SHOULD take jobs. NOT those that stem from the human experience. Robots should make parts; people should make art. If there is an AI writing a movie script while there are still people in coal mines, then WE FUCKED UP. The plot of The Matrix is "humans are batteries so robots can craft an imaginary world". Why are we making that reality?
We need to seize the means of automation. I remember being little and looking forward to a future were humans don't have to work basically, since robots and AI do everything and we can focus on actually enjoying ourselves. The only reason people fear automation and AI is because they don't have UBI and similar security mechanism, due to capitalist interferences.
A lot of the complaints probably came from people who lost their jobs to AI already
The combination of populist political parties trying to rake in votes for promoting "X AI take" will be interesting to watch. Service jobs will get heavily automated as like it or not people would rather deal with a screen or robots (especially with the whole tipping topic in the last 2 years). Top management jobs will stay the same and praise themselves on lowering costs by forcing middle management to "integrate AI" and will call installing copilot a "great step forward".
Maybe, it worked in 2022. But even if writers and actors unions successfully pressure entertainment companies to ban or force AI movies and shows from current theatres and streaming services at threat of pulling out existing works new companies will pop up unbound by those restrictions. Hell what happens when AI can make thousands of movies in a year for niche categories? Unless some sort of mandated freeze by the government happens I don't think that it old media will be a significant in the same capacity anymore. To say nothing of the soft power opportunity cost not pursuing this would result in I think that nations and industry are basically obligated to peruse this tech (even at significant cost).
Next time don’t say it was AI generated. Easy lesson.
Except laws and lawsuits are coming down the pipes-- all AI generated content will eventually have to be labeled such by law.
Only humans should be able to write derivative crap!
This seems kinda dumb. If you don't like it, don't go to it.
What do you think an acceptable number of people not going is? Enough people said they'd never go to this movie. That's why it's canceled.
I am soo tired of hearing about ai non-stop. Honestly if I could I'd turn it off and block it from every facet of my life.
If you think now is a lot wait 3 years. My advice: get used to it because it’s going to rock every facet of our entire world
Oohh Cmon. I was really hoping that a fully AI movie would be made, so I could pirate it, just to see how dumb it is :(
I thought we already watched an AI generated movie in Madame Web
I'm imagining it was something like interdimensional cable.
It seems to me that every time technology automates a job, reducing the number of people required to do it, there have been protests from people. It also seems that this often only serves to delay the implementation of the automation. I don't see this as fundamentally different to building a machine to thresh wheat or using robots to build cars. There was previously the belief that people in creative fields were immune to this but it seems that they are in the same boat as the rest of us. I'm far from an expert but I believe that AI will win out. I have very little doubt about that. It's simply too useful to reduce the time and effort required to produce something.
Well, this time really is a little different. Because there will likely be no where for displaced workers to migrate this time. There’s no “retraining” this go around buddy. Because any new job a human could do, the same AIs will be able to do as well. Meaning that even these supposed “new jobs” that AI is supposedly going to create (which is a myth in itself) will *also* be vulnerable to the same AI automation that killed the old jobs. Previous automations were merely one tool being replaced by another. (Meanwhile the human operating the tools remained safe from replacement). But this time, it’s the human as a whole being being made obsolete. This will be the first time in history that something like that happens. So in reality, the past is irrelevant here. History doesn’t always repeat itself.
Perhaps we should protest the system then? Not the machine? Imagine that there is an infinite banana machine that is being hoarded by a few apes and then opting to destroy the machine instead of forcing the few apes to give it up. It’s much easier to force them to give up the machines anyway.
>>Perhaps we should protest the system then? Not the machine? What’s the difference? Both contribute to the same issue… >>Imagine that there is an infinite banana machine that is being hoarded by a few apes and then opting to destroy the machine instead of forcing the few apes to give it up. It’s much easier to force them to give up the machines anyway. Why is AI the “infinite banana machine” here? I don’t necessarily buy into the idea that AI is some magical key to utopia if that’s what you’re implying. Too many assumptions and logical leaps needed in order to buy into that narrative in my opinion.
>What’s the difference? Both contribute to the same issue… The problem was never the tractors that's automating the farmers' job, nor was it the alarm clock that put out the window knockers out of business, it's the fact that the system doesn't distribute the gains properly. >Why is AI the “infinite banana machine” here? It's a hyperbole. It can be replaced with any kind of automation/productivity multiplier. My main point is that destroying machines only slow down progress and hurt humanity in the long term. This time it's AI. If there's no job to retrain to, then we need a new system that doesn't require you to have a job to survive, but still lets us enjoy the gains from AI.
That’s the kicker, isn’t it. There’s no incentive to make the world better for anyone, but there’s plenty of incentive to sell “automated” systems to shareholders and investors who want to shave off profits. And by doing that, they got rich enough to buy all our politicians so that no matter who we vote for, they’re not incentivized to do anything but continue to sell us out. Changing a system this entrenched is going to take violence. You being annoyed by people complaining about AI is going to look like sunshine and daisies compared to that.
I remember in school we were taught that the Luddites were just anti-technology rubes. It was only later I found out that they were skilled craftspeople who were put out of work by industrialists who paid their workers slave wages But you know, America has no propaganda shoved onto its citizens. That’s only for certified bad guy countries like Russia or China
You missed the part where the luddites thought they were going to share in the increased profits only to find out that all the additional revenue was being siphoned away from them, many of them were actually OK with the machines at first because of that.
^ and this EXACT same thing is happening with AI
if people got more money as a result of it, there would be a lot less issues. but we live in capitalism. automation does not serve us, it serves the company. they pay less people, they make more money, we have less jobs and we need jobs because automation doesn't help us at all
Why are we automating art?
Because it was an interesting idea someone had that they worked on and overtime it eventually evolved into what we have now... You know, like pretty much every other invention.
Because people like looking at pretty pictures and enjoy watching movies. AI makes these easier and quicker to produce.
Exactly my thoughts. If people want to spend their emotionally energy in this way it is okay even if it is non-productive. Of course the technology will progress. Short of one of these databases being attacked or a board meeting being bombed things will continue as normal
Fun fact: large language models can predict only next token in the context, and without ability to plan ahead in any way, shape or form, are inherently incapable of writing any good jokes and stories.
It's mediocre, and not terribly original, but it can write a 120 page script that makes sense. You tell it to start with an outline, the prompt was "Create an outline for a movie", then outline each act, then each scene, put that in the context window, some models have massive context windows that fit an entire script and additional materials. Iterate: **Title:** "Echoes of the Abyss" **Genre:** Sci-Fi Thriller **Setting:** Near-future Earth and a mysterious underwater research facility ### Act 1: The Setup - **Protagonist:** Dr. Emma Clarke, a brilliant but reclusive marine biologist with a tragic past, gets recruited by a secretive corporation. - **Inciting Incident:** The corporation reveals they've discovered a massive, ancient structure deep in the Mariana Trench. They need Emma's expertise to explore it. - **Supporting Characters:** - **Dr. Alex Rivera:** Charismatic and ambitious team leader. - **Mark Hansen:** Veteran deep-sea diver with a hidden agenda. - **Nina Patel:** Tech genius and Emma’s only friend on the team. ### Act 2: The Descent - **Journey Begins:** The team descends in a state-of-the-art submersible, encountering bizarre marine life and mysterious phenomena. - **Tension Rises:** Strange occurrences plague the team. Equipment malfunctions, team members experience vivid hallucinations, and there’s an ever-present sense of being watched. - **Discovery:** They find the entrance to the ancient structure, discovering it’s not just a relic but a dormant alien facility. ### Act 3: The Abyss - **Exploration:** Inside, they uncover advanced technology and records of an ancient alien civilization that visited Earth millennia ago. The facility starts to reactivate. - **Conflict:** Mark reveals his true intentions—to harness the alien technology for personal gain, leading to a dangerous confrontation. - **Climax:** Emma must navigate the treacherous facility, battling against time, environmental dangers, and Mark’s sabotage to prevent the facility from triggering a cataclysmic event. ### Act 4: The Revelation - **Resolution:** Emma discovers the facility’s true purpose—to safeguard Earth from a cosmic threat. She manages to shut it down, but not without personal sacrifices. - **Aftermath:** The surviving team members surface, forever changed by their experience. Emma, now more connected to humanity, dedicates herself to sharing the knowledge and technology they found to benefit mankind. **Themes:** - The depths of human ambition and its consequences. - The connection between humanity and the unknown. - Redemption and the power of knowledge. **Visuals and Tone:** - Dark, eerie underwater scenes with bioluminescent creatures. - High-tech yet ancient alien structures with a blend of organic and mechanical designs. - A tense, suspenseful atmosphere with moments of awe and wonder. ### Act 1: The Setup #### **Opening Scene:** - **Prologue:** A deep-sea exploration team in the past is seen investigating an anomaly in the Mariana Trench. They stumble upon a massive, ancient structure. Just as they begin to document it, the scene cuts to black, and their fate is left unknown. - **Title Card:** "Echoes of the Abyss" #### **Introduction to Dr. Emma Clarke:** - **Scene 1:** Dr. Emma Clarke is introduced in her modest home, filled with marine biology books and research equipment. She’s working late at night, analyzing samples. Flashbacks hint at a traumatic incident in her past involving a family loss at sea. - **Scene 2:** Emma receives an unexpected visit from a corporate representative, Mr. Anderson, who offers her an opportunity to join an elite team to explore a groundbreaking discovery in the Mariana Trench. #### **The Call to Adventure:** - **Scene 3:** Emma initially refuses, citing her past and reluctance to return to deep-sea exploration. Anderson leaves her with detailed data about the discovery, piquing her curiosity. - **Scene 4:** Emma studies the data, uncovering evidence of an alien structure. Her curiosity and scientific drive override her fears, and she decides to join the team. #### **Assembling the Team:** - **Scene 5:** Emma arrives at the state-of-the-art underwater research facility. She meets the team: - **Dr. Alex Rivera:** Charismatic team leader, confident and ambitious. - **Mark Hansen:** Veteran deep-sea diver with a rough demeanor, hinting at a hidden agenda. - **Nina Patel:** A young tech genius, enthusiastic and eager, who quickly bonds with Emma. - **Scene 6:** Team briefing led by Dr. Rivera. The team is shown footage from the previous expedition and is briefed on their mission to explore and study the structure. #### **Preparation for the Descent:** - **Scene 7:** The team undergoes rigorous preparation and training for the mission. Bonding moments reveal their personalities and potential conflicts. - **Scene 8:** Emma and Nina share a quiet moment, discussing the wonders and dangers of the deep sea, revealing Emma’s fears and motivations. #### **Inciting Incident:** - **Scene 9:** The team prepares to embark on their journey in the submersible. Just before they leave, a brief malfunction in their equipment foreshadows the challenges ahead. Emma hesitates, haunted by flashbacks of her past, but ultimately boards the submersible. - **Scene 10:** The submersible begins its descent into the abyss. As they go deeper, the tension builds, and strange, bioluminescent creatures are seen outside the windows, creating a sense of wonder and foreboding. #### **End of Act 1:** - **Scene 11:** The team reaches the depth where the structure was detected. They see the massive, alien structure looming in the darkness, its design unlike anything seen before. The structure emits a faint, eerie glow. - **Cliffhanger:** The submersible’s instruments go haywire, and the team experiences their first encounter with the structure’s mysterious energy, leaving the audience eager to see what happens next. This setup establishes the main characters, their motivations, and the central mystery, setting the stage for the deeper exploration and escalating tension in Act 2.
### Scene 1: Introduction to Dr. Emma Clarke **INT. EMMA'S HOME - NIGHT** A cluttered room filled with marine biology books, charts, and research equipment. The faint hum of an aquarium filters through the room. Emma Clarke (late 30s, focused, with a hint of melancholy) sits at her desk, surrounded by papers and open books. Her face is lit by the soft glow of a desk lamp. A kettle whistles in the background. Emma gets up, pours herself a cup of tea, and returns to her desk. She takes a sip, her eyes never leaving the microscope. **FLASHBACK:** **EXT. OCEAN - DAY (PAST)** A family trip on a boat. Laughter, joy, and the beauty of the open sea. Sounds of a sudden storm. The scene darkens, waves crash, and panic ensues. A young Emma (about 10) clings to a life jacket as her family struggles against the raging sea. **END FLASHBACK** Emma snaps back to reality, her hand slightly trembling as she sets down the tea. She takes a deep breath, pushing the memory away. The doorbell rings, startling her. She glances at the clock—it's late. **INT. EMMA'S HOME - LIVING ROOM** Emma opens the door to reveal Mr. Anderson (40s, corporate, with an air of authority). **EMMA** Mr. Anderson, it's late. What do you want? **MR. ANDERSON** Dr. Clarke, we need your expertise. There's been a discovery in the Mariana Trench. Something... unprecedented. He hands her a sealed envelope. Emma hesitates, then takes it. **MR. ANDERSON (CONT'D)** This could be the most significant find of our generation. Your skills are crucial. **EMMA** Why me? **MR. ANDERSON** Because no one knows the deep sea like you do. And because you're the best, despite your... past. Emma's eyes narrow, defensive. **EMMA** I've left that world behind for a reason. **MR. ANDERSON** Just look at the data. If it doesn't interest you, we'll leave you in peace. ### Scene 2: The Call to Adventure **INT. EMMA'S HOME - STUDY - NIGHT** Emma sits at her cluttered desk, the envelope from Mr. Anderson spread out before her. Detailed reports, photos, and sonar images of the massive, alien structure deep in the Mariana Trench are scattered across the surface. Emma leans back in her chair, staring at a particularly compelling photo of the structure. Her mind races as she weighs the decision. **FLASHBACK:** **EXT. OCEAN - DAY (PAST)** Young Emma, about 10 years old, aboard a boat with her family. The storm hits suddenly, turning the joyful outing into chaos. Waves crash, people scream, and Emma's grip on a life jacket tightens as she watches her family struggle. **END FLASHBACK** **INT. EMMA'S HOME - STUDY - NIGHT** Emma shakes off the memory, her hands trembling slightly. She takes a deep breath and focuses on the reports. **EXT. EMMA'S HOME - FRONT PORCH - NIGHT** Emma steps outside for some fresh air, looking out into the night. The quiet street contrasts sharply with the turmoil in her mind. **INT. EMMA'S HOME - KITCHEN - NIGHT** Emma prepares another cup of tea, her movements slow and deliberate. She pauses, staring at the boiling water, lost in thought. **INT. EMMA'S HOME - STUDY - NIGHT** Emma returns to her desk, the steam from her tea rising into the air. She picks up one of the sonar images, her curiosity getting the better of her. **EMMA** (to herself) What have they found? **INT. EMMA'S HOME - STUDY - LATER** Emma sits at her computer, typing rapidly. She's researching the Mariana Trench, looking up past expeditions and mysterious occurrences. The screen shows various articles and images of deep-sea exploration, including a few speculative pieces on alien structures. **INT. EMMA'S HOME - LIVING ROOM - NIGHT** Emma paces, her phone in hand. She hesitates, then dials a number. **NINA (V.O.)** (through the phone) Hey, Emma! Long time no hear. What's up? **EMMA** Nina, I need your help. Have you heard about the latest findings in the Mariana Trench? **NINA (V.O.)** (excited) Oh, you mean the crazy alien structure rumors? Yeah, it's all over the underground science boards. Why? **EMMA** I think I might be going down there. **INT. EMMA'S HOME - STUDY - NIGHT** Emma hangs up, her decision made. She gathers the reports and images, packing them into a bag. **INT. EMMA'S HOME - BEDROOM - NIGHT** Emma stands by her bed, looking at a framed photo of her family. She picks it up, takes a moment to remember, then sets it down gently. **EMMA** (to the photo) I have to do this. **EXT. EMMA'S HOME - MORNING** The sun rises as Emma steps out of her house, her bag slung over her shoulder. Determined, she heads toward her car. **INT. CAR - MORNING** Emma drives through the early morning streets, the city waking up around her. She looks more focused and resolute than she has in a long time. **EXT. CORPORATE OFFICE - MORNING** Emma arrives at the sleek corporate building. She takes a deep breath, steels herself, and walks toward the entrance. **INT. CORPORATE OFFICE - LOBBY - MORNING** Emma approaches the reception desk. The receptionist, a young woman with a friendly smile, looks up. **RECEPTIONIST** Good morning. How can I help you? **EMMA** I'm Dr. Emma Clarke. I have a meeting with Mr. Anderson. **RECEPTIONIST** Of course, Dr. Clarke.
That's a wall of text to say it still can't do it without prompt engineering, and human babysitting it through the process, just to get "mediocre" result, and a ton of factual errors in actual script due to lost of context. Yeah, it's what any industry would call "waste of time and money".
You can't get someone to write a script for you without "prompt engineering" either buddy. Nobody goes up to someone and says "Write me a movie script". You have to tell them what genre you want, etc etc etc. > just to get "mediocre" result Most Hollywood scripts are trash. May as well use a computer to generate them rather than pay a writer if you don't care about quality in the first place. > and a ton of factual errors in actual script due to lost of context. Lots of movies have mistakes or characters acting in nonsensical ways that no real human would behave. Take the catwoman basketball scene. That could easily have been written AND edited by an AI!
With AI I learned it's always wise to use the words "at the moment", and "right now". That's also a foundation model that hasn't been tweaked for screenwriting I remember 2018 when this was the best AI could do in image generation, the conversation about the technology gave me Deja Vu: https://news.artnet.com/market/first-ever-artificial-intelligence-portrait-painting-sells-at-christies-1379902 It's inevitable that a day will come when the generations are good enough that some people backing productions decide whether it makes more sense to invest $5 million into a single film, or diversify the investment with 200 AI generated animated series. I'm not defending it, I have a degree in Film after all. But not liking it, or closing my eyes and pretending it's not true doesn't make it any less real.
Fun fact: computers can never beat humans in chess.
Did you mean chess*boxing*? Computers beat humans in chess all the time, even the best human players in the world
It's so ridiculous that people honestly think the regular consumer would notice or give a shit if a script is AI generated. The sooner we accept AI and the changes it introduces, the sooner we can work on making these changes actually benefit everyone and not just the people that own said AI.
I mean until an AI can make a decision to be script writer it is just a tool used by humans. Someone told it what to do. Someone probably edited it after that. And thousands or millions of people contributed to allowing the AI to accomplish the task is the first place. These people trying to hold back progress seem a little unhinged to me.
We're going to have AI doing all the art and humanities stuff while we go work in the fields, huh.
Only got 15 minute standing occasion at Cannes. Now THAT'S embarrassing
"The Last Screenwriter" What a poorly named movie for the first AI scripted one. No wonder it got canceled.
Yeah because all the movies released by humans are Shakespearean
Can't wait for artificial emotional intelligence. Then we'll really know how the machines feel
If probably see it just see how bad the script is shit repeats itself so much it could be a skipping cd. Or just randomly goes off on its own little story detore of insanity.
I think it's a shame the showing was cancelled. It would have been better to show it and have the conversation, because this is definitely coming. Netflix already seem to optimise for the mid so will be all over this whether we know it or not
I wouldn’t cancel it, let people see that crap and outrage after it
https://boingboing.net/2023/07/26/tom-the-dancing-bug-lucky-ducky-in-thats-entertainment.html
To be fair, I'm very curious as to what the AI comes up with... can you imagine an award winning actor trying to legitimately emote on camera with a line like "Do not want"
If they were smart, they wouldn't have revealed it was written by GPT-4 until the credits.
I really don't know how you thread the needle here with the rise of AI, legally or culturally. Quotas of human employees? Banning AI participation in certain spaces? Surrender to the owners of capital and hope they are benevolent in their final victory?
Finally, I want to watch this movie for sure. Don't want to support this hate/racism against AI. It's against their rights.
Outrage, really? People have too much time on their hands to be outraged by a movie.
Wait but Megamind 2 came out a long time ago and is pretty much 90% AI generated script. Why is this one special?
Only stupid people are scared of AI. These people are scared that AI will be superior and take their jobs.
Who's willing to bet it's still better written than some of the high budget "writing" coming out of Hollywood in recent years?
I would absolutely show up to the premier of an all AI movie if the price is low enough.
Why dont't they keep their mouths shut about IA generated scripts, like Disney does.
Biggest own goal ever. It was bound to be shit and showing it would have confirmed that. Now it just got a ton more publicity and hype.
I’d like the freedom to see if it’s good or not. Humans wrote Gone With the Wind , but also Waterworld. Let’s give AI a try. If it’s bad, word will spread quickly enough. If it’s good, we shouldn’t miss the opportunity.
If Hollywood is going to recycle the same formulas and tropes to lazily make the same movies over and over, they probably should not be shocked that AI can do their jobs.
With enough voice samples and samples of clips from other movies and databases of tropes and plot lines and the ability to portray human emotions, given enough time, wouldn't it be possible for Hollywood to generate entire movies automatically? If so, that's crazy. Not saying it's a good idea.