OPEN AI VIDEO TECH ONE YEAR LATER...

[Ty Harper]

6 hours ago, Tim Sewell said:

And, oh yeah, forgot to say; a talented teenager with a handycam and a few good-looking pals will be able to create art infinitely more compelling than any AI can for far longer than any of us will still live on this planet.

No technological advancement will ever stop humans from the desire to make art. So what you're saying is 100% true but not really in dispute. This is about the filmmaking economy and who will be able to make a sustainable living off the art of filmmaking.

[Tim Sewell]

14 minutes ago, Ty Harper said:

No technological advancement will ever stop humans from the desire to make art. So what you're saying is 100% true but not really in dispute. This is about the filmmaking economy and who will be able to make a sustainable living off the art of filmmaking.

Quite - but that in turn is dictated by what people want to watch. As I said much earlier, this will become a class signifier. Right now there's a whole lot of cheap, badly-written throwaway tosh that a segment of the population wants (or can afford) to watch. That will continue but with large parts of its creation taken over by AI or AI-aided processes - so yes, some jobs lost etc. But higher end entertainment etc will still be largely human-originated. I don't think anyone is going to pay a Netflix subscription to watch a steady diet of derivative AI-generated content.

I used to do wedding photography. The widespread adoption of smartphones with good-enough cameras ripped out most of the lower end of that market; but mid-market and above weddings? They want real photographers and those photographers generally make a much better living than they ever made on the low end. Things will change, quite a few markets will go, but new ones will emerge and current ones will grow. It's a change, but it's not the end.

[Ty Harper]

1 hour ago, Tim Sewell said:

I don't think anyone is going to pay a Netflix subscription to watch a steady diet of derivative AI-generated content.

I hope you're right - but when I hear comments like this it makes me think alot of us are probably in for a big reality check on the impact this will have on mainstream content. I'd also say that we already have ample signs that there is indeed a huge appetite for content that isn't human. It's called cartoons, animation, CGI, etc. I'm not sure of the history of animation's rise but if there was a backlash to that tech - it obviously didn't last. Also I'll say it again: my 5 year-old will not have these moral attachments to human vs non-human content - and it is them and future kids that will be driving all of this. 

But again, I hope you're right.

[KnightsFan]

1 hour ago, Tim Sewell said:

The widespread adoption of smartphones with good-enough cameras ripped out most of the lower end of that market; but mid-market and above weddings? They want real photographers and those photographers generally make a much better living than they ever made on the low end.

A trend towards "fewer wealthier photographers" is generally an accurate description of many industries, and is a cause for economic concern.

Often when people talk about what AI can't do, they jump to comparing to the top 0.0000001% of humanity. AI might never achieve what Michelangelo, or Scorsese, or Bach, or Pink Floyd did. But if it can achieve what the bottom 30% of artists can--that's a lot of artists losing money.

[IronFilm]

7 hours ago, Ty Harper said:

I have been watching AI very closely and watching the advancements very closely. I was in the middle of, and have been planning for the last four years, about an $800 million expansion at the studio, which would’ve increased the backlot a tremendous size — we were adding 12 more soundstages. All of that is currently and indefinitely on hold because of Sora and what I’m seeing. I had gotten word over the last year or so that this was coming, but I had no idea until I saw recently the demonstrations of what it’s able to do. It’s shocking to me.

I read this interview with Tyler Perry yesterday, and if a person wants to see concrete proof that AI will impact the film industry, then they need look no further!

An $800M expansion to his studio lot, that now won't go ahead. That's a huge number of jobs gone now, who would have been working on constructing it, and then working on the soundstages once they were up and running. 

7 hours ago, Ty Harper said:

I think it’s going to be a major game-changer, because if you could spend a fraction of the cost to do a pilot that would’ve cost $15 [million], $20 million or even $35 million if you’re looking at HBO, of course the bottom line of those companies would be to go the route of lesser costs. So I am very, very concerned that in the near future, a lot of jobs are going to be lost. I really, really feel that very strongly.

Yup, exactly. 

  

6 hours ago, Tim Sewell said:

I don't think anyone is going to pay a Netflix subscription to watch a steady diet of derivative AI-generated content.

If it is entertaining enough, and it is cheap enough, then of course people will pay! 

And is really any different to a person spending 20hrs over the weekend playing computer games when 100% of what this media they're consuming are also not "real humans"? But they're entertained! And they'll pay for it. 

  

5 hours ago, Ty Harper said:

I'd also say that we already have ample signs that there is indeed a huge appetite for content that isn't human. It's called cartoons, animation, CGI, etc. I'm not sure of the history of animation's rise but if there was a backlash to that tech - it obviously didn't last. Also I'll say it again: my 5 year-old will not have these moral attachments to human vs non-human content - and it is them and future kids that will be driving all of this. 

Exactly, as well as the example I just gave of computer games, there is also already: Cartoons, Animation, CGI, etc 

[kye]

8 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

Often when people talk about what AI can't do, they jump to comparing to the top 0.0000001% of humanity. AI might never achieve what Michelangelo, or Scorsese, or Bach, or Pink Floyd did. But if it can achieve what the bottom 30% of artists can--that's a lot of artists losing money.

Agreed.  and let's face it, AI probably isn't that far off being better than the designed-by-committee dross that the studios are just pumping out these days.

I keep posting this video, but it keeps being relevant:

Why?

Because it's easier to make a movie with explosions and cheap laughs than for the writer and director and actors to make characters the audience actually cares about.

10 hours ago, Ty Harper said:

No technological advancement will ever stop humans from the desire to make art.

I heard something the other day that I suspect is incredibly profound..  that the sense of emptiness that humans are prone to having (that we try all sorts of things to fill, like excessive consumption) can only be filled by creativity.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, considering that my film-making is extremely niche and may date extremely quickly and any music-making that I am contemplating returning to is unlikely to find an audience unless I engage in an open-ended part-time marketing campaign to promote it.  So the question is how many people need to view/listen for me to think that it's 'worth it'.

[JulioD]

Having worked in Atlanta and for Perry, I’d suggest the “reason” is a convenient excuse.  
 

Production was already heading towards a slump BEFORE the recent strike and is staring down the barrel of another strike.  
 

All of the streamers are struggling to make money.  They are green lighting less content.  
 

I was talking to an LA based Panavision sales rep a couple of days ago and they they said for them production was about 15-20% of what it was 18 months ago.  
 

Production has slumped.  Strikes have and continue to menace.  Not a good time to throw down on a studio.  AI was more like the icing on the cake.  Perry is just blaming this on a decision he would have made anyway. 
 

[BTM_Pix]

5 hours ago, kye said:

So the question is how many people need to view/listen for me to think that it's 'worth it'.

One.

Including yourself.

[kye]

35 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

One.

Including yourself.

I think that's the logical conclusion, I'm sort of just letting that concept percolate from my brain through the rest of my innards.  Something deep inside has a need to feel useful, like it would be very unhappy if you paid me to do some task like writing a document or something, but knowing that no-one would ever read it, and art that is never viewed by anyone else seems to trigger that same (or a very similar) mechanism.

In a lot of the corporate work I've done we've found that there is a big difference between knowing something theoretically and having experienced it.  If you explain a concept to someone they can claim to understand it, and you can test them later and they'll remember it, but it won't change how they act when they return to normal duties.  If you run them through an exercise where they experience the very same thing, then something different happens and it's like it "sinks in" and they are then changed so when they go back to their normal duties they put their new understanding to work.  

Since seeing this happen dozens of times in many different situations, I've come to realise that this process for something to go from my brain to the other bits of my being is a process that matters, and although I have no idea how to do it reliably, often it will happen over time if I gradually ponder the concept and give it time.  It might also require some experimentation, of giving it a go and seeing what happens.
There's a saying that "it's easier to act your way into a new way of thinking than to think your way into a new way of acting".  So it's probably a case that I have to give it a go.

I've just been a bit out of my routine since the holiday break and haven't gotten back to my routines completely yet.  I'm mostly back there, but I've got to add this part back in.  I would normally work, exercise, relax for a bit listening to music (sort-of a meditation), and then do some film-making by jumping into Resolve and do some editing or colour grading practice, or watching a course, etc.  I'm back to most of that, but haven't quite gotten the daily film-making part added yet, although I am working my way through the latest masterclass from Hector Berrebi on beauty and skin retouching, which is fascinating and deep into the professional colourist realm, but is super-useful and I've been waiting for it since it was announced.

[IronFilm]

1 hour ago, JulioD said:

I was talking to an LA based Panavision sales rep a couple of days ago and they they said for them production was about 15-20% of what it was 18 months ago.  

Wait a second.... WHAT?? 

Are they saying it is "down by 15-20%" or that it is "15-20% of what it was before"??

 

[Mmmbeats]

I think people brushing this aside are being a bit short-sighted, bordering on naive.

I'd say that what we've seen so far from text-to-image from machine learning has been -

• Quick developing.  One month it's all fuzzy, the next month it's all smoothed out.  One month there are 11 fingers on each hand, a year later there are only 6.😅  In other words - it iterates fast.
• Unpredictable.  As even a tech-savvy person, it is really hard to predict what 'AI' (I don't like using that term) is going to be good at, and bad at - 🖐️!
• Far reaching.
• Useful.  I'm not a particular enthusiast, but I have used Adobe's AI tools on around 75% of the projects I have delivered as a freelancer over the past 6 months or so.  And that's just casually discovering things that make my life *tons* easier.  I also believe them to be reasonably ethical, or I wouldn't be using them.

Similarly, I think the impact of this will be quick developing and unpredictable.  The biggest threat I think, may be that unpredictability itself.  It's going to be very difficult developing a workflow, without knowing whether it will become undermined by a much easier AI pathway at some not-so-distant point.

Example - I recently decided to really lean into doing 2.5d and true 3d animations from flat artworks as a client offering (for context, a lot of my clients are museums).  To really develop skills in this using tools like Cinema 4D, Projection 3D, DUIK, etc. will take a couple of years of learning as I go.  I very much doubt that AI will explode into use in that time, but certainly at some point just beyond that horizon I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a turnkey AI tool that offers very professional bespoke 3D animation from still images.  That's very up AI's street.

Aside from some very obvious things, like news gathering, I don't see anything that machine learning could not potentially impact within the foreseeable future.  This includes - editing a corporate film from start to finish from supplied footage almost instantly, with several versions to choose from; writing a compelling and original television series (yes, I honestly believe that machines will be doing this); creating photo-realistic footage of any location in the world that has been photographed more than 3 times, etc., etc.  

Of the course the nature of unpredictability is that just as equally, none of this might happen.  But I think the main point to make is that the scale of the threat (to professional livelihoods) is so profound, that anybody just blithely ignoring it has their head in the sand to my reckoning.

[Ty Harper]

1 hour ago, Mmmbeats said:

Of the course the nature of unpredictability is that just as equally, none of this might happen.  But I think the main point to make is that the scale of the threat (to professional livelihoods) is so profound, that anybody just blithely ignoring it has their head in the sand to my reckoning.

All of this!

But also as I said in an earlier post - everyone has their own way of coping in a moment like this - so I'm trying my best to not judge or engage when that seems to be the case.

[Ty Harper]

1 hour ago, Mmmbeats said:

Aside from some very obvious things, like news gathering, I don't see anything that machine learning could not potentially impact within the foreseeable future.

I def see anyone whose job revolves around script research/writing being impacted by this - so that includes producers in the news gathering field. So if you've got an EP, then a Senior Producer, then producers and then Associate Producers - I can see that being flattened out to maybe just a Senior and a host making up an entire team.

[ghostwind]

2 hours ago, Mmmbeats said:

Of the course the nature of unpredictability is that just as equally, none of this might happen.  But I think the main point to make is that the scale of the threat (to professional livelihoods) is so profound, that anybody just blithely ignoring it has their head in the sand to my reckoning.

There's a difference between ignoring it and obsessing about it like in this thread and in the news in general. Too much obsessing about the unknown is a waste of time. Be open about it, changes, educate yourself, but no need to panic and put things "on hold" because the "AI" monster is coming.

As an example, I read some folks talking about leaving this field and going into IT, and I found that a bit ironic, as a lot of those jobs will be automated pretty fast. To me that's panic, not rational thinking.

[Ty Harper]

2 hours ago, ghostwind said:

There's a difference between ignoring it and obsessing about it like in this thread and in the news in general. Too much obsessing about the unknown is a waste of time. Be open about it, changes, educate yourself, but no need to panic and put things "on hold" because the "AI" monster is coming.

As an example, I read some folks talking about leaving this field and going into IT, and I found that a bit ironic, as a lot of those jobs will be automated pretty fast. To me that's panic, not rational thinking.

Lol, this is a forum FILLED with people "obsessing" over much less important stuff - but also - we all respond to cultural shifts like this differently - so if this thread bothers you, feel free to move along. I do it all the time.

[Ty Harper]

2 hours ago, ghostwind said:

As an example, I read some folks talking about leaving this field and going into IT, and I found that a bit ironic, as a lot of those jobs will be automated pretty fast. To me that's panic, not rational thinking.

Is it ironic tho - or is it a sign of the sheer scale of changes coming to the labor market. But also, when you've got a mortgage and bills to pay at the end of the month - you tend to panic about tech advances like this. Some aren't experiencing this chewing the fat on a forum - I'm watching colleagues in the media world losing their jobs weekly. 

[JulioD]

12 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Wait a second.... WHAT?? 

Are they saying it is "down by 15-20%" or that it is "15-20% of what it was before"??

 

The second one.  

They are barely keeping the doors open.  

Thats in LA, Atlanta has been a busier town for a few years but it’s a pretty interesting data point. 

[ghostwind]

1 hour ago, Ty Harper said:

Lol, this is a forum FILLED with people "obsessing" over much less important stuff - but also - we all respond to cultural shifts like this differently - so if this thread bothers you, feel free to move along. I do it all the time.

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean it bothers me lol, and yes, it IS ironic r.e. my second point. As for lots of folks losing jobs, that's how it's always been with technological advancement. Adapt, be relevant, or die. Lots of useless jobs out there...

[Ty Harper]

1 hour ago, ghostwind said:

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean it bothers me lol, and yes, it IS ironic r.e. my second point. As for lots of folks losing jobs, that's how it's always been with technological advancement. Adapt, be relevant, or die. Lots of useless jobs out there...

Yes, and part of all of that is people panicking, expressing fear, y'know, the stuff humans do in moments like this... so why are you acting like all of this isn't just normal behavior? Particularly on a forum, lol...

[Ty Harper]

14 minutes ago, Ty Harper said:

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean it bothers me lol,

You literally went out of your way to let us know you disagree with the way people are "obsessing" over these recent advances in AI. If that isn't a sign that you're bothered I'm not sure what is...