[troupo]

> No more Disney-fication, no more Marvel / Star Wars "mass media slop". We'll have media that caters to people's long-tail interests.

Lol. Where do you think these models will get the source data for these amazing generations?

Also, an average person's "long tail" is incredibly boring (I know mine is). You will need someone to create a next Breaking Bad, or a next Discworld, or... Your slop-generating machine will not be able to generate it from a "long tail"

[echelon]

> Where do you think these models will get the source data for these amazing generations?

Doesn't matter one bit, just like mp3 and torrents didn't stop digital music.

If you care, there are already "ethical models", there are synthetic datasets, and soon rights holders will be licensing training data.

But it literally doesn't matter. The entire world will be on board soon. IP holders included.

> Your slop-generating machine

I'm in the industry. We're not talking about LLMs powering this, but writers and directors and VFX artists.

Hollywood is switching to AI rapidly. The problem for the studios is we don't need them anymore. They only existed because distribution and capital were hard. That isn't the case anymore. A skilled team of five can make content on their own.

[mbesto]

> Doesn't matter one bit, just like mp3 and torrents didn't stop digital music.

mp3 and torrents are storage and distributions mechanisms, not production ones. This is an inappropriate analogy.

[echelon]

It's entirely appropriate. Those were the first digital distribution routes.

As much as the RIAA hated digital, they eventually caved.

[dylan604]

RIAA hating digital and finally caving on distribution is totally different than all of the artists getting replaced by genAI. It's just not the same no matter how much you keep trying to push that square peg into a round hole.

[echelon]

We're talking about orthogonal things again.

IP vs distribution vs the means of production.

I'm happy to discuss all of these things, but let's stop flip flopping around.

When the means of production are easier, that changes the supply and demand curves. There's more supply and lower cost, but that opens the gates to larger and new work that hasn't been possible before.

We're entering an era where ONE PERSON can make a Pixar film. That's astounding and amazing. Every artist can become a Makoto Shinkai [1] and make their own Voices of a Distant Star [2] in their garage. All by themselves.

We're going to see an explosion of creators like Makoto Shinkai, Vivienne Medrano, Joel Haver, Zach Hadel, et al.

Garage Band and Indie Music and Steam Greenlight and Indie Games is exactly what is about to happen to art, animation, and film.

Distribution will be hard, but the market for indie creators is exploding. And the work they produce is so much better than Hollywood slop. They put their heart and soul into their work, and you can tell. It's direct and intimate.

I am one of these creators, and I am telling you: this is a good thing !

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makoto_Shinkai

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voices_of_a_Distant_Star

[mbesto]

> When the means of production are easier, that changes the supply and demand curves. There's more supply and lower cost, but that opens the gates to larger and new work that hasn't been possible before.

Your correct, but you're conflating the "source and generation of music" with the digitization of distribution specifically to the RIAA's role. From your original point:

> > Where do you think these models will get the source data for these amazing generations? Doesn't matter one bit, just like mp3 and torrents didn't stop digital music.

I'm saying the two (production and distribution) aren't equivalent for the parties involved. The RIAA faced an existential criss with digitization because their purpose (license and distribute music) would cease to exist under mp3/torrents. The RIAA does NOT represent the artist and the threat here is about the artist. In fact, the RIAA would LOVE to do away with artists and find a cheaper means of production if the could...it means higher profit margin for them.

The OP's point was that the new wave of art has to originate from somewhere. The distribution partners don't care how it gets produced, they just want to own the distribution. The artists are now in a existential crisis, not the RIAA. The RIAA at least had a migration story; e.g. from physically printing vinyl, providing capital for music studios, etc. to becoming glorified lawyers and promoters in the supply chain. The artists do not. Hence, the parallel is inappropriate and doesn't capture the essence of the predicament, which is artists are in existential crisis with no clear migration path.

[sunrunner]

> A skilled team of five can make content on their own

And a skilled team of one can also make good, creative and unique content by themselves (I'm thinking mostly of the kind of things that end up on YouTube, Nebula, etc.)

> Hollywood is switching to AI rapidly.

I'm curious as to what people think the long term prospect for this really is. If it's true that the number of people involved in the creation of this content goes down then does it get cheaper and more available? Faster to create? But to what end? Who's even paying to engage with it? Presumably not the people that used to work in the production of those things, because they've been displaced by the content generation machines. More and more content will be sold to people that are perhaps less able to afford it.

[troupo]

So many words completely failing to address a single word I wrote

[echelon]

What is with people being so mean?

[troupo]

People still expect others to reply to points raised, reach logical conclusions and generally keep within the context of the conversation.