The reveal came as SAG-AFTRA actors confirmed they were going on strike.

  • brainrein@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    But it’s not that easy. If this rando dev’s creation never catches the public’s attention how can they love it, hate it, forgive it and love it again. So this positive-quality-creature can’t be a star.

    And how about acting? You don’t think that acting is an art. That actors actually create a character, that’s either boring for the audience or catching it’s empathy. If there’s no actor creating this character, than the rando dev has to create them.

    And to make a movie they have to create a lot of different characters and some will turn out to be better in creating characters than others. So they will be famous for doing it great. The public will admire them and they will have their moments on the red carpet and get the chance to make a racist remark or slap someone in the face.

    You know, Mark Twain was such a rando dev. And he got a lot of fame. And now the fame will be coming back to the authors…

    • ungoogleable@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Look at animated movies. They’re giant collaborations of hundreds of mostly anonymous people, basically large software development projects. They hire stars to do the voices, not because they’re all that great as voice actors (trained voice actors can often be had cheaper), but to be the face of the film in public and promote it.

      That is, the skill of a Hollywood star is not really anything to do with the product, but simply being famous, recognizable, and likeable. They are a brand, like Mickey Mouse or Colonel Sanders (once an actual person!).

      • clutchmatic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That is, the skill of a Hollywood star is not really anything to do with the product, but simply being famous, recognizable, and likeable.

        I bet studio execs and agents hate having to deal with their stars’ erratic behavior off screen and their personal projects. AI stars voiced by unseen voice actors are much more easier to deal with and they can pay voice actors less. This is IT driven enshittification of the entertainment industry.

    • Elkenders@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Once it’s been trained on the data of every movie ever made, won’t the AI be able to figure out what exactly makes a performance nuanced and captivating? We’re at the very start of this AI journey and it’s often indistinguishable from real life already.

          • jandar_fett@lemmy.fmhy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ding ding ding! The same reason we believe that our planet is more than an insignificant mote of dust in the vast dark void of chaos.

        • Zeth0s@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because an AI is created by humans. If an AI can create art, that art is ultimately created by humans

          • persolb@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Mark Twain was created by other humans… but his grand parents aren’t famous.

            I see no reason the thousands of people who work on an AI will be any more famous than the thousands of non-acting artists who currently work on a movie.

            Maybe directors (or the AI prompt writer) becomes more famous… but even that will self-automate pretty quickly

            • Zeth0s@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Mark twain was created by natural precesses such as evolution, by randomness and by education/environment. It is a different thing.

              AI is tha peak product of the collaboration of many human beings across generations. Scientists, engineers, artists, common people, all have “worked” together to generate an amazing, extraordinary, artificial thing.

              If such things can create art, that art is made by everyone, just like honey is the final product of the whole colony of bees.

              We simply need to change our perspective on fame. No one deserves fame, we all deserve to be celebrated

          • Lmaydev@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            So if you teach someone to paint all their art is created by you?

            Don’t think that stands up really.

            • Zeth0s@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              If I teach a neural network to draw with only my picture, the art is mine and of all people who contributed to creating the AI technology, including theory, software, hardware (because each of them contribute to the final result as much as the training data - even more in reality)…

              If I teach someone to draw, and I am the only input he’s ever had in his life, art is his, but I contributed to it.

              Computers are not people

              • Lmaydev@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                People aren’t anything special. We are essentially pattern recognising computers. Our hardware is just very different.

    • socsa@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t think the question is art vs not art. “Art” is an abstraction bestowed upon something by the viewer.

      I think a lot of people are still struggling with this, but popular “art” is already largely devoid of humanity, and reduced to formulaic focus group fluff, and has been for a long, long time now. AI just streamlines the processes we already have.

      Any additional debate on this will reduce to linguistics. You can - “I know it when I see it” - all you want, but that’s a cop out. The reality is that media which produces a specific neurochemical response in humans doesn’t, and never has required human input. A breathtaking landscape. A feeling of tranquility during snowfall. A kinship with an animal. An AI generated image. These are all the same process.

      • jandar_fett@lemmy.fmhy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Really well said. The definition of art could be argued ad infinitum, and nobody will be any closer to an answer. What is a fact, is that at it’s core art requires a recipe, and each element can be interchangeable, whether it is colors, perspective, medium, tools, pressure, speed, shapes, etc etc, & with A.I., it is just a streamlined process like you said, of taking these elements and mixing them in novel ways. The argument that A.I. could never match human art is such bullocks since as we all know, there is nothing wholly new. It is all recycled content at this point, with variations and arguably, A.I., will be able to add and subtract for those variations a lot faster than humans ever could.

    • Jimbo@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      You know those AI programs making AI art… the content made is by definition art. It’s in the name.

      • Crackhappy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        True, anyone can call anything art if they want and the name can stick, just like anyone calling you a dumbass. ;)