[ilaksh]

That's a good point but there is also a lot more passive consumption than actual interaction.

Also, AI video's IQ is generally pretty low now, but it still has the capacity to create very tailored experiences, such as with AI influencers automatically responding to every single comment from any viewer that donates X dollars. The are limitations to the digital avatars and video generation etc., but they are already very engaging. And in the next 1-3 years they will get much better.

Where we are headed in possibly 2-5 years is the expectation for many people that the personalities, activities, videos in general are completely customized for them or for the communities they are in. And change immediately based on their whims (or constrained by more realistic humanlike reactions if desired).

LTX video can be fine-tuned to produce a consistent character and runs at realtime frame rates. It is a tiny 2b model and it's understanding of prompts and the world is garbage because of that, but hardware and models keep getting much much better.

[emseetech]

Before investing billions in individually curated, generated influencers and content creators, maybe we should market test it first and see if it's what anybody actually wants, let alone whether it's even achievable in any meaningful way.

A lot of AI people make strong assumptions about what the consumer market demand is for explicitly (as in, not "tricking" the user) AI generated art, music and content.

[ToucanLoucan]

The fundamental issue is extremely pro-AI people do not respect any creative endeavor at all, and therefore all of this is unknowable to them. They don't know why people are interested in art or why people want to make art; movies, images, music, any form of creative expression; they simply know that people are interested in those things, and that various AI models will let them make those things without investing into the skills to execute, or indeed, even the vision to know what they might want to make. To them, a movie is not a thing you make because you want to express something: a movie is a product, brought to market, and people then pay tickets to see, and they see things like Sora as a way to make movies that people will want to see. This is the only way that the way they talk makes any sense: because they don't know why people want to see movies, them wanting to see it is treated as a given. Of course they'll want to see it, it's a movie.

And like, this isn't that weird. This is the mindset of every money-minded media executive that exists, and is why studio meddling in projects is almost universally bad, and the more meddling there is, the more frantic focus-group testing that's done, the more diluted and bad the art comes out in the end. Classic example is the original theatrical release of Blade Runner which was subject to tons of studio interference before it's release, and the studio's version is so legendarily bad that the studio itself, decades later, has all but fucking buried it at sea.

It's this particular kind of brain worms that infests people who want to get into that space, but have no desire to cultivate skill. They want to make things people love and/or get the money for doing so, but they have no idea why people make things, or why people want the things people make. Hence why all of them are tripping over themselves for their imagined AI future.

And if you think I’m being elitist or whatever, I’m just reading the marketing here. All of this stuff is sold with the primary selling point being you can make stuff without learning the skills required to make stuff so it’s naturally going to be most appealing to people who lack skills and see the acquisition of them, or more likely the difficulty involved in that, as something they don’t want to deal with.