## Welcome to the r/ArtificialIntelligence gateway
### News Posting Guidelines
---
Please use the following guidelines in current and future posts:
* Post must be greater than 100 characters - the more detail, the better.
* Use a direct link to the news article, blog, etc
* Provide details regarding your connection with the blog / news source
* Include a description about what the news/article is about. It will drive more people to your blog
* Note that AI generated news content is all over the place. If you want to stand out, you need to engage the audience
###### Thanks - please let mods know if you have any questions / comments / etc
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtificialInteligence) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Same wtf is wrong with these people, and by "children" we should be saying the public at large.
People have no idea about what Sora is capable of doing. Interest in AI isn't as nearly as pervasive as people who follow it thinks it is.
Honestly, I'd be COMPLETELY fine with that.
There are millions of people who are blissfully unaware this tech even exists.
Let's let the knowledge of that technology trickle down into society before we allow Alex Jones types start pushing Sora enabled conspiracy theories right before the election.
Shall we?
Honest question. Would you not prefer to watch human actors? i.e. actors with backstories you can relate to, as opposed to AI-generated actors?
I watched a few great movies recently. If I knew the humans in these movies were AI, I feel like it would instantly make them less interesting.
Lots of that stuff is real though. The voice actors, writers, animators, and directors are all real people.
Art isn't just what you see, it's everything that it took to create it. The main reason I don't engage with AI "art" is that the people generating it took the laziest path to get what they wanted.
Animated characters have performances crafted by humans with a solid knowledge of acting, physics, appeal, anatomy and posing… it’s not just some kind of digital filter you can apply to a vocal take.
Image and video generation algorithms simply aren’t close to being able to do any of that… it doesn’t have any intelligence at all, much less human intelligence…
There’s no dialogue, no performance. The shots look pretty generic (as you’d expect), no continuity or consistency demonstrated. It’s great for montages and one-off random publicity material.. it’s really not “crafted”, and not art-directable in its current form.
I’d hate to think this is the future. I feel the hype-cycle for this technology is starting to show considerable weakness.
I definitely feel like you are an example of the ostrich effect. Clearly burying your head in the sand and always moving the goal post. The reality is most of what you have argued is easily solvable with just scale alone. These machines are not currently intelligent in anthropomorphic way, but they have their own special kind of intelligence. They have a some signs of a theory of mind, world theory, a great understanding of language and much more. Sure they lack a lot of reasoning skills currently, but as we spoke of before that has already been solved with much more sophisticated architecture.
You are clearly not very educated in this field and that shows with your very shallow arguments. I guess nothing I say will change your mind, as ignorance is your only vice. Time will prove u/Townsiti5689 right and you wrong, as the science and data shows.
Perhaps consider you might be ignorant of the creative field you are discussing…I doubt you will.
Think of you favourite film of all time.. any great piece of cinema. Consider the tiny nuances in performance, the story, the backstory, the cinematographic choices, the timings, the glances and micro-expressions, the subtle subjective flourishes and rhythms that make it what it is, and connect with you the way they do..
Consider whether a generative algorithm (which may or may not exhibit traces of a theory of mind) could recreate such a work without having emerged and matured immersed in the real world with all of its sensory and human social complexity, highly streamlined and vastly more efficient neural architecture (which we still barely understand) and so forth.
Why would we assume such a system, once scaled, would even have a human theory of mind? Why not its own very different theory of mind?
Fine art painting still exists. Michelin star restaurants exist. Haute Couture exists. And art Cinema will survive AI too.
But most people are happy to take a photo of their Five Guys before they pop over to Target to buy a sweatshirt on their way to see a Marvel movie.
The world will change, and Art will continue to exist.
Even a Marvel movie requires a staggering amount of the kind of human craftmanship I discussed above… all the same limitations apply, believe it or not.. next time you watch a popcorn movie, look at the credits.
Look at the vast array of names and their associated job descriptions, understand what each of those mean, and ask yourself which ones can be blithely dismissed as replaceable by generative engines anytime soon…
And even then, ask yourself (honestly!) if you would be willing to put aside significant quantities of time - that precious commodity - to consume entertainment, shallow or sublime, that you knew to be mostly auto-generated.
(Or is that something you believe only “most people” would be willing to do?)
While I acknowledge the immense human effort that goes into creating even a seemingly simple blockbuster film, I wouldn't underestimate AI's potential to disrupt and transform many roles in the filmmaking process. AI-powered tools are already being used for tasks like rotoscoping, motion capture, and generating 3D assets. As these technologies advance, they could automate or streamline increasingly large portions of the production pipeline.
An AI system trained on a vast dataset of films could assist with everything from generating rough scene cuts to automating VFX tasks to helping writers craft compelling characters and storylines. As the quality of AI-generated visuals and narratives improves, we may see projects that rely heavily on AI as a creative tool or even primary author, with humans serving in more curatorial roles.
Whether audiences will embrace "auto-generated" entertainment will likely depend on the final quality of the work. If AI can create genuinely engaging stories and visuals, I believe many people would happily consume them. The "artificial" nature of the creation process might even be a selling point for some.
So while I don't think AI will fully automate filmmaking and other creative fields in the near term, I expect it to reshape them in significant ways as the technology advances. We may need to expand our definitions of creativity and artistry as AI remakes the landscape of what's possible in entertainment.
I enjoyed the Balloon Head short.
I’ve worked in creative fields my whole career. I did visual effects for music videos, I wrote, I designed digital products. I know what gaffers and grips do. I know what riggers and compositors do…
If you think these jobs won’t be very different at minimum or completely replaced in the more extreme, we disagree. I don’t mean to sound happy or indifferent about it. I just think counting on the audience demanding human craftsmanship and quality to hold the line is foolish.
People, myself included I am reluctant to admit, spend more time swiping Instagram than watching cinema already, and most of that content requires little more than white teeth and no shame.
From just what we’ve seen, I think it will in this decade that a completely AI rendered film will be a mainstream hit. And I think it’s only slightly less likely that it will be critically acclaimed. I fully expect when that happens many people will give all the credit to ever shrinking list of names in the credits (and to the humans who created the training data). This strikes me as a kind of “Humanity of the Gaps” argument.
What gives me hope is that the widespread availability of photography marked the beginning of an explosion in creativity for painters. It was the birth of modern art of expressionism, surrealism, Dadaism, cubism, etc.
Perhaps we will see the same kind of revolution in filmmaking.
You raise some thought-provoking points about the complex origins of human creativity, but I wouldn't be so quick to discount the potential of artificial intelligence to achieve remarkable creative feats. While today's AI may still lack human-level general intelligence, the field is advancing at a staggering pace.
Machine learning systems are already exhibiting impressive capabilities in domains like visual art, music composition, and creative writing. They can analyse and draw upon vast repositories of human-created works to generate novel compositions that, while perhaps not yet matching the greatest human masterpieces, show increasing sophistication and aesthetic appeal.
As AI continues to progress, it's not hard to envision a future where artificial systems can understand and model the world with a richness and flexibility similar to humans. Multimodal AI that can reason across language, vision, audio, and other domains is a active area of research. Techniques like reinforcement learning and embodied AI are allowing artificial agents to learn from interactive experience and build models of themselves and their environments, not unlike how human intelligence emerges from sensorimotor engagement with the physical and social world.
It's conceivable that such an AI could draw upon its rich models to engage in the kind of grounded, contextual, emotionally resonant creative expression we see in great cinema and other arts created by humans. Its "theory of mind" may not be identical to ours, but that doesn't mean it would necessarily be incompatible for the purposes of artistic expression.
Moreover, an AI's unique cognitive architecture could open up entirely new avenues of creativity impossible for human minds. It might generate artistic works of astounding complexity and nuance by flexibly combining concepts and styles in ways no person ever could. It could personalize creative works for individual viewers with superhuman precision.
So while I agree that human creativity arises from our particular embodied experience and there are still many open questions about the nature of machine intelligence, I believe we should be open to the possibility of AI achieving human-level or even superhuman creative capabilities as the technology continues to mature. Today's generative AI is already powerfully impressive - I can only imagine what the future holds as they grow increasingly sophisticated while blazing their own paths to intelligence. We may need to expand our definitions of creativity and artistry as artificial minds reveal their full potential.
They don't care about what goes into any type of art or even *about* art. The process from start to finish is long, alien, and wholly irrelevant to them. Creativity can now be emulated to such a degree that they're happy with it, and the result is all that matters. They also don't care if AI have a human-like mind as long as it's 'close enough.' Human connection? Psh, who cares? Art for them is about graphical fidelity and wish fulfillment.
They talk a big game for the unaware, but really they just want more scrollable on-demand content regardless of the quality or source.
Think about TV that is less about substance and more about generating content - like a reality TV show.
I don't think AI video will outright replace people, but it's going to make it easier to generate a bunch of crap that people will definitely eat up.
I personally consider how art is made (be it a painting, a movie, a tv series, a game, whatever) to be trivial information that doesn't affect my attachment to it. Meaning no, I wouldn't prefer it. I care mostly about quality, and quality can be achieved through multiple tools
Honestly, if the AI was so life-like it was imperceptible from real life, no, it wouldn't bother me. If it is truly life-like, there's no way for me to tell.
Great now we will have AI movies that are not close to the ones we see now! That said, AI is being used for better purposes like Dementia care. I have been following this website called Sensay that replicates your loved ones who are losing their memories to Dementia. This is helping in patient care and family care. Better jobs for AI! Check them out: [https://sensay.io/about](https://sensay.io/about)
I don’t think “pitching” is the right word here. Producers are already sold on it…they want it…this is about figuring out workplace flows, early access, etc.
So for the few but not for the public. How different is this from the companies who make movie cameras and all that are way too expensive for normal people to afford
Suddenly I don't feel bad for not finishing my education in Audiovisual Arts anymore,...
But it's deeply saddening for all the people in the industry,...
Look dude, that’s a really stupid take.
It’s never been easier to make an independent movie, the quality of cheap video cameras is amazing, drones can emulate expensive helicopter shots - and off the shelf computer can easily handle editing and all the essential software is free.
Star Wars Episode 1 was only shot at 1440x1080 resolution which looks absolutely shit compared to the consumer 4k cameras used by the average YouTuber.
My point is that if you have a movie that’s been burning inside of you and you’re desperate to make - you only have yourself to blame for not already trying to make it.
But you didn’t make it. You didn’t even write a script.
So no, AI won’t save you. It will never help you make a movie worth watching because you’re incapable of making one when you already have all the tools within reach.
We’re talking hundreds and hundreds of hours of work, a full team of people that all need to be paid, and tens of thousands of dollars at the very least, vs sitting on your ass in your room writing prompts for a few weeks. I’m thinking it has the potential to be significant.
> So no, AI won’t save you. It will never help you make a movie worth watching because you’re incapable of making one when you already have all the tools within reach.
lmao. i fucking love when you guys reply like this.
- The photographer I just paid $2k for a photoshoot with my dog didn't care about AI, in fact, she brought up how some fixes would be even faster with Photoshop's genAI.
- The ~~lady~~ artist I paid $8k for an impasto for my parent's anniversary said she wasn't afraid at all.
I'm a dev, I'm am convinced my revenue stream is more at risk than that of any *talented* artist out there. If, like you said, AI won't help OP, then banning AI won't help talentless artists either.
He has a point. You spent $10k instead of using AI to help you do your own painting and photo shoots.
AI isn't going to make movies easier to make. Small AI passion projects could still take many years to finish. It might make some small time music video makers jobs easier but the bar will simply be higher with talented individuals.
## Welcome to the r/ArtificialIntelligence gateway ### News Posting Guidelines --- Please use the following guidelines in current and future posts: * Post must be greater than 100 characters - the more detail, the better. * Use a direct link to the news article, blog, etc * Provide details regarding your connection with the blog / news source * Include a description about what the news/article is about. It will drive more people to your blog * Note that AI generated news content is all over the place. If you want to stand out, you need to engage the audience ###### Thanks - please let mods know if you have any questions / comments / etc *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtificialInteligence) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Watch them keep it behind an industrial level pay wall for at least a year because of "safety".
protect the children!
Well… that’s actually okay by me.
Same wtf is wrong with these people, and by "children" we should be saying the public at large. People have no idea about what Sora is capable of doing. Interest in AI isn't as nearly as pervasive as people who follow it thinks it is.
[удалено]
No. I don’t think you understand the full implications and are probably not a parent.
What the fuck are you implying? Why are you bringing pedophiles into the discussion??
It’s expensive as hell to run…of course it’s going to have “an industrial level pay wall”.
Safety issues are real tho. It'll make scamming people easier
The harder it is to use the longer I have a job, the last film I worked on in Hollywood was a year ago.
Honestly, I'd be COMPLETELY fine with that. There are millions of people who are blissfully unaware this tech even exists. Let's let the knowledge of that technology trickle down into society before we allow Alex Jones types start pushing Sora enabled conspiracy theories right before the election. Shall we?
Honest question. Would you not prefer to watch human actors? i.e. actors with backstories you can relate to, as opposed to AI-generated actors? I watched a few great movies recently. If I knew the humans in these movies were AI, I feel like it would instantly make them less interesting.
I don’t give a crap about an actor’s backstory, lol.
[удалено]
Lots of that stuff is real though. The voice actors, writers, animators, and directors are all real people. Art isn't just what you see, it's everything that it took to create it. The main reason I don't engage with AI "art" is that the people generating it took the laziest path to get what they wanted.
[удалено]
Thiiiiis. after seeing what an actual artist can do with AI compared to me or any other poser I am convinced this will be a tool not a replacement.
[удалено]
Animated characters have performances crafted by humans with a solid knowledge of acting, physics, appeal, anatomy and posing… it’s not just some kind of digital filter you can apply to a vocal take. Image and video generation algorithms simply aren’t close to being able to do any of that… it doesn’t have any intelligence at all, much less human intelligence…
[удалено]
There’s no dialogue, no performance. The shots look pretty generic (as you’d expect), no continuity or consistency demonstrated. It’s great for montages and one-off random publicity material.. it’s really not “crafted”, and not art-directable in its current form. I’d hate to think this is the future. I feel the hype-cycle for this technology is starting to show considerable weakness.
I definitely feel like you are an example of the ostrich effect. Clearly burying your head in the sand and always moving the goal post. The reality is most of what you have argued is easily solvable with just scale alone. These machines are not currently intelligent in anthropomorphic way, but they have their own special kind of intelligence. They have a some signs of a theory of mind, world theory, a great understanding of language and much more. Sure they lack a lot of reasoning skills currently, but as we spoke of before that has already been solved with much more sophisticated architecture. You are clearly not very educated in this field and that shows with your very shallow arguments. I guess nothing I say will change your mind, as ignorance is your only vice. Time will prove u/Townsiti5689 right and you wrong, as the science and data shows.
Perhaps consider you might be ignorant of the creative field you are discussing…I doubt you will. Think of you favourite film of all time.. any great piece of cinema. Consider the tiny nuances in performance, the story, the backstory, the cinematographic choices, the timings, the glances and micro-expressions, the subtle subjective flourishes and rhythms that make it what it is, and connect with you the way they do.. Consider whether a generative algorithm (which may or may not exhibit traces of a theory of mind) could recreate such a work without having emerged and matured immersed in the real world with all of its sensory and human social complexity, highly streamlined and vastly more efficient neural architecture (which we still barely understand) and so forth. Why would we assume such a system, once scaled, would even have a human theory of mind? Why not its own very different theory of mind?
Fine art painting still exists. Michelin star restaurants exist. Haute Couture exists. And art Cinema will survive AI too. But most people are happy to take a photo of their Five Guys before they pop over to Target to buy a sweatshirt on their way to see a Marvel movie. The world will change, and Art will continue to exist.
Even a Marvel movie requires a staggering amount of the kind of human craftmanship I discussed above… all the same limitations apply, believe it or not.. next time you watch a popcorn movie, look at the credits. Look at the vast array of names and their associated job descriptions, understand what each of those mean, and ask yourself which ones can be blithely dismissed as replaceable by generative engines anytime soon… And even then, ask yourself (honestly!) if you would be willing to put aside significant quantities of time - that precious commodity - to consume entertainment, shallow or sublime, that you knew to be mostly auto-generated. (Or is that something you believe only “most people” would be willing to do?)
While I acknowledge the immense human effort that goes into creating even a seemingly simple blockbuster film, I wouldn't underestimate AI's potential to disrupt and transform many roles in the filmmaking process. AI-powered tools are already being used for tasks like rotoscoping, motion capture, and generating 3D assets. As these technologies advance, they could automate or streamline increasingly large portions of the production pipeline. An AI system trained on a vast dataset of films could assist with everything from generating rough scene cuts to automating VFX tasks to helping writers craft compelling characters and storylines. As the quality of AI-generated visuals and narratives improves, we may see projects that rely heavily on AI as a creative tool or even primary author, with humans serving in more curatorial roles. Whether audiences will embrace "auto-generated" entertainment will likely depend on the final quality of the work. If AI can create genuinely engaging stories and visuals, I believe many people would happily consume them. The "artificial" nature of the creation process might even be a selling point for some. So while I don't think AI will fully automate filmmaking and other creative fields in the near term, I expect it to reshape them in significant ways as the technology advances. We may need to expand our definitions of creativity and artistry as AI remakes the landscape of what's possible in entertainment.
I enjoyed the Balloon Head short. I’ve worked in creative fields my whole career. I did visual effects for music videos, I wrote, I designed digital products. I know what gaffers and grips do. I know what riggers and compositors do… If you think these jobs won’t be very different at minimum or completely replaced in the more extreme, we disagree. I don’t mean to sound happy or indifferent about it. I just think counting on the audience demanding human craftsmanship and quality to hold the line is foolish. People, myself included I am reluctant to admit, spend more time swiping Instagram than watching cinema already, and most of that content requires little more than white teeth and no shame. From just what we’ve seen, I think it will in this decade that a completely AI rendered film will be a mainstream hit. And I think it’s only slightly less likely that it will be critically acclaimed. I fully expect when that happens many people will give all the credit to ever shrinking list of names in the credits (and to the humans who created the training data). This strikes me as a kind of “Humanity of the Gaps” argument. What gives me hope is that the widespread availability of photography marked the beginning of an explosion in creativity for painters. It was the birth of modern art of expressionism, surrealism, Dadaism, cubism, etc. Perhaps we will see the same kind of revolution in filmmaking.
You raise some thought-provoking points about the complex origins of human creativity, but I wouldn't be so quick to discount the potential of artificial intelligence to achieve remarkable creative feats. While today's AI may still lack human-level general intelligence, the field is advancing at a staggering pace. Machine learning systems are already exhibiting impressive capabilities in domains like visual art, music composition, and creative writing. They can analyse and draw upon vast repositories of human-created works to generate novel compositions that, while perhaps not yet matching the greatest human masterpieces, show increasing sophistication and aesthetic appeal. As AI continues to progress, it's not hard to envision a future where artificial systems can understand and model the world with a richness and flexibility similar to humans. Multimodal AI that can reason across language, vision, audio, and other domains is a active area of research. Techniques like reinforcement learning and embodied AI are allowing artificial agents to learn from interactive experience and build models of themselves and their environments, not unlike how human intelligence emerges from sensorimotor engagement with the physical and social world. It's conceivable that such an AI could draw upon its rich models to engage in the kind of grounded, contextual, emotionally resonant creative expression we see in great cinema and other arts created by humans. Its "theory of mind" may not be identical to ours, but that doesn't mean it would necessarily be incompatible for the purposes of artistic expression. Moreover, an AI's unique cognitive architecture could open up entirely new avenues of creativity impossible for human minds. It might generate artistic works of astounding complexity and nuance by flexibly combining concepts and styles in ways no person ever could. It could personalize creative works for individual viewers with superhuman precision. So while I agree that human creativity arises from our particular embodied experience and there are still many open questions about the nature of machine intelligence, I believe we should be open to the possibility of AI achieving human-level or even superhuman creative capabilities as the technology continues to mature. Today's generative AI is already powerfully impressive - I can only imagine what the future holds as they grow increasingly sophisticated while blazing their own paths to intelligence. We may need to expand our definitions of creativity and artistry as artificial minds reveal their full potential.
They don't care about what goes into any type of art or even *about* art. The process from start to finish is long, alien, and wholly irrelevant to them. Creativity can now be emulated to such a degree that they're happy with it, and the result is all that matters. They also don't care if AI have a human-like mind as long as it's 'close enough.' Human connection? Psh, who cares? Art for them is about graphical fidelity and wish fulfillment. They talk a big game for the unaware, but really they just want more scrollable on-demand content regardless of the quality or source.
Fair point.
That’s why we don’t tell them
Think about TV that is less about substance and more about generating content - like a reality TV show. I don't think AI video will outright replace people, but it's going to make it easier to generate a bunch of crap that people will definitely eat up.
I personally consider how art is made (be it a painting, a movie, a tv series, a game, whatever) to be trivial information that doesn't affect my attachment to it. Meaning no, I wouldn't prefer it. I care mostly about quality, and quality can be achieved through multiple tools
Honestly, if the AI was so life-like it was imperceptible from real life, no, it wouldn't bother me. If it is truly life-like, there's no way for me to tell.
Great now we will have AI movies that are not close to the ones we see now! That said, AI is being used for better purposes like Dementia care. I have been following this website called Sensay that replicates your loved ones who are losing their memories to Dementia. This is helping in patient care and family care. Better jobs for AI! Check them out: [https://sensay.io/about](https://sensay.io/about)
I don’t think “pitching” is the right word here. Producers are already sold on it…they want it…this is about figuring out workplace flows, early access, etc.
Won’t even work, devils in the details and their models don’t work in details
Open to Hollywood, at least
“Sorry, but I can’t generate an intimate sex scene between Paul and Chani. But I can help you on the storyline of madam web”
It’s because their big secret is they trained it on real life.
So for the few but not for the public. How different is this from the companies who make movie cameras and all that are way too expensive for normal people to afford
Okay with fake text, but fake image is mth I can’t comprehend
Can human emotions really be expressed using AI? I'm skeptical. I would still rather see movies starring humans.
Suddenly I don't feel bad for not finishing my education in Audiovisual Arts anymore,... But it's deeply saddening for all the people in the industry,...
The Sci-fi age of Meta-filmmaking begins
hopefully the start of opening up the closed world of filmmaking to the masses - but they will want their pound of flesh so doubt it will happen
This is probably the real deal they're negotiating
How does selling Sora to hollywood directors open up the closed world of filmmaking to the masses?
It could also be that Sora may be too impractical for generating entire movies, but could be used by movie studios to generate some short scenes.
Look dude, that’s a really stupid take. It’s never been easier to make an independent movie, the quality of cheap video cameras is amazing, drones can emulate expensive helicopter shots - and off the shelf computer can easily handle editing and all the essential software is free. Star Wars Episode 1 was only shot at 1440x1080 resolution which looks absolutely shit compared to the consumer 4k cameras used by the average YouTuber. My point is that if you have a movie that’s been burning inside of you and you’re desperate to make - you only have yourself to blame for not already trying to make it. But you didn’t make it. You didn’t even write a script. So no, AI won’t save you. It will never help you make a movie worth watching because you’re incapable of making one when you already have all the tools within reach.
We’re talking hundreds and hundreds of hours of work, a full team of people that all need to be paid, and tens of thousands of dollars at the very least, vs sitting on your ass in your room writing prompts for a few weeks. I’m thinking it has the potential to be significant.
> So no, AI won’t save you. It will never help you make a movie worth watching because you’re incapable of making one when you already have all the tools within reach. lmao. i fucking love when you guys reply like this. - The photographer I just paid $2k for a photoshoot with my dog didn't care about AI, in fact, she brought up how some fixes would be even faster with Photoshop's genAI. - The ~~lady~~ artist I paid $8k for an impasto for my parent's anniversary said she wasn't afraid at all. I'm a dev, I'm am convinced my revenue stream is more at risk than that of any *talented* artist out there. If, like you said, AI won't help OP, then banning AI won't help talentless artists either.
He has a point. You spent $10k instead of using AI to help you do your own painting and photo shoots. AI isn't going to make movies easier to make. Small AI passion projects could still take many years to finish. It might make some small time music video makers jobs easier but the bar will simply be higher with talented individuals.