[crazygringo]

Well obviously AI isn't at the level of replacing Hollywood yet.

But once it is? I mean, yeah, it'll replace Hollywood.

People will tell Netflix, "hey I want a move about X in the style of Y and I want Z to star in it", and bam -- your own bespoke movie.

I mean, once the capability's there, it's just inevitable. And yeah -- acting will become a hobby, just like sewing is today.

[bayindirh]

Honestly, that'll be boring. I don't want to be a star of a movie, that's not what pulls me in.

I want to see what the person has imagined, what the story carries from the author, what the humans in it added to it and what they got out of it.

When I read a book, I look from another human's eyes, with their thoughts and imagination. That's interesting and life-changing actually. Also, the author's life and inner world leaks into the thing they created.

The most notable example for me is Neon Genesis Evangelion. The psychological aspects of it (which hits very hard actually) is a reflection of Hideaki Anno's clinical depression. You can't fake this even if you want.

This is what makes human creation special. It's a precipitation of a thousand and one thing in an unforeseen way, and this is what feeds us, albeit we are not aware of this and love to deny it at the same time.

[Wissenschafter]

"This is what makes human creation special.", that's a load of garbage. There is nothing inherently special about human creation. Some AI artwork I've seen is incredible, the fact it was AI generated didn't change its being an incredible piece of art.

Thinking our creation has some kind of 'specialness' to it is like believing in a soul, or some other stupid thing. It's pure hubris.

[bayindirh]

Actually, I'm coming from a gentler point of view: "Nature and living things are much more complex than we anticipate".

There are many breakthroughs and realizations in science which excite me more than "this thing called AI": Bacteria have generational memory. Bees have a sense of time. Mitochondria (and cells) inside a human body communicate and try to regulate aging and call for repairs. Ants have evolved antibiotics, and expel the ones with incurable and spreadable diseases. Bees and ants have social norms, they have languages. Plants show more complex behavior than we anticipated. I'm not entering the primates' & birds' region because only the titles will be a short chapter.

While some of them might be very simple mechanisms on chemical level, they make a much more complex system, and the nature we live in is much sophisticated than we know, or want to acknowledge.

I'm not looking from "Humans are superior" perspective. Instead, I'm looking from "our understanding of everything is too shallow" perspective. Instead of trying to understand or acknowledge that we're living in a much more complex system on a speck of dust in vast emptiness, we connect a bunch of silicon chips, dump everything we babbled to a "simulated neural network", and it gives us semi-nonsensical, grammatically correct half-truths.

That thing can do it because it randomly puts a word after word after a very complex and weighted randomization learned from how we do it, but imitating it blindly, and we think that we understood and unlocked what intelligence is. Then we applaud ourselves because we're one step closer to strip a living thing from its authenticity and making Ghost in the Shell a reality.

Living things form themselves over a long life with sight, hearing, communication, interaction and emotions, at least, and we assume that a couple of millions lines of code can do much better because we poured a quadruple distilled, three times diluted version of what we have gone through.

This is pure hubris if you ask me, if there's one.

[ParetoOptimal]

Then people will see how empty and inferior it is and want movies with actual people and writers again.

[Wissenschafter]

Then the market will decide, won't it? Why the fuss about generative AI then? If you're so confident about its inferiority, you shouldn't have to worry about it, right? The better product will win, right?

[mftrhu]

The market does not choose the superior product. It might choose the least common denominator, the cheapest product, the product that got on the market the earliest, or the one with the richest backers, but not "the superior product".

[mlrtime]

The "superior" product is subjective.

The objectively superior product is the one that people pay for. They are exchanging labor/capital for the item/content.

I could make the best movie ever conceived, the movie to end all movies. If nobody watches it, it has 0 value.

[ParetoOptimal]

> The objectively superior product is the one that people pay for. They are exchanging labor/capital for the item/content.

No, that assumes perfect discovery of options. The product people see first is often chosen.

> I could make the best movie ever conceived, the movie to end all movies. If nobody watches it, it has 0 value.

Things only have intrinsic value if validated by others? That's just not true.

[mftrhu]

The first part is debatable, unless you qualify it as "superior at making their creator money".

The market selects for that, and only that. Other qualities of the product are secondary, making any statements to the effect of "the best product [outside the context of simply making the most money] will win" misguided at best.

[ParetoOptimal]

No, because the market isn't fair.

What will actually happen is people will think "meh good enough", shitty AI art will become the norm, and we'll be boiling frogs and not realize how shitty things have become.