[plopz]

The only part that feels weird about a shorter duration like that is tv/movie adaptations of books. The game of thrones show came out 15 years after the first book, does that mean they would have been able to make it without licensing it from the author?

[ronsor]

It does mean that, and I think that's just something that would have to be accepted. Disney's empire is built on adaptations of public domain stories, after all.

[echelon]

Disney is about to be faced with a landscape where anybody can make Pixar films from home. They're in for a world of hurt in the new regime where thought moves faster than IP.

Film studios only existed because (1) distribution used to be hard and (2) films were financially and logistically difficult to make. Netflix and YouTube slayed the first challenge, and now GenAI will fell the latter and give indie directors the same kind of platform that indie game and indie music folks currently have: true one person studios.

[fwip]

Unlikely. Generative AI is foul and unpleasant to perceive.

[mlindner]

Agreed. Everyone raves about generative AI but I've yet to see a single generative AI video that is "enjoyable" to watch in a way beyond the way tech demos are enjoyable to watch.

[zuminator]

That was also true of quite a lot of early CGI, but most people would say that things have improved. I think we're on the cusp of rapid improvement in AI video as well, in part spurred on by skilled people using the tools we currently have.

I came across the following recently. I think a casual viewer would assume it was just Bakshi-style rotoscoped animation without a major AI component.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9BG6yBkOIE

[HappMacDonald]

My constructive criticism to this video is "90% of it is figures standing still while wind blows their outfit or the camera does a simple move." Sometimes moving their lips as though talking .. though I did like that bird turning it's head smoothly away like "forget this, I'mma preen! Peace out!" Haha

Very much no throughline of concepts from one shot to the next. You never see the same character twice. No foreground dynamic action.. not even simple walking except one far-away character directly away from the camera which means that their silhouette hardly changed.

This all comes from the current generation of video diffusion models that basically just generate an image like they always have except with a hint of temporal coherence they expand that into a short shot with no types of movement except those seen a million times in their training set.

Getting gen models to be able to reason better about motion and to build mental world models of the 3d scene they are managing a 2d window into is going to be a big challenge, and require some additional breakthroughs on a par with the original GPT and stable diffusion breakthroughs that currently act as a foundation to a majority of modern AI innovation.

[roenxi]

> ... and require some additional breakthroughs on a par with the original GPT and stable diffusion breakthroughs ...

You say this like Stable Diffusion isn't a 2022 technology. And not early 2022, but quite late (August). ChatGPT is younger.

I mean sure we need more breakthroughs, but we've barely even seen a new hardware generation since those things came out and the researchers are really only getting started with the new capabilities of generative tech. If we don't get more breakthroughs in short order then that would be a stunning halt of progress, a breaking stop the likes of which we have almost never before seen. More breakthroughs are a given.

[fwip]

An interesting example. It may be because I consider myself a fan of animation (moreso than the average person), but the video has obvious garbage less than fifteen seconds in, with the spaceships (?) morphing and sludging around the pyramid.

[zuminator]

Sure, that's why I said casual viewer and not careful viewer. But getting back to your original point, would you say it was foul and unpleasant? That's really what I'm claiming, that we're fairly quickly advancing beyond the old days of those nightmare Nekobuses and vomit-inducing clips of Will Smith devouring spaghetti, and into territory where at least some people can find the product genuinely enjoyable. Of course nothing will ever be perfect. AI aside, after all these years it's still often jarring when computer physics is shoehorned into cartoons/anime that's designed to look like traditional hand drawn animation.

[ravenstine]

Not sure why you're downvoted. This is one of the most objectively true things said here. CGI was pretty crappy for at least the first few decades of its existence. Even aspects of the animation in Toy Story really show that film's age. I remember realizing that in the early 2000's. Most people either forgot or didn't even experience the early days of CGI and would consider much of it to be nightmare fuel today.

AI is pretty clearly advancing orders of magnitude faster than CGI has. Just because it sucks now doesn't mean it's going to suck in another 5 years.

[lukan]

"Just because it sucks now doesn't mean it's going to suck in another 5 years."

We will see. Some flaws might be baked in, like LLM's halucinating. That won't go away, unless we invent a new tech. So here with generating videos, will morphing objects for example ever go away? I am sceptical with the current approach.

[echelon]

As someone who spends 100 hours a week working in this space, it's so weird seeing such pervasive negative attitudes everywhere I look.

I know the work I'm doing is valuable and that this field is the future. I'm sure it'll click for more folks soon.

[jorvi]

To me the magic is in generating things that would have had too much right issues or would not have been economically viable.

A series that is a variant of the stories of “The Wire”, but taking place in the Harry Potter universe? Coming right up.

Obscure prog rock band from the 90s put out one album? Now its two.

I can understand people their apprehension, feeling like art is losing something essential without the human touch behind it, but I saw an article a few days ago where people thought generated Shakespeare was better than actual Shakespeare. Until it was revealed which was generated.

If AI can generate me another, better Illmatic, I’m all here for it.

[Freak_NL]

The conclusion to draw there is that Shakespeare honestly doesn't make for very good reading today unless you are also delving into the historical context or considering the major impact of his works on humanity's culture from the arts to language. LLM generated output has none of that.

'Ah ha! LLMs are better than Shakespeare!' is a meaningless statement.

Besides, no one reads Shakespeare for pleasure; there is no need to generate more. ;)

[happymellon]

> I know the work I'm doing is valuable and that this field is the future. I'm sure it'll click for more folks soon.

Maybe because not everyone shares your opinion? Having an LLM generate art isn't necessarily a net benefit for society. Computers were supposed to improve our lives but instead of robots to perform dangerous menial work it's taking the creativity out of humanity.

Hey guys you no longer have to do fun things, tech bros have that covered. Now get back down the mine.

[slyall]

There seems to be some people who really hate Generative AI and will call it out and complain wherever they see it.

eg somebody uses it to illustrate an article there will always be somebody who complains.

So anything that enough people see will generate at least one complaint.

[sumtechguy]

The thing is GenAI will be just like CGI. When it is bad it will look bad and has 'that look'. But when it is good enough you will not even know.

The creativity has already gone sideways for most of this. I can with a few simple sentences create an acceptable picture (in some cases a short film). With a AI pipeline I can make some pretty cool scenes. Instead of having to know how to properly draw an s curve with a nice gradient bit of layered colors over it and 14 meticulously created layers. I tell the program to do it for me. It does an acceptable job in a fraction of the time. People can complain all they want but the rest of us are already using these tools and will continue to do so until something better comes along.

[fwip]

Most of the people who seem to be fans of AI-generated art are fans of AI, not of art.

Maybe it'll get to the point where it's good enough to have on as background television - not everything needs to be great, after all - but what's the point of that? We already have far more high-quality television shows and movies than most people can ever watch.

[ronsor]

People repeat "generative AI is all evil garbage" because that's what the media (which is very afraid of AI, might I add) has told them.

It's also funny to see AI turn people who normally dislike copyright into die-hard copyright lovers.

[vundercind]

So far, it's really bad at actually replacing human labor in pro-social ways while being a supercharger for various antisocial jobs, like scam artist or astroturfer. The main "beneficial" use for it today is replacing wasteful labor that probably didn't need to be done in the first place—which is why an AI version is fine, because it didn't matter to begin with.

My wife and I both work in the field, I on the tech side, her on the creative side, and she's been in it since the earliest days of industry trying to adapt these tools. There's a lot (like, holy shit, so much) of effort and money going into it, but so far it's only marginally helpful for non-evil jobs.

[fwip]

I didn't say that? It is foul and unpleasant to behold, based on my experience of viewing it repeatedly over the last 5+ years.

It would be nice if you didn't assume that anybody who doesn't share your opinion is mindlessly regurgitating slop.

[sakjur]

People might care for culture. I’m very much in favor of a reformed copyright that strengthens indie artists, conservationists, and remixers and weakens Disney et al.

It’s also a matter of fact that we have the copyright we have that’s prohibitive to people and favors corporations. It’s upsetting to see how a bunch of Silicon Valley companies stomps right across those lines with impunity, while people like Aaron Swartz are persecuted and threatened with decade long prison sentences for crimes that in my mind ought to be much less upsetting.

If copyright was fair, training of AI intended for non-personal use ought to be a sufficient commercial activity to require a license. That would stiffle the development of AI, which is what I’d argue happens to human creators under our current system.

If we had a 25 year copyright, we could easily make useful AI trained on the sum of human creation until 1999, _and_ have badass human made remixes of 80s and 90s songs — we wouldn’t have to do legal gymnastics to allow the development of useful AI, as it’d have access to quite substantial training material from the 1900s, and unlock relatively modern training material year-by-year.

So yes, I dislike AI for infringing on copyright and I dislike copyright (in its current state).

[underlipton]

Disagree. I've seen things done with generative AI which I've wanted to see visualized for decades, but which were too difficult and time-consuming to do traditionally. I've also seen beautiful things that were either impossible to produce or impossible to even conceive of through traditional workflows.

Those make up an infinitesimally small portion of the total output, which is largely a deluge of crap, certainly. But, generally, rarity makes something more valuable and beautiful by comparison.

[bbddg]

Care to share your examples?

[ronsor]

It is not inherently, but people are very effective at using it to produce foul, unpleasant output, which is a temporary problem. Like almost all things, people will not actually care how they're made if the final product is good.

[furyofantares]

Hm, also at 10 years out how likely is the author to be able to convince someone to do a TV adaptation, knowing that by the time they're done someone else will be able to release their own versions (sans royalty even)?

[seabass-labrax]

Apparently the TV series Game of Thrones cost just under $600m to produce[1], and George R. R. Martin earnt something like $100m from royalties as its original author[2]. Although access to the author for advice and publicity must be valuable, that is nonetheless a very large proportion of the profits that I'm sure many studios would rather not have to share!

[1]: https://movies.stackexchange.com/a/100996

[2]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-6182197

[ronsor]

Many things are only popular for a relatively short period of time. If someone wants to wait until the copyright period is over to do an adaptation, the source material may no longer be that popular, and the adaptation, even without having paid a single royalty, will be unprofitable.

[longdustytrail]

Ok but you’re gonna have a hard time convincing me that (morally) HBO should have been able to make game of thrones without cutting a check to the guy who created it

[account42]

What about the lord of the rings movies? Tolkien didn't get paid from that, his heirs did.

What about Shakespeare.

What about the Brothers Grimm. Should Disnay have to pay for those fairy tales?

In the end every creative work stands on the shoulders of giants. We should reward creators for contributing to our culture but this notion that they should be able to own their creations way past when they become popular is absurd.

[ronsor]

I'm not saying it'd be good for HBO to do that, only that they could. Regardless of whether or not they should, edge cases like GoT's success should not control the outcome for everyone and everything else.

[Mindwipe]

GoT isn't an edge case - it's actually quite quick for an adaptation.

[Mindwipe]

The reality is that almost no adaptations happen until ten years after a book is published. Virtually never.

[echelon]

This is a remarkably salient point.

It can take a long time for certain works to find their wings or true market potential, especially books and music.

Some examples of music: "Take On Me", "Running Up That Hill", "Bohemian Rhapsody", or even bands, like Neutral Milk Hotel

[jhbadger]

You may have a point with a cult band like Neutral Milk Hotel, but songs like Take On Me and Running Up That Hill were incredibly popular when they were new -- it's just that both got a second wave of popularity decades later when they were used on soundtracks of films/shows.

[echelon]

> Running Up That Hill were incredibly popular when they were new

It was far more popular in the recent revival!

[gosub100]

> does that mean they would have been able to make it without licensing it from the author?

yes and it's possible someone could have done it even better, had they not been required to convince investors to purchase copyright. GoT was a masterpiece, don't get me wrong, but it's a fallacy to think it couldn't have been better, or that other book adaptations could have been as good or better, without copyright being in the way.

It's a minor issue in the grand scheme, but my pet peeve is with "synch licenses" (not sure if that's even the right term), but where sitcoms can't go to home video because of stupid disputes about shitty songs that happened to be included. Did anyone watch "Married With Children" because of Frank Sinatra's song "Love and Marriage" in the intro? It's a catchy song, and I'm sure it lured people in who might have otherwise changed the channel, so yes it has value. But it should only be a tiny fraction of the royalties for a full performance of the song. doubly so for home video releases. Would anyone buy even 1 season of MWC just to hear the Sinatra song? I say no. And therefore should not be required to pay any royalties.

I am watching "Murphy Brown" reruns from pirateflix because apparently it never went to home video because of license disputes about the 60's soul songs in the intro. They add character to the show, for sure. But they're not why I watch the show. I watch it for the story and the acting. In this case, actors (who worked extremely hard over 10 seasons of that show!) are being wrongfully deprived of royalties because record execs can't be reasonable about how much 10 seconds of a 60 -year-old song is worth.

[plopz]

Yeah, thats a big problem with shows that work really well with the music, like Scrubs. I'm glad we have piracy to be able to keep the original works with the intended tracks intact.

[thisislife2]

That can be fixed by limiting copyright to a certain duration per medium. You write a book - you have copyright on paper based books for 15 years. You publish it as Ebooks for desktop and mobile devices - get 15 years on that medium. Convert to visuals on Television &/or Films - 15 years on that medium. Virtual reality - another 15 years and so on ...

[radlad]

Are you suggesting that if you release only a book, anyone could take the story and produce a film based on it, because you didn't publish a film?

[thisislife2]

No. I am suggesting that short copyright terms should be tied to the medium of delivery.

If someone writes a book, copyright will begin when they publish the book and the 10-15 years copyright expiration would only be applicable for paper book medium. After the copyright for the paper book medium expires, anybody can republish it. But, only the original copyright owner can "recreate" the work again in another medium - like Games, TV/ Films, Virtual reality etc. Even if that happens after the expiration of copyright on the first medium it originally appeared on.

With the Game of Thrones example, with short copyrights, Martin would lose the copyright on the books (the first original medium it was published on) in 10-15 years. But he would retain the copyright on his work for other medium. So if 20 years down the lane, HBO wanted to recreate his work for TV, they would still have to get his permissions to do so. Once Martin's gives HBO the rights to his work for TV, HBO would own it only for the 10-15 years, and after that, anybody could use it freely too, but only for paper book and TV medium. This means if Meta or Apple want to recreate Game of Thrones as a virtual reality show, they would again have to approach Martin to get his permission. If they do, then they own the copyright to his work, on virtual reality medium, till it expires in 10-15 years.

In this kind of system, the original author would continue to retain the future rights for any new future medium of delivery too.

[tmtvl]

What would happen then if someone wants to make a movie about a book published a few centuries earlier? Would they have to do deep archaeology to find the heirs of the author, the heirs of the heirs, the heirs of the heirs of the heirs,... and then get permission of the hundred-odd heir^Nths?

[thisislife2]

The law would obviously need to address such scenarios. One idea could be to also make everything public domain, for all mediums, when the author dies or a certain period has passed (like 70-80 years).