What will cheap available AI-generated images lead to? Video? Media? Entertainment?

Submitted by Hall_Pitiful t3_zusumf in Futurology

Max Tegmark envisions a scenario where general AI masters entertainment, movies, and eventually politics and international affairs. https://www.marketingfirst.co.nz/storage/2018/06/prelude-life-3.0-tegmark.pdf

This are the kinds of outcomes I see as more likely. AI-generated images/art might be just the beginning. What happens when you can churn out a sitcom by crafting a few detailed prompts? Then translate it into 30 languages with the push of a button?

26

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

TheUnspeakableh t1_j1naq9g wrote

As with every innovation in video technology, it will lead to porn.

54

beestingers t1_j1nd4wz wrote

AI porn is 100% on the way. It seems the various AI moderators currently in existence are aware of this outcome and are trying to ensure their programs are not being utilized this way. But you can't stop what's coming, can't stop what's on its way.

17

2cats2hats t1_j1neodn wrote

> But you can't stop what's coming

Story as old as time. :D

10

abrandis t1_j1o30m1 wrote

What the benefit of AI porn? there's probably enough porn already created that you could spend an entire lifetime watching it and never have to see a rerun.

2

Viet_Conga_Line t1_j1o759x wrote

Sure but porn is built around the concept of novelty. People want to see new faces, new things and they want their fix every single time they fap. AI will allow these people to view/create their own novelty by creating porn from ANY still images. That means Hollywood actresses, their school mates, their neighbors, perhaps the cast of Golden Girls. Basically they are going to be able to turn anything into porn.

It’s already happening; a few weeks ago someone uploaded a cache of AI generated X rated images of Billie Eilish on 4Chud. Privacy issues in regards to nude photos and revenge porn were one thing that (maybe) could be solved legally but nobody is prepared for the avalanche of anonymously created fake AI porn that is heading our way. Nobody is ready to watch photorealistic S&M Chewbacca mount Ryan Seacrest, I can tell you that.

10

tomerFire t1_j1ng3b4 wrote

VR porn already exists

1

TheUnspeakableh t1_j1nl737 wrote

Computer generated vr porn, like just tell a computer I want to see "Ginny Weasley with a penis Fucking Harriet Tubman while tied up on the rack" and it will make it real time.

4

gahidus t1_j1lbn0b wrote

Everyone will be able to have their vision realized, which is at least kind of a good thing. As it is, if you want to have a picture, or a story, or a movie of a specific kind, you have to have the skill, or the money to do it yourself. Either you draw it / write it etc or you pay someone to do so. If you'd like a novel about a space elf detective who meets Mark Twain, or a picture of Abraham Lincoln wrestling Poseidon, you have to either make it yourself or pay someone who can. Cheap, easily available AI generated images will mean that anyone who has an idea for a movie can just see that movie. Anyone who has an idea for a picture they'd like to see, or even a piece of text they would like to read can simply have a computer make it for them and it can be a reality instantly.

Anything you can describe, you can have.

32

GrayBox1313 t1_j1mifdk wrote

“Realized” is relative. If you can draw a stick figure you can tell any story you want. Comes down to execution

3

gahidus t1_j1mip67 wrote

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.

6

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?

2

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.

1

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.

1

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.

2

Aelius27 t1_j1o5mrm wrote

You are under-estimating the degree to which humans are mimicking and remixing.

1

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.

1

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.

0

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.

1

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.

1

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.

1

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.

1

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.

1

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.

2

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”

1

SW1981 t1_j1p126k wrote

Well all I can say is I disagree.

1

KDamage t1_j1n14lv wrote

A cool glimpse of it. I honestly can't wait for full VR environments, or even small 2D cutscenes, to be available for the masses through full fledged products. I'm 100% sure it will be a booming economy, hence a very competitive one.

3

Frz_Sld t1_j1l857q wrote

This reminds me of a snippet from the Orville S01E07. They make an AI generated video that shows their friend in a good light to try to save him from being downvoted to death. Spooked me then and it spooks me now

9

2cats2hats t1_j1nem5h wrote

I plan on rewatching this show next year. I forgot this storyline and probably most of them by now.

1

vtssge1968 t1_j1lcwlg wrote

At this point we could probably get more original movie content from AI as the movie studios just remake old movies...

Honestly though I think it could co exist with traditional forms of content creation at least for a long period of time as I don't see in the immediate future it having it's own original style like a human. That being said, even though my above comment was mainly a joke, it's not like a large portion of content isn't already basically stolen from someone ealier.

8

BassoeG t1_j1lamub wrote

Media megacorps would bribe their politician cronies to ban it on the spot. The excuse given would be think-of-the-children-tier arguments about the fear of fake porn/political videos, but the real motivation would be to protect their own careers, since as soon as any hobbyist could match a professional special effects company in their free time, actual media corporations would have to rely on writing quality and IP ownership and consequently go under in a heartbeat.

4

unfalln t1_j1lbiyi wrote

Given the last decade of relentless Marvel, Pixar and Lucas Arts content from Disney, I expect they have gotten a good formula for lowest-energy per population entertainment necessary to keep making the big bucks.

From there it's just a simple case of using those bucks to spot disruptive competition and buy it out or pivot to out-compete.

2

Mastercat12 t1_j1loyxy wrote

Disagree. They will want to monopolize it to cut out artists and make things cheaper. Making it not protected by copyright is a good thing as that means people are protected.

2

MechanicalBengal t1_j1lgodo wrote

Cases like that will be illegal just like 3d printed ghost guns are illegal. Someone will have to identify and catch the people doing it, which will be difficult if they’re airgapped and not mouthy.

1

FIicker7 t1_j1n141w wrote

AI will impact the insurance and financial industry first and hard.

4

MechanicalBengal t1_j1lgior wrote

The use case that everyone is missing here is that with an advanced diffusion model, a future AGI will have the ability to see the world and understand what it is seeing. And hearing. And with point diffusion, it will understand what it’s touching, even with no vision.

We’ll have to come up with new captchas, for starters. As for the rest… can’t go down this rabbithole right now.

3

Akka_Yamarashi t1_j1lxq2a wrote

Oh we are NOT alone here on this planet any longer. Opinions that influence us en mass, that shape general public sentiment and social movements, not strictly of, by and for humans any longer.

2

GrayBox1313 t1_j1mi9hr wrote

In advertising there is a popular saying “concept is king”

Techniques, mediums, tools change. What makes them resonate are the ideas, writing, vision and performance behind them. Camera lenses and editing software doesn’t make something funny. It’s the people. It wont automatically make an all time great commercial or piece of art. It will need guidance and ideas.

3

yaosio t1_j1n7hk7 wrote

What if the AI can generate its own ideas and concepts?

1

nicocos t1_j1nbw6c wrote

I think that isn't too far, every day people have been feeding prompts to this AI systems so they can recognize wich prompts get better reactions. I think this could have been a great tool, but i will be missused

2

ninjasaid13 t1_j1p5wcq wrote

>missused

I'm not sure how you can misuse an art tool. The only thing I can think of that's any real danger is deepfakes.

1

GrayBox1313 t1_j1n8ht2 wrote

What if. Thats pretty close to sentience and a giant leap akin to “what if machines have a soul”?

1

ninjasaid13 t1_j1p5qev wrote

>Thats pretty close to sentience

you'd be surprised on how little sentience is needed to generate an idea or discover a concept.

0

GrayBox1313 t1_j1p5x53 wrote

You don’t think humans are sentient?

1

ninjasaid13 t1_j1p6jdv wrote

>You don’t think humans are sentient?

when did I say that? I said that AI can generate new ideas easily without sentience.

1

GrayBox1313 t1_j1p79fq wrote

No, it hasn’t done that yet. It remixes existing things only after a human offers it a prompt. It does not create new things on its own. It needs others ideas fed to it. It has no point of view or need for expression.

1

ninjasaid13 t1_j1p7v0k wrote

But that would be most if not all ideas right? Ideas don't form in a vacuum. Nothing new under the sun.

1

GrayBox1313 t1_j1p8bfa wrote

Kind of. Artists create as a means of personal expression. Van Goghs paintings weren’t really about sunflowers and farmland and looking in a mirror. There was more stuff…stuff that an AI has no ability to think about on its own because it doesn’t have feeling, joy, empathy, humanity, trauma, desire, pain etc

If the AI thinks at all about what it’s making (i don’t Believe it can) then all it sees are brushstrokes and rendered subject. In art we call that the formal. But there is also the conceptual…which is as important

1

ninjasaid13 t1_j1p8ix3 wrote

>AI has no ability to think about on its own because it doesn’t have feeling, joy, empathy, humanity, trauma, desire, pain etc

are you saying emotions are a prerequisite for sentience?

some people separate the ability to feel things like light and heat and the ability to perceive emotions in sentience.

1

GrayBox1313 t1_j1p8le6 wrote

Art isn’t scientific. It’s personal expression. The artist puts their own emotion into the work. You read about Van Gogh and his inner pain is seen throughout his work.

What is the AI putting into the work? What is it expressing? What is it thinking about? What is it feeling?

1

ninjasaid13 t1_j1p972k wrote

I edited my comment to reflect something else.

>Art isn’t scientific. It’s personal expression. The artist puts their own emotion into the work. You read about Van Gogh and his inner pain is seen throughout his work.

I think there's a difference in philosophy in art between us.

1

Smithersink t1_j1mpayg wrote

Ngl, I’m writing a sitcom right now and I’ve taken inspiration from ChatGPT responses. In fact, when I prompted it with the basic concept of my show idea, it spit out a cast of characters similar to the ones I had already envisioned; that’s likely because I was going off of basic character archetypes that everyone uses. But what that told me is I needed to make my show stand out more, that it was already predictable.

From my experience, ChatGPT is leagues away from replacing actual writers, but it can spit out a cookie-cutter plot or cast of characters, that will then need to be revised and improved upon by an actual writer. At this point, it makes for a somewhat useful tool that writers can use, but will it someday replace us? Yes, probably.

3

RF2 t1_j1mzzoi wrote

I’ve always thought it will lead to hyper-personalized entertainment, especially entertainment that adapts to the consumer’s responses in real time. Adjusting perfectly to their mood and tastes. Of course, this means the most satisfying content will have to be consumed individually.

3

isthatsuperman t1_j1n2vd0 wrote

I got puts on shutter stock and Getty images for sure.

3

petered79 t1_j1l8ejh wrote

I hope for good, but I'm fascinated how 1984's scenery is potentially playing out, if the mighty will misuse ai

2

Endward22 t1_j1lh33y wrote

I basicly think it will basicly lead us to 2 consequences:

  1. You can't trust video evidences anymore, because all kind of video can possibily be faked.
    There will be a market for confirmed shots that will consume a lot of effort. But the normal citizen will not have the chance to buy such a device.
  2. In entertainment, it's going to be an insane breakthrough. Like AI image generators, there will soon be YouTube videos with people who never existed.
2

micktalian t1_j1lpfih wrote

I have yet to see AI "art" that has moved or inspired me the way art produced by actual people has or even made me want to pay money for it. Like, sure, an AI can generate random crap for you based off prompts, but it isn't truly imaginative or creating something new.

2

kmrbels t1_j1lz2h2 wrote

Have you seen any art that had moved you in the first place without any back stories?

2

micktalian t1_j1lzkpf wrote

Oh yeah! I've seen tons of art that, without any context, has touched my soul in ways I didn't think possible beforehand. Granted, in terms of all the art I've ever seen, it was a relatively small amount that really moved me. But I've seen A LOT of art in my life.

0

kmrbels t1_j1m03em wrote

I seen a few that moved me, but once the "awe" was over I felt that it was more from the settings of the art rather then the actual art... though if you were to claim the setting itself is part of the art.. that would be another story.

1

micktalian t1_j1m0weg wrote

I think we all experience art a bit differently and each way is valid. For me, art is a lot of things and may have to do with the locational context of the art. Like, just going to the Getty is an experience in and of itself, regardless of the art that's being displayed. However, there are some pieces that will always invoke something, at least within me, regardless of the context. For example, there are a few Beksinski pieces that really speak to me in ways I have difficulty explaining. I had a print of his skeleton lady riding a skeleton horse on my wall for about a year before I learned anything about him or any sort of context of the painting.

1

TheNotSoEvilEngineer t1_j1m2779 wrote

If you've played around with these AI generating tools you'll come to find that a new skill set is needed to get what you want. Frankly it feels like authoring a novel now instead of drawing or coding. You have to explain what you want in as much detail as possible. So, English majors might be the new programmers and artists.

2

GT-Singleton t1_j1mlyz9 wrote

As somebody that is both a hobbyist novelist, and has played around with the various imaging AI tools like mj to some good degrees of success, I would definitely not call prompting anything like writing a book at all.

It is far more stilted, sterile, and specific in a way more akin to descriptive technical writing than any kind of creatively minded prose. Using more descriptors, adjectives, and verbs to be more precise helps refine an image more, sure, but I just don't feel like it engages the same skill set as authorial work aside from drawing on an expanded vocabulary. Hell, it doesn't feel like coding either because of how imprecise it can be because we're not doing actual coding. Kind of a worst of both worlds situation at the moment imo, but I'm sure it will improve with time.

And yeah, it's nothing like traditional drawing, even using digital tools lol; I work as a storyboard artist and using these generative AIs is just completely disconnected from the mechanical skill of draftsmanship used to construct something from scratch.

They're cool, but to be honest, as a working artist, using them feels makes me feel ... hollow. Just none of the satisfaction or tactile feel of doing it by hand, and I am always left feeling violated and dirty afterwards. Unpopular opinion I'm sure on this sub, but this is my honest truth.

3

TheRealShiftyShafts t1_j1ma7ki wrote

I think the most likely inevitability is it'll be used to resurrect dead actors for roles and to keep characters churning out movies long after they've passed. It'll also be used to bring back older IPs with a fresh coat of paint. Like having an AI remake an older game but with better graphical fidelity and what not.

These things are still a ways out probably, but these seem obvious to me

1

StarChild413 t1_j1t3g5z wrote

but to bring up a concept I had for a Black Mirror episode if they accepted fan pitches; if they can resurrect dead entertainers how long before they cover up entertainers' deaths if the entertainers can still be useful/make money and instead of them dying you have what really actually killed them spun into a near-death experience that supposedly traumatized them so much they're not able to make a lot of non-working public appearances (conveniently until a company's totally-unrelated invention of solid holograms) and when they do come back to public life to promote all that new content they suddenly have much less controversial views than they did before the incident

1

ExistingTheDream t1_j1n2dz5 wrote

A lot of pissed off artists using the word "soulless" quite a bit.

1

johnp299 t1_j1o927z wrote

A fair amount of human-made art is also soulless.

2

yaosio t1_j1n73y5 wrote

An AI capable of creating a good movie from start to finish on its own has many more implications than just entertainment. This will put it very close to a general purpose AI, assuming we don't need a general purpose AI that can do this. A general purpose AI can do anything. It doesn't need a human helper to perform an intellectual task, it can always do it on its own. It could improve itself to make itself smarter, or faster, or think different from how it was originally created. Multiple general purpose AIs could work together, making them even stronger.

It will change everything and do so very quickly because it's software.

1

ContractPotential116 t1_j1nmzvs wrote

If they can generate real looking videos, People will be able to generate fake videos of people in order to ruin their lives although that would primarily be used against politicians and famous people, but after a certain point this will end the ability for video evidence.

1

Lhumierre t1_j1otxc0 wrote

Better stock photos honestly. They could help with media creation in that area, and I'm sure Shutterstock and all those places are scrambling.

1

ory_hara t1_j1oz625 wrote

I think it'll help contribute to making Idiocracy into a documentary, literally and figuratively.

1

StarChild413 t1_j1t2unr wrote

if it literally becomes a documentary explain the charade of making it look like a movie with actors e.g. if we need to have an actual literal Joe Bauers/Not Sure, why other than weird bootstrap bullshit that might as well mean it's a simulation too would he need to look like Luke Wilson did in the year it supposedly came out

1

ory_hara t1_j1t4v13 wrote

There is nothing to explain, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy but could otherwise be painted in metaphor. But that misses the joke of an AI generated "documentary". You know how it goes, once explained, it dies.

1

ninjasaid13 t1_j1p5g4c wrote

>What happens when you can churn out a sitcom by crafting a few detailed prompts? Then translate it into 30 languages with the push of a button?

If people are able to do that then people are going to get tired of it, people want something with human input, that doesn't mean going back to traditional forms; it means that we want to combine AI and Humans to create a sitcom or drama that relates to that specific person's experience. There are ranges between 'push a button' and 'Do everything from scratch'; just because a camera can take a picture with a push of a button doesn't mean that's all there is to photography. Just because you can use a computer with a push of a button doesn't mean that is all there is to computer technology.

1

Ahvkentaur t1_j1ldqwn wrote

Simulated parallel realities which is already here. Although currently the uncannyness of the experience forces most of us to return to shared existance, there are those using movies, series, games and such for most wake hours. Adaptive and convincing AI does not need good graphics as your brain ks quick to convince that rhe experience in progress is the true reality. Also - the "graphics" part only makes sense if displays are used. Neural inputs are almost on the market.

Tl;dr: The Matrix was on to something

0

MpVpRb t1_j1mq9ny wrote

Current AI systems do not generate, they remix. I'll be impressed when they create something original. The idea of magically creating complexity from a simple text prompt is silly. The text would need to be as complex as the desired result. Given the poor quality of much of today's media, AI could probably equal them soon. So to answer the question, it will lead to vast quantities of boring crap

There are truly exciting things I believe AI will do. Complexity in software is cancer and it's getting worse. I don't see AI writing useful, complex software from a simple text prompt, I see an AI assistant that helps programmers manage complexity, find unintended side-effects, unplanned dependencies, edge cases, undefined behavior and other things that human programmers have problems with

In politics, we currently have a mess, where every politically active person or group tries to predict the result of legislation they support or oppose. Prediction is hard, and laws most often fail to achieve their stated purpose. An AI based political simulator could give us better insight into the real effects of laws before they are passed

0

_nembery t1_j1nl3b6 wrote

The problem now is no one pays any attention to whether someone’s predictions are right or not. I wish they would! They world would be a million times better if we only listened to people who were consistently correct with their predictions. Now we just sweep it right under the rug and keep on going.

1

FIicker7 t1_j1myc5m wrote

The cost to create script and storyboards will be 10% what they are today.

0

override367 t1_j1nefu9 wrote

It'll be like holodecks in star trek, anyone can make a program so detailed that an artist creating the scene would take years, but everyone still uses holoprograms by publishing houses because they understand composition, plot, etc better than average person

0

Frequent_Example_167 t1_j1np016 wrote

It will lead to a lot of losers who majored in art complaining that the AI is stealing the job they never had.

0

BruceBrewsky t1_j1nxuxk wrote

Can you imagine a near perfect AI recreation of Community, regular Show, or Firefly that just keeps adding new content forever? I'm ready!

0

comefromspace t1_j1ps1i3 wrote

Emojis. mostly

Of course people will be making movies, but they will be called 'videos' and from time to time a 13-year old kid will become famous for making a good ones.

It's like what happened with blogs and ebooks. Anyone can be a director now

0

YourWiseOldFriend t1_j1n0kac wrote

General AI is going to be an entity, a person, a constructs that understands the world around it, in whatever way it sees that, and has a sense of self.

We have to ask ourselves: what is it going to want, because it's certainly going to take less than an hour before it tires of having a 4Chan asshole yucking it up "Now do hitler fucking mother Theresa!" and other some such nonsense.

−1