Sex Best News Ever?

[Scouse]

No imagination not skills

And how are you going to use the tool to translate what's in your imagination to the screen?

That's where the skill is, you dolt. Tools will get better, of course, it's to be desired. But trained skilled people will always be required.

Unless you think that we'll just press a "make us an original movie, complete with story, purpose, character arc and special effects" button?

 

[Job]

Well yes, that is the end game.

Do you doubt it could not be done?

 

[Job]

This is how the face website works.

This Person Does Not Exist Is the Best One-Off Website of 2019 | Inverse

 

[Scouse]

Well yes, that is the end game.

Do you doubt it could not be done?

No. I do think it's possible to do it but it's absolutely not the "end game".

If we live long enough to develop AI that's that advanced (doubtful) then we'll have had many conversations about what it means to be human, what we want AI to be used for and where is our space useful.

It's likely that poorer-quality (technically) animation created by humans would be valued above that of AI. Same goes for story.

You seem to think that the "end game" is to write the point of humans out of existence. But it's not like that - we'll get rid of the shitty, pointless menial jobs - like plumbing - robots can do that shit for us. That will leave us time for creating art, playing sports and exploring space.

 

[Job]

Id say it was less than 10 years away.

They can make all the robot plumbers they like..Ive retired.

 

[Job]

New AI fake text generator may be too dangerous to release, say creators

 

[Scouse]

Id say it was less than 10 years away

They said that about photorealistic graphics in 1996 and they're still not much nearer IMO.

It's at least a hundred years away IMO. Probably more. And you've studiously ignored the main point - in that we will choose human, unless we find more interesting artistic endeavours to partake in.

So your AI will run everything fantasy is just that - a fantasy. And a tired, technophobic, fearful one at that.

 

[caLLous]

No imagination not skills, you can simply make the software adjust the finished product to fit the style of the movie..or the latest trend or copy the most successful movie.
A tank, blue, with a big turret and lasers with three headed horses alongside it.
The software will just make a suitable scene, darker..lighter, faster, on Mars...no Europa.

Thats the future of cgi..in fact its the future of everything.

Of course it all teady does that to an extent..the animators arent rendering every single frame, it is doing massive amounts of computations by itself.

You don't have a single idea how any of this works, do you? You throw buzzwords around hoping it gives people the impression that you have a clue but it's painfully transparent.

 

[Job]

Theres no buzzwords there..that scenario is simply how it will play out, but Scouse is right, once we realise how worthless computer generated content is, we will return to 'hand made'.
Just like one day people will admire unconventiknal spelling and gramma. Theres allready been a backlash against cgi, the Star wars movies did a lot of old school effects in place of cgi.

Oh my god..a human wrote this..or AI pretending to be one

Dont just write..you dont know what you are talking about, without some proof I dont.

 

[caLLous]

A backlash against CGI. What, with films like Avatar? Yes, look at them shunning technology. Cameron had been planning the film for over a decade but didn't even start production until an entirely new motion capture system (and an entire virtual production pipeline) had been developed. Christopher Nolan uses CGI as little as possible but he still uses it when he has to.

In one breath you're saying CGI will basically create itself and in another you're saying that nobody wants it anyway. What about intellectual property? Are you going to be able to tell your magic computer to make an object but make it just different enough from x so that you don't end up in court?

I'm of the opinion that you know fuck all about fuck all because you say things like "animators arent rendering every single frame" when that hasn't been the case for, I don't know, at least 30 years? That's not some wave of the future thing, traditional animation was based on key frames then and it's based on key frames now, there hasn't been some massive advance in the fundamentals of how animation is created since then (except motion capture, which needs motion to capture, and highly skilled people to capture and process that motion).

Artists create models, textures, particle systems, lighting... with all the nuances that draw us the audience into their world. Like when you try to pass off a bit of text you've chucked into Google Translate to a native speaker, they instantly know that it's not right.

 

[Job]

Its here allready for text.
Why do you constantly argue the future by referencing the present.

AI can write just like me. Brace for the robot apocalypse | Hannah Jane Parkinson

 

[Ormorof]

Its here allready for text.
Why do you constantly argue the future by referencing the present.

AI can write just like me. Brace for the robot apocalypse | Hannah Jane Parkinson

Still needs someone to feed it content, it extrapolates from that, cant create from nothing

 

[Job]

Lol..it can just carry on from the first feed..then build a database of styles to fit the trends of the day..or not..or decide to be argumentative or adjust the argument against a median of the the latest conversations.

It will quite simply be impossible to tell if an article is a human or software that has distanced itself a billion times from its original code.

 

[caLLous]

Lol..it can just carry on from the first feed..then build a database of styles to fit the trends of the day..or not..or decide to be argumentative or adjust the argument against a median of the the latest conversations.

It will quite simply be impossible to tell if an article is a human or software that has distanced itself a billion times from its original code.

You've just made all of that up. You've taken what it *can* do and just tacked on a load of cool-sounding stuff because you think it should be able to do it. We don't know what its success rate is, how many times it produces laughably bad content to every one that's believable. You accused me of "arguing the future by referencing the present", but you've just argued the present by referencing the future, or whatever the opposite of what you said is.

It's basically a machine learning exercise - you chuck enough source material at it and it can occasionally output something believable. I don't expect we'll see it write a novel or screenplay any time soon.

 

[Job]

There are thousands of machine written novels and screenplays.
You can find AI written shorts on youtube.

You can chose to be in denial of something that is actually quite easy for software to do...meanwhile at Musk warns in 5 years time we wont be able to tell the difference.

 

[Scouse]

There are thousands of machine written novels and screenplays.
You can find AI written shorts on youtube.

Links to novels, screenplays and films please.