[roarcher]

Never. I've seen people instantly go from liking a static image to disliking it upon learning it was AI generated. The same applies to other kinds of media. No matter how "good" it is, knowing that it was created by an unfeeling algorithm ruins it for most people.

[jonplackett]

I read a while ago that big scientific ideas take about 50 years to be accepted. Which basically means they are never accepted. The people who disagree just get old and die.

Younger generation who grow up with AI will just think it’s normal, like we think being connected to the internet via a rectangle you keep in your pocket is normal.

[roarcher]

Scientific ideas have the benefit of being objectively true.

AI movies are not a "scientific idea". Liking them is a matter of taste, and there are plenty of things that never catch on.

[jonplackett]

I’d say it’s the other way around - it took 50 years for EVEN A SCIENTIFIC IDEA - with proof to be accepted. That should have happened super quick. But it didn’t.

My point is that you and I will probably never accept it - but our kids will never even think it’s weird in the first place.

[DetroitThrow]

>I’d say it’s the other way around - it took 50 years for EVEN A SCIENTIFIC IDEA - with proof to be accepted.

I recall eerily similar things said about Google Glass..

Maybe AI generation will be used in popular media more often, but purely AI generated content or AI brain rot seems to only appeal to a small crowd of people right now, and I don't see that crowd growing significantly.

Maybe it's a technology problem, as Google Glass was, but I think that's inseparable from the content it actually generates at this non-AGI stage.

Regardless, it sounds very uncertain and perhaps even unlikely that what we see being created now is the future.

[roarcher]

That's not the other way around, that's my point. A scientific idea will eventually be accepted because its objective truth makes it inevitable in spite of resistance. Wide acceptance of AI movies is no more inevitable than wide acceptance of bellbottom jeans--it's simply a matter of like or dislike. From what I've seen, people have a strong aversion to it and no particular reason to overcome that aversion.

So far not one commenter in this thread has articulated why AI movies are inevitable.

[CamperBob2]

Wide acceptance of AI movies is no more inevitable than wide acceptance of bellbottom jeans--it's simply a matter of like or dislike

It's inevitable because you won't be able to tell the difference.

[roarcher]

Really? I won't be able to tell that the "actors" in a feature-length presentation don't actually exist?

I see you responded to this point elsewhere in this thread, but frankly your reply is a non-sequitur. I'm not sure what you mean by it.

[throwup238]

Also called Planck’s principle [1] commonly phrased as “science progresses one funeral at a time”. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn is a classic book on the topic.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle

[imiric]

"Never" is quite short-sighted.

Most people would use these tools for personal use, if nothing else. Seeing a celebrity, themselves, their friends, etc., act out any scenario they can think of is quite an appealing proposition. And porn, of course, for better or worse.

In the long-term, this has the potential to significantly change how media is created and consumed. Feature films produced by large studios will undoubtedly continue to exist, and they will also leverage the technology, but it's not difficult to imagine a new branch of personalized media becoming popular. The tools are practically already there; they just need to become more accessible, and slightly better.

[roarcher]

Man, am I ever getting tired of replying to the same irrelevant points over and over again.

> Most people would use these tools for personal use

Not what we're talking about. Not "personalized media", not large studios "leveraging the technology", not "visual effects".

See: "blockbuster movies produced by a guy in his basement for <$1000".

[imiric]

Nothing I said was irrelevant.

If you're unable to draw a line between the points I made and "blockbuster movies produced by a guy in his basement for <$1000", that's on you.

[roarcher]

It's irrelevant because I never claimed that AI wouldn't be used in the way you said. You're arguing against a point I never made.

There is no line, and you never claimed there was in your original comment, so stop moving the goalposts. Vague language like "personalized media becoming popular" is not the same thing as "blockbuster movies".

Calling my answer "short-sighted" when you couldn't be bothered to read the thread or apparently even the thing I was replying to is, in fact, on you.

[jcims]

New things will be possible that aren’t today. You’ll be able to pick the stars in your movie. The home base can be your childhood home. Your unrequited love can be virtually fulfilled. Etc etc.

[dragonwriter]

Yes, and none of these hyperpersonal movies will be a blockbuster; they'll be lucky to have audiences requiring the fingers of more than one hand to count, because everyone will have their own hyperpersonal preferences.

[roarcher]

A good thing, since most such movies will be made to keep one hand occupied.

[roarcher]

A "blockbuster movie" implies commercial use. I think actual stars would object to their likeness being used in that way.

If you're talking about people firing up the ol' 5090 to make a "movie" about their favorite streamer falling madly in love with them for, ahem, personal use, I have no doubt that people will do that. And I will do everything in my power to avoid associating with such brain-rotted cretins.

[jonwinstanley]

This is defo true until the moment it gets so good people can't tell.

[roarcher]

Gonna be pretty hard to pass off a whole movie as real when none of the "actors" exist.

[CamperBob2]

Nothing you see on a screen is real. (And long ago, a smart guy named Plato went even further than that.)

[roarcher]

Huh? Are you just trying to sound cryptic, or are you actually claiming that the actors in current movies are also fake?

And yes, I'm well aware of the allegory of the cave. So is everyone. What I don't understand is why it's such a popular rhetorical device with people who have no discernible point but want to sound as if they do. It's actually quite ironic.

[numpad0]

you see, I think there's a huge oversight in that sentence. People don't enjoy analysis of an art, people feel positive from looking at one and like doing it.

they're not doing enough to optimize AI data generators for dopamine release with animalistic obsession. Instead they focus on scientific indistinguishablilitiness, and people aren't liking that. IMO that's has been an ongoing and growing costly mistake.

[danielbln]

Never is a long time. The resistance will erode.

[roarcher]

"People will like AI movies because it's inevitable"

Circular reasoning. If you can't answer WHY people should come to like AI movies, then you have nothing to say.

[bryantwolf]

People will like them when they’re good content. Right now we’re stuck in the in between where it’s kind of all or nothing ai, but it will get grayer when the feedback loops are tighter and building ai movies is more interactive. Same thing with any special effects really

[roarcher]

I think AI has its place in special effects, but "making a blockbuster movie for $1000" requires replacing all the actors, music, cinematography, everything that makes a movie "art" except maybe the plot. And I have never seen anyone respond well to AI "art" of any form. I've seen some fairly passable (if a bit boring) AI music passed around on Reddit and it was universally met with disgust simply because it was AI.

[fart-fart-FART]

you're seeing them on reddit and twitter. they aren't normal people. normal people don't run a background check on $thing and its creators to determine whether they are allowed to like it or not.

[roarcher]

In another comment you're defending AI girlfriends, and you're going to tell me what "normal" people who don't live on the internet do?

As a matter of fact, all the actually normal people I talk to about AI in person also find it offputting.

[fart-fart-FART]

that comment doesn't "defend" AI girlfriends, it points out the absurdity of condemning AI girlfriends in a world where porn and prostitution exist and are widely accepted by the "polite society".

also, case in point, normal people don't dig through a random stranger's post history to look for an ad hominem opportunity, and instead evaluate individual posts by their contents. lol.

[roarcher]

The combination of a brand new account with an incredibly juvenile username and careless writing (lack of capitalization in your case) usually is a red flag for a spam account, so yes, in these cases I usually check comments to see if I'm wasting my time with a troll.

Porn is still taboo. It's understood that most people use it, but it's not exactly something you bring up in polite company.

Where on earth do you live that prostitution is "widely accepted by polite society"? You can go to jail for it where I am.

And I did address the rest of your comment. As I said, in my experience "normal" people do object to AI content. I don't know where you got the bit about "background checks" and being "allowed" to like stuff. Nobody I know had to be told to have an aversion to AI "art", it's a natural reaction.