undefined | Better HN

0 pointsechelon1y ago0 comments

> By that, I mean something where either the dialog or the video (or both) is completely done by AI.

I don't think LLMs can write nuanced character arcs, so let's not include them.

On the subject of the visuals being completely AI, we need to be able to steer the video with more than just text prompts. Do you remove the possibility of using motion capture performances, compositing, or other techniques?

I think we'll see 100% non-photon, non-CG visuals. I just think those performances will be human and the films will have a very human touch.

If you can make that adjustment, then I think we have a bet.

AI is just a tool. And artists are going to use the tools that can get the job done.

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

cogman101y ago· 2 in thread

> On the subject of the visuals being completely AI, we need to be able to steer the video with more than just text prompts. Do you remove the possibility of using motion capture performances, compositing, or other techniques?

Yes I exclude that, because the primary reason to say "We'll be making more long-form, quality content per month than entire Hollywood production years." is that AI has eliminated or vastly eliminated the need for human actors. I'd accept a model trained on motion data or whatever, but I do not think something that augmenting that visual input data counts towards actually reducing production costs and speeding up the process of creating media.

I'd accept modifications to the bet that would still allow for rapid media production. If the human staffing is virtually identical to what it is today then that's not AI actually reducing costs. Hence, AI needing to do the majority of the labor.

For example of what I'd accept, a 2 person team that creates a 20+ minute ensemble film in less than a month or 2 that meets the success criteria above. I'd reject it if the film is "Watch ted go insane in this room" (I think for obvious reasons).

> I think we'll see 100% non-photon, non-CG visuals. I just think those performances will be human and the films will have a very human touch.

We already have that AFAIK. But again, I don't think that's a huge cost or time savings.

> AI is just a tool. And artists are going to use the tools that can get the job done.

I agree, it is a tool. I disagree with claims of how much content it will ultimately enable to be produced.

echelonOP1y ago

> Yes I exclude that,

So humans steering diffusion is off limits? No Krea, no Invoke, no articulated humans?

It's like you're taking away Premiere or Final Cut here. Text prompts are not the currency of AI film. Controllability levers are essential to this whole endeavor.

> I do not think something that augmenting that input data counts towards actually reducing production costs and speeding up the process of creating media.

You haven't spent much time on set, then. An animator can do a performance capture on their webcam and adjust the IK. That's way different than booking a sound stage, renting an Arri Alexa and lenses, and bringing out a whole cast and crew. Set dec, wardrobe, makeup, lighting versus the moral equivalent of a Kinect and a garage studio.

My 6 AM call times, early mornings climbing up to the top shelf of the prop house to grab random tubas and statues, and signing countless legal forms and insurance paperwork all beg to differ with your claims here.

> AI has eliminated or vastly eliminated the need for human actors.

I don't think it necessitates this at all. Kids are going to be flocking to the media to turn themselves into anime VTubers and Han Solos and furries and whatever they can dream up.

Artists want to art. They're going to flock to this. We're going to have to open up the tech for that reason alone.

I'm sure fast moving marketers and the cottage industry of corporate workplace training videos won't use humans, but the creative side will. ElevenLabs is great, but there's also a reason why they hired Chris Pratt, Anya-Taylor Joy, and Jack Black in the Mario movie.

> For example of what I'd accept, a 2 person team that creates a 20+ minute ensemble film in less than a month or 2 that meets the success criteria above.

I'll posit this: a two person team will make a better Star Wars, a better Lord of the Rings, a better Game of Thrones. An ensemble cast of actors piloting AI diffusion characters (or whatever future techniques emerge) will make a film as well acted as Glengarry Glen Ross. Perhaps even set in some fantasy or sci-fi landscape. I bet that we'll have a thousand Zach Hadels, Vivienne Medranos, and Joel Havers finding massive audiences with their small footprint studios, making anime, cartoons, lifelike fantasy, lifelike science fiction, period dramas, and more. And that AI tools will be the linchpin of this creative explosion.

cogman101y ago

> I'll posit this: a two person team will make a better Star Wars, a better Lord of the Rings, a better Game of Thrones. An ensemble cast of actors piloting AI diffusion characters (or whatever future techniques emerge) will make a film as well acted as Glengarry Glen Ross. Perhaps even set in some fantasy or sci-fi landscape. I bet that we'll have a thousand Zach Hadels, Vivienne Medranos, and Joel Havers finding massive audiences with their small footprint studios, making anime, cartoons, lifelike fantasy, lifelike science fiction, period dramas, and more. And that AI tools will be the linchpin of this creative explosion.

If that happens in the next 10 years and we judge "as good as starwars" using my above criteria. You would win the bet.

We on?

1 more reply

pjc501y ago

> Do you remove the possibility of using motion capture performances, compositing, or other techniques?

These things are "not AI".

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse