Ben Affleck: “AI can’t make film that is considered art.”
-
@Axtremus said in Ben Affleck: “AI can’t make film that is considered art.”:
A trailer is not a film.
I suppose it's like a letter is not a book.AI cannot generate an entire feature-length film or a novel (yet).
What does that have to do with whether it’s art? A Saturday Night Live skit isn’t a full play. Is it art? A lot of people would say it is. So how does the trailer above compare with an SNL skit?
@LuFins-Dad said in Ben Affleck: “AI can’t make film that is considered art.”:
@Axtremus said in Ben Affleck: “AI can’t make film that is considered art.”:
A trailer is not a film.
I suppose it's like a letter is not a book.AI cannot generate an entire feature-length film or a novel (yet).
What does that have to do with whether it’s art?
It’s a comment on “film,” not one on “art.”
Affleck’s statement concerns “film.” So does my comment.
To have a “film that is considered art,” you first have to have a “film.” -
Why does film need to be 80 minutes long? It doesn’t. Many great pieces of film are well under 5 minutes. Some consider the editing of trailers to be an art. This is a trailer…
Mik hit on the answer that we would all like to believe is true, but let’s be honest… Did Porky’s III have more heart and more humanity than this trailer? For every truly artistic film, there are dozens or hundreds that have less heart and soul than the AI trailer we watched…
-
@xenon said in Ben Affleck: “AI can’t make film that is considered art.”:
Once it gets to that point
It's not going to do that.
Email marketing campaigns in the 90s enjoyed an 80% open rate.
Today, depending on the industry, 20% can be considered astronomical. And nobody's getting 80 anymore. The reason's market saturation.
There are several hundreds of attempts at your attention on the daily, and the ones that win are those that are relevant and stand out.
Generative AI is a predictive aggregator and nothing more. By its very nature, the more you let it make decisions, the more it sucks at standing out. Sure, it can trick us into doing such now due to its novelty, but there's been a pushback in volume-as-strategy, starting about 10 years ago, and it's not going to get any better. AI's not going to do anybody any favors there.
The folks who will win with generative AI will find novel, compelling uses, in much the same way that photographers do right now with their cameras. And let's remember that the only people who agonize over camera specs are (1) the companies peddling the cameras and (2) tech-bro prosumers with more money than sense. It'll be the same with AI.
Another fun thing to ponder: if AI's so revolutionary and wonderful, why is its biggest bragging right the ability to hide the fact that it's being used? Think that's in any way sustainable?
@Aqua-Letifer said in Ben Affleck: “AI can’t make film that is considered art.”:
Another fun thing to ponder: if AI's so revolutionary and wonderful, why is its biggest bragging right the ability to hide the fact that it's being used? Think that's in any way sustainable?
Don’t think AI’s biggest bragging right is, generally, the ability to hide the fact that it’s being used.
In some cases, sure. But so are certain cosmetics/makeups, underwear, cosmetic surgeries, photograph touch up techniques, stealth technologies, surveillance technologies, anti-surveillance technologies, etc. -
@xenon said in Ben Affleck: “AI can’t make film that is considered art.”:
Once it gets to that point
It's not going to do that.
Email marketing campaigns in the 90s enjoyed an 80% open rate.
Today, depending on the industry, 20% can be considered astronomical. And nobody's getting 80 anymore. The reason's market saturation.
There are several hundreds of attempts at your attention on the daily, and the ones that win are those that are relevant and stand out.
Generative AI is a predictive aggregator and nothing more. By its very nature, the more you let it make decisions, the more it sucks at standing out. Sure, it can trick us into doing such now due to its novelty, but there's been a pushback in volume-as-strategy, starting about 10 years ago, and it's not going to get any better. AI's not going to do anybody any favors there.
The folks who will win with generative AI will find novel, compelling uses, in much the same way that photographers do right now with their cameras. And let's remember that the only people who agonize over camera specs are (1) the companies peddling the cameras and (2) tech-bro prosumers with more money than sense. It'll be the same with AI.
Another fun thing to ponder: if AI's so revolutionary and wonderful, why is its biggest bragging right the ability to hide the fact that it's being used? Think that's in any way sustainable?
@Aqua-Letifer said in Ben Affleck: “AI can’t make film that is considered art.”:
@xenon said in Ben Affleck: “AI can’t make film that is considered art.”:
Once it gets to that point
It's not going to do that.
Email marketing campaigns in the 90s enjoyed an 80% open rate.
Today, depending on the industry, 20% can be considered astronomical. And nobody's getting 80 anymore. The reason's market saturation.
There are several hundreds of attempts at your attention on the daily, and the ones that win are those that are relevant and stand out.
Generative AI is a predictive aggregator and nothing more. By its very nature, the more you let it make decisions, the more it sucks at standing out. Sure, it can trick us into doing such now due to its novelty, but there's been a pushback in volume-as-strategy, starting about 10 years ago, and it's not going to get any better. AI's not going to do anybody any favors there.
The folks who will win with generative AI will find novel, compelling uses, in much the same way that photographers do right now with their cameras. And let's remember that the only people who agonize over camera specs are (1) the companies peddling the cameras and (2) tech-bro prosumers with more money than sense. It'll be the same with AI.
Another fun thing to ponder: if AI's so revolutionary and wonderful, why is its biggest bragging right the ability to hide the fact that it's being used? Think that's in any way sustainable?
I don’t necessarily disagree. AI has zero creativity. It synthesizes new things from things it’s seen.
My comment was more that it can swamp the landscape with near-zero cost content. The good stuff won’t go away and people will always value it… but it’ll still be awash in a zero cost flood of shit.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Ben Affleck: “AI can’t make film that is considered art.”:
@xenon said in Ben Affleck: “AI can’t make film that is considered art.”:
Once it gets to that point
It's not going to do that.
Email marketing campaigns in the 90s enjoyed an 80% open rate.
Today, depending on the industry, 20% can be considered astronomical. And nobody's getting 80 anymore. The reason's market saturation.
There are several hundreds of attempts at your attention on the daily, and the ones that win are those that are relevant and stand out.
Generative AI is a predictive aggregator and nothing more. By its very nature, the more you let it make decisions, the more it sucks at standing out. Sure, it can trick us into doing such now due to its novelty, but there's been a pushback in volume-as-strategy, starting about 10 years ago, and it's not going to get any better. AI's not going to do anybody any favors there.
The folks who will win with generative AI will find novel, compelling uses, in much the same way that photographers do right now with their cameras. And let's remember that the only people who agonize over camera specs are (1) the companies peddling the cameras and (2) tech-bro prosumers with more money than sense. It'll be the same with AI.
Another fun thing to ponder: if AI's so revolutionary and wonderful, why is its biggest bragging right the ability to hide the fact that it's being used? Think that's in any way sustainable?
I don’t necessarily disagree. AI has zero creativity. It synthesizes new things from things it’s seen.
My comment was more that it can swamp the landscape with near-zero cost content. The good stuff won’t go away and people will always value it… but it’ll still be awash in a zero cost flood of shit.
@xenon said in Ben Affleck: “AI can’t make film that is considered art.”:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Ben Affleck: “AI can’t make film that is considered art.”:
@xenon said in Ben Affleck: “AI can’t make film that is considered art.”:
Once it gets to that point
It's not going to do that.
Email marketing campaigns in the 90s enjoyed an 80% open rate.
Today, depending on the industry, 20% can be considered astronomical. And nobody's getting 80 anymore. The reason's market saturation.
There are several hundreds of attempts at your attention on the daily, and the ones that win are those that are relevant and stand out.
Generative AI is a predictive aggregator and nothing more. By its very nature, the more you let it make decisions, the more it sucks at standing out. Sure, it can trick us into doing such now due to its novelty, but there's been a pushback in volume-as-strategy, starting about 10 years ago, and it's not going to get any better. AI's not going to do anybody any favors there.
The folks who will win with generative AI will find novel, compelling uses, in much the same way that photographers do right now with their cameras. And let's remember that the only people who agonize over camera specs are (1) the companies peddling the cameras and (2) tech-bro prosumers with more money than sense. It'll be the same with AI.
Another fun thing to ponder: if AI's so revolutionary and wonderful, why is its biggest bragging right the ability to hide the fact that it's being used? Think that's in any way sustainable?
I don’t necessarily disagree. AI has zero creativity. It synthesizes new things from things it’s seen.
My comment was more that it can swamp the landscape with near-zero cost content. The good stuff won’t go away and people will always value it… but it’ll still be awash in a zero cost flood of shit.
Absolutely.
-
My grandad was a very good watercolour painter. He was very dismissive of photography, and it's very clear that a lot less effort goes into taking a high quality photograph than in painting a high quality landscape.
Not the same situation, admittedly, but there are some parallels.
And yes, I know this post is going to annoy Aqua.
-
My grandad was a very good watercolour painter. He was very dismissive of photography, and it's very clear that a lot less effort goes into taking a high quality photograph than in painting a high quality landscape.
Not the same situation, admittedly, but there are some parallels.
And yes, I know this post is going to annoy Aqua.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Ben Affleck: “AI can’t make film that is considered art.”:
My grandad was a very good watercolour painter. He was very dismissive of photography, and it's very clear that a lot less effort goes into taking a high quality photograph than in painting a high quality landscape.
Have you actually tried landscape photography? Of course not.
Yes, hearing blowhards talk out of their ass about things they know nothing about I find severely insufferable.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Ben Affleck: “AI can’t make film that is considered art.”:
My grandad was a very good watercolour painter. He was very dismissive of photography, and it's very clear that a lot less effort goes into taking a high quality photograph than in painting a high quality landscape.
Have you actually tried landscape photography? Of course not.
Yes, hearing blowhards talk out of their ass about things they know nothing about I find severely insufferable.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Ben Affleck: “AI can’t make film that is considered art.”:
Have you actually tried landscape photography? Of course not.
No, but my dad did it as a hobby, and was pretty good at it. There is clearly less effort required to take a landscape photograph than to paint a watercolour, and to pretend otherwise is foolish. Is there less art? I honestly don't know.
Your reaction, however, was entirely predictable and indeed predicted.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Ben Affleck: “AI can’t make film that is considered art.”:
Have you actually tried landscape photography? Of course not.
No, but my dad did it as a hobby, and was pretty good at it. There is clearly less effort required to take a landscape photograph than to paint a watercolour, and to pretend otherwise is foolish. Is there less art? I honestly don't know.
Your reaction, however, was entirely predictable and indeed predicted.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Ben Affleck: “AI can’t make film that is considered art.”:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Ben Affleck: “AI can’t make film that is considered art.”:
Have to takeyou actually tried landscape photography? Of course not.
No, but my dad did it as a hobby, and was pretty good at it. There is clearly less effort required to take a landscape photograph than to paint a watercolour, and to pretend otherwise is foolish. Is there less art? I honestly don't know.
It categorically takes longer to take a good landscape photo. It takes hiking for a few hours several days in a row hoping the conditions are right. Ask anyone who's been very good at it. It takes Simon Baxter years to make his. If it took you less time then you're a dabbler.
Your reaction, however, was entirely predictable and indeed predicted.
Bro I don't want to hear it. Pissing people off is your entertainment, I don't owe you shit.
-
Pissing people off on line is admittedly much easier and less risky than doing it in person, but it still requires skill and preparation.
