• WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Probably that could also happen today. there have been fully AI generated Youtube channels optimized for attention grabbing for some time now, mainly for children

  • J52@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    There are plenty of things where AI (a really bad naming) will be useful - Art is not one of those… Without life experiences you’ll ever be a copycat at best - and even if by chance artificial art is going to be halfway good, I’m, for one, not in the least interested in it. (I’ve already turned away from most mass/factory produced Hollywood garbage, I certainly wouldn’t want more of it produced by a machine).

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      AI could be useful for art, except it’s not made for artists, but the average people who think art is all about an idea, not the implementation. Frame interpolation would be useful, but instead we have hard-to-tame video generator models that can make a few images be animated…

  • Opinionhaver@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Something I’d personally love to be able to do is to ask it to recreate an existing tv series but according to my personal preferences by removing stuff from them that I don’t like and adding things that I do. The Walking Dead for example wouldn’t even need that much tweaking to make it actually good. Another thing I’d love to use it for is to create new seasons for finished series such as Yellowstone.

      • Loaf@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I did too, actually. I don’t know why it popped into my head immediately reading “AI movie”. Maybe the animation?

        Now I kind of want to watch it again.

        • KickMeElmo@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Probably the weird thing they were doing where they wanted to make a CG “actress” who could play roles in other CG films.

  • mosscap@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    They are going to destroy things we deeply love and hold to be sacred, as casual as we may normally feel about defining things as “sacred”

  • nyan@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    :cough: “Twins HinaHima” :cough: (Admittedly only about a third of a feature film in runtime, but that’s close enough for me. However, I haven’t been able to find any English-language information on just how much of the work the AI was responsible for.)

  • TheFogan@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean the concept seems pretty obvious. Obviously it won’t be supprising when a film is made completely through AI… What will be suprising will be if it doesn’t suck.

    I find it weird that this is being viewed as a difference between the 2, when to me the quotes seem pretty much the same. IE the father

    father: “I see you did this, it’s terrible and I want nothing to do with it, it’s an insult to life”.

    Son: “I don’t think it’s unlikely people will make a movie entirely through AI, whether anyone will want to see it is anyone’s guess”.

    I don’t see any quotes from the son on his opinion of quality, and if anything I see skepticism towards quality. I don’t think anyone can deny, a lot of people are going to try really hard to make full movies entirely from AI. That’s as obvious of a statement as “people will try to make cars that drive themselves”.

  • brsrklf@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I searched the article for anything meaningful. There is absolutely nothing.

    They relayed two isolated sentences of a guy, notoriously son of a legendary animation artist, notoriously not quite as talented and in a conflictual relationship with him. So not the legendary artist, the one that nobody would know if he wasn’t his son.

    The two sentences are “This thing is likely to happen. No idea how it will be perceived.”

    Yeaaaah.

  • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Coming from the man who was responsible for Earwig and the Witch ( アーヤと魔女 ), this means little. The man who was responsible for arguably one of the absolute worst Ghibli films trying to tell us that in a couple years we’ll have a full-on AI film. Don’t make me laugh.

    • k0e3@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      You and people upvoting you are no better than AI if you can’t get any kind of contextual awareness from what is being said.

      The guy never said it would be good. He also questioned whether people would even want to go watch an AI-generated movie. The very first sentence of the article says “nothing can replicate his father Hayao’s unique artistic vision that defines Studio Ghibli.”

      He never said such movies would be good, nor did he say the studio would make a movie using AI. The only positive thing he said was that new technology (not AI specifically) has the potential of unexpected talent to emerge.

      So your views on the quality of his movies have nothing to do with what’s being discussed here.

    • Patch@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      trying to tell us that in a couple years we’ll have a full-on AI film

      To be fair, he never said it would be any good.