[Delumine]

He's a hypocrite, he says he's scared of the impact of the industry. But he IS the industry. He's gonna be putting set designers, sound stagers, et al out of work if he opts to use AI.

AI is just going to make the rich... richer. We do need some protections in place.

[cowboyscott]

“I am very, very concerned that in the near future, a lot of jobs are going to be lost. I really, really feel that very strongly.”

I'm very concerned about the impact of this thing that I get to control, and benefit from, the impact of.

[kmlx]

> We do need some protections in place.

i find impossible to believe that people that are currently working in the music/film industries will not take advantage of these new technologies (see designers that went from pen and paper to software).

i think a decent analogy is music. software has completely taken over music production. but musicians are still making great music, analogue or otherwise.

these new technologies might even open up these industries to a lot more people since creation will no longer be hindered by learning different types of software.

yes, i'm an optimist :)

[johnnyanmac]

And given the

- the behavior of big tech in the last 10-15 years minimum - The arguably decrease of quality of movies as is from corporate ignoring artists who already had to protest just to prevent themselves from being degraded from writers to AI prompt editors. - history of artists in film since... forever

I'm honestly very pessimistic. In theory, this means less artists in a VFX studio can charge the same amount (which as is, is way too little. Remember that multiple award winning movies had their VFX studio shutter months after the award), and each artist gets paid a proper living wage, now that there are less hands to re-distribute the money too. In reality, this may shut down what remnants of VFX there are, reduce in house artist, and the remaining artist make even less despite now being as productive as 10-50 artists from the decade prior.

A lot of optimism for such tech would need to come from trust, and every company involved have spent decades eroding that trust and then digging further underground.

>i think a decent analogy is music. software has completely taken over music production. but musicians are still making great music, analogue or otherwise.

music is a decent analogy. No one makes money making music anymore. You're an entrpreneur peddling merchandise as an emotional response from music that people listen to on Spotify that pays pennies (or less, if you sign on a record company). Modern music is the classic "being paid in exposure" trope in action.

[kmlx]

> No one makes money making music anymore.

when was "making music" a money maker? or for that matter, when was creating any art form a money maker? i think making money out of art is an anomaly, not a rule. and i think that's good, as money corrupts art.

the problem as i see it is that lots of us live in a capitalist world. and in that case it's very hard to hold my beliefs and still lead a fulfilling life.

i don't have the answer to this issue. but i think there was a similar issue a few decades ago, when making money from art was considered "selling out".

[johnnyanmac]

Money maker for individuals? Music started dying out around the time big bands fell off in demand, and I'd say by the early 2010s it became unviable without some side hustle or connections. So a very slow but steady decline. The whole American Idol craze wasn't that long ago, in the grand scheme of things. Other arts have their own individual histories as trades as well.

>i think making money out of art is an anomaly, not a rule. and i think that's good, as money corrupts art.

Until we live in a post scarcity society, or until the arts is some random eccentric billionaire hobby, most art will be trading a craft for compensation to survive. That isn't a recent nor local phenomenon. The arts made from love that somehow succeeds only on its own merits has always been the minority. As you said, it's hard to hold your beliefs (I.e. Make exactly what you want) and still pay the bills. There isn't enough time in the day, or maybe there is now but corporate demands more of our time than ever despite thst.

[red-iron-pine]

sure musicians are making great music, but how many of them are getting paid? and how much? the quality is irrelevant here -- best songs ever written are on spotify making their creators $0.00031 per play.

its like how excel didn't eliminate payroll or accounts-payable, but now instead of needing 10 people you need 3, and will still attempt to pay them peanuts.

[beej71]

The flipside with this particular application is that we're going to be seeing some excellent indy movies produced by enthusiasts who never had the means before.

But yes, there's about to be a massive shakeup. You can blame Perry, but someone has to fund these tremendously expensive human efforts. If everyone else is underselling him with cheaper AI productions, where does that leave him?

[satao]

we need a universal basic income and progressive tax rates urgently if we want to avoid the world turning into a Gotham City kind of inequal shitshow.

[tivert]

> we need a universal basic income and progressive tax rates urgently if we want to avoid the world turning into a Gotham City kind of inequal shitshow.

Not really. IMHO the idea of universal basic income is not an actual solution, it's a soporific to passivate people until all their power is drained from them. What we really need is a Butlerian Jihad, to make technology and technologists subordinate to society, instead of letting society be subordinate to technologists and their technology (and the capital they serve and/or control).

[tharga8616]

Gladly is only your opinion, while facts from pilots demonstrate that UBI is an activator to do anything, regardless of the activity, paid or non paid.

[Timber-6539]

AI is not good enough to take over most jobs. The hype is overblown and lacking in evidence.

[tivert]

> AI is not good enough to take over most jobs. The hype is overblown and lacking in evidence.

And I'm guessing once the evidence is strong enough to convince you, it will be too late to do anything about it.

[Timber-6539]

We'll cross that bridge if we get there.

[johnnyanmac]

Yeah, last time that happened, Meta became a trillion dollar company before some parts of the world got some semblance of privacy back. The bridge is currently burning and much of the world still doesn't notice its being burnt alive.

I'm not gonna trust the pyromaniacs with the next bridge if I can help it.

[Timber-6539]

What makes you think this time will be any different?

> The bridge is currently burning and much of the world still doesn't notice its being burnt alive.

Citation required.

[satao]

Its just a matter of time

[fhd2]

I kinda agree with both of you. Given infinite time (and assuming humanity is around and willing to work on it for as long as it takes), I suppose we _should_ be able to automate anything. I honestly don't know how long that's gonna take, but I'm sceptical we'll see it in the next ten years.

Anyway, if we see it coming, it'd be silly not to prepare for it in some fashion.