[Papazsazsa]

You can't prompt-inject the intangibles.

Now, Cannes specifically – and entertainment generally – is rife with hucksters and people who started off as hucksters only to later become credible. Culture jamming is often looked back on as innovative!

But the difference between this and, say, Adbusters is that Adbusters and artists in general tend to punch up, whereas this – regardless of merit – is looked at by other artists as punching down, simply because it doesn't carry any intangibles.

And art is intangibles.

Time, culture, sweat, friction, a personal POV; art is an inherently human-to-human communication tool anyway. When you strip all of that away you lose something, in the same way a Big Mac is not the same as your mom's spaghetti.

I think that AI filmmakers, if they believe they can make films of high critical and/or or commercial success, need to avoid engaging in culture jamming and take a more honest approach. "This is my chosen medium" and then develop in public while treating the intangibles as legitimate, instead of something to be hacked around.

[jcgrillo]

> Higgsfield, a San Francisco startup valued at $1.3 billion..

I don't think these are filmmakers. They aren't here for the art, they're here to find product market fit and, increase revenue, and raise another round at higher valuation.

[skeledrew]

Sounds like none of the largest blockbuster films were made by filmmakers.

[jcgrillo]

False equivalence. A large studio production still retains the voice and editorial oversight of its director, which is why you can differentiate between films by their directors. There are undoubtedly many filmmakers who collaborate on such productions. Whether or not you believe such projects produce good work, you cannot deny the people involved are artists.

This company is not that. They're a venture backed silicon valley startup. Not a film studio. Not a production house. Their business is not about films, it's about raising venture capital, and (maybe) providing an exit to their investors. Whether they do it by producing a blockbuster movie or some other thing is immaterial, and they'll pivot towards whatever is the most expedient path. They're an "AI tools" company.

[skeledrew]

> A large studio production still retains the voice and editorial oversight of its director, which is why you can differentiate between films by their directors

None of that really matters. Ultimately films are rated based on how much they make at the box office, which is a function of the content, audience preferences and marketing. A director becomes well known by the impact of their production, not the other way around. Really doesn't matter - to the majority spending to see a given film - who the director was, beyond as a marker to find/avoid similar works in the future. If a director makes a crappy film with humans, they'll be known as a crappy director. And if they make a good film using AI, they'll be known as a good director (UNLESS there are a lot of specifically anti-AI people in the crowd AND it's known the film was made using primarily AI). And the good director will be praised for the artistry they put into the work.

[jcgrillo]

Well, before we get too far ahead of our skis, let's wait until someone makes a good film with AI. This company didn't, nor will they. It's not their business. Whether anyone ever will is an open question.