Currently nothing points to anything. We just have a very generic announcement filled with buzzwords. There isn’t anything concrete there. It could go any which way at this point.
What I want to say with it is that nothing really changes.
We get either mainstream slop or better products according to what whoever’s in charge wants. Whether they ask it of a human writer or of AI doesn’t really change much.
There is no protocol yet. At all. Neither common or uncommon. So there is no way to know which outcome we’ll get because there aren’t enough examples yet of this situation happening.
Yeah, and that’s fine. AI usage itself is not inherently bad.
A AI First focus (hence pushing the usage of AI above human personal) though is inherently bad in the current state of the technology.
Which relates to this:
We do, we have a pointer, which is the prevalence of companies which are in similar sectors (entertainment) using these types of tools and the outcomes it creates depending on weight put onto it compared to other methods.
And it doesn’t point a good picture.
And that is actually a wrong statement.
The likelyhood of a proper execution is higher when there’s a fixed and well established route to success available.
Obviously so.
But there is not - yet - and hence the likeylhood for success is respectively lower.
Such as? I’m not aware of any major product that was mostly AI created.
There are lots of smaller products, since AI currently mostly helps people like small developers that can’t create assets.
And these tend to be both cases:
-People just wanting a quick turnover of games to make a quick buck, with very little quality.
-People creating genuine products, just skipping the parts they can’t do themselves, such as renders and other assets.
We do have a lot of free slop on youtube and social media, but those are very different things, since those tend to be done by smaller groups of people or even just individuals trying to generate interaction.
As far as I’m aware, there still isn’t a big company putting out major products out there that are mainly AI generated. Either in arts or in any other field. All that we have are companies replacing organizational and support infrastructures with AI.
Not necessarily. In fact, a fixed and well established route to success is what leads to mainstream slop. It’s what originated all the Fast and Furious movies, it’s what originated the whole flood of remakes and reboots, it’s what originated the “safe bets”.
Going back to your examples, movies like Pulp Fiction, Mad Max or Fight Club were movies that actually deviated from the “fixed and well established route to success”.
(I’m not including Inception because that is just eXistenZ reskinned. It’s basically a remake.)
Not really. A major product still needs backing, still needs money to finance it. Especially for publicity/marketing purposes.
And a big part of why we still don’t have one is simple public perception. Currently most people are against AI art. If they know something is made by AI they will immediately approach it with dislike. Even if it was something they would like if they hadn’t know in advance it was AI.
It’s like non-vegetarians approaching a vegetarian dish. They will immediately approach it with lots of suspicion and their first tendency will be to dislike it, even if they wouldn’t actually disliked it if they hadn’t known in advance.
Currently this is the public stance:
And until that changes we likely won’t see major products with AI. First we’ll get a few small products being a bit successful and growing slowly from there.
Which is generative AI usage and also a massive issue related to copyright still.
A complex one as well given that the premise of generative AI is taking other art and making your own out of what the AI learns.
Which is… identical to human creativity, which is combining aspects of experiences to create something new out of it. Just more simplistic for AI still.
The differentiation by law is hence problematic as no former tool had the capabilities to do such a thing, and differentiating between it while creating a functioning reasonable framework which is neither the death of progress nor the death of individual creativity.
Extreme minority reaction.
The general thing is ‘something new? I’m sceptical’ and that’s it. Isn’t related to vegan vs. non-vegan. At best you can take the premise with substitute products being included, like ‘vegan meat’. And then it’s reasonable as most of those products really taste like shit when you compare it to the original products they wanna copy.
But it’s the ‘new’ aspect mostly, outside of a few specific areas in the world. Not naming specific countries here
Yes, the legal ramifications of it are also a big part of why it’s not yet used in a major creative product. No big studio wants to risk being sued because their AI took something from someone’s IP.
No, not really. Because of the rise of vegan “culture” in social media (and, let’s be honest, the unsufferable attitude of many within that culture), many people became antagonistic towards it.
Just like many people became antagonistic to AI due to how it was released. And when you’re antagonistic towards something, you’ll often dislike it, even when you do like it.
Or you’ll say you don’t like it, and act accordingly, which amounts to the same thing in terms of financial revenue for such a product.
It’s not really a remake, but the basic premise (go deep into “non-real” worlds until you don’t know where reality is, or what is real and what is not) of the movie is the same. Even the end if pretty much the exact same (in that it doesn’t clarify if you’re in “reality” or not and leaves it open ended).
Not really. Star Trek is more about “Simulation gone wrong and bleeding into reality” but there’s never really much doubt where the reality is, other than an episode or other.
If I’m not mistaken, Barclay even tries in the final moment of the Moriaty-episode to have the computer end the program, unsure whether he is in reality or not.
So if we contrive some basic premisses as basically remakes, than ExistenZ is the remake of that Star Trek episode.
No, he knows he’s in a simulation. That’s the whole premise of the episode. He takes control of the ship and in the end he doesn’t know if he’ll still exist when he exits the simulator room.
But that wouldn’t be because he doesn’t know which is reality, it’s just that he doesn’t know if the technology will support it.
Anyway, the point isn’t simply that the base premise is vaguely similar. It’s that the premise is basically the same.
In both movies you go down into a simulated reality (VR vs dream), in both movies you dive further into another simulated reality, in both movies you walk back and forth, in both movies you end up in the reality the viewer assumes as the “original” only to cast doubt on whether that wasn’t also a simulation all along.
If you’re talking about Hollow Pursuits (which is the one where he simulates the crew), there really isn’t there either. Barclay knows he’s in a simulation, the simulated people don’t, there’s no bleeding into reality or any doubt about if you’re in reality of not.
I know it’s been a while since I last saw that (about 10 years since my last TNG rewatch, I think), but Barclay is using the simulation room as escapism and there is never a real doubt what the reality is. So not quite the same.
The moriarty episode would be closer to this premise, since he’s a simulated person that becomes aware of a reality “above” his own. But even then there’s never any real doubt left as to which is the reality, neither for him or everyone else (or the viewer).
Oh yeah, I do see what you mean. I didn’t even remember that Barclay was in that episode (which is so strange, he’s such a remarkable character ). But yes, that one has the same premise of eXistenZ.
You could even argue (and I would) that eXistenZ is an extended version of that same premise, much like Inception is an extended version of the previous premise.
The only difference between all 3 is the end, where Star Trek’s does give you an answer, whereas the other 2 hint at a “superior” reality.
And I think it’s very likely that each served as inspiration for the one that followed.
I’m not familiar with that, but it’s not an uncommon theme in sci-fi, at least. I know that Philip K. Dick has at last one or two on that theme.
I honestly don’t even know when those books were released, but I’d guess late 50s or early 60s. Books like the 3 stigmata of Palmer Eldritch or Time out of joint both explore that premise.
And I’m sure that we can even find earlier examples of this.
). But yes, that one has the same premise of eXistenZ.