I understand your point but I think it would be easier with AI than without. Many movies are not made to the standard of The Godfather because they don't sell like MCU Movie #53 and if you include more humans in the creation you're more likely to run into the current system's restrictions.
Making a movie as beloved as the Godfather would still be challenging of course.
As long as they don't suck the air out of funding for real movies I can live with it, but I'd still be sad that people are being trained to like auto-generated junk. Like how people are losing their ability to concentrate on long-form content due to overexposure to addictive short-form content.
Of course it would be easier. I agree. I just take issue with the "why humans" thing because if anything, the recent advancements highlight just how big the human element really is.
Can you imitate a Bach prelude? Sure. And only people who aren't actually familiar with his music would be impressed.
Much of AI approaching "human performance", is it approaching the lowest bar. There's a Wittgenstein thing going on here. That an LLM can ace the LSAT or GMAT is mostly an indictment of those tests.
I scored 159 on the LSAT in 2014, so I am not claiming the tests are easy. I am pointing out that when an AI aces them, it says more about the test than anything else.
No it doesn't lol because you can insert any test you like into your equation. GPT-4 performs well above average on almost anything you throw at it.
"Says more about [insert test]" is not an intelligent argument. It doesn't even make sense. Can you tell me exactly what this mysterious thing is ?
If you have this secret test for "true" intelligence and understanding the entire world is missing on then please share it with us and get your acclaim.
We must be speaking past each other. I am not out for acclaim and sorry for any confusion. Everything you say is exactly the point I'm trying to make, evidently clumsily. The "mysterious thing" is the human element. I don't know what else to call it? Humans that ace tests prove only that they are good at acing tests. Not that they're good at running businesses or practicing law. Not creating films (in this example), or music, etc.
I am not knocking the advancements, the capabilities are incredible. But machines have been doing what humans cannot since the dawn of time. I'm just pointing out what I think (thought?) was obvious: machines will soon be able to do just about everything that doesn't really matter.
PS. are you familiar with Wittgensteins ruler? Ask chatGPT about it.
There is no "human element" lol. That's the point. That's how you know the argument has no ground. People resort to "human element" when they have nothing to actually say. and because "human element" has no meaning, the goal posts for it just keeps getting moved further and further. apparently now we're at "make the godfather".
I'm not a critic of AI or moving any goal posts. I'm not lobbing comments in a vacuum. I was responding directly to the comical proposal that we don't need actors anymore, to which my Godfather comment has every relevance. Thanks anyway!
Theater is a niche now. And whenever I go to the theater with my wife we are the only members of the audience under 50. Doesn't look like this form of art will survive very long. I don't think people care very much whether characters are played by real humans. It used to be that dangerous stunts were performed live. Nobody cares that they were replaced by CGI. Nobody cares that Tom Cruise doesn't really jump out of the burning helicopter.
I mean, sure. Reading is a niche, too. HN is a niche as well. Almost everything you care about is a niche.
But back to acting: Broadway and off Broadway exist. Maybe it's not doing so well, I wouldn't know: I don't live in the US... but theaters exist in my city. Both big and indie plays are conducted by young people, for young people. People watch them. People act in them.
It's mistaken to believe that tech will replace things that people value other human beings doing. Theater and cinema -- barring blockbusters -- are not "processes" to "optimize". They exist for their own sake. People love watching other people act.
Want to know what else people love doing: acting themselves! Acting classes are everywhere.
So excuse my extreme skepticism: human actors aren't going anywhere.
Maybe Tom Cruise in Top Gun 5 will be auto-generated by AI, who cares? Those blockbusters sure are within reach of AI, since it's all about the thrills and no-one really cares about the acting behind all those CGI scenes.
> Doesn't look like this form of art will survive very long.
Art is more resilient than you give it credit for. Art has been with us -- mankind -- since our beginnings, and it will never be gone. It's something humans crave doing.
