Submitted by Hall_Pitiful t3_zusumf in Futurology
gahidus t1_j1mip67 wrote
Reply to comment by GrayBox1313 in What will cheap available AI-generated images lead to? Video? Media? Entertainment? by Hall_Pitiful
Yes. Execution is the point. You could have an idea for an action movie and technically do it with finger puppets, I guess, but that hardly counts as seeing your vision realized if you want it to look a certain way. That's the whole point. People will be able to imagine something in their mind and then see it realized,
Anyone can technically make a drawing or a book or a movie now. The point is they'll be able to make one that looks good and lives up to what they intend.
GrayBox1313 t1_j1mlabr wrote
Maybe. Some of the greatest moments in film history were improvised on-set. Artists doing their thing. Can AI do that?
gahidus t1_j1mm0fz wrote
Depends on how sophisticated the AI is, but fundamentally, yes.
It probably will be possible, at some point, to have an AI replicate an improvised scene. In fact, you might be able to be watching a movie, pause it, and say something like
"Computer, alter this scene to proceed as though Eddie Murphy (or whatever actor) were improvising his dialogue".
And you'll get something that's indistinguishable from the real thing. Again though, it depends on how sophisticated the AI is and how soon in the future we're talking about. Someday though, probably sooner than you think, you'll be able to have a zoom call with someone, and there will be no way to know if it's an actual person on the other end of the video call or a photorealistic real time image running a basically perfect chatbot. AIs will be able to replicate personality and whatever other characteristics you might want. Won't be tomorrow, but it will be someday, and that someday will probably be sooner than anyone expects.
GrayBox1313 t1_j1mnimw wrote
Current AI can’t create from scratch or improvise. it can only mimic and remix..with guidance and direction. There’s a huge chasm to cross here. Getting into understanding of the human condition, emotion, feeling, inspiration, point of view Etc. Does a parrot understand the words it repeats?
On Star Trek the next generation the sentient android, data was the most advanced 23rd century AI ever, but couldn’t comprehend humor despite understanding it on an academic level. It was a running plot line. I suspect a similar struggle.
gahidus t1_j1mpp10 wrote
I think things are advancing more quickly than anyone expects. Also, regarding Star Trek, Data was actually built that way very much on purpose. His (older) brother Lore was perfectly capable of understanding those things, but he was evil and yada yada...
Not to go off on a tangent, but I want to live in Star Trek.
Edit. Also, even along the lines of the current AI remixing model, things can get very convincing very quickly. A parrot doesn't necessarily have to understand what it says, If what it says is still compelling to a listener, which is a separate thing.
Aelius27 t1_j1o5mrm wrote
You are under-estimating the degree to which humans are mimicking and remixing.
GrayBox1313 t1_j1o5zbj wrote
No, there the nature of art. But the difference is that humans are aware of it. They make decisions and have a point of view. Personal expression.
AI is a xerox machine with no thought process.
reconditedreams t1_j1ss8p6 wrote
The whole autistic AI trope is completely unrealistic, art AIs like midjourney prove that emotional expression can in principle be captured algorithmically.
I think you're overestimating the degree to which "real" sentience and "real" self awareness are necessery to emulate the function of sentience and self awareness to a sufficiently precise degree.
GrayBox1313 t1_j1su79d wrote
It’s necessary. A parrot doesn’t understand the words it says much like how an Ai creates art now.
It’s odd to sit here as the only sentient life forms on this planet that are capable of debating ideas and claim sentience isn’t required to do any of this.
reconditedreams t1_j1surwv wrote
You don't need actual sentience to emulate the functional output of sentience to a precise enough degree anymore than you need actual Windows to emulate the functional output of the Windows OS to a precise enough degree.
There's no reason in principle why the output of human sentience can't be emulated to a close enough degree to be almost indistinguishable from the real thing.
The actual hard problem of consciousness is totally irrelevant to the practical question of whether the function of consciousness can be emulated.
GrayBox1313 t1_j1svmoe wrote
Ed I dunno. Emulating doesn’t take thought or sentience. Creating and expressing a point of view does. Dogs, dolphins, Monkeys can’t really do this. Only humans can. So even then sentience isn’t enough.
If you believe that art is synonymous with style then that’s a fundamental conceptual issue that needs to be reunderstood. Van Gogh paintings aren’t about brush strokes and flowers. There’s way more to them.
SW1981 t1_j1o5jx6 wrote
AI will equally be able to have random moments of genius and to the viewer it will be indistinguishable. Most of those greats moments you speak of the viewers often have no idea they were improvised or scripted even though they enjoy them.
GrayBox1313 t1_j1o62er wrote
A happy accident isn’t the same as an artistic decision.
Flukes will happen, sure. Greatness is kind of more than that.
SW1981 t1_j1o8tbg wrote
But most viewers don’t think of that when they view something. They are just watching something they like or don’t like. The decisions behind it aren’t considered by most viewer.
GrayBox1313 t1_j1o9g93 wrote
Viewers are able to recognize artistic greatness. We have a zeitgeist that speaks to the human condition and great stiff resonates. Its why some movies are generational classics and others are forgotten. It’s why one painting is in a museum and another similar one is decoration in a hotel.
We are a very very long way from “Ai can create a full comprehensible movie from scratch” let alone “Ai can create an academy award winning film” or “Ai made a fi that’s on AFIs top 10 all time list”
SW1981 t1_j1p126k wrote
Well all I can say is I disagree.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments