| I'm on the image and video side of AI. I see the claims being levied against LLMs, but in the generative media world these models are nothing short of revolutionary. In addition to being an engineer, I'm also a filmmaker. This tech has so many orders of magnitude changes to the production cycle: - Films can be made 5,000x cheaper (a $100M Disney film will be matched by small studios on budgets of $20,000.) - Films can be made 5x faster (end-to-end, not accounting for human labor hour savings. A 15 month production could feasibly be done in 3 months.) - Films can be made with 100x fewer people. (Studios of the future will be 1-20 people.) Disney and Netflix are going to be facing a ton of disruptive pressure. It'll be interesting to see how they navigate. Advertising and marketing? We've already seen ads on TV that were made over a weekend [1] for a few thousand dollars. I've talked to customers that are bidding $30k for pharmaceutical ad spots they used to bid $300k for. And the cost reductions are just beginning. [1] https://www.npr.org/2025/06/23/nx-s1-5432712/ai-video-ad-kal... |
In theory (idk it probably exists already) you can generate a script and feed it into an AI that generates a film. Novelty aside, who is going to watch it? And what if you generate a hundred films a day? A thousand?
This probably isn't a hypothetical scenario, as low-effort / generated content is already a thing, both writing, video and music. It's an enormous long tail on e.g. youtube, amazon, etc, relying on people passively consuming content without paying too much attention to it. The background muzak of everything.
As someone smarter than me summarized, AI generated stuff is content, not art. AI generated films will be content, not art. There may be something compelling in there, but ultimately, it'll flood the market, become ubiquitous, and disappear into the background as AI generated background noise that only few people will seek out or watch intentionally.