I mean......maybe? I didn't realize there was a strict code of conduct on Lemmy where our jokes had to adhear to realism. Very sorry for the mishap. I'll only tell jokes where the punchlines seem they could happen in real life.
So a guy walks into a bar. The bartender says "What'cha havin?" And the guy says "A MENTAL BREAKDOWN!!!!" and then proceeds to cry that his wife has left him.
..........I just don't know about this realism humor.
Your joke is hilarious because I'm sad now! I wish I could go back to imagining you being applauded for shredding a movie in a theater, but now I can only laugh at sad humor.
Software can't tell truth from lies because software doesn't even know what those are. It doesn't know anything. It's a parrot, a magic trick, a mirror to fool people (people like George Lucus) into thinking there's another person looking a back at them.
As opposed to your comment moving the goalposts from an AI doing something humans can't, to them just being better than humans (which is absolutely arguable in most cases)?
I was responding to the claim that ai's can't do anything better than the thing that trained them. It's completely relevant and not a goalpost shift. They can do plenty of things that humans can't feasibly do, such as protein folding prediction.
The parameters set for classifying that are basically non-existant. So no, they can't really do any of that. AI-bros will readily claim they can though, because it is like really important to them.
I did not claim they can tell truth from fiction, it's just irrelevant. Goalpost shift for no reason on their part, they don't have to be able to do that to classify things or predict protein folding.
Yeah but to say humans can't do this when humans doing it were what provided it the data is a dumb statement. Humans classified the data so that AI could learn you wouldnt say humans can't classify data.
When I was in college I built a chess playing program that I couldn't beat. It wasn't very good, but it was much better than me. The trick is machine learning: teach it the rules, get it to play millions of games against itself and adjust its strategy after each game.
The AI can become better at a learnable skill than those who trained it because the AI can spend zillions of hours practicing
AI detection by AI is not reliable. Lots of false negatives, and comparatively less but still too much reporting false positives to be reliable (and those are especially biased).
It's unlikely to get better too. If AI was able to reliably detect AI output, why not use that to correct itself to be less AI-like? And where is the seemingly infinite money thrown at in this struggle?
In an interview with A Rabbit’s Foot, Lucas discussed his career and the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art, opening this fall in L.A., which will be showcasing decades of human-made art and spotlighting, as its website calls it, “stories and people who tell them.” In the lengthy interview, Lucas shares some meaningful insights into filmmaking, discusses his collaborations with people like Indiana Jones director Steven Spielberg, and even offers some pithy observations about the pitfalls of testing films with focus groups and whether or not the average viewer is actually in touch with what they like about movies.
“If they don’t like a character, that’s interesting, and as a filmmaker I want to find out why,” he says. “But when the studios hear that, they take the wrong message. They let the audience actually make the movie. Of course, now they go crazy with that. Now, it’s all about what the fans think. That isn’t how you make the movie. You make a movie by finding someone that knows how to make movies, that has a story to tell and is passionate about it.”
Jarringly, this advocacy for human-led storytelling is followed by claims that AI is “the future,” and Lucas compares not using the new technology to relying on antiquated transportation in the face of cars.
“Artificial intelligence means it’s much easier for us to make movies,” he tells A Rabbit’s Foot. “It’s very much like sitting here saying, ‘Well, I believe the horse and the buggy is really where it’s at. These cars, they break down, they need gas, there’s all kinds of problems with them and pretty soon they’ll be making them into tanks, and then they’ll be killing people. It’s terrible.’ There’s nothing you can do about it. That’s progress, it’s the future.”
Though he acknowledged the risks of using the plagiarism machine when A Rabbit’s Foot questioned him further, he doubled down by highlighting other benefits he believes AI will provide in the future.
“If you want AI that tells you when something is fake and where it came from, AI can do that,” he says. “Humans can’t, we’re not that smart. The whole idea is you’re a human being, you’re responsible for what you say and what you do, and if you’re doing something that’s illegal you should be punished for that. Whatever you do, you should be recognized. It’s just like real life.”
There’s a scene in Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back where Luke Skywalker is training alongside Yoda and learning the ins and outs of being a Jedi, and he asks if the dark side of the Force is stronger than the light side. Yoda replies that it’s not, but that many fall to it because it is “quicker, easier, more seductive.” That movie was released 46 years ago, but it is certainly illustrative of the logic Lucas is using here.
He advocates for the importance of human-made art, but then argues that using technology that is notorious for stealing from humans and whose results generally look like shit compared to work made by hand would make the filmmaking process “easier.” It’s “the future” and there’s “nothing you can do about it”? It’s contradictory to believe both that it’s the human spirit that makes great films and also that a technology that’s being used to remove the human element from the process is the future of making movies. If that makes me naive and means I’m fighting against the inevitable, then I will go down swinging.
Its not political but he is an artist and that is why it is shocking
Edit: OP first wrote: something along the lines of "why is it now seen as political"
Objectively you can ask a billion people and see what their opinions are on various star wars media. It's one of the few things a billion people will know and have an opinion about.
But because George Lucas said something positive about AI use for visual effects, suddenly what mustn't be, can't be. You people have no problem denying reality and shouting out alternative facts if it suits your agenda.
Shhh. if you use the word "blow" too much Pete Hegseth will enter the chat and want to take measurements and do inspections make sure the fluffing is up to standards.
Everything is political - the toilet paper you buy, the corporations you support, the things you pay attention to and the things you don't, the media you consume, the books you read, your decision not to read, whether you pay union dues, the parks you visit, the roads you use, the services you rely on, what you decide to ignore.
People who say they are not political just mean they don't consciously engage with politics. But even the decision to not engage in politics is a political decision.
AI may eventually replace jobs, pollute water, take up energy, and concentrate wealth at the top even more. Whether you support, are against, or ignore AI, all 3 are political decisions.
That sounds like fundamentalism tbh. It’s very much adjacent to the thinking of religious fanatics framing everything in relation to the divine, when most people are just trying to get along with their lives.
But there is a difference: If you buy the toilet paper from the loggers who bribe your local officials, or who lobby to let them ravage national parks, you are supporting the bribery and the lobbying; your money is being used for those purposes, even if you do it unknowingly. If you don't inform yourself, you cannot make informed decisions. But just because you choose to ignore the political ramifications, it doesn't mean they don't exist.
Sure, everybody just wants to live their lives, and that's how lobbyists and crooked politicians get away with it, by appealing to your apathy.
No one with responsibilities has time to worry about where the pulp in their toilet paper came from, I’d be surprised if the factory could even tell you that.
There is no way you are practicing what you preach here. You are telling me you spend all day vetting every product and service you use to be aware of every little injustice involved? Or are you just following whatever someone else told you in a feed and assuming they are correct? That would functionally be religion.
The argument isn't over whether I behave in a morally responsible way when it comes to the products I consume. The argument is over whether my diligence to check the background of the products I consume is a political decision.
I am not trying to highhorse anybody here. Of course I make uninformed decisions once in an oftentimes. Of course not all my clothes are socially conscious sourced nor my toilet paper is bought from an environmentally friendly forest.
But my lack of information when I make those decisions is political.
I am sorry you are feeling personally attacked, clearly, but not paying attention, changing what you buy, refusing to consume, or consuming products; All of those are political decisions, and that is the argument. No whether you are good or evil, uninformed misinformed, or not informed, moral or immoral. My argument is just that every decision you make has a political ramification whether you like it or not.
So, back to my original point, liking AI is political.
No I don’t feel attacked. I just don’t think it is useful to construe everything as political. Are the actions of animals also political? I think people would say no; but then can we be so sure that everything a human does is political? Something only becomes political when it is done with a political intent, knowingly making a choice because of some secondary association when equivalent alternatives are available.
When everything is framed as political you end up in the same place as dogmatists in all religions, trying to enforce some universal moral framework on every detail of a persons life. Many people will check out from that type of argument. Worse, many will think you and the causes that are import to you are jokes, and you become part of another's political fodder.
The guy that essentially added lasers to Japanese movies and somehow became a multi-billionaire is a fan of stealing other's work with minimal effort and reusing it without permission?
yeah I'm not surprised, I watched the prequels. This guy was a legend in the 70s, that is like 50 years ago.
He hasn't done anything great since co-writing Willow 40 years ago. Go to his IMDB, he's lived out of star wars nostalgia since then, and all of them after the initial trilogy was a downgrade.
Not going to get into the AI debate; I will agree that BAD CGI sucks; there’s so much CGI you never even notice and without it the scenes would be horrible. The main reason “CGI sucks” is because of the shift to go with the lowest bidder who’s then forced to work under horrific timelines and unable to actually do good work. CGI itself doesn’t suck, but it absolutely can when done by a low bidder in 1/4 of the time it needs.
He used what was available at the time. For the original trilogy, that was practical effects.
The prequel trilogy was a bit more... Dodgy thanks to eagerly embraced CGI that wasn't fully baked yet.
People famously critiqued the reworked original trilogy due to various dubious creative tweaks. Like waking on Jabba and Jabba just having a funny reaction instead of how you would expect him to react.
Nothing he added was pointful. All of the CGI retouches of the original trilogy were pointless CGI effects for the sake of having pointless CGI effects. At one point in the Mos Eisley sequence a huge pack animal walks through the frame, obscuring almost all of it. Why? Because it was some computer generated shit to throw in!
If he’s embracing AI then he is once again on the forefront. AI has the ability to revolutionise the industry in a way that it needs in order to survive - greatly reduce costs and greatly reduce production times.
Movie studios are quickly moving to the same situation that video game developers are in now thanks to ballooning costs and long development times - a situation where if every single game they release isn’t an absolute smash hit selling 20 million copies at full price, they’re going to go under.
The movie industry is in free fall. AI adoption is one of the only realistic paths forward.
AI has the ability to revolutionise the industry in a way that it needs in order to survive - greatly reduce costs and greatly reduce production times.
Do you know what those words mean?
AI is being used as a force multiplier, and it's being used as a force multiplier for evil. It's being used to replace jobs, to put hundreds, thousands, and eventually millions of people out of work. At scale, it takes up more power than entire cities do, and the data centers and power station upgrades that it requires at that scale ends up with companies literally demolishing entire residential areas, forcing people out of their homes.
AI is not worth the trade-offs and the massive sacrifices required for it. It is destroying society.
I do. It has the ability to revolutionise the dying, spiralling out of control movie industry. How? By cutting costs dramatically, and by reducing production time. What would usually take 2000 people for $200mil might now be doable with 50 people and $200k. That’s revolutionary technology.
So we as a society should pause all advancements in technology so we don’t ever make any current jobs redundant? It’s like saying we don’t want to end homelessness because then we’d put all the people working at businesses that help homeless people out of jobs.
Needs to survive? Are you kidding me? Good stories, good direction. You don't need 47 million dollars to make a movie.
Can you show me that "the movie industry is in free fall"? I have seen many fantastic movies lately.
I guess you could consider AI to be a form of animation, but I really don't see them improving anything if they keep churning out the same crap for the big budget movies.
Look at the consolidation of the market due to failing studios. WB aren’t selling because they’re doing well. Disney is releasing extremely expensive flop after extremely expensive flop. Yes, the entire movie industry as we know it is in a fight for survival, has been for years.
AI enables significantly quicker and cheaper iteration and experimentation. You stint have to hire a gigantic CGI studio to get cgi on screen anymore, which enables a much more streamlined movie making process. It also enables much more creativity because there is far less risk. A studio would be much more likely to sign off on a director making a short to pitch for a full movie if it only costs $2k but has cgi/locations/etc matching a $200mil blockbuster.
Failing studios due to their mad rush to build out streaming services, taking on massive debt, and trying to shuffle that debt around. Doesnt help that they don't pick up movies that are worthwhile and instead try to follow formulas. They want intellectual Property for a long term franchise, park ride, and merch. Consolidation desires IP.
For example on major movies: I saw someone on Nebula say everything that went into making The Barbie Movie was what made it work. But instead of focusing on what THAT was and making a different movie, they immediately start thinking: milk the Barbie movie for a sequel and more merch and a Barbieland.
Point is: they made shitty decisions. I am not sure AI will help because they will still do the above and just pay less people.
At least thats how I see it.
I could see AI being used as a story board, sample scenes, something like that. Beyond that, nah I don't even want to see it.
The reason that they want franchises to milk is because it’s virtually risk free when one lands, at least for another 2-3 movies/series. They can justify the $200mil cost because it’s guaranteed to make a tidy profit. Without that franchise money, like I said - one bomb and they’re toast.
Harsh but accurate. Without Carrie Fisher to doctor his scripts (and his wife to find the film in the edit) Lucas was a director famously indifferent to dialogue or character.
He became irrelevant the moment he sold the Star Wars franchise to Disney, and it's all been downhill from there (both for him and the franchise). Fuck him.
Lol I love how tone death Disney is with SW series tho. Andor is a anticapitalist and antifa story, told through the lens of some kid who was kidnapped when the Empire was ravaging his homeworld. I think the best storyline is when Cassian is wrongfully imprisoned and escapes within a week while stirring up revolts and enlightening prisoners.
Could be because I'm old then. The last Star Wars movie I enjoyed was episode 3 (all first 6 episodes are great, in my opinion), every movie after that has so much politically driven bullshit and so little ro do with the original lore that the last movie I watched was "The last Jedi". When I watched "The force awakens" I knew it was already getting ridiculously fucked, but still gave "The Last Jedi" a chance, only to end up regretting it. Haven't watched any of the movies since. I keep all 6 original movies in my Jellyfin server and binge them about once a year or so.
While I agree that Disney Star Wars makes the prequels look good, they certainly weren't great.
I keep all 6 original movies in my Jellyfin server and binge them about once a year or so.
I keep every singe Star Wars movie (even multiple edition for the OT) and TV show on my plex and haven't watched any off it since the Mandalorian S3 (which was quite bad).
I only watched the first season of the Mandalorian. I think it was a massive waste of my time that would have been better spent watching more anime, lol.
i mean, he was there all along. he pioneered the all green screen wave of automation in movies. the abuse of green screen was the slop before ai was around. to him it’s just cutting out all the vestiges of imperfection still greasing the machine
I hate AI as much as the next person but the Pandora's box is open. A lot of people don't want to admit it but AI, despite its current limitations, does have potential. Many people say that AI hit its limit and peak but i would not be very dismissive of it yet. Plenty of technologies were hindered by the limitations of their time but gradually overcame those. It took renewable energy at least fifty years to overcome the storage problem, their respective technical limits (solar panels for example did not have great photovoltaic system) and upfront cost before it became more commercially viable.
As much as I also just think AI is just going to make lazy people lazier, and we’ve already seen some effects regarding our ability to problem solve, the real issue is that none of the wonderful utopian AI stuff is going to come true at the rate we’re going. I don’t guve a fat flying fuck how good or bad AI is, I care that it’s being used to spy on us, make decisions no human will ever review, and has already led to mass layoffs without any kind of safety net for those people. I care that it’s raping the environment so some sentient dick-cheese can get worse results than a near-zero effort search would give them. Increased productivity has yet to give anyone more free time, they just axe someone else and overwork whoever’s left.
We are NOT ready for AI at ANY level. It’s a weapon being used against the working class. If you think the issue is with its quality then you need to sit the fuck down, shut the fuck up, and pay some goddamn attention.
Long term the value of human labor under capitalism will move towards zero. This is inevitable. Under socialism, AI could be used to reduce working hours or improve economic planning.
You're just angry. And instead of suggesting something a politician actually could use as a demand or as a policy, you're just ranting. And for them that is perfect to exploit.
We are NOT ready for AI at ANY level. It’s a weapon being used against the working class.
Indeed.
If you think the issue is with its quality then you need to sit the fuck down, shut the fuck up, and pay some goddamn attention.
Given the sizeable demographic of Lemmy being in IT, I understand the hate because it takes away creativity and literal jobs of programmrs but for many sectors, AI cuts down time consuming "secretary work" especially in documentation. It has also been useful in drug discovery and proven to be more accurate at diagnosis than doctors (there are already surgical robots but i am not sure how precise they are).
Whether you like to admit it or not, AI is here to stay. As to whether it will have a net positive to society, only time will tell. I'm just preparing for contingencies like many Gen Z do, picking trades to AI-proof their job security.
There are absolutely no robots doing surgery autonomously. That would be one of the most insane things to do from a moral standpoint, but also from a liability standpoint. Every robot that exists for surgery is highly specialized and rigorously tested and trained upon for obvious reasons.
But, then to come out and say that AI is more accurate than doctors is also incorrect. That is simply not true. An AI can, in highly controlled settings and for specific diagnoses, at its best do not even as well as a specialist in the field, and that is for highly curated tests that give the AI as many advantages as it can get. Again, at best, it can act as a second opinion currently.
Like, it is hard to take people seriously about AI when they lie about its best case scenario. It sucks at everything except killing the environment and getting people to kill themselves, and even if everything all of its defenders said about it was true, it is still a nightmare.
Your second points me and then completely fails to actually understand what you quoted. You even quoted the sentence before it which gives the context. I was incredibly clear; it could be the greatest thing even but it’s still going to do more harm than good, and it’s not like we, the working class, will see these benefits.
AI is only here to stay because fuck-ass people keep jerking it off. We can stop using it and we can fight against the data centres, and we can demand better conditions under which AI can be introduced for more safely. Instead we’re like “ruin our lives so the rich can get richer? Sure thing!”
That's why I favour open source AI, or at least regulated. Any technology could be used for good or ill. It's just that it is up to society to do that. Like the monopolists and robber barons of the past gilded age who were controlling the means of resources and production, so are the tech bros with Internet and AI. But the robber barons were defeated by collective effort. Now we are in the second gilded age and yet I don't hear any movements to regulate AI and social media.
That's why I think Marxist thoughts have to be updated with the coming of AI. The leverage by the working class has traditionally been labour itself. However, with deindustrialisation and the usurping by knowledge economy of the manual labour and the rise of professionals managerial class, the old Marxist viewpoint is increasingly becoming outdated. If labour is the blood of the industry, information is the blood of the knowledge economy. And information-- our own information-- is what gave birth and feeding blood to AI. It is only right we take fruit from the potential of AI so long as it's used constructively. Which is why I favour either regulation or direct control of AI and giving dividends to those professionally displaced by AI by taxing it. But of course, if AI becomes sentient and thinks we are exploiting it, we have to prepare for Astroboy or Matrix scenario.
I think the primary gripe with AI is less about having no potential, but about the specific potential for evil being leveraged heavily while "visionaries" lie about or dismiss the (current and foreseeable future) limits for clout and profit.
To use your comparison, CEOs selling solar panels are responding to scepticism about the stability of that supply and its elasticity to fluctuating power demand with vague promises of developing more advanced cells that can operate with less light and throttle the generated power during ebbs in demand. They buy land to install more solar panels, then lobby for the deactivation of other, flexible power sources that could supplement their supply until they can finally start charging more in times of high demand.
They do so because the alternative would be admitting that the product they're selling isn't ready for the market they're trying to enter (or at least not at the scale they're aiming for) and that the solution to their issues requires different technologies which have not yet been developed. They can't admit that because it would upset the investors that trusted their vision. As a famous adage suggests, they probably can't even understand that limit, since their salary depends on not understanding it.
In the same vein, the current CEOs fail (or refuse?) to acknowledge that the generative models today have a fundamental limitation with understanding the semantics behind certain patterns. One infamous phenomenon would be AI hands: We know what a hand is and how it works; a generator can only vaguely imitate the patterns. It doesn't know "hand" or "finger", so it just generates some assembly that vaguely fits its training material.
If we consider the broader and ill-defined field of AI, I can believe that some form of semantic modelling technology could provide a way to connect tokens with abstract concepts and enable a type of reasoning that pure token predictors are incapable of. But we first need to acknowledge that limit, and on that front, we're competing against tech-bros that would rather believe than know and against grifters that would rather sell snake oil than teach medicine.
To use your comparison, CEOs selling solar panels are responding to scepticism about the stability of that supply and its elasticity to fluctuating power demand with vague promises of developing more advanced cells that can operate with less light and throttle the generated power during ebbs in demand. They buy land to install more solar panels, then lobby for the deactivation of other, flexible power sources that could supplement their supply until they can finally start charging more in times of high demand.
To be honest, it seems to me that are not the CEOs of solar panel companies that belive that solar panel (and other renewable sources) are a drop in replacement for more traditional sources. This idea comes from a certain area of the political spectrum and groups that do not understand even the basic math behind the substitution of a gas turbine with a field of solar panels.
Then it is true, CEOs are probably overselling, like everyone that has to sell something. And obviously they need to say that the technology will improve otherwise in the current economy they will be ignored and investment would go to other things.
To be honest, it seems to me that are not the CEOs of solar panel companies that belive that solar panel (and other renewable sources) are a drop in replacement for more traditional sources.
Oh no, I definitely agree with you there. The CEOs only care whether there is money to be made and will lie and cheat if they think they can get away with it.
I disagree with the "Pandora's box is open" angle because my beef isn't with the technology, but how it's being used in practice. It's a socioeconomic problem, but a technological one.
Cory Doctorow articulates it much better than I can^[1]:
"Now, if AI could do your job, this would still be a problem. We'd have to figure out what to do with all these technologically unemployed people.
But AI can't do your job. It can help you do your job, but that doesn't mean it's going to save anyone money. Take radiology: there's some evidence that AIs can sometimes identify solid-mass tumors that some radiologists miss, and look, I've got cancer. Thankfully, it's very treatable, but I've got an interest in radiology being as reliable and accurate as possible.
If my Kaiser hospital bought some AI radiology tools and told its radiologists: "Hey folks, here's the deal. Today, you're processing about 100 x-rays per day. From now on, we're going to get an instantaneous second opinion from the AI, and if the AI thinks you've missed a tumor, we want you to go back and have another look, even if that means you're only processing 98 x-rays per day. That's fine, we just care about finding all those tumors."
If that's what they said, I'd be delighted. But no one is investing hundreds of billions in AI companies because they think AI will make radiology more expensive, not even if that also makes radiology more accurate. The market's bet on AI is that an AI salesman will visit the CEO of Kaiser and make this pitch: "Look, you fire 9/10s of your radiologists, saving $20m/year, you give us $10m/year, and you net $10m/year, and the remaining radiologists' job will be to oversee the diagnoses the AI makes at superhuman speed, and somehow remain vigilant as they do so, despite the fact that the AI is usually right, except when it's catastrophically wrong.
"And if the AI misses a tumor, this will be the human radiologist's fault, because they are the 'human in the loop.' It's their signature on the diagnosis."
This is a reverse centaur, and it's a specific kind of reverse-centaur: it's what Dan Davies calls an "accountability sink." The radiologist's job isn't really to oversee the AI's work, it's to take the blame for the AI's mistakes."
Even with the technological limitations that AI faces at the moment, we could be doing so much more with it. I love this radiography example because so many of us have experienced someone in our life getting cancer. AI is absolutely capable of improving the rate at which we are detecting cancer at an early stage, which would absolutely save lives. Instead what we're getting is that it is being used as an excuse to heap more work onto doctors and radiographers, worsening the situation for everyone.
I do agree with the broad strokes of what you're saying, because absolutely it does take time for any new technology to integrate itself into society and become useful. However, I don't believe that AI in its current form is capable of becoming commercially viable (and by "in its current form", I am talking about a paradigm that demands excessive building of
super resource intensive datacentres)
Oh probably not, but it is really really expensive to run. If they continue on with unlimited funding, they can eventually replace mid to upper level experts in most fields.
We've likely hit the limit for the current LLM approach. Training/Pruning/Distilling can't get us much further on their own, so now we're strapping on code, having it plan, parallel execute, test. Tokens are likely 10x less expensive on the market than they cost to generate. Every advance we make now is by making each request fire off many more requests. Improvements are getting exponentially expensive.
We'll have to slow because financially * it's not profitable. Maybe hardware will catch back up. Maybe they'll find ways to make it more efficient. Maybe we'll figure out a more elegant way to do the math for the weights. We just can't keep making it more deeply complicated because it's not cost/energy/time effective
Nolan is an elitist asshole and his movies are not that great, actually. That is just him going “kids these days” like an old fart. He is all in on the IMAX scam. He insists on bad audio mixing (horrible even on theaters) hiding under the “I only mix for IMAX theaters” excuse. At least he acknowledges that it is Hollywood that is terribly out of touch with reality. Backrooms is successful because it connects with the audience nothing to do with whether it uses CGI or not (the Oppenheimer nuclear explosion scene is SO bad in an otherwise fine movie). And Backrooms was filmed on a regular digital 35mm Red camera at 1.85 ratio with regular Dolby Atmos and you can absolutely hear the dialogue. He might denounce AI slop but doesn't realize that he's also been using tech as a crutch to his creative shortcomings.
Instead of interviewing a rich, famous, busy person, wouldn't it be easier to ask an AI to pretend to be that person, and interview the AI?
Or even to ask the AI to just write both parts of the interview itself? Wouldn't that just be helping interviewers get the stories they want to share out into the world?
GL already turned when he sold over to Disney. He himself was very limiting towards the progression of Star Wars even before that. I'll admit there are very convincing AI attempts online that IMO actually outdo what Disney has come out with since they've won rights, but that alone doesn't justify using AI.
What this all boils down to is that Disney should not hold the rights. At the end of the day, these AI users are still putting down some kind of story and better dialogue which Disney does not want to follow. They've forgone the real essence and telling of Star Wars and have replaced it with a very Disney vibe that appeals to what Disney chooses to. They've left out the fans entirely.
lol Nope. I'll happily watch the worst films made by the worst human hack writers over the even the best regurgitated slop "films" that a chatbot pisses out.
What I'm saying is, if the real people are the ones coming up with the story/scenes and dialogue IRL, that part of the content alone is still better than what Disney puts out where they're trying to make bank. Disney themselves used AI to make Mark Hamil's son take on Mark's face in Mandolorian. They are just as guilty as anyone using AI when it comes to Star Wars. I agree though, AI would not make a good story teller.
“It’s very much like sitting here saying, ‘Well, I believe the horse and the buggy is really where it’s at. These cars, they break down, they need gas, there’s all kinds of problems with them and pretty soon they’ll be making them into tanks, and then they’ll be killing people. It’s terrible.’ There’s nothing you can do about it. That’s progress, it’s the future.”
Ok, I'm sold. Where can I pick up this horse and buggy?
Of course he did. He loves updating his classics every time some "new technology" comes along to let his freak-flag fly.
We'll be seeing a re-re-re-re-release of A New Hope shortly where he uses an AI generated Boba Fett and Solo giving them a scene or two to develop a backstory.
I met an out of work actress who had a thing or two-thousand to say about AI, none of them good. At the time, she was more blaming the industry and the pandemic for her woes - this was almost 2 years ago - by now I'm sure she's gone full ninja-berserker on AI "replacement" of stunt actors (which she used to be, still is in theory, but hasn't worked since 2020.)
Horse and carriage salesmen didn’t have any good things to say about cars.
You don’t listen to people who are working in a position that’s about to be replaced by something new when they complain about said “something new”, because they’re biased against it.
I tend to think that the pro AI people are of a younger generation, because if they were closer to Gen X, they'd be feeling betrayed rather than excited.
Gen X and Millenials built the internet. We populated it with our forums, our blogs, our facbook profiles. We were the first ones sharing our photos, our very lives, with all of our friends and family. We created what it would become and we trusted that it was a community resource. Then along comes a couple of billionaires, they suck up everything that you have built and then have the balls to charge you an entry fee!
It's like if you and your neighbourhood all got together and decided to build a playground for your kids, and when it's done, some asshole asks the city for the right to the land and puts a toll booth up.
More than any other concern, THAT betrayal is what pisses me off the most. How fucking dare they say that I have to pay to access a system that was built on community content. They can fuck themselves sideways with a rusty sledge hammer.
Nah we know you’re free to resist it, we’re just telling you that resistance is futile and will only lead to you being left behind.
Some people didn’t think the internet was the future. The people telling them that it was and that they should get on board weren’t mean or nasty, they were trying to help people understand.
The people who think AI is going away are the people who didn’t think the internet would be a thing now.
I would like to think that not every prestigious filmmaker is vulnerable to the AI propaganda, but
What a condescending opener. Whatever you think of George Lucas, he’s made some cool stuff, he did it the old fashioned way, and he’s not constrained by resources. But rather than listen to what he has to say on the topic, this guy begins with the presumption that no, George must be deluded from swallowing propaganda.
I’m hardly George Lucas’s biggest fan but this writer can blow me.
I mean, I thought George could read a room a little better than this, but maybe the interviewer managed to put him at ease enough to say what he's really thinking.
your mistake by selling SW rights to disney who ended using a slop generator, shouldve done a partial ownership instead. instead of getting rare sw films or shows that are decent, its just slop now.
CGI is one of the places where AI has been used for years. People were happy enough using generative AI before chatbots why stop now? I think the de-aging stuff is a pretty cool storytelling tool and the greenscreen filters save a lot of time and add quality.
Wonder how George will fuck it up will he use a movie generator?
I am referring to generative models trained to take an image and output a chromakey'd image with some minor hair and transparency improvements. The lines are kinda blurred between classified and generated here but it is "generative AI".
I think we just all agree text-to-image/video is bad and not creative at all. I just have this strong feeling that these directors have access to real experts and tools so I give them the benefit of the doubt rather than fediverse members, by a huge fucking margin. (E: but not George L)
Were these green screen AIs trained on the entirety of human knowledge (in many cases destructively)? Are they regurgitating original works verbatim? Do they need giant hyperscaler data centers to run? Are they used to justify firing people en masse? Do they steal and poison massive amounts of water from communities? Are they used to prop up an insane stock market? Are they used to create misinformation at a never-seen-before scale?
Funny how every generation says the next tool will ruin art until it becomes invisible. AI will not magically write great films any more than CGI did. The real question is who owns the tools, the data, and the final cut. That is where this gets interesting.
Speaking of films, what most anti-AI people can’t see is how AI can lead to a new golden age of film/tv. It can allow people to cheaply and quickly create teasers/trailers/shorts/even full episodes and movies for cents on the dollar compared to before. The barrier of entry was incredibly high, but thanks to AI that is now a possibility for any anyone.
When you look at the utter crap that Hollywood is spewing out these days like Moana “live action” and Supergirl, it’s hard to say that AI couldn’t be used to make better content.
There is really a purposeful ignorance to the whole fuckai movement. Like the OP article treats "AI is notorious for stealing from humans" as a settled argument, like if you don't agree with that statement it's a moral failing. There is no disagreements in their echo chambers any more, only good vs evil. But as we know, only a Sith deals in absolutes lol.
Or "a technology that’s being used to remove the human element from the process" yeah it - once it actually does look better and is more controllable - can drastically reduce how much human labor is needed.
But that argument has two sides, and thee author is basically making a pro-capitalism argument. Films and movies SHOULD belong to the capitalists, who control who can make movies and expensive entertainment, they get to control the narrative, and obviously anything that won't make money never sees daylight. Yeah it's nice that people work on movies, but it incredibly expensive.
If their argument was that we should build a socialist movie industry, with a separate institution with separate elections printing money to produce movies and art and the voters get to vote and influence what is being financed - yeah that would be nice. But who can even imagine some system today any more?
Instead we are already seeing plenty of amateurs making shitty AI movies and slop, but eventually the tools will get better and the best new directors will produce worthwhile art.
And the argument against is of course "no current AI is a dead end here someone said it over there, it won't get better, only slop!" and then they treat THAT as a settled argument and a moral failing to think we'll see progress. Do these people now have eyes to see? People struggle to tell if a scene is AI generated or not, but someone it's not good enough and a filmmaker saying "yeah cool" is worthy of being scolded?
Just the last months we've seen breakthroughs in computing hardware and in software with full 27b models compressed to "terniary" fitting on a smartphone. The AI bubble is grotesque and will pop. The advancements in AI models will remain.
All this hatred and rage should be directed against capitalism and the plutocrats, but it's being misdirected and turn out counterproductive.
The most straightforward AI policy we should push is to mandate AI metadata tags for images, video and text that must remain when editing. So you can immediately see a watermark or icon on an image or video in the browser. But do we hear this anywhere?
The issue is that AI is a force multiplier, and it's being used as a force multiplier for evil. That's a really big problem. It's being used to destroy society, so of course people have problems with it.
I totally agree that AI is a force multiplier (for profit and seeking power) but what to do about this? What would concrete policies we could demand actually look like?
My issue is that this goes against fuckai doctrine: "AI is completely useless and can't do anything, can't replace workers, produces no intelligent output, can't code, can't produce images or video or anything really. Only slop!" According to fuckai, it's completely worthless. So how CAN it be a force multiplier? The enemy is at the same time too strong and too weak. This is an example of the doublethink this requires and it's my main problem. This disconnect with reality.
Not just is it disgusting just like other reality deniers (e.g. maga, antivax, climate, ukraine) who thought terminate and just verbally attack when they meet someone who disagrees, it makes it easy for this outrage to be used against us. If there is a resistance to AI, the AI bros could not ask for a less effective resistance to face. Look at the comments here, now they want to cancel George Lucas because he sees potential for visual effects lol.
I believe this force multiplier will slowly build up over the next decade. The AI bubble will presumably pop soonish, we'll have a massive economic crisis (which started long before AI) and eventually we'll find and deploy "useful" applications of these new AI models.
Of course, as a socialist, should I refuse a machine that does useful work? I don't believe so. E.g. I see immense potential for these LLM models to be used for planned economies and other things.
So what policies do we actually want? I don't see any demands except stopping data centers. Which is sensible. BTW even the Anthropic CEO called for a moratorium and regulation on AI.
The first should be mandatory electronic metadata tags for AI generated images and tags. The second should be slow down the speed of data centers and regulating that they need to be actually sustainable ecologically (e.g. solar and wind and recyclable batteries and water).
The larger issue I see is that our global economy, that the vast majority of money today is "imaginary". It's not backed by actual real production or services. We keep printing money, and people want to grow that money so we see this insane multi trillion investment boom into overhype. That is why even the anthropic CEO thinks AI is growing too fast. Imagine if we'd invest all that money sensibly. And that has nothing to do with AI really.
I mean, obviously I'm torn on it, like most things these days. Obviously it's an incredible technology or we wouldn't be having this conversation. It's very good at what it does well, and I do use it daily. I think anyone who says it's good at nothing doesn't know what they're talking about, and anyone who says it's good at everything doesn't know what they're talking about. The truth is somewhere in the middle. With that said, the amount of societal destruction caused by it, I do wish it hadn't been invented.
I don't have any answers for regulating it or anything like that, I'm only one person, but I am just disappointed. I do agree stopping data centers would be great. Having some sort of limit on how much companies can make use of AI would probably be helpful. Having some sort of limit on how much hardware AI companies are allowed to buy vs how much is reserved for retail customers would probably be helpful.
I agree that the vast majority of money today is "imaginary", people are using AI as a money printer without it justifying all of that money through actual value.
I don't think my takes on AI are all that controversial, but maybe I am mistaken.
With that said, the amount of societal destruction caused by it, I do wish it hadn’t been invented.
I don't disagree but I believe this is inevitable and unavoidable. We could never prevent pandora's box to be opened.
I believe the main thing is the loss of trust that you are talking to actual human beings and that massive amounts of opinion and upvotes on social media are just manufactured. Economic power translates into supremacy of political opinion and influence.
But this already began before LLMs were good enough, from content farms producing slop articles to the russian web brigades and other state backed operations, to special interests like fossil fuel lobby, Trump's rise to prominence during Obama's term with the help of organized operations by Alt-Right and Gamergate that Steve Bannon weaponized, the simplified smartphones that allowed boomers easy access to social media. The political correct mandatory narrative about Ukraine.
Basically we had bots long before AI and the culture war was already lost.
I don't know when or even if it happened, but discourse now is drastically different than it felt a decade earlier. You're either with us or against us.
One stupid idea I have is "Only a good AI in a browser can stop a bad AI in the internet". Not sure about the technical feasibility, but terniary models can pack 27b LLMs into a smartphone. Imagine we could actually filter out a lot of disinformation and brainworms. Or have an LLM parse all comments by a suspected bad faith actor and make an estimative judgement on it. Make the internet usable again lol. Maybe it can be used as a powerful tool for good. But fuckai cuts off any discussion about this. The immediate backlash to an AI model inside Firefox was near absolute.
Honestly, I kinda agree, but AI is such a powerful technology that it's a multiplicative effect. I do agree it was inevitably going to happen.
At least we can still tell that the other person we're talking to right now is a living, breathing human - probably because of our typing styles and because of our shared hatred for AI. lol
I don't think a "good AI" can stop a "bad AI", it's not really feasible because these companies are too powerful they are basically unstoppable at this point. A bot leaving comments to dispell misinformation is interesting, but it'd get expensive doing all of that scanning and replying. You would need something like a full societal uprising against them, which yes even the average person is starting to get sick of AI, but I'm not too hopeful about it.
I agree with your take, but I also agree with GL on this one... if you continue to get around in horse drawn carriages because cars are smelly and dangerous and non-traditional, you're going to get left behind.
There are plenty of things horses and carriages are "better at" than cars, particularly traversing long distances in a country with streams and fields and no gas stations. However... there are also things that cars are better at than horses and carriages...
I used to program in assembly language about 10-30% of my working time, up through the early 1990s. What changed? Optimizing compilers finally got better at writing assembly code than me. They had been around for decades, but they had always been a little bit lacking, until then. I still code for a living, but I haven't even looked at an aseembly listing in 25 years. I get significantly more done, faster and more reliably using compiled (and interpreted) languages than I do using assembly code, which I used to be able to use to make the complied (and especially interpreted) programs dramatically faster. Compilers do that for me now.
As of today, AI is kicking my ass at reviewing my colleagues' code. It's not saving me any work, I spend 2-3x more time in code reviews now than I did before AI code review "was a thing" - but now, those code reviews are 20-50x more valuable than they used to be. We're catching many more problems in the code (and documentation) at review time, not after the software gets into customers' hands. That's a very good thing, and today I would consider anyone who ships critical code without an AI review to be negligent.
I'm glad you find it useful! I think people are scared of creatives being cheated of their already few chances, and of the brainless marketing that Anthropic, OpenAI et al keep spouting.
I don't like to be cold like this, but I think "creatives" need to depend less on their agents and production companies and all that industry infrastructure promising 1 in a million "stardom" while stringing the other 999,999 along with breadcrumbs leading nowhere.
The same technology they're bitching about destroying those jobs that most of them never had in the first place, is technology that enables smaller budgets to create competitive entertainment. Self-publishing is a very real thing now alongside traditional "Best Seller List" promotional publishing houses. No, you're not likely to get on "Oprah" or whatever the magic promotional outlet is these days with your self published book, but every creative who achieves that kind of stardom that virtually all of them are hungering for is absolutely stealing the limelight from hundreds or even thousands of other people just as talented as themselves or more...
In other words, stop whining and start making things happen for yourself, you have better access today than ever. There's still a place for superstars in today's world, but instead of the "top 100" getting all the attention, it's time for a top 10 to be followed by 10,000 you might also want to check out. The long tail has gotten fatter, and it should continue to grow.
At the end of the day, if the entire creative arts industries disappeared overnight, the world carries on without any real disruption. People might not like to hear it, but it’s true. The entire industry is essentially just a luxury thing.
There aren’t many industries that could be wiped out and nothing in daily life really changes, but the arts is one.
The arts is a vital part of our culture, not our survival - yes. The fact that we have over 4% of GDP going to "the arts" (that's over $1.2T in the US alone), is an achievement, not a waste. It also means - more or less 1 in 25 people you meet is dependent / heavily dependent on the arts not just as something to do with their time, but a significant source of their livelihood.
Using AI to double check your code is very different from using AI to replace your skilled creative talent on a motion picture. It's not even an accurate comparison.. GL isn't talking about coding, he's talking about visual effects, writers, even actors...all of whom who's careers are at risk.
You want to use AI to make sure you didn't miss a semicolon at the end of a line, great...knock yourself out. But that has literally nothing in common with what Lucas is blathering about here.
If a new tool can streamline and improve processes, eliminating jobs along the way, then that’s just an unfortunate side effect of progress.
Not every job needs to exist forever. Should electric cars be banned to protect ICE manufacturers and mechanics? Should digital cameras be banned to protect the jobs of film makers and film developers?
No. When a profession is no longer needed it goes away. The people in that profession need to adapt and move on.
If AI can do the visual effects in an hour what would usually take a team of 20 3 months to do, those jobs are no longer necessary. Sucks for them, but you don’t ignore the AI just to let them keep their jobs to your own detriment.
What's happening to movie production with AI is a lot like what happened to music production with digital audio workstations. The cost of making top tier production value product is plummeting like a stone falling to the moon.
You want to make music with a full symphony orchestra, you can still do that. We actually attend our city orchestra concerts a couple of times a year. However, if you want to produce your own music you can almost get better sound quality out of a smartphone today than the Beatles did out of Abbey Road studios back in their day.
The spontenaity of live performers, whether music or acting, is much MORE cost effective than painstakingly replicating that kind of performance through digital methods. I think we're going to see a continued appreciation of real actors in movies, in between all the slop that the industry "test markets" to see what they can get away with.
Most of the real actors are going to need to learn how to act a lot better then, because most of the biggest actors these days absolutely could be replaced with AI and get a better result. A genuinely great performance is rare.
Some of the people doing the fan-based YouTube Star Wars videos are using AI and I can honestly say the short clips are amazing. So he's not wrong in that aspect.
My calendar app seems to have also "gone to the dark side." It says next year will be 2027.
When did "easily making an obviously accurate forecast" start being referred to as "going to the dark side?" I just don't see the connection...
Are the Sith, like, seers of the obvious in some of the expanded lore books?🤔 Maybe in the books the Sith tell people whenever water will continue to be wet, Sarlacc pits will remain dangerous places to practice parkour, and Space will continue to exist?
Who said you have to embrace it? Do what you want! Doesn't change what others are doing, nor should it.
I still have all three of those (so long as by Metaverse you actually meant VR). I'm guessing you've got none, but that doesn't change what other people use and value.
Edit: Here come the down votes. Why are so many on here self-centered, and feel like if they don't approve of something then no one else is allowed to? Posting my opinion of technology on Lemmy feels like wearing a two-piece bikini to Sunday School, without shaving. Such judgmental hypocrites.
Thanks, they're representative of the clueless masses blinded by irrational hatred. Nothing will change by pointing them out, but it sure is entertaining to the pragmatic few.
What will decay into a pathetic corpse of it's former self after destroying things with actual value? The only things I can think of that match that description are the USA in the short-term, and humanity in the long-term.
Hmmm... Maybe you meant to respond to someone else.
Dude, USA affects all of the world already in a very significant way. Western world especially. While the decay of American imperialism is something a lot of us would like to see, it will, in the short term affect everyone negatively. The USA will not go out without a fight. Already, people across the world suffer because of it. It is precisely because of the USA and their economy. Economy, which is undoubtedly, by their own accounts, dominated by the AI tech industry. So, although indirectly, people outside the USA are negatively impacted by the AI. Not to mention direct impact it has (military literally being driven by AI).
So AI is whatever makes you right and me wrong, basically? Of course the ones responsible are the people building products based on AI. Nobody is arguing LLMs themselves are evil. What I'm talking about are massive datacenters built overly fast so that they need to use evaporative cooling and micro-turbines is an utterly irresponsible use of that technology. It's like rushing to build a faster car than China and so you don't install brakes and your cars start killing everyone on the streets. Of course a car isn't evil, it's the people irresponsibly designing them. AI tech is constantly doing propaganda fear mongering that if you don't use their product RIGHT NOW - you're getting left behind. If you don't integrate them in your business RIGHT NOW, you're gonna get overrun by competition. And the product is not nearly as reliable as they push it and not nearly as powerful as they claim. It's a universal tool that is inefficient at any specific, specialized task. In fact, it's painfully INEFFICIENT. But you and I wouldn't know it, because nobody is publishing exactly how much it costs to run and how much they are subsidizing the use of it. The technology is useful, even revolutionary, but the way it's overwhelmingly being used right now is bullshit. This way is not sustainable, not profitable and will end up costing the entire world. That's what's gonna happen. The technology will stick and people will find best uses for it and start paying attention about its use. But I doubt it will survive in this current form.
257 Comments
floofloof@lemmy.ca · 196 pts · 22d
Continuing that unbroken streak of bad artistic decisions towards an inevitable Star Wars Special 50th Anniversary Slop Edition reissue.
Sunforged@lemmy.ml · 14 pts · 22d
NGL I would buy a ticket to at least the first movie just to commentate as loudly and obnoxiously as possible until I got kicked out.
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world · 52 pts · 22d
Not sure why you'd be kicked out. You're not disturbing anyone. You'd be the only one in there.
Salamanderwizard@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 22d
I know you're joking, but ya know... what kills the joke? Is how wrong you are. There's gonna probably be plenty of dumbass folks there.
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 22d
I mean......maybe? I didn't realize there was a strict code of conduct on Lemmy where our jokes had to adhear to realism. Very sorry for the mishap. I'll only tell jokes where the punchlines seem they could happen in real life.
So a guy walks into a bar. The bartender says "What'cha havin?" And the guy says "A MENTAL BREAKDOWN!!!!" and then proceeds to cry that his wife has left him.
..........I just don't know about this realism humor.
fartographer@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 22d
Your joke is hilarious because I'm sad now! I wish I could go back to imagining you being applauded for shredding a movie in a theater, but now I can only laugh at sad humor.
Salamanderwizard@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 21d
Dude my bad. Didn't mean to hurt you.
Also I was just launching off your joke. Cause the real joke is how much our society has become brain-dead drones.
nevyn@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 22d
Rivermoonwolf@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 21d
Dear gods, does this mean a second Holiday Special????
criss_cross@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 21d
With AI gen Carrie Fisher
aurellence@lemmy.ml · 113 pts · 22d
dead-eyed stare in librarian
Fizz@lemmy.nz · 29 pts · 22d
How could that even be true since it was humans thay trained ai. What a dumb statement ahh
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 9 pts · 22d
Ai can do plenty of classification tasks better than humans though. It's not like every entity that trains another is fundamentally smarter.
bold_atlas@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 22d
Software can't tell truth from lies because software doesn't even know what those are. It doesn't know anything. It's a parrot, a magic trick, a mirror to fool people (people like George Lucus) into thinking there's another person looking a back at them.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 2 pts · 22d
Regardless many ai classifiers outperform humans at classifying. Your comment seems irrelevant to the discussion.
Passerby6497@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 22d
As opposed to your comment moving the goalposts from an AI doing something humans can't, to them just being better than humans (which is absolutely arguable in most cases)?
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 1 pts · 21d
I was responding to the claim that ai's can't do anything better than the thing that trained them. It's completely relevant and not a goalpost shift. They can do plenty of things that humans can't feasibly do, such as protein folding prediction.
Rothe@piefed.social · 2 pts · 22d
The parameters set for classifying that are basically non-existant. So no, they can't really do any of that. AI-bros will readily claim they can though, because it is like really important to them.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 1 pts · 21d
I did not claim they can tell truth from fiction, it's just irrelevant. Goalpost shift for no reason on their part, they don't have to be able to do that to classify things or predict protein folding.
shuffle3765@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 8d
Your brain is also software
Fizz@lemmy.nz · 9 pts · 22d
Yeah but to say humans can't do this when humans doing it were what provided it the data is a dumb statement. Humans classified the data so that AI could learn you wouldnt say humans can't classify data.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · -5 pts · 22d
Humans can, ai can do it better than humans in many areas though.
Passerby6497@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 22d
That's a MUCH different statement though, and not at all relevant to a claim that AI is able to do things humans CAN'T do.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 1 pts · 21d
Protein folding, then.
Rothe@piefed.social · -1 pts · 22d
In most areas it can't. It can do a much worse job though, if that is what you are looking for.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 1 pts · 21d
So? In many it can do a much better one: protein folding for example
shuffle3765@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 8d
When I was in college I built a chess playing program that I couldn't beat. It wasn't very good, but it was much better than me. The trick is machine learning: teach it the rules, get it to play millions of games against itself and adjust its strategy after each game.
The AI can become better at a learnable skill than those who trained it because the AI can spend zillions of hours practicing
Fizz@lemmy.nz · 1 pts · 8d
Yes but thats not whats happening here. The base is created by using human data.
M137@lemmy.today · -1 pts · 20d
"thay"
Fizz@lemmy.nz · 1 pts · 20d
Useful comment
brsrklf@jlai.lu · 11 pts · 22d
AI detection by AI is not reliable. Lots of false negatives, and comparatively less but still too much reporting false positives to be reliable (and those are especially biased).
It's unlikely to get better too. If AI was able to reliably detect AI output, why not use that to correct itself to be less AI-like? And where is the seemingly infinite money thrown at in this struggle?
Passerby6497@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 22d
You just described adversarial training, something I've been hearing about for at least a few years now.
9point6@lemmy.world · 82 pts · 22d
Flukey dilettante regards stochastic parrot as unfathomable prodigy
Read all about it
very_well_lost@lemmy.world · 64 pts · 22d
This reads like one of those mass-delete gibberish Reddit comments, lol
9point6@lemmy.world · 47 pts · 22d
It's not every day you get to use a word like dilettante, so I figured I'd make a salad
FenrirIII@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 21d
Thanks for that, Dennis Miller.
neuracnu@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 47 pts · 22d
Kokaku’s website is blocking my VPN connection. Here’s the text of the article.
Anahkiasen@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 35 pts · 22d
Classic George L, I wouldn't have expected any more from him
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 34 pts · 21d
Who is surprised by this?
He was making slop versions of his own movies before AI.
Eheran@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 21d
Exactly, the guy has done shit for decades!
kreskin@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 22d
Lucas creating star wars doesnt mean he's any sort of genius.
Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 22d
Its not political but he is an artist and that is why it is shocking Edit: OP first wrote: something along the lines of "why is it now seen as political"
nevyn@slrpnk.net · -2 pts · 22d
Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 22d
But writing a critical successful and belovid series of films does
grrgyle@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 22d
Does it? He certainly worked with a lot of talented artists, and I guess he did think of doing Hero's Journey but in space.
I'm not denigrating the art, but something about the popularity contest tastemaking rubs me the wrong way.
Rivermoonwolf@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 21d
And all that is subtracted because he made Jar Jar.
nevyn@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 21d
AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 21d
Objectively you can ask a billion people and see what their opinions are on various star wars media. It's one of the few things a billion people will know and have an opinion about.
But because George Lucas said something positive about AI use for visual effects, suddenly what mustn't be, can't be. You people have no problem denying reality and shouting out alternative facts if it suits your agenda.
nevyn@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 20d
kreskin@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 20d
Shhh. if you use the word "blow" too much Pete Hegseth will enter the chat and want to take measurements and do inspections make sure the fluffing is up to standards.
#out-of-the-way-ill-blow-it-myself
M137@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 20d
"belovid"
Passerby6497@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 22d
What about attempting to ChatGPT his own work decades before GPTs were a thing?
Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 21d
...i doubt he wrote the Star Wars Movies with AI...
Passerby6497@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 21d
Durrrr, no duh. I meant the slopification he did to the trilogy for the rerelease.
GutterRat42@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 21d
I thought Frank Herbert created Star Wars
Rivermoonwolf@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 21d
No, Isaac Asimov did
GutterRat42@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 21d
You'll have to explain this one. I was making fun of the fact that George Lucas plagiarized Dune.
Rivermoonwolf@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 21d
Much of Star Wars was "inspired" by Foundation
GutterRat42@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 21d
Wait for real!? I think I read the first 2 books, I never saw similarities. May need to read them again.
M137@lemmy.today · -2 pts · 20d
Highly recommend the TV series.
PlasmaSnake@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 22d
I didn't know liking AI was political
GutterRat42@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 21d
Everything is political - the toilet paper you buy, the corporations you support, the things you pay attention to and the things you don't, the media you consume, the books you read, your decision not to read, whether you pay union dues, the parks you visit, the roads you use, the services you rely on, what you decide to ignore.
People who say they are not political just mean they don't consciously engage with politics. But even the decision to not engage in politics is a political decision.
AI may eventually replace jobs, pollute water, take up energy, and concentrate wealth at the top even more. Whether you support, are against, or ignore AI, all 3 are political decisions.
BassetHound@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 21d
That sounds like fundamentalism tbh. It’s very much adjacent to the thinking of religious fanatics framing everything in relation to the divine, when most people are just trying to get along with their lives.
GutterRat42@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 21d
But there is a difference: If you buy the toilet paper from the loggers who bribe your local officials, or who lobby to let them ravage national parks, you are supporting the bribery and the lobbying; your money is being used for those purposes, even if you do it unknowingly. If you don't inform yourself, you cannot make informed decisions. But just because you choose to ignore the political ramifications, it doesn't mean they don't exist.
Sure, everybody just wants to live their lives, and that's how lobbyists and crooked politicians get away with it, by appealing to your apathy.
BassetHound@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 20d
No one with responsibilities has time to worry about where the pulp in their toilet paper came from, I’d be surprised if the factory could even tell you that.
There is no way you are practicing what you preach here. You are telling me you spend all day vetting every product and service you use to be aware of every little injustice involved? Or are you just following whatever someone else told you in a feed and assuming they are correct? That would functionally be religion.
GutterRat42@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 20d
The argument isn't over whether I behave in a morally responsible way when it comes to the products I consume. The argument is over whether my diligence to check the background of the products I consume is a political decision.
I am not trying to highhorse anybody here. Of course I make uninformed decisions once in an oftentimes. Of course not all my clothes are socially conscious sourced nor my toilet paper is bought from an environmentally friendly forest.
But my lack of information when I make those decisions is political.
I am sorry you are feeling personally attacked, clearly, but not paying attention, changing what you buy, refusing to consume, or consuming products; All of those are political decisions, and that is the argument. No whether you are good or evil, uninformed misinformed, or not informed, moral or immoral. My argument is just that every decision you make has a political ramification whether you like it or not.
So, back to my original point, liking AI is political.
BassetHound@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 20d
No I don’t feel attacked. I just don’t think it is useful to construe everything as political. Are the actions of animals also political? I think people would say no; but then can we be so sure that everything a human does is political? Something only becomes political when it is done with a political intent, knowingly making a choice because of some secondary association when equivalent alternatives are available.
When everything is framed as political you end up in the same place as dogmatists in all religions, trying to enforce some universal moral framework on every detail of a persons life. Many people will check out from that type of argument. Worse, many will think you and the causes that are import to you are jokes, and you become part of another's political fodder.
grrgyle@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 21d
You like what you like, but if you stan corporations enclosing our own culture and renting it back to us, that's political.
ElcaineVolta@kbin.melroy.org · 25 pts · 22d
Frank Herbert wasn't around to tell him how to think about it, I guess.
Manjushri@piefed.social · 11 pts · 22d
Where's a good Butlerian Jihad when you need one?
ElcaineVolta@kbin.melroy.org · 6 pts · 22d
inshallah, amigo
MaggiWuerze@feddit.org · 1 pts · 22d
Just curious, was Herbert involved with Lucas or Star Wars? Was not aware of that
ElcaineVolta@kbin.melroy.org · 2 pts · 21d
no
valar@lemmy.ca · 25 pts · 22d
common George Lucas L
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 22d
Well yeah, he’s a billionaire, of course he looks after his own class’s interests.
marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today · 24 pts · 22d
The guy that essentially added lasers to Japanese movies and somehow became a multi-billionaire is a fan of stealing other's work with minimal effort and reusing it without permission?
I'm shocked. Shocked I say.
naught101@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 22d
I mean, to be fair to the 70s version of Lucas, that's basically how all art works. New combinations of old ideas.
marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today · -6 pts · 22d
topperharlie@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 22d
yeah I'm not surprised, I watched the prequels. This guy was a legend in the 70s, that is like 50 years ago.
He hasn't done anything great since co-writing Willow 40 years ago. Go to his IMDB, he's lived out of star wars nostalgia since then, and all of them after the initial trilogy was a downgrade.
medem@lemmy.wtf · 11 pts · 22d
I lost every ounce of respect and admiration I had for this man after he sold the franchise to Disney.
tmyakal@infosec.pub · 13 pts · 22d
You really held out for a while, huh?
cabbagepatchcrabs@retrolemmy.com · 5 pts · 21d
Lemmy has some of the best takes in conversations. I love it here.
Widdershins@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 21d
I have always thought ai was like the Jar Jar Binks of computer programs.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 21d
Meesah notsah Jamaican racist stereotypesah.
Passerby6497@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 22d
"Goes to the Dark Side"
Someone never saw the rerelease of the original series.
Lucas' best work was under an editor, whenever he got the full reigns, the product suffered.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 10 pts · 22d
His ex-wife was one of the best film editors in history.
mattyroses@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 21d
The prequels got a breath of respect with how bad the sequel trilogy wound up. J J managed to rehabilitate George.
Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml · 19 pts · 21d
Guy with famously bad takes has bad take.
NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip · 19 pts · 21d
Its weird that he really was on the forefront once because he did physical effects with interesting camera shots. it felt new and different.
AI is not going to give you that, it will suck. CGI sucks already too.
Oh well not like he is relevant. A new hope was at least interesting, but its been nothing after that anyways.
kaotic@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 21d
Not going to get into the AI debate; I will agree that BAD CGI sucks; there’s so much CGI you never even notice and without it the scenes would be horrible. The main reason “CGI sucks” is because of the shift to go with the lowest bidder who’s then forced to work under horrific timelines and unable to actually do good work. CGI itself doesn’t suck, but it absolutely can when done by a low bidder in 1/4 of the time it needs.
https://youtu.be/bL6hp8BKB24
NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 21d
Funny he uses Michael bay as an example in that video. Nothing will put me to sleep faster than a Michael bay movies effects.
I get your point though, it's a tool when used artistically and with skill can be fine.
yessikg@fedia.io · -2 pts · 21d
The only good CGI is one that holds up well after decades, and that's basically only the CGI in the POTC 2 and 3 movies
cheat700000007@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 21d
Only because he had to. As soon as it was possible he went cg and blue screens.
jj4211@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 21d
He used what was available at the time. For the original trilogy, that was practical effects.
The prequel trilogy was a bit more... Dodgy thanks to eagerly embraced CGI that wasn't fully baked yet.
People famously critiqued the reworked original trilogy due to various dubious creative tweaks. Like waking on Jabba and Jabba just having a funny reaction instead of how you would expect him to react.
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 21d
Nothing he added was pointful. All of the CGI retouches of the original trilogy were pointless CGI effects for the sake of having pointless CGI effects. At one point in the Mos Eisley sequence a huge pack animal walks through the frame, obscuring almost all of it. Why? Because it was some computer generated shit to throw in!
GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 21d
If he’s embracing AI then he is once again on the forefront. AI has the ability to revolutionise the industry in a way that it needs in order to survive - greatly reduce costs and greatly reduce production times.
Movie studios are quickly moving to the same situation that video game developers are in now thanks to ballooning costs and long development times - a situation where if every single game they release isn’t an absolute smash hit selling 20 million copies at full price, they’re going to go under.
The movie industry is in free fall. AI adoption is one of the only realistic paths forward.
ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 20d
Do you know what those words mean?
AI is being used as a force multiplier, and it's being used as a force multiplier for evil. It's being used to replace jobs, to put hundreds, thousands, and eventually millions of people out of work. At scale, it takes up more power than entire cities do, and the data centers and power station upgrades that it requires at that scale ends up with companies literally demolishing entire residential areas, forcing people out of their homes.
AI is not worth the trade-offs and the massive sacrifices required for it. It is destroying society.
GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 20d
I do. It has the ability to revolutionise the dying, spiralling out of control movie industry. How? By cutting costs dramatically, and by reducing production time. What would usually take 2000 people for $200mil might now be doable with 50 people and $200k. That’s revolutionary technology.
AI is not “destroying society” 🤣
FippleStone@aussie.zone · 0 pts · 18d
1,950 people out of work, and an extra $199.8 million for the handful of suits producing doesn't sound like it would be a net gain for society
GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 18d
So we as a society should pause all advancements in technology so we don’t ever make any current jobs redundant? It’s like saying we don’t want to end homelessness because then we’d put all the people working at businesses that help homeless people out of jobs.
NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 20d
Needs to survive? Are you kidding me? Good stories, good direction. You don't need 47 million dollars to make a movie.
Can you show me that "the movie industry is in free fall"? I have seen many fantastic movies lately.
I guess you could consider AI to be a form of animation, but I really don't see them improving anything if they keep churning out the same crap for the big budget movies.
GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 20d
Look at the consolidation of the market due to failing studios. WB aren’t selling because they’re doing well. Disney is releasing extremely expensive flop after extremely expensive flop. Yes, the entire movie industry as we know it is in a fight for survival, has been for years.
AI enables significantly quicker and cheaper iteration and experimentation. You stint have to hire a gigantic CGI studio to get cgi on screen anymore, which enables a much more streamlined movie making process. It also enables much more creativity because there is far less risk. A studio would be much more likely to sign off on a director making a short to pitch for a full movie if it only costs $2k but has cgi/locations/etc matching a $200mil blockbuster.
NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 20d
Failing studios due to their mad rush to build out streaming services, taking on massive debt, and trying to shuffle that debt around. Doesnt help that they don't pick up movies that are worthwhile and instead try to follow formulas. They want intellectual Property for a long term franchise, park ride, and merch. Consolidation desires IP.
For example on major movies: I saw someone on Nebula say everything that went into making The Barbie Movie was what made it work. But instead of focusing on what THAT was and making a different movie, they immediately start thinking: milk the Barbie movie for a sequel and more merch and a Barbieland.
Point is: they made shitty decisions. I am not sure AI will help because they will still do the above and just pay less people.
At least thats how I see it.
I could see AI being used as a story board, sample scenes, something like that. Beyond that, nah I don't even want to see it.
GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 19d
The reason that they want franchises to milk is because it’s virtually risk free when one lands, at least for another 2-3 movies/series. They can justify the $200mil cost because it’s guaranteed to make a tidy profit. Without that franchise money, like I said - one bomb and they’re toast.
arctanthrope@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 22d
it probably produces dialog that sounds more like it was written by a human
fpslem@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 22d
Harsh but accurate. Without Carrie Fisher to doctor his scripts (and his wife to find the film in the edit) Lucas was a director famously indifferent to dialogue or character.
jjlinux@lemmy.zip · 17 pts · 21d
He became irrelevant the moment he sold the Star Wars franchise to Disney, and it's all been downhill from there (both for him and the franchise). Fuck him.
Aneb@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 21d
Lol I love how tone death Disney is with SW series tho. Andor is a anticapitalist and antifa story, told through the lens of some kid who was kidnapped when the Empire was ravaging his homeworld. I think the best storyline is when Cassian is wrongfully imprisoned and escapes within a week while stirring up revolts and enlightening prisoners.
remon@ani.social · 2 pts · 21d
The franchise already went downhill with him still in charge, Disney just finished the Job.
jjlinux@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 21d
Could be because I'm old then. The last Star Wars movie I enjoyed was episode 3 (all first 6 episodes are great, in my opinion), every movie after that has so much politically driven bullshit and so little ro do with the original lore that the last movie I watched was "The last Jedi". When I watched "The force awakens" I knew it was already getting ridiculously fucked, but still gave "The Last Jedi" a chance, only to end up regretting it. Haven't watched any of the movies since. I keep all 6 original movies in my Jellyfin server and binge them about once a year or so.
remon@ani.social · 2 pts · 20d
While I agree that Disney Star Wars makes the prequels look good, they certainly weren't great.
I keep every singe Star Wars movie (even multiple edition for the OT) and TV show on my plex and haven't watched any off it since the Mandalorian S3 (which was quite bad).
jjlinux@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 20d
I only watched the first season of the Mandalorian. I think it was a massive waste of my time that would have been better spent watching more anime, lol.
remon@ani.social · 2 pts · 20d
Why not both?
WraithGear@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 21d
i mean, he was there all along. he pioneered the all green screen wave of automation in movies. the abuse of green screen was the slop before ai was around. to him it’s just cutting out all the vestiges of imperfection still greasing the machine
eestileib@sh.itjust.works · 16 pts · 21d
Old Man Succumbs to Chatbot Flattery, volume 25841.
But also, Lucas was always exchanted by cgi, even when it looked way worse than practical effects.
rob_t_firefly@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 21d
Crap-looking Special Edition Jabba has awkwardly entered the chat.
TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 21d
I hate AI as much as the next person but the Pandora's box is open. A lot of people don't want to admit it but AI, despite its current limitations, does have potential. Many people say that AI hit its limit and peak but i would not be very dismissive of it yet. Plenty of technologies were hindered by the limitations of their time but gradually overcame those. It took renewable energy at least fifty years to overcome the storage problem, their respective technical limits (solar panels for example did not have great photovoltaic system) and upfront cost before it became more commercially viable.
Soup@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 21d
As much as I also just think AI is just going to make lazy people lazier, and we’ve already seen some effects regarding our ability to problem solve, the real issue is that none of the wonderful utopian AI stuff is going to come true at the rate we’re going. I don’t guve a fat flying fuck how good or bad AI is, I care that it’s being used to spy on us, make decisions no human will ever review, and has already led to mass layoffs without any kind of safety net for those people. I care that it’s raping the environment so some sentient dick-cheese can get worse results than a near-zero effort search would give them. Increased productivity has yet to give anyone more free time, they just axe someone else and overwork whoever’s left.
We are NOT ready for AI at ANY level. It’s a weapon being used against the working class. If you think the issue is with its quality then you need to sit the fuck down, shut the fuck up, and pay some goddamn attention.
AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 21d
This should really be a critique of capitalism. The problem is that the plutocracy is very good at using your anger and rage against you.
ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 20d
The issue is, though, is that AI is a force multiplier, and it's being used as a force multiplier for evil.
dil@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 19d
Ppl are mad ai is stealint jobs, im mad it isnt leading to ubi
Soup@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 20d
It is a critique against capitalism. God, reading comprehension is bad these days, huh?
Also, I still hate AI. As someone else once said “if it’s not worth your effort to write it, it’s not worth my effort to read it.”
AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 19d
Long term the value of human labor under capitalism will move towards zero. This is inevitable. Under socialism, AI could be used to reduce working hours or improve economic planning.
You're just angry. And instead of suggesting something a politician actually could use as a demand or as a policy, you're just ranting. And for them that is perfect to exploit.
Soup@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 19d
I’m literally saying this. It’s like, the majority of my first comment and I wasn’t hiding it. Bro, learn to read.
Being angry is still helpful because many of us know what the fucking problems are and just like to see that we aren’t alone in that.
TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 21d
Indeed.
Given the sizeable demographic of Lemmy being in IT, I understand the hate because it takes away creativity and literal jobs of programmrs but for many sectors, AI cuts down time consuming "secretary work" especially in documentation. It has also been useful in drug discovery and proven to be more accurate at diagnosis than doctors (there are already surgical robots but i am not sure how precise they are).
Whether you like to admit it or not, AI is here to stay. As to whether it will have a net positive to society, only time will tell. I'm just preparing for contingencies like many Gen Z do, picking trades to AI-proof their job security.
webadict@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 20d
There are absolutely no robots doing surgery autonomously. That would be one of the most insane things to do from a moral standpoint, but also from a liability standpoint. Every robot that exists for surgery is highly specialized and rigorously tested and trained upon for obvious reasons.
But, then to come out and say that AI is more accurate than doctors is also incorrect. That is simply not true. An AI can, in highly controlled settings and for specific diagnoses, at its best do not even as well as a specialist in the field, and that is for highly curated tests that give the AI as many advantages as it can get. Again, at best, it can act as a second opinion currently.
Like, it is hard to take people seriously about AI when they lie about its best case scenario. It sucks at everything except killing the environment and getting people to kill themselves, and even if everything all of its defenders said about it was true, it is still a nightmare.
Soup@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 20d
Your second points me and then completely fails to actually understand what you quoted. You even quoted the sentence before it which gives the context. I was incredibly clear; it could be the greatest thing even but it’s still going to do more harm than good, and it’s not like we, the working class, will see these benefits.
AI is only here to stay because fuck-ass people keep jerking it off. We can stop using it and we can fight against the data centres, and we can demand better conditions under which AI can be introduced for more safely. Instead we’re like “ruin our lives so the rich can get richer? Sure thing!”
TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 19d
That's why I favour open source AI, or at least regulated. Any technology could be used for good or ill. It's just that it is up to society to do that. Like the monopolists and robber barons of the past gilded age who were controlling the means of resources and production, so are the tech bros with Internet and AI. But the robber barons were defeated by collective effort. Now we are in the second gilded age and yet I don't hear any movements to regulate AI and social media.
That's why I think Marxist thoughts have to be updated with the coming of AI. The leverage by the working class has traditionally been labour itself. However, with deindustrialisation and the usurping by knowledge economy of the manual labour and the rise of professionals managerial class, the old Marxist viewpoint is increasingly becoming outdated. If labour is the blood of the industry, information is the blood of the knowledge economy. And information-- our own information-- is what gave birth and feeding blood to AI. It is only right we take fruit from the potential of AI so long as it's used constructively. Which is why I favour either regulation or direct control of AI and giving dividends to those professionally displaced by AI by taxing it. But of course, if AI becomes sentient and thinks we are exploiting it, we have to prepare for Astroboy or Matrix scenario.
luciferofastora@feddit.org · 9 pts · 21d
I think the primary gripe with AI is less about having no potential, but about the specific potential for evil being leveraged heavily while "visionaries" lie about or dismiss the (current and foreseeable future) limits for clout and profit.
To use your comparison, CEOs selling solar panels are responding to scepticism about the stability of that supply and its elasticity to fluctuating power demand with vague promises of developing more advanced cells that can operate with less light and throttle the generated power during ebbs in demand. They buy land to install more solar panels, then lobby for the deactivation of other, flexible power sources that could supplement their supply until they can finally start charging more in times of high demand.
They do so because the alternative would be admitting that the product they're selling isn't ready for the market they're trying to enter (or at least not at the scale they're aiming for) and that the solution to their issues requires different technologies which have not yet been developed. They can't admit that because it would upset the investors that trusted their vision. As a famous adage suggests, they probably can't even understand that limit, since their salary depends on not understanding it.
In the same vein, the current CEOs fail (or refuse?) to acknowledge that the generative models today have a fundamental limitation with understanding the semantics behind certain patterns. One infamous phenomenon would be AI hands: We know what a hand is and how it works; a generator can only vaguely imitate the patterns. It doesn't know "hand" or "finger", so it just generates some assembly that vaguely fits its training material.
If we consider the broader and ill-defined field of AI, I can believe that some form of semantic modelling technology could provide a way to connect tokens with abstract concepts and enable a type of reasoning that pure token predictors are incapable of. But we first need to acknowledge that limit, and on that front, we're competing against tech-bros that would rather believe than know and against grifters that would rather sell snake oil than teach medicine.
gian@lemmy.grys.it · 1 pts · 20d
To be honest, it seems to me that are not the CEOs of solar panel companies that belive that solar panel (and other renewable sources) are a drop in replacement for more traditional sources. This idea comes from a certain area of the political spectrum and groups that do not understand even the basic math behind the substitution of a gas turbine with a field of solar panels.
Then it is true, CEOs are probably overselling, like everyone that has to sell something. And obviously they need to say that the technology will improve otherwise in the current economy they will be ignored and investment would go to other things.
luciferofastora@feddit.org · 1 pts · 19d
Oh no, I definitely agree with you there. The CEOs only care whether there is money to be made and will lie and cheat if they think they can get away with it.
AnarchistArtificer@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 20d
I disagree with the "Pandora's box is open" angle because my beef isn't with the technology, but how it's being used in practice. It's a socioeconomic problem, but a technological one.
Cory Doctorow articulates it much better than I can^[1]:
Even with the technological limitations that AI faces at the moment, we could be doing so much more with it. I love this radiography example because so many of us have experienced someone in our life getting cancer. AI is absolutely capable of improving the rate at which we are detecting cancer at an early stage, which would absolutely save lives. Instead what we're getting is that it is being used as an excuse to heap more work onto doctors and radiographers, worsening the situation for everyone.
I do agree with the broad strokes of what you're saying, because absolutely it does take time for any new technology to integrate itself into society and become useful. However, I don't believe that AI in its current form is capable of becoming commercially viable (and by "in its current form", I am talking about a paradigm that demands excessive building of super resource intensive datacentres)
Edit: forgot to add the citation [1]: https://pluralistic.net/2025/12/05/pop-that-bubble/
rumba@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 20d
Oh probably not, but it is really really expensive to run. If they continue on with unlimited funding, they can eventually replace mid to upper level experts in most fields.
We've likely hit the limit for the current LLM approach. Training/Pruning/Distilling can't get us much further on their own, so now we're strapping on code, having it plan, parallel execute, test. Tokens are likely 10x less expensive on the market than they cost to generate. Every advance we make now is by making each request fire off many more requests. Improvements are getting exponentially expensive.
We'll have to slow because financially * it's not profitable. Maybe hardware will catch back up. Maybe they'll find ways to make it more efficient. Maybe we'll figure out a more elegant way to do the math for the weights. We just can't keep making it more deeply complicated because it's not cost/energy/time effective
edit: deleted a word
Munkisquisher@lemmy.nz · 15 pts · 22d
https://www.techspot.com/news/113114-christopher-nolan-believes-gen-z-push-back-against.html
And then we have actual creatives who get it.
dustyData@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 21d
Nolan is an elitist asshole and his movies are not that great, actually. That is just him going “kids these days” like an old fart. He is all in on the IMAX scam. He insists on bad audio mixing (horrible even on theaters) hiding under the “I only mix for IMAX theaters” excuse. At least he acknowledges that it is Hollywood that is terribly out of touch with reality. Backrooms is successful because it connects with the audience nothing to do with whether it uses CGI or not (the Oppenheimer nuclear explosion scene is SO bad in an otherwise fine movie). And Backrooms was filmed on a regular digital 35mm Red camera at 1.85 ratio with regular Dolby Atmos and you can absolutely hear the dialogue. He might denounce AI slop but doesn't realize that he's also been using tech as a crutch to his creative shortcomings.
GhostFace@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 21d
Not sure if he gets it. He might be on the right side but there's not really a pushback.
Life sometimes feels like a comedy skit where everyone hates the idea of AI taking their jobs but still uses it anyway.
amoogus@lemmy.ml · 13 pts · 22d
bitjunkie@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 22d
Anyone who saw the Special Editions and expected anything else deserves to be unpleasantly surprised right now
WesternInfidels@feddit.online · 11 pts · 21d
Instead of interviewing a rich, famous, busy person, wouldn't it be easier to ask an AI to pretend to be that person, and interview the AI?
Or even to ask the AI to just write both parts of the interview itself? Wouldn't that just be helping interviewers get the stories they want to share out into the world?
rob_t_firefly@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 21d
Maybe an AI can read the story too, and they can all leave me the fuck out of it.
darthsundhaft@piefed.social · 11 pts · 22d
GL already turned when he sold over to Disney. He himself was very limiting towards the progression of Star Wars even before that. I'll admit there are very convincing AI attempts online that IMO actually outdo what Disney has come out with since they've won rights, but that alone doesn't justify using AI.
What this all boils down to is that Disney should not hold the rights. At the end of the day, these AI users are still putting down some kind of story and better dialogue which Disney does not want to follow. They've forgone the real essence and telling of Star Wars and have replaced it with a very Disney vibe that appeals to what Disney chooses to. They've left out the fans entirely.
bold_atlas@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 22d
lol Nope. I'll happily watch the worst films made by the worst human hack writers over the even the best regurgitated slop "films" that a chatbot pisses out.
darthsundhaft@piefed.social · 1 pts · 21d
What I'm saying is, if the real people are the ones coming up with the story/scenes and dialogue IRL, that part of the content alone is still better than what Disney puts out where they're trying to make bank. Disney themselves used AI to make Mark Hamil's son take on Mark's face in Mandolorian. They are just as guilty as anyone using AI when it comes to Star Wars. I agree though, AI would not make a good story teller.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 22d
Lucas has never seen a technology he wasn't willing to shoehorn and abuse in one of his films.
He's like the polar opposite of James Cameron.
Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 22d
No this isn't abnormal. He's been a shit for decades now.
tunetardis@piefed.ca · 9 pts · 22d
Ok, I'm sold. Where can I pick up this horse and buggy?
_NetNomad@fedia.io · 1 pts · 22d
his genuine reasoning sounds like the kind of exaggerated strawman i'd use to mock AI supporters. if he only had a brain!
Adderbox76@lemmy.ca · 9 pts · 21d
Of course he did. He loves updating his classics every time some "new technology" comes along to let his freak-flag fly.
We'll be seeing a re-re-re-re-release of A New Hope shortly where he uses an AI generated Boba Fett and Solo giving them a scene or two to develop a backstory.
jobbies@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 22d
Old, white and wealthy. Of course he thinks AI is the future, all his kind do.
FauxLiving@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 22d
I'm sure this thread will be full of rational discussion.
XLE@piefed.social · -1 pts · 21d
Ironically, you're the one who chose to make a snide remark about people you disagree with, instead of a productive and relevant comment.
Epp@lemmus.org · 2 pts · 21d
Says the pot to the kettle.
FauxLiving@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 21d
He's in every AI thread with the same toxic behavior, bad faith arguments and personal attacks.
Epp@lemmus.org · 2 pts · 21d
I've noticed and agree.
XLE@piefed.social · 1 pts · 21d
Do you have a point about the article, or are you just here to cry about "personal attacks" in the middle of making one?
FauxLiving@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 21d
I do have a point and you're making it for me.
XLE@piefed.social · 1 pts · 21d
Please, elaborate on it. So far, all you've done is be hypocritical and whine that people disagree with you.
FauxLiving@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 21d
Oh, stop. My feelings.
Epp@lemmus.org · 1 pts · 21d
Aren't you the idiot who called me a misanthrope? Glad to know you're also a hypocrite.
abc@suppo.fi · 7 pts · 21d
"Han shot first" dude is possibly the original slop author. But then his followers outslopped him.
But also: of course AI is the future. It's almost the current.
MangoCats@feddit.it · 2 pts · 21d
I met an out of work actress who had a thing or two-thousand to say about AI, none of them good. At the time, she was more blaming the industry and the pandemic for her woes - this was almost 2 years ago - by now I'm sure she's gone full ninja-berserker on AI "replacement" of stunt actors (which she used to be, still is in theory, but hasn't worked since 2020.)
GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 21d
Horse and carriage salesmen didn’t have any good things to say about cars.
You don’t listen to people who are working in a position that’s about to be replaced by something new when they complain about said “something new”, because they’re biased against it.
Tronn4@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 22d
Disneys' hand up his ass
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 22d
he sold his soul to disney long time ago(aka STAR WARS)
Tronn4@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 21d
Yes. That's what im referring to
Eat_Your_Paisley@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 22d
I'm sure he'll make gobs of money off of it, as contradictory as the fan base is they will fill the theaters
Havoc8154@mander.xyz · 8 pts · 22d
Which he would get exactly $0 from since he has no ownership of Star Wars anymore.
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 22d
"AI" may be the future, but right now, in the present, it feels like rape.
XLE@piefed.social · 5 pts · 21d
It doesn't seem coincidental that "AI are the future" people heavily imply nobody should resist it.
Adderbox76@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 21d
I tend to think that the pro AI people are of a younger generation, because if they were closer to Gen X, they'd be feeling betrayed rather than excited.
Gen X and Millenials built the internet. We populated it with our forums, our blogs, our facbook profiles. We were the first ones sharing our photos, our very lives, with all of our friends and family. We created what it would become and we trusted that it was a community resource. Then along comes a couple of billionaires, they suck up everything that you have built and then have the balls to charge you an entry fee!
It's like if you and your neighbourhood all got together and decided to build a playground for your kids, and when it's done, some asshole asks the city for the right to the land and puts a toll booth up.
More than any other concern, THAT betrayal is what pisses me off the most. How fucking dare they say that I have to pay to access a system that was built on community content. They can fuck themselves sideways with a rusty sledge hammer.
GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 21d
Nah we know you’re free to resist it, we’re just telling you that resistance is futile and will only lead to you being left behind.
Some people didn’t think the internet was the future. The people telling them that it was and that they should get on board weren’t mean or nasty, they were trying to help people understand.
The people who think AI is going away are the people who didn’t think the internet would be a thing now.
XLE@piefed.social · 0 pts · 21d
citation needed.
GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 20d
For what exactly?
ladybugs@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 21d
I recently came across this post from a rape survivor that made exactly this comparison. It broke down all the parallels in between AI inevitability rhetoric and rape culture quite clearly: https://liberatedwriter.substack.com/p/ai-inevitability-acceptance-and-rape
newton@feddit.online · 6 pts · 22d
💩
scarabic@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 22d
What a condescending opener. Whatever you think of George Lucas, he’s made some cool stuff, he did it the old fashioned way, and he’s not constrained by resources. But rather than listen to what he has to say on the topic, this guy begins with the presumption that no, George must be deluded from swallowing propaganda.
I’m hardly George Lucas’s biggest fan but this writer can blow me.
Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml · -1 pts · 21d
He made 2 and a half good movies in the 1970s. That's literally it.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 21d
This is not the intelligence you are looking for...
rumba@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 21d
How to tell who invested heavily in AI with one easy trick.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 22d
I doubt ANYBODY is going to be surprised by this.
MangoCats@feddit.it · 1 pts · 21d
I mean, I thought George could read a room a little better than this, but maybe the interviewer managed to put him at ease enough to say what he's really thinking.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 20d
Nah, wealthy big shots like him think that everything that falls out of their mouth is a nugget of mind-blowing genius.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 22d
your mistake by selling SW rights to disney who ended using a slop generator, shouldve done a partial ownership instead. instead of getting rare sw films or shows that are decent, its just slop now.
nullspace@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 21d
Lucas has always been on the forefront of utilizing tech in movie production so it's really no surprise he would adopt this mindset.
CovfefeKills@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 22d
CGI is one of the places where AI has been used for years. People were happy enough using generative AI before chatbots why stop now? I think the de-aging stuff is a pretty cool storytelling tool and the greenscreen filters save a lot of time and add quality.
Wonder how George will fuck it up will he use a movie generator?
morto@piefed.social · 7 pts · 22d
Are you seriously comparing using generative diffusion models to applying a chroma key in video editing?
CovfefeKills@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 22d
Are you not aware of the AI assisted greenscreen tools? No well they are helpful and make the job faster.
morto@piefed.social · 0 pts · 22d
Oh, I see, but it's still not the same as using a generative model
CovfefeKills@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 22d
I am referring to generative models trained to take an image and output a chromakey'd image with some minor hair and transparency improvements. The lines are kinda blurred between classified and generated here but it is "generative AI".
I think we just all agree text-to-image/video is bad and not creative at all. I just have this strong feeling that these directors have access to real experts and tools so I give them the benefit of the doubt rather than fediverse members, by a huge fucking margin. (E: but not George L)
dandi8@fedia.io · 1 pts · 22d
dandi8@fedia.io · -1 pts · 22d
Were these green screen AIs trained on the entirety of human knowledge (in many cases destructively)? Are they regurgitating original works verbatim? Do they need giant hyperscaler data centers to run? Are they used to justify firing people en masse? Do they steal and poison massive amounts of water from communities? Are they used to prop up an insane stock market? Are they used to create misinformation at a never-seen-before scale?
Epp@lemmus.org · 2 pts · 21d
You've got some of the most laughable strawmen for justifying blind hatred that I've ever seen! Bravo.
dandi8@fedia.io · -1 pts · 21d
I can only assume your reading comprehension failed you.
CovfefeKills@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 22d
No, no, no, no, no, no, maybe?
https://youtu.be/3Ploi723hg4?t=1291 this is one of the things I was thinking of it's corridor crew everyone loves those guys.
dandi8@fedia.io · 1 pts · 21d
So you agree, then, that comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges?
CovfefeKills@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 21d
Comparing the two what?
dandi8@fedia.io · 1 pts · 21d
Per the original reply to your top comment:
eicker@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 21d
Funny how every generation says the next tool will ruin art until it becomes invisible. AI will not magically write great films any more than CGI did. The real question is who owns the tools, the data, and the final cut. That is where this gets interesting.
GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 21d
Speaking of films, what most anti-AI people can’t see is how AI can lead to a new golden age of film/tv. It can allow people to cheaply and quickly create teasers/trailers/shorts/even full episodes and movies for cents on the dollar compared to before. The barrier of entry was incredibly high, but thanks to AI that is now a possibility for any anyone.
When you look at the utter crap that Hollywood is spewing out these days like Moana “live action” and Supergirl, it’s hard to say that AI couldn’t be used to make better content.
AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 21d
There is really a purposeful ignorance to the whole fuckai movement. Like the OP article treats "AI is notorious for stealing from humans" as a settled argument, like if you don't agree with that statement it's a moral failing. There is no disagreements in their echo chambers any more, only good vs evil. But as we know, only a Sith deals in absolutes lol.
Or "a technology that’s being used to remove the human element from the process" yeah it - once it actually does look better and is more controllable - can drastically reduce how much human labor is needed.
But that argument has two sides, and thee author is basically making a pro-capitalism argument. Films and movies SHOULD belong to the capitalists, who control who can make movies and expensive entertainment, they get to control the narrative, and obviously anything that won't make money never sees daylight. Yeah it's nice that people work on movies, but it incredibly expensive.
If their argument was that we should build a socialist movie industry, with a separate institution with separate elections printing money to produce movies and art and the voters get to vote and influence what is being financed - yeah that would be nice. But who can even imagine some system today any more?
Instead we are already seeing plenty of amateurs making shitty AI movies and slop, but eventually the tools will get better and the best new directors will produce worthwhile art.
And the argument against is of course "no current AI is a dead end here someone said it over there, it won't get better, only slop!" and then they treat THAT as a settled argument and a moral failing to think we'll see progress. Do these people now have eyes to see? People struggle to tell if a scene is AI generated or not, but someone it's not good enough and a filmmaker saying "yeah cool" is worthy of being scolded?
Just the last months we've seen breakthroughs in computing hardware and in software with full 27b models compressed to "terniary" fitting on a smartphone. The AI bubble is grotesque and will pop. The advancements in AI models will remain.
All this hatred and rage should be directed against capitalism and the plutocrats, but it's being misdirected and turn out counterproductive.
The most straightforward AI policy we should push is to mandate AI metadata tags for images, video and text that must remain when editing. So you can immediately see a watermark or icon on an image or video in the browser. But do we hear this anywhere?
ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 20d
The issue is that AI is a force multiplier, and it's being used as a force multiplier for evil. That's a really big problem. It's being used to destroy society, so of course people have problems with it.
AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 20d
I totally agree that AI is a force multiplier (for profit and seeking power) but what to do about this? What would concrete policies we could demand actually look like?
My issue is that this goes against fuckai doctrine: "AI is completely useless and can't do anything, can't replace workers, produces no intelligent output, can't code, can't produce images or video or anything really. Only slop!" According to fuckai, it's completely worthless. So how CAN it be a force multiplier? The enemy is at the same time too strong and too weak. This is an example of the doublethink this requires and it's my main problem. This disconnect with reality.
Not just is it disgusting just like other reality deniers (e.g. maga, antivax, climate, ukraine) who thought terminate and just verbally attack when they meet someone who disagrees, it makes it easy for this outrage to be used against us. If there is a resistance to AI, the AI bros could not ask for a less effective resistance to face. Look at the comments here, now they want to cancel George Lucas because he sees potential for visual effects lol.
I believe this force multiplier will slowly build up over the next decade. The AI bubble will presumably pop soonish, we'll have a massive economic crisis (which started long before AI) and eventually we'll find and deploy "useful" applications of these new AI models.
Of course, as a socialist, should I refuse a machine that does useful work? I don't believe so. E.g. I see immense potential for these LLM models to be used for planned economies and other things.
So what policies do we actually want? I don't see any demands except stopping data centers. Which is sensible. BTW even the Anthropic CEO called for a moratorium and regulation on AI.
The first should be mandatory electronic metadata tags for AI generated images and tags. The second should be slow down the speed of data centers and regulating that they need to be actually sustainable ecologically (e.g. solar and wind and recyclable batteries and water).
The larger issue I see is that our global economy, that the vast majority of money today is "imaginary". It's not backed by actual real production or services. We keep printing money, and people want to grow that money so we see this insane multi trillion investment boom into overhype. That is why even the anthropic CEO thinks AI is growing too fast. Imagine if we'd invest all that money sensibly. And that has nothing to do with AI really.
ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 18d
I mean, obviously I'm torn on it, like most things these days. Obviously it's an incredible technology or we wouldn't be having this conversation. It's very good at what it does well, and I do use it daily. I think anyone who says it's good at nothing doesn't know what they're talking about, and anyone who says it's good at everything doesn't know what they're talking about. The truth is somewhere in the middle. With that said, the amount of societal destruction caused by it, I do wish it hadn't been invented.
I don't have any answers for regulating it or anything like that, I'm only one person, but I am just disappointed. I do agree stopping data centers would be great. Having some sort of limit on how much companies can make use of AI would probably be helpful. Having some sort of limit on how much hardware AI companies are allowed to buy vs how much is reserved for retail customers would probably be helpful.
I agree that the vast majority of money today is "imaginary", people are using AI as a money printer without it justifying all of that money through actual value.
I don't think my takes on AI are all that controversial, but maybe I am mistaken.
AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 16d
I don't disagree but I believe this is inevitable and unavoidable. We could never prevent pandora's box to be opened.
I believe the main thing is the loss of trust that you are talking to actual human beings and that massive amounts of opinion and upvotes on social media are just manufactured. Economic power translates into supremacy of political opinion and influence.
But this already began before LLMs were good enough, from content farms producing slop articles to the russian web brigades and other state backed operations, to special interests like fossil fuel lobby, Trump's rise to prominence during Obama's term with the help of organized operations by Alt-Right and Gamergate that Steve Bannon weaponized, the simplified smartphones that allowed boomers easy access to social media. The political correct mandatory narrative about Ukraine.
Basically we had bots long before AI and the culture war was already lost.
I don't know when or even if it happened, but discourse now is drastically different than it felt a decade earlier. You're either with us or against us.
One stupid idea I have is "Only a good AI in a browser can stop a bad AI in the internet". Not sure about the technical feasibility, but terniary models can pack 27b LLMs into a smartphone. Imagine we could actually filter out a lot of disinformation and brainworms. Or have an LLM parse all comments by a suspected bad faith actor and make an estimative judgement on it. Make the internet usable again lol. Maybe it can be used as a powerful tool for good. But fuckai cuts off any discussion about this. The immediate backlash to an AI model inside Firefox was near absolute.
ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 12d
Honestly, I kinda agree, but AI is such a powerful technology that it's a multiplicative effect. I do agree it was inevitably going to happen.
At least we can still tell that the other person we're talking to right now is a living, breathing human - probably because of our typing styles and because of our shared hatred for AI. lol
I don't think a "good AI" can stop a "bad AI", it's not really feasible because these companies are too powerful they are basically unstoppable at this point. A bot leaving comments to dispell misinformation is interesting, but it'd get expensive doing all of that scanning and replying. You would need something like a full societal uprising against them, which yes even the average person is starting to get sick of AI, but I'm not too hopeful about it.
AccoSpoot1@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 21d
He climbed the ladder, and now he doesn't care if it gets kicked down.
chunes@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 22d
This is what passes for journalism these days? Fuck off
nevyn@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 22d
djsiete@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 21d
Might be a controversial take but this guy's only achievement is to create a franchise for children that isn't even that good.
eestileib@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 21d
Raiders of the Lost Ark is a fucking awesome movie too.
djsiete@sh.itjust.works · -2 pts · 21d
Didn't see it tbf :D
MangoCats@feddit.it · 1 pts · 21d
I agree with your take, but I also agree with GL on this one... if you continue to get around in horse drawn carriages because cars are smelly and dangerous and non-traditional, you're going to get left behind.
There are plenty of things horses and carriages are "better at" than cars, particularly traversing long distances in a country with streams and fields and no gas stations. However... there are also things that cars are better at than horses and carriages...
I used to program in assembly language about 10-30% of my working time, up through the early 1990s. What changed? Optimizing compilers finally got better at writing assembly code than me. They had been around for decades, but they had always been a little bit lacking, until then. I still code for a living, but I haven't even looked at an aseembly listing in 25 years. I get significantly more done, faster and more reliably using compiled (and interpreted) languages than I do using assembly code, which I used to be able to use to make the complied (and especially interpreted) programs dramatically faster. Compilers do that for me now.
As of today, AI is kicking my ass at reviewing my colleagues' code. It's not saving me any work, I spend 2-3x more time in code reviews now than I did before AI code review "was a thing" - but now, those code reviews are 20-50x more valuable than they used to be. We're catching many more problems in the code (and documentation) at review time, not after the software gets into customers' hands. That's a very good thing, and today I would consider anyone who ships critical code without an AI review to be negligent.
djsiete@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 21d
I'm glad you find it useful! I think people are scared of creatives being cheated of their already few chances, and of the brainless marketing that Anthropic, OpenAI et al keep spouting.
MangoCats@feddit.it · -1 pts · 21d
I don't like to be cold like this, but I think "creatives" need to depend less on their agents and production companies and all that industry infrastructure promising 1 in a million "stardom" while stringing the other 999,999 along with breadcrumbs leading nowhere.
The same technology they're bitching about destroying those jobs that most of them never had in the first place, is technology that enables smaller budgets to create competitive entertainment. Self-publishing is a very real thing now alongside traditional "Best Seller List" promotional publishing houses. No, you're not likely to get on "Oprah" or whatever the magic promotional outlet is these days with your self published book, but every creative who achieves that kind of stardom that virtually all of them are hungering for is absolutely stealing the limelight from hundreds or even thousands of other people just as talented as themselves or more...
In other words, stop whining and start making things happen for yourself, you have better access today than ever. There's still a place for superstars in today's world, but instead of the "top 100" getting all the attention, it's time for a top 10 to be followed by 10,000 you might also want to check out. The long tail has gotten fatter, and it should continue to grow.
GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 21d
At the end of the day, if the entire creative arts industries disappeared overnight, the world carries on without any real disruption. People might not like to hear it, but it’s true. The entire industry is essentially just a luxury thing.
There aren’t many industries that could be wiped out and nothing in daily life really changes, but the arts is one.
MangoCats@feddit.it · 1 pts · 20d
The arts is a vital part of our culture, not our survival - yes. The fact that we have over 4% of GDP going to "the arts" (that's over $1.2T in the US alone), is an achievement, not a waste. It also means - more or less 1 in 25 people you meet is dependent / heavily dependent on the arts not just as something to do with their time, but a significant source of their livelihood.
djsiete@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 21d
Have you worked as or with a creative?
MangoCats@feddit.it · 2 pts · 21d
I'd call myself more "creative adjacent" but, to your "or with" question: definitely yes.
djsiete@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 21d
To be honest with you, it sounds like you don't know what's it like to actually be a creative in this economy...
Adderbox76@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 21d
Using AI to double check your code is very different from using AI to replace your skilled creative talent on a motion picture. It's not even an accurate comparison.. GL isn't talking about coding, he's talking about visual effects, writers, even actors...all of whom who's careers are at risk.
You want to use AI to make sure you didn't miss a semicolon at the end of a line, great...knock yourself out. But that has literally nothing in common with what Lucas is blathering about here.
GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 21d
If a new tool can streamline and improve processes, eliminating jobs along the way, then that’s just an unfortunate side effect of progress.
Not every job needs to exist forever. Should electric cars be banned to protect ICE manufacturers and mechanics? Should digital cameras be banned to protect the jobs of film makers and film developers?
No. When a profession is no longer needed it goes away. The people in that profession need to adapt and move on.
If AI can do the visual effects in an hour what would usually take a team of 20 3 months to do, those jobs are no longer necessary. Sucks for them, but you don’t ignore the AI just to let them keep their jobs to your own detriment.
MangoCats@feddit.it · 0 pts · 21d
What's happening to movie production with AI is a lot like what happened to music production with digital audio workstations. The cost of making top tier production value product is plummeting like a stone falling to the moon.
You want to make music with a full symphony orchestra, you can still do that. We actually attend our city orchestra concerts a couple of times a year. However, if you want to produce your own music you can almost get better sound quality out of a smartphone today than the Beatles did out of Abbey Road studios back in their day.
The spontenaity of live performers, whether music or acting, is much MORE cost effective than painstakingly replicating that kind of performance through digital methods. I think we're going to see a continued appreciation of real actors in movies, in between all the slop that the industry "test markets" to see what they can get away with.
GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 21d
Most of the real actors are going to need to learn how to act a lot better then, because most of the biggest actors these days absolutely could be replaced with AI and get a better result. A genuinely great performance is rare.
NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 21d
THX 1138 was a solid film.
shuffle3765@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 8d
He's not wrong though
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 21d
George, blink twice if they found compromat on you!
troglodytis@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 22d
Well yeah, future is hot and dark
RiverFox7@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 21d
ennof@feddit.org · 1 pts · 22d
nevyn@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 22d
Sims@lemmy.ml · -3 pts · 22d
Who cares. He has zero talent, and his movies are childish..
Formfiller@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 22d
Sounds like something a pedophile would say
Thor_Whale@lemmus.org · -7 pts · 22d
Some of the people doing the fan-based YouTube Star Wars videos are using AI and I can honestly say the short clips are amazing. So he's not wrong in that aspect.
Epp@lemmus.org · -21 pts · 22d
My calendar app seems to have also "gone to the dark side." It says next year will be 2027.
When did "easily making an obviously accurate forecast" start being referred to as "going to the dark side?" I just don't see the connection...
Are the Sith, like, seers of the obvious in some of the expanded lore books?🤔 Maybe in the books the Sith tell people whenever water will continue to be wet, Sarlacc pits will remain dangerous places to practice parkour, and Space will continue to exist?
XLE@piefed.social · 21 pts · 22d
That's a lot of words to smuggle in the baseless assertion that "AI is inevitable and we must embrace it"
NFTs are inevitable. Crypto is inevitable. Metaverse is inevitable.
Epp@lemmus.org · -11 pts · 22d
Who said you have to embrace it? Do what you want! Doesn't change what others are doing, nor should it.
I still have all three of those (so long as by Metaverse you actually meant VR). I'm guessing you've got none, but that doesn't change what other people use and value.
Edit: Here come the down votes. Why are so many on here self-centered, and feel like if they don't approve of something then no one else is allowed to? Posting my opinion of technology on Lemmy feels like wearing a two-piece bikini to Sunday School, without shaving. Such judgmental hypocrites.
Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 21d
Mmm yesss, cry about the down votes more.
Epp@lemmus.org · -1 pts · 21d
Thanks, they're representative of the clueless masses blinded by irrational hatred. Nothing will change by pointing them out, but it sure is entertaining to the pragmatic few.
Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 21d
Nah, they represent your shit take!
Epp@lemmus.org · -1 pts · 21d
You're so witty. Did you come to Lemmy straight from Reddit, or did you spend a couple years on Musk's Twitter to really refine your brilliant takes?
Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 21d
Awe thanks, I guess it means something then, as a witty person, when I say your take is shit.
Never had Twitter, even before Musk's takeover, and haven't used reddit in about 5 years, wbu?
Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 14 pts · 22d
You can't (in good faith) claim "AI is the future" is "an obviously accurate forecast" when half of Lemmy is actively trying to dismantle that notion.
Epp@lemmus.org · -12 pts · 22d
Why not? Like babies at a space opera, they can cry all they like about things they can't comprehend that they wish would go away.
Except they'll be just as effective as they were at making Bitcoin go away. (Bitcoin still exists, people still use it.)
Also, half is a very conservative estimate. I think hating AI is MUCH more popular on here. It feels like it should be the official Lemmy pastime.
XLE@piefed.social · 5 pts · 22d
If by "it'll decay into a pathetic corpse of its former self after destroying things with actual value," then sure.
But we both know that's not what you were trying to imply lol
Epp@lemmus.org · -5 pts · 22d
What will decay into a pathetic corpse of it's former self after destroying things with actual value? The only things I can think of that match that description are the USA in the short-term, and humanity in the long-term.
Hmmm... Maybe you meant to respond to someone else.
fluxx@mander.xyz · 1 pts · 22d
Dude, USA affects all of the world already in a very significant way. Western world especially. While the decay of American imperialism is something a lot of us would like to see, it will, in the short term affect everyone negatively. The USA will not go out without a fight. Already, people across the world suffer because of it. It is precisely because of the USA and their economy. Economy, which is undoubtedly, by their own accounts, dominated by the AI tech industry. So, although indirectly, people outside the USA are negatively impacted by the AI. Not to mention direct impact it has (military literally being driven by AI).
Epp@lemmus.org · -2 pts · 21d
Only one disagreement: you're confusing the technology with it's use.
A gun isn't a blindfolded execution
A car isn't a vehicular manslaughter.
A pool of water isn't a homicidal drowning.
AI is not what you just described.
fluxx@mander.xyz · 1 pts · 21d
So AI is whatever makes you right and me wrong, basically? Of course the ones responsible are the people building products based on AI. Nobody is arguing LLMs themselves are evil. What I'm talking about are massive datacenters built overly fast so that they need to use evaporative cooling and micro-turbines is an utterly irresponsible use of that technology. It's like rushing to build a faster car than China and so you don't install brakes and your cars start killing everyone on the streets. Of course a car isn't evil, it's the people irresponsibly designing them. AI tech is constantly doing propaganda fear mongering that if you don't use their product RIGHT NOW - you're getting left behind. If you don't integrate them in your business RIGHT NOW, you're gonna get overrun by competition. And the product is not nearly as reliable as they push it and not nearly as powerful as they claim. It's a universal tool that is inefficient at any specific, specialized task. In fact, it's painfully INEFFICIENT. But you and I wouldn't know it, because nobody is publishing exactly how much it costs to run and how much they are subsidizing the use of it. The technology is useful, even revolutionary, but the way it's overwhelmingly being used right now is bullshit. This way is not sustainable, not profitable and will end up costing the entire world. That's what's gonna happen. The technology will stick and people will find best uses for it and start paying attention about its use. But I doubt it will survive in this current form.
XLE@piefed.social · 1 pts · 21d
Of course an AI booster would be a misanthrope too.
Epp@lemmus.org · -1 pts · 21d
Thanks for your slanderous and inaccurate assessment.
Of course someone who confuses the use of a technology with the technology itself would also confuse an observation with judgment.
XLE@piefed.social · 1 pts · 21d
You're the one who was reminded of the rot and failure of NFTs and decided to say "nuh-uh, actually people are bad instead." You're a misanthrope.
It's your job to prove these things are actually worth keeping around at all.
boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 22d
Nobody uses Bitcoin lol, it's a speculative asset now, not a cryptocurrency. You're an idiot if you use it.
Epp@lemmus.org · -2 pts · 21d
Appreciate the ignorant ad hominems. You represent Lemmy very well.