many people don't seem to be certain about whether this video's "spicy takes" are ironic, sarcastic, or genuine. well, here's my actual opinion on the issue; I agree with you
I'm not too plugged into online discourse (thank god) but my understanding is that residuals are extra scary for studios since they'd have to release real numbers about how their streaming services are doing
For further research, look up "Hollywood Accounting." Basically, they cook the every living FORK out of their books to screw over as many people as possible. For example, "Return of the Jedi" has officially made no profit. This includes the second theatrical run leading up to the prequels being released. This happens because studios often force actors, particularly lower-tier actors without major star power, into accepting a percentage of gross profit. That's not TOTAL profit, but the excess left over after accounting for marketing, production, etc. So the man who played Darth Vader, David Prowse, NEVER received a dime for his work on Return of the Jedi. Occasionally, someone will raise a stink about being shafted and sue the studio over it. Infamously, Stan Lee sued Marvel over cheating him out of residuals for that Spider Man movie in 2002. You know, the one that earned $800 MILLION? He sued and they promptly settled for $10 million. .Each time, the studios settle out of court, because going to trial would entail a lengthy "discovery" phase where they would have to put their cooked books on record. There is no way any studio wants to put their fraudulent accounting under legal scrutiny, so they settle. The latest chapter in this long running scam involves streaming numbers. However, in this case I don't believe they are bilking people on residuals so much as they are trying to fool investors and the Wall Street in general. Streaming has been horribly flooded with every major network throwing their hat in the ring, but few are truly profitable. Basically, millions of us consumers "cut our cables" because of corporate greed leading to shitty service (300 channels and nothing to watch!), and those same companies learned jack shit nothing and are in the process of trying to ruin streaming too. So being brutally honest with their viewing statistics means officially showing how much money they are losing or generally underperforming with platforms like Disney+. If that platform was such a success... why are they hemorraghing subscribers while cutting content? It's so bad that the CEO publically talks about how they are needing to pivot. He all but said they wasted too much money on junk content that wasn't driving subscriptions, and are now focusing on a smaller (less total funding) slate of 'quality' content. AKA there was too much shit before. And if that is what Bob Iger is PUBLICALLY admitting.... yeah it's in actuality much worse. The stock market runs off faith in a companies future growth, so admitting bad news always leads to a drop in stock prices. By fudging numbers and lying as much as the companies can, they can keep the illusion of success going for as long as possible. And with that, they keep investors mollified and stock prices higher. Hollywood really is just one giant swamp.
In the words of my greatest creative writing professor: “all writing is derivative and iterative. But everyone is unique and adds the spice. Every work is derivative. All work is inspired by something else. Every work is iterative. All the work is based on multiple attempts. But your experience adds the special spice. Your weirdness makes it’s special. And never forget that market based work for the masses pleases no one.
Well said. Ai won't replace human writers because Ai doesn't have the spice needed to make it genuine. Plus, Ai will easily fall back on tropes that people will get inevitably bored of especially as they can't discern if what they are writing as heart or is just selling out to mass market appeals, which nobody enjoys.
i mean fundamentally, the masses do enjoy those products, which is why so many of them are made. People who are cynical and critical of film and entertainment are fundamentally a smaller marketing demographic than "the masses" who get the bulk of the sales
@@tinajd187you say this because you have a narrow understanding of AI. Back in 2019 I wrote a simple generative AI that could wrote fantastic stories. It was stupidly simple. Just using TVtropes to figure out the "rules" of writing stories worthy of entertainment and introspection, and combining that with an algorithm similar to what's called wave collapse (I didn't know of its existence at the time) it could generate great stories and premises. One that stuck with me was this one about a magic coin. Each side gave 3 wishes. The "heads" side was a wishing well and your wish would be granted exceeding your dreams for it. The "tails" side was a monkeys paw and was the classic you get what you wish for but at a cost and only later do you realize you actually wish that you hadn't. Once the coin came into your possession you couldn't rid yourself of it, and with each successive flip landing of either side that side would fade. So each side's first wish was the most amplified of the positive or negative. And if your wish landed on the fully faded side you couldn't wish for that wish again, like it was a failed wish and so it would be denied and then locked. One of the wishing well wishes it came up with was also something that has stuck with me. One of the characters wished that someone they had just lost would always be remembered and future generations would really understand what a loss their passing was. And the way it granted the wish was the family and those close to that character's uncle came together to memorialize him. They all wrote biographies about him and how he impacted their life, they told all his flaws and wonders and quirks. They wrote how his ideal self would have been and what stopped him in life from becoming that ideal self, what demons tormented him and what monkeys were on his back. Then they commissioned a burial statue for him and broke it, everyone putting it back together in the same manner as kintsugi. That became their clans tradition for grieving and they created a hall for all those statues and that grieving material, so that for all time they will continue to guide the future generations. Now what I created didn't come out quite like that. It output as a hyperlinked wiki essentially. That was how I figured would be best with the various levels of resolution tropes exist within stories; moment to moment, overarching, rhyming motifs, etc. And it was just a scaffolding and not exactly readable, it just linked together a coherent, valid set of tropes with profound or interesting interplay. Plenty of it was garbage or at least I couldn't understand a way to see a story from navigating through the interconnected links of its output. So different ppl would find different stories and interpretations from the same output. I'm sure I could make a way to get it to interface with a modern LLM like gpt4 or llama2, but I'm not going to. I've ran through the likely future scenarios for me if I do and I'm fine not doing that. So while there are plenty like you that say AI will never be able to do this or that, I know has already been done. The examples known to the broad public aren't all that exist. And those are not well thought out in their architecture if you ask me. AI researchers are both too ignorant and too arrogant to be much more than incompetent. I believe it was Carmack who said the big AI teams aren't going to bring about real AI, but most likely a lone programmer or small indie team that stumbles across the right combination. That we have most of the pieces, and possibly all the pieces but don't realize that, and they're all quite simple to implement. It's just going to take putting them together. And even if you don't believe me, just look at Facebook's/Meta's CICERO and think about if that was modified to instead be a storyteller rather than a virtual geopolitical diplomat.
@tinajd187 have you tried chatgpt 3.5? It can make scripts, even rewrite my outline scripts and give it the "spice" the story needs. That is just the fre version. Chatgpt 4 is much better and remembers your characters and what you wrote.
If the existing writers are the fundamental cause of bad media then you would think that Hollywood would’ve taken the trivially easy step of replacing them with different people, or pursuing some of the million unproduced scripts that are floating around LA or get sent to studios every week. Blaming the writers for the production and release of bad content is like blaming the lithium miners because your phone has a faulty battery.
@@cartilagehead6326oh they absolutely do work and spend money... on reshoot, and sometimes editing the script for the worse too they just have different priority
The issue is also finding something can be "good" (and that's already a very hard metric) but also appealing. There's a lot of original and creative movies and shows recently that all lost money or did not get many views. And studios like Disney are so massive with so many franchises they don't need to bet on the daring scripts. Everyone seems to hate those bland live-action Disney remakes but they might as well be money printers.
The youtube algorithm is already proto-form of an AI entertainment executive, choosing which products get funded (monetized), marketed (promoted), and recommending ways videos should be produced.
CEOs are absolutely more easily replaceable with current stochastic parrot AIs. It has already happened. Most CEOs don't actually follow best practices and humans are not capable of fully ingesting and processing all the company data to pull the right levers the right way. There have been a few companies whose boards have put an AI CEO in charge and they noticeably improve the health and revenue of the company. Even a simple LLM will suffice if you limit it to always check with the best practices literature commonly available. What takes more resources is the AI that interprets the trends internally in the company into recognizable terms for that CEO AI to then work with. That same idea works with lower levels of management as well. Tho typically they don't entirely get rid of the various middle managers, they give them an AI advisor essentially and that keeps a performance record in case that manager disregards the AIs advice at some point and that turns out wrong it can be traced back to that decision. Although for managers that may just free them up to directly observe and micromanage the employees they're over even more, as an unintended side effect of freeing up their time with AI assistance. We'll see. I have been saying from the beginning of the strike tho that most likely the writers are going to hurt themselves with this. And it would have been better if they went all Don Bluth and took the talent and used AI for their administrative tasks. But they're unlikely to do that because they've been blinded by self preservating rage against the entire concept of AI because they are under the illusion of a threat from AI. It would be easier for the creative talent to leverage AI against the studios than the studios to leverage generative AI against the creative talent. All in all, this doesn't end well, like the one in 2008 didn't end well.
@kameronjones7139 which is why I can't see AI replacing the roles of business executives. Not because I think the role is complex or challenging, but because we are still incredibly far from an AI thinking for itself and make executive decisions. Like what would they even train on? AI has no concept of responsibility, what business interests actually are, or any meaningful way to interact with its board and/or shareholders, unless we replace all boards with programmers.
@@roychen5235 they are past tense replacing executive and administrative positions. It has already happened. It literally is one of the simplest integrations for current AI. It's as simple as: [business environment and factors]. What is our best course of action for [goals]? Just doing that increased revenue because the LLMs have been trained on business literature and they pick the objective course of action. There is no ego, no games&politics, pure input and best matched output. Shareholders prefer that way. Also plenty of small businesses are unlikely to fall victim to themselves being incompetent at managing their small business and so the success rate of new businesses is likely to increase. Administration has been a solved problem for at least a century now, and likely longer. They just reinvent ways to say the same things so it seems like business fundamentals have changed, when really it's just been the "meta" of the business landscape that has.
Reminds me of the Calvin and Hobbes strip where Calvin is trying to persuade his father to buy a computer and how it would help him with his homework. His father replies: “You know you have to tell the computer what to say, right?”, and Calvin walks off muttering: “I don’t understand the big fuss about computers?”
Maybe eventually, but right now, no. GPT will output the most generic things possible because it's trained to do so, to output the word most likely to follow the preceding context. If they want to produce more generic garbage then yes. And I mean, if they fire literally all writers, just imagine how horrendous the scripts the marketing people would come up with. You need to coax AI to give you the answer you're looking for. You need to know what questions to ask, what input to give it, to get good output. Garbage in, garbage out would be the case with corporates who have no soul.
I think we've become so accustomed to technology being invented and then improving exponentially over time that we've forgotten that that isn't a given, it's a feature of our specific technological moment. Personally, as someone who has taken multiple college courses on machine-learning and has tried out the tool extensively, I do not believe that it is suited for the kind of task that creative writing is. And I don't think that more improvements to the tech will change that. Chat GPT does not "think". It uses a black box algorithm to condense every piece of text filtered into it into something that a person would, at-a-glance, say could be written by a person in response to your prompt. This immediately falls apart when it is asked to produce a longer piece of text with motivating ideas and forethought, because, again, the AI does not think. So how would you even get Chat GPT to be a "writer"? By you, the human being a good writer and knowing what to look for and cherry pick from it's output. And at that point, the question has to be asked, why not just write the damn thing yourself.
I suppose it could be used as a springboard tool. Say you're a writer with writer's block and you feed the AI a prompt to give you a basic idea that you yourself flesh out. That seems like it would be the best way to go about using ChatGPT for writing purposes.
@@DracoMagniusI've tried yhis and gotten absolute dogshit nonsense or the most predictable things ever, which I suppose is still technically on par with Hollywood writing.
It’s more about speed and scale. For a movie it doesn’t make sense but for stuff like background dialogue for video game npcs where quantity matters more than quality it makes perfect sense.
@@DracoMagnius It can be good for those purposes, essentially as a tool for brainstorming or solving the blank page problem. And that's neat! Chat GPT definitely isn't useless for writers, just limited.
@@nerdy_crawfish I guess? Like if you wanted to produce a bunch of variations on "Hello, how are you?" that'd probably be a good use. That kind of dialog works because it all has the same content, but needs to be repeated a ton. But most games don't have or need a ton of repeated dialogue of this kind. Even for low-impact side dialogue for NPCs, if the dialogue isn't repeated, doing the work to craft a good prompt is probably harder than just writing the line directly.
My computer class teacher from the early 2000's once said "the computer is the dumbest technology ever, because it can't do anything by itself". He was talking about input devices, how a PC can't output anything without a human user directly inputting the commands into it. The same logic applies to AI tools. ChatGPT cannot give you a nice movie script without you knowing exactly what prompts to use. Midjourney cannot give you artistic masterpieces without inputting all the right prompts. And who knows what to input? Real writer and artists with real life experience. They know what to type to get exactly what they want. Otherwise tools like ChatGPT and Bing AI are just glorified chatbots that summarize information.
Your teacher sounds dumb. A paint brush is dumb because it can't paint a masterpiece by itself, a guitar is dumb because it can't create music by itself. Just because something sounds profound doesn't mean it is.
@@MesiasMark What I was trying to say is that only writers and artists with real life experience will be able to extract the most of these AI Tools. Everyone can use ChatGPT, but will only get the most generic outputs. This will apply to Hollywood if they cut writers and artists to save money.
@@CanaldoZenny It still lowers their bargaining power in the workforce, because whos to say Someone in the higher ups can't do the same? All ai have to do is touch the basics again then its game over. most people said that Ai can never take over digital art because it needs creativity, surprise surprise it can, it only needs to touch the basics and I say this as an artist myself. I never understood why most of my peers believed that Ai can never take over the art world when it is the most vulnerable to it. Anything that has basic fundamentals can be learned by the Ai, and the creativity part will just come from the person asking the ai to do it.
I wonder where the issue with modern movies etc comes from. Is it that the writers are bad or is it the corporate culture over riding what they write. We have seen this happen to the automotive industry, music, movies, tv, consumer goods, shopping, etc. And most recently notable, video games. When the suits are involved its about extracting wealth. We end up with trend chasing, same things over and over again. All more expensive with bigger numbers that always have to go up.
@@NJdaniels96also keep in mind, Disney is infamous for delaying certain films like Indy 5 and Rogue One due to lengthy reshoots that ballooned their budgets because they were worried about it not testing well enough with test audiences
@@KhanumXAnd then in like 10 or so years, the movie or TV show that everyone hated or said was forgettable will they come back and everybody will praise it like a masterpiece (eg Megamind.)
I am a Hollywood writer fresh out of the film school oven and it's actually genuinely nice to hear someone discuss the strike from outside without saying that the work of my colleagues is so bad that they deserve to be unemployed and homeless
people acting like it’s the writers fault that everything being put out recently isn’t very good. they literally are not being paid and they have money driven business executives controlling and changing their work and switching out the writing rooms. those conditions do not foster good writing. if you blame the writers then you either know nothing about the industry or you’re just plan stupid
@@soapy6 I've read so many fantastic scripts from friends and colleagues - and when they finally get made, the studio has gutted everything that made it interesting and turned it into formulaic slop. Writers are only in control of the beginning of the project, why do people think we're responsible if the end product sucks? That's like blaming a farmer for shitty banana bread.
I don't think that ruling is strong enough to be a concern, the amount of human work required to make a work "derivative" and thereby copyright-able is unclear. The bar might be as low as "the human arrangement of AI content is sufficient". Also, there is no ruling that cannot be struck down. Considering this ruling restricts the property rights of corporations I don't have high hopes it could survive a full assault by armies of corporate lawyers
But that is exactly what Hollywood _doesn't_ want - at all costs... Let's say that ruling sticks, and AI made stuff isn't copyrightable. Some Hollywood bigwig decrees his 'minions' to make a film by using AI - and _because it isn't copyrightable_ , anyone can make a derivative work from it, without consequences. Sure, Bigwig can try to tie that 'anyone' up in court for years, but in the end, he will lose the case, and anyone _can_ and _will_ make derivatives from any of those movies - and that movies are then burnt for all times: Hollywood can't ever make a sequel of it and earn money from it (what they like to do most, after all...) without anyone and their dog making their own new version, killing their revenue (what little there will be, with the quality that comes out of that process...). And for getting that ruling struck down: they can try - but that will take years and years in court, and I'd almost bet on one of the requirements of the court being that the movie in question can't be played or otherwise marketed while all those legal shenanigans aren't solved. Imagine making an expensive movie (because it still won't be anything _nearly_ approaching 'cheap'...), and then not getting any money out of it for a decade or more... TL;DR: Good luck with trying that - paying the people making your movies better will make you tons more money in the long run...
It seems to me the lack of good writing is not a technical problem. It's purely a structural one. There are good writers out there, but their best work isn't winning out over mediocre content. Either because the people making decisions don't want to use their best work and the cost and risk it carries, or writers are forced to change their work in order to keep their jobs. AI really does nothing to help executives make better decisions.
So what I'm hearing is, don't replace the writers and actors with A.I., replace the marketing department. Just imagine how much money you could save by using an intern with a laptop instead. You could even afford to pay that intern a livable wage, and still pay only a fraction of the price.
@@mrshmuga9By your logic, just replace the execs. They get paid millions a month and yet make terrible decisions like hiring idiots to write and spending huge amounts of money on failed projects.
When the film industry was in its infancy in the 1910's, Thomas Edison and a cartel of other film technology developers created a trust to monopolize film technology, and those who use it. This lead to a bunch of folks to leave New England for places like Orlando and Hollywood as well as the passing of modern anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws we have on the books today (and rarely enforced). Maybe I'm being too much of a history/film history geek, and maybe I'm giving Hollywood's writers and actors too much credit to want to do something like that but this feels like the starting's of corporate greed causing a second film industry schism that killed it and saw it reborn somewhere else.
@@Horatio787Certified protestant moment. Virgin puritans killing natives vs Chad Portuguese royalty going to Brazil, turning Brazil into kingdom and marriage between Portuguese and natives common. This is a come to Brazil message
Writers do not get to pick the shows that get made, they may even have to hit certain plot points to appease the studios. Additionally, plot points are decided in a writers room and then each episode is handed off to a writer or writers. They are working off of the idea of someone’s idea of someone’s idea of a 70 year old IP. They can’t make good content if we force them to reboot Shrek every 5 years.
AI isn't going to 'write' better stories but they'll be cheaper so the studios will go with it until they lose more money. Executives think they *are* the company and the people doing the work are just resources to make *them* money.
Somone has to write the prompts, and if real writers quite, prompt writers will also want more money the more they are in demand. So it will not cut costs, it will only lessen the qualiy of productions, rather than just being poorly written slop, you'll get uncanny, robotic imitations of what a show or movie should be, and i guarantee people will catch on and be creeped out, and just not see this stuff.
sorta, AI itself cant be given ownership as a human must provide the guiding creativity for the creation. So a chatGPT prompt by itself would fail but one that is refined post output would probably pass.
@@Artorias920 debatable. courts haven't really defined how much human contribution there actually needs to be for a work to be eligible for copyright, and it's such a messy issue that I doubt any studio will bother fighting lengthy court battles for scripts that were half written by a human when it would be easier to just pay someone to write the whole script or accept that other people will use your script.
@@AnimeKaiserWillyII Again, you misinterpret. They said "wholly AI-generated." Which is a simple case of "How many grains of sand is a pile?" And that, again, disregards that no large companies have overturned it - yet.
This could explain some of the stuff that came out in the shitpost era of KnowledgeHub. Because some of that felt like a bizarre fever dream of a script. So maybe that was early AI musings...
I don’t think it’s fair to characterize the writers and actors as idiotic rich people most actors aren’t rich and practically no writers are. These people do the most important parts in media creation and get the least amount of money back.
@@Dave102693 The same people who blame the actors for their own problems with Hollywood probably didn't even consider the existence of writers before the strike. They have a barely functioning sense of object permanence if the only people they think are affected are A-listers. It's not worth arguing with them because they'll just parrot back the words of the executives responsible for the current state of media like especially stupid sock puppets.
I feel that the use of AI in writing would only exacerbate the trend towards bland, generic and nonsensical rather than reverse it. Honestly we have no one to blame for ourselves. If we kept throwing money at mid movies while ignoring the good ones, we shouldn't be shocked when everything starts to turn to trash. But there's also the fact that Hollywood used to mainly make movies for North American audiences, and that's just not really the case anymore. Our movies feel strange and alienating because they're not just aiming for a lowest common denominator American audience, but a lowest common denominator global audience. I can see a future where the studios swap out writers for AI and everyone simple accepts it, with having a real writer being seen as more of a mark of prestige for a film. Because long term, the real threat isn't AI's replacing writers, but replacing the entire process. People sit down in front of their TVs and simply ask it to formulate a show or movie based on their fanfic desires of the day. I'm sure everyone would love that level of solipsistic and masturbatory fiction, but it does sadden me somewhat. I think we've forgotten what makes writing special in our obsession with breaking it down to the atomic elements. Writing is essentially getting inside another person's head, with the story told through their perspective and idiosyncrasies. This is the reason why we tend to find the very best and very worst movies the most fascinating - because we understand there is a human connection there. The worst thing is when a script has very little human element to it, either because the writer has very little to say, or, increasingly, because they've deliberately crippled their writing voice out of fear of honest emotion and bury it under tons of irony. AI is only going to make the issue of the mission human connection worse.
Little did we know that the Hollywood Elites™️ had already devised a new sinister plan: upload Bob Iger’s mind into a new super computer and develop their own AI.
You always have hilarious visuals. Not the normal “practical, simple, and direct” boring graphics you’d see in COMM 101 class (or other TH-camrs). Awesome job, I love your work!
The only thing AI’s ever been good at and probably ever will be good at when it comes to writing is coming up with titles for already written movies/books/video games. I’m making a video game right now, and the AI’s name for it, “Heretics of the Stormlands”, is a WAY better name than anything I came up with.
AI is one of those tools for artists to use like how you used it. Like if I needed a bunch of names or some ideas to get through a creative block you can just whip up a bunch of random shit from AI
People wildly downplay the difference between what ChatGPT does and what a good writer does. It's basically the difference between really good predictive text and full sentience. If a computer ever comes along that's actually capable of writing something of artistic merit, it'll be in like 100 years at least.
People really watch one video essay on The Hero's Journey and start saying "Humans aren't special. Creativity is just a formula so computers can do it even better."
Anyone that says AI will surpass our intellect in 100 years doesn't pay attention to its capabilities and the rate of improvement. Some people will say this for ever and ever until all of a sudden it happened
@@Galaxia53 It's not some existing thing that needs to be "improved" upon, though. Artificial general intelligence fully does not exist. It needs to be invented in the first place before it can improve.
@@ohno5559 Artificial general intelligence is not a thing just yet indeed. It's something they are working towards by making large language models more capable and allowing it to utilize more than just language. If it did exist right now then it could self improve to infinity very quickly.
The reason new media is garbage doesn’t have to do with the writers, it’s the shareholders and corporate greed deciding what gets produced. That’s why we don’t have the same variety of cinema as, say, the 80’s and 90’s, with small studios and projects taking risks and making classics like Evil Dead, Dogma, Falling Down, Best In Show, The Big Lebowski, etc etc etc. It’s all about profit motive, not making good cinema. Hell, Kung Fury is a great example of a passion project that was released on YT to huge success, with a tiny production.
I'm more curious about how A.I. will make the need to even buy into the media they make pointless. Once it gets to the point where you can make your own movies on any character or story setting you want, as a full made movie with sounds and visuals and everything, is there really a need to go to the movies or get a subscription to a streaming service?
It all comes down to the "writer's room" issue. Go back in time and look at award-winning shows like Hill Street Blues, St. Elsewhere, and L.A. Law. Episodes might have two or three writers , PLUS the same writers would write every show of the season. And what a shock, there was consistent quality (that also holds true for bad shows). There's absolutely no show that requires 10+ people to write a single 40-minute episode.
The names you see in the credits are the writers who wrote the first draft. After the first draft, everyone else in the writer's room gives input, but their names aren't put on the episode. Since you mentioned St. Elsewhere, I looked up the first few seasons. Seasons 2 and 3 have 8-9 credited writers. So that's their writer's room *minimum*. They probably had a few more writers who just didn't get to write a first draft for those seasons. So 10 people in a room isn't a stretch. The reason the union is demanding minimums is because the studios have been shrinking writer's rooms, reducing staffed positions to rely more on freelance writers, and eventually want to turn writers into gig workers where they're hired day by day instead of for whole seasons at a time.
And most televisions are huge, high definition screens now. Watching a movie at home isn't a 14" 480i screen playing a vhs tape anymore. And theaters aren't exactly using film projectors these days, either: I sat in the front row to see Logan in theaters and realized that I could make out the individual pixels on the screen.
@@Arander92 I’m not rly speaking for myself but since I didn’t make it clear above I’ll say it like this. The main theater audience would be couples and families of about 4. With ticket prices rising and food rising with it in theaters, it’s becoming less affordable for these people (aka most theater goers)
Todays generative AI is not real AI yet its just really really good at responding to English language prompts based on the enormous data they were trained on. That data is still human creative works.
4:29 To my knowledge, it is more the price of an original screenplay versus the price of an adapted screenplay. If I was a producer and asked Bob Writer to make a script about Mermaids and Werewolves, then Bob Writer came back 2 months later with a script, I would contractually pay him $$$$. If I was a producer and asked Bob Writer to ADAPT Mermaids and Werewolves script I told Chat GPT to make, then Bob Writer came back 2 months later with a script, I would contractually pay him $$$. Less money than before. Even if Bob Writer has to throw out everything my ChatGPT weremerwolfmaid script had and wrote a coherent story from scratch, Bob Writer (unless he already had a well paid lawyer team) would be fucked by contract because I "HIRED" him to "ADAPT" a script and I WON'T give him more money for the same ass busting amount of work he had to do. And since we live in a world where World War Z the movie reasembles NOTHING about World War Z the book BECAUSE some jackass bought the rights the book to use the name to sell his own shitty zombie script, you should not be surprised by Hollywood rights bullshit. We made 4 Fantastic 4 movies NOT BECAUSE ANYONE WANTED TO MAKE MONEY on the Fantastic 4 or merchandising AROUND the FF. But Because studio rights holders for the FF needed to make the films to renew the IP rights for later trading and claims. OR how HBO MAX Nuked a giant chunk of its IP library JUST for a tax write off. Or made Space Jam 2 just as a sales pitch to Zazlav and Discovery. Or Justice League giving Superman a fake upper lip. Or hiring Marry Poppins to play Godzilla in an Aquaman movie so she would be contractually unavailable for Marry Poppins Returns. Point is, Hollywood screws eachother over for petty shit all the time. AI generated art and scripts WILL NOT REPLACE ARTISTS..............except they will ripp their paychecks in half or smalled because "Technically, I wrote Ironman vs Batman first with Chat GPT, therefore, I am not required to pay you more than the adaptation rate, Bob Writer. So suck my dick like my 4th trophy wife".
The endless cycle of rewrites and reshoots in Movies and Streaming tells me two things: Production is happeneing way too quickly (especially with streaming) with rushed scripts full of issues, and that Studio executives are very reactionary and will demand changes be made mid-production.
TBH a lot of the artists complaining about AI are angry that people are asking them to do this. The use of copyrighted data in training sets is, IMHO, a side-show legal battle. What artists are *really* worried about is having the fun part of their job taken away and replaced with half-assed stochastic parrot nonsense.
This is even more so as a court has ruled in favor of the copyright office that AI work can not be copywritten. For studios, that is a problem because that would mean any AI work they make would go straight to the public domain, meaning less profit potential
Depends on how fast the technology advances, GPT 5/6/7 could be leaps and bounds ahead of what 4 is. It just has to do a good enough job to justify not paying the writers for the executives to cut the writing staff. Ultimately though, company produced content is doomed (looking at you Disney), people will be making their own video games, movies, books and TV shows soon.
Making your own video games is surprisingly easy now and making your own tv show is basically what TH-cam was made for. People have been making books for free online just for the fun of it for decades now. It's already happening.
@@scienceface8884 Oh yeah, but what I mean is AGI will make the process a lot faster for the majority of people who aren’t familiar with game design. Once you can interface with your general purpose AI you’ll basically be able to create, tweak and play whatever your hearts content.
On the point that movie are too high at prices. That is very important point. You can't have constantly movies that are 300 million budget with another 600 million marketing budget and expect to make a profit that is double the budget.
I don't know how some people can still believe in the power of the free market to improve quallity when so much of the business decisions modern industries do can clearly be summed up as "our sales aren't increasing so we will pay less to our workers. This way we will have more profit from the same amount of product"
I really don't get the people who think that replacing writers with ai is going to make things better. Like "Hey you know all those generic scripts writers turn out when not given enough time or resources to make a good script? Imagine that but now even more generic because the ai can only reference existing things"
AI isn't capable of keeping a plot structure in mind. It can't forshadow a plot twist, because it can't know that a plot twist is coming. AI can't use symbolism and themes.
@@qtar1984 Yeah you're right ChatGPT and the open source AIs I got on my computer do exclusive text generation. I had to think on this for a while but when it comes to for shadowing a human can imagine the future. We don't know the future but we can imagine one. Now I was thinking what if the text generator generates text ones and then builds upon that generation by generating and edited version of it so that the previously unforshadowed plot twist now becomes foreshadowed. Maybe it could even come to the conclusion that the plot twist was stupid in hindsight. They are text generators, but they're smart text generators. They need to be more than text generators to get closer to our level though. OpenFlamingo is a multi modal language model that can take in both text and pictures so that's a cool first step for open source multi modality.
This is ultimately the problem with using AI for everything. I work in IT and sure there could be someone out there that is less skilled then myself that puts the tasks into ChatGPT and then pasts the commands it vomits out into a Red Hat server and get paid a fraction of what I'm getting paid to do it, but ultimately someone needs to be liable if something goes wrong. I get paid what I do because I know whether what ChatGPT vomits out is actually going to do what is expected or if it is going to completely nuke an environment. The only thing that AI does is make certain tasks associated with a job easier to do. I love ChatGPT because it makes me much more efficient at my work and I learn a lot from it. I am not concerned that it is going to take away my job and I don't think it's going to take away the job of writers. The union strike is about studios wanting to say that AI wrote the script and having writers just be a secondary source that they producers get to pay less. Just because you have this shiny new tool for making things easier doesn't mean that you get to pay the people who need to interpret that information less.
Hollywood: let's replace all the writters with AI trained with their scripts and make the films/series with AI trained with the work of artists and actors to reduce costs. Free infinte AI generated movies
AI is a tool and should never be a direct replacement, I think the first ones to embrace it as the useful tool it is will be leading the pack in the future. Kind of like the early adopters of CG artwork and Animation, most of them became instructors teaching those following in their footsteps.
Exactly, people consider it as the magical being that will replace everyone in no time but the truth is that it will simply be another tool in the toolbox of items to create supreme product.
@@Edge50199 there is a problem with that statement: humans aren't unique. Humans can be replaced and we're pretty damn close to the time when humans become the horse in the horse vs car argument.
@jeansanchez2805 that is not the case, I'm afraid and stinks of an outdated mentality. AI and automation is evolving faster than anything previous, and the best case scenario is that we run out of jobs by 2050... the more plausible case is literally the end of the decade.
The people striking are only asking for three things : being paid enough money to eat and afford healthcare, having good enough working conditions to do they jobs properly and not being treated like garbage. The AI problem is only incidental to that. Now if we’re talking about AI writing and stuff: no, AI won’t be able to replace human writers before the end of the year. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t regulate its use while it’s still not too widespread.
There was a very strange feature in this case, strange because of its extremely rare occurrence. This man had once been brought to the scaffold in company with several others, and had had the sentence of death by shooting passed upon him for some political crime. Twenty minutes later he had been reprieved and some other punishment substituted; but the interval between the two sentences, twenty minutes, or at least a quarter of an hour, had been passed in the certainty that within a few minutes he must die. I was very anxious to hear him speak of his impressions during that dreadful time, and I several times inquired of him as to what he thought and felt. He remembered everything with the most accurate and extraordinary distinctness, and declared that he would never forget a single iota of the experience. ‘About twenty paces from the scaffold, where he had stood to hear the sentence, were three posts, fixed in the ground, to which to fasten the criminals (of whom there were several). The first three criminals were taken to the posts, dressed in long white tunics, with white caps drawn over their faces, so that they could not see the rifles pointed at them. Then a group of soldiers took their stand opposite to each post. My friend was the eighth on the list, and therefore he would have been among the third lot to go up. A priest went about among them with a cross: and there was about five minutes of time left for him to live. ‘He said that those five minutes seemed to him to be a most interminable period, an enormous wealth of time; he seemed to be living, in these minutes, so many lives that there was no need as yet to think of that last moment, so that he made several arrangements, dividing up the time into portions-one for saying farewell to his companions, two minutes for that; then a couple more for thinking over his own life and career and all about himself; and another minute for a last look around. He remembered having divided his time like this quite well. While saying good- bye to his friends he recollected asking one of them some very usual everyday question, and being much interested in the answer. Then having bade farewell, he embarked upon those two minutes which he had allotted to looking into himself; he knew beforehand what he was going to think about. He wished to put it to himself as quickly and clearly as possible, that here was he, a living, thinking man, and that in three minutes he would be nobody; or if somebody or something, then what and where? He thought he would decide this question once for all in these last three minutes. A little way off there stood a church, and its gilded spire glittered in the sun. He remembered staring stubbornly at this spire, and at the rays of light sparkling from it. He could not tear his eyes from these rays of light; he got the idea that these rays were his new nature, and that in three minutes he would become one of them, amalgamated somehow with them. ‘The repugnance to what must ensue almost immediately, and the uncertainty, were dreadful, he said; but worst of all was the idea, ‘What should I do if I were not to die now? What if I were to return to life again? What an eternity of days, and all mine! How I should grudge and count up every minute of it, so as to waste not a single instant!’ He said that this thought weighed so upon him and became such a terrible burden upon his brain that he could not bear it, and wished they would shoot him quickly and have done with it.’
AI is capable of writing well enough, but it produces trite and derivative by-the-numbers slop. It isn't capable of writing anything bold, original or memorable because it, by design, needs to be trained on human input. AI wouldn't create an original and instantly classic plotline from scratch because it doesn't understand how tropes intersect and interact enough to subvert them the way a writer could. I know from experience that being reliably creative on demand is hard (it's my job) and AI isn't actually much help on that front for the reason that it can't be creative or original. AI is basically good enough for spam generation that's engaging sure, but it won't create stuff that people will want to see and then remember after seeing it.
I don't see AI ever "replacing" writers. Like you said, humans will still have to write the prompts and review the material. AI might be able to produce something that looks and "functions" like a script. But I don't see it playing a serious role for anything except the most rudimentary trash content, like sitcoms or something.
I do not want AI stories, story telling is a human art, since we sat in caves telling stories by the fire, to the epics of Homer, the writing of Shakespeare, screenplays of the golden age of film, humans tell stories to other humans, a robot is not human, it does not now what it means to be human, it only assumes what it's like to be human.
#1 The movies are bad. #2 The movies do not make money. #3 Because the movies are bad. Ah, yes, this is the type of deep analysis and insight I‘m coming here for 😏
Chatgpt to write the scripts and prompts for Midjourney and RunwayML to produce your stories. The current new job is "Prompt Engineer" I have no idea what the going rate for a prompt engineer gets, but that is the future. Then Apples Vision Pro, is a Early vr holodeck using small hand gestures and text inputs, which would have some kind of gpt ai. Maybe Applegpt
I mean if the studios want to spend essentially zero on writing they can do what they did last time the writers went on strike: replace scripted content with reality TV.
The real danger comes from studios using AI to generate baseline content and then paying real writers less money for money to edit and punch up that content. It doesn't replace them entirely, but it reduces their role (and also probably the quality of the content, as there's only so much one can do to improve upon shitty AI content). If a writer has technically only edited something that AI wrote, theoretically you don't have to give them any sort of credit, purchase any IP rights, grant any residuals, etc. That's why the writers are absolutely right to fight for prohibitions on the use of AI in Hollywood. It's not about being replaced, it's about being downgraded to editors for shitty AI content that's just good enough to draw in a broad audience.
Show runner: How can we express the inner turmoil of this character? Writer: I have an idea! Show runner: Really? What is it? Writer: Have a whole episode trauma dumping, based off my life story. Also, weird sexual stuff. Show runner: ... AI Writer: Hello, master.
Also, how much are the heads of each studio making compaired to the writers. Plus, the movie Deadpool was rejected how many time before it was made with a slim budget because the head of that studio did not want it made, and they got little marketing budget. The heads are the problem here. They are the ones that make such bad desisions.
Julia was twenty-six years old... and she worked, as he had guessed, on the novel-writing machines in the Fiction Department. She enjoyed her work, which consisted chiefly in running and servicing a powerful but tricky electric motor... She could describe the whole process of composing a novel, from the general directive issued by the Planning Committee down to the final touching-up by the Rewrite Squad. But she was not interested in the final product. She "didn't much care for reading," she said. Books were just a commodity that had to be produced, like jam or bootlaces.
People talk about how the LLMs are going to improve but I don't think that the way they'll improve will actually lead them to writing good stories. The way this software works on a fundamental level is just not suited to it. It digests data to find patterns and then acts like text prediction software. It doesn't actually understand characters, themes, continuity, humor, etc. And even along the axis where it *can* improve, it's not going to exponentially improve forever. We have no idea where it will plateau. It could plateau next year for all we know. A lot of models are already having issues with the quality degrading. Also all the people who say fiction writers should embrace LLMs and use it as a tool seem to have no idea what actually goes into writing. They almost never state specific uses, and when they do the uses sound horrible.
That's the dumbest thing about this argument. In a few years those writers won't be striking, because ai will give those writers freedom that the studios would never give them. And then the billion dollar studios will be left as holding companies for ip's they buried into the ground.
6 months ago, this technology was the realm of scifi and magic. To say that in 10 years it won't be so much more insanely better than it is now is going to age very badly.
I will say ai could have replaced the writers for antmam quantum mania. But that shouldn't reflect good on ai, you could have replaced them with a a collection of chickens with varying degrees of brain damage and enede up with a better screen play.
I think saying AI won't be taking people's jobs anytime soon is on par with some guy in the 80s goin "this internet thing is never gonna take off, atleast no time soon :)" lol I think people are severely UNDERESTIMATING what's around the bend.
The problem is that you wouldn't be able to sell your scripts. The executives would take all control because they would type a prompt in based on hashtags and hot ideas from market research. That's in the fantasy scenario where AI could possibly ever be better than a human writer.
I love the 1960's Lost in Space and "War of the Robots" is a fabulous episode! I also love Forbidden Planet! But what are those clips from? Robby is on the ship at the end, but Morbius never sets foot on the ship in the movie.
many people don't seem to be certain about whether this video's "spicy takes" are ironic, sarcastic, or genuine.
well, here's my actual opinion on the issue;
I agree with you
Tbh I wasn't paying attention at the title I completely thought the title said "Could I Replace Hollywood Writers?" My answer was "Yeah probably..."
@@Pepe_Le_Pew_Pewwdym probably he'd make the content way better he'd revive Hollywood
Can't wait to pay 45$ a month with ads for my streaming services in the future..
Those people need to smoke one and cheel
I was busy trying to open my bag of Cheetos and so was only half listening sorry :(
I'm not too plugged into online discourse (thank god) but my understanding is that residuals are extra scary for studios since they'd have to release real numbers about how their streaming services are doing
That’s the main point of contention in negotiations
Which their reluctance alone would indicate that most of them are not doing so well...
For further research, look up "Hollywood Accounting."
Basically, they cook the every living FORK out of their books to screw over as many people as possible. For example, "Return of the Jedi" has officially made no profit. This includes the second theatrical run leading up to the prequels being released. This happens because studios often force actors, particularly lower-tier actors without major star power, into accepting a percentage of gross profit. That's not TOTAL profit, but the excess left over after accounting for marketing, production, etc. So the man who played Darth Vader, David Prowse, NEVER received a dime for his work on Return of the Jedi.
Occasionally, someone will raise a stink about being shafted and sue the studio over it. Infamously, Stan Lee sued Marvel over cheating him out of residuals for that Spider Man movie in 2002. You know, the one that earned $800 MILLION? He sued and they promptly settled for $10 million. .Each time, the studios settle out of court, because going to trial would entail a lengthy "discovery" phase where they would have to put their cooked books on record. There is no way any studio wants to put their fraudulent accounting under legal scrutiny, so they settle.
The latest chapter in this long running scam involves streaming numbers. However, in this case I don't believe they are bilking people on residuals so much as they are trying to fool investors and the Wall Street in general. Streaming has been horribly flooded with every major network throwing their hat in the ring, but few are truly profitable. Basically, millions of us consumers "cut our cables" because of corporate greed leading to shitty service (300 channels and nothing to watch!), and those same companies learned jack shit nothing and are in the process of trying to ruin streaming too.
So being brutally honest with their viewing statistics means officially showing how much money they are losing or generally underperforming with platforms like Disney+. If that platform was such a success... why are they hemorraghing subscribers while cutting content? It's so bad that the CEO publically talks about how they are needing to pivot. He all but said they wasted too much money on junk content that wasn't driving subscriptions, and are now focusing on a smaller (less total funding) slate of 'quality' content. AKA there was too much shit before.
And if that is what Bob Iger is PUBLICALLY admitting.... yeah it's in actuality much worse. The stock market runs off faith in a companies future growth, so admitting bad news always leads to a drop in stock prices. By fudging numbers and lying as much as the companies can, they can keep the illusion of success going for as long as possible. And with that, they keep investors mollified and stock prices higher.
Hollywood really is just one giant swamp.
Part of it, too, is that they just want to give the gig economy treatment to writers and actors.
@DontReadMyProfilePicture.74I won’t fall for that one again.
In the words of my greatest creative writing professor: “all writing is derivative and iterative. But everyone is unique and adds the spice.
Every work is derivative. All work is inspired by something else. Every work is iterative. All the work is based on multiple attempts. But your experience adds the special spice. Your weirdness makes it’s special.
And never forget that market based work for the masses pleases no one.
Well said. Ai won't replace human writers because Ai doesn't have the spice needed to make it genuine. Plus, Ai will easily fall back on tropes that people will get inevitably bored of especially as they can't discern if what they are writing as heart or is just selling out to mass market appeals, which nobody enjoys.
i mean fundamentally, the masses do enjoy those products, which is why so many of them are made. People who are cynical and critical of film and entertainment are fundamentally a smaller marketing demographic than "the masses" who get the bulk of the sales
@@tinajd187you say this because you have a narrow understanding of AI. Back in 2019 I wrote a simple generative AI that could wrote fantastic stories. It was stupidly simple. Just using TVtropes to figure out the "rules" of writing stories worthy of entertainment and introspection, and combining that with an algorithm similar to what's called wave collapse (I didn't know of its existence at the time) it could generate great stories and premises. One that stuck with me was this one about a magic coin. Each side gave 3 wishes. The "heads" side was a wishing well and your wish would be granted exceeding your dreams for it. The "tails" side was a monkeys paw and was the classic you get what you wish for but at a cost and only later do you realize you actually wish that you hadn't. Once the coin came into your possession you couldn't rid yourself of it, and with each successive flip landing of either side that side would fade. So each side's first wish was the most amplified of the positive or negative. And if your wish landed on the fully faded side you couldn't wish for that wish again, like it was a failed wish and so it would be denied and then locked.
One of the wishing well wishes it came up with was also something that has stuck with me. One of the characters wished that someone they had just lost would always be remembered and future generations would really understand what a loss their passing was. And the way it granted the wish was the family and those close to that character's uncle came together to memorialize him. They all wrote biographies about him and how he impacted their life, they told all his flaws and wonders and quirks. They wrote how his ideal self would have been and what stopped him in life from becoming that ideal self, what demons tormented him and what monkeys were on his back. Then they commissioned a burial statue for him and broke it, everyone putting it back together in the same manner as kintsugi. That became their clans tradition for grieving and they created a hall for all those statues and that grieving material, so that for all time they will continue to guide the future generations.
Now what I created didn't come out quite like that. It output as a hyperlinked wiki essentially. That was how I figured would be best with the various levels of resolution tropes exist within stories; moment to moment, overarching, rhyming motifs, etc. And it was just a scaffolding and not exactly readable, it just linked together a coherent, valid set of tropes with profound or interesting interplay. Plenty of it was garbage or at least I couldn't understand a way to see a story from navigating through the interconnected links of its output. So different ppl would find different stories and interpretations from the same output. I'm sure I could make a way to get it to interface with a modern LLM like gpt4 or llama2, but I'm not going to. I've ran through the likely future scenarios for me if I do and I'm fine not doing that. So while there are plenty like you that say AI will never be able to do this or that, I know has already been done. The examples known to the broad public aren't all that exist. And those are not well thought out in their architecture if you ask me. AI researchers are both too ignorant and too arrogant to be much more than incompetent. I believe it was Carmack who said the big AI teams aren't going to bring about real AI, but most likely a lone programmer or small indie team that stumbles across the right combination. That we have most of the pieces, and possibly all the pieces but don't realize that, and they're all quite simple to implement. It's just going to take putting them together.
And even if you don't believe me, just look at Facebook's/Meta's CICERO and think about if that was modified to instead be a storyteller rather than a virtual geopolitical diplomat.
@@bwzarchive708 So what? Too bad for the 'masses'. They can watch slop while we can watch something worthwhile.
@tinajd187 have you tried chatgpt 3.5? It can make scripts, even rewrite my outline scripts and give it the "spice" the story needs.
That is just the fre version. Chatgpt 4 is much better and remembers your characters and what you wrote.
If the existing writers are the fundamental cause of bad media then you would think that Hollywood would’ve taken the trivially easy step of replacing them with different people, or pursuing some of the million unproduced scripts that are floating around LA or get sent to studios every week. Blaming the writers for the production and release of bad content is like blaming the lithium miners because your phone has a faulty battery.
Or the executive producers could just reject bad screenplays outright. Hollywood rots from the head down.
@@ashsherod6321 that would require them to spend money or time doing the actual work of critically reviewing scripts
Was scrolling down to say the same thing
@@cartilagehead6326oh they absolutely do work and spend money... on reshoot, and sometimes editing the script for the worse too
they just have different priority
The issue is also finding something can be "good" (and that's already a very hard metric) but also appealing. There's a lot of original and creative movies and shows recently that all lost money or did not get many views. And studios like Disney are so massive with so many franchises they don't need to bet on the daring scripts. Everyone seems to hate those bland live-action Disney remakes but they might as well be money printers.
I'd be interested to know in an AI could replace a CEO, more money goes into movie CEO's than the writers and are arguably more replaceable
The youtube algorithm is already proto-form of an AI entertainment executive, choosing which products get funded (monetized), marketed (promoted), and recommending ways videos should be produced.
@roychen5235 jesus christ, I would hate to see a script made given how unhinged youtube algorithm can get
CEOs are absolutely more easily replaceable with current stochastic parrot AIs. It has already happened. Most CEOs don't actually follow best practices and humans are not capable of fully ingesting and processing all the company data to pull the right levers the right way. There have been a few companies whose boards have put an AI CEO in charge and they noticeably improve the health and revenue of the company. Even a simple LLM will suffice if you limit it to always check with the best practices literature commonly available. What takes more resources is the AI that interprets the trends internally in the company into recognizable terms for that CEO AI to then work with.
That same idea works with lower levels of management as well. Tho typically they don't entirely get rid of the various middle managers, they give them an AI advisor essentially and that keeps a performance record in case that manager disregards the AIs advice at some point and that turns out wrong it can be traced back to that decision. Although for managers that may just free them up to directly observe and micromanage the employees they're over even more, as an unintended side effect of freeing up their time with AI assistance. We'll see.
I have been saying from the beginning of the strike tho that most likely the writers are going to hurt themselves with this. And it would have been better if they went all Don Bluth and took the talent and used AI for their administrative tasks. But they're unlikely to do that because they've been blinded by self preservating rage against the entire concept of AI because they are under the illusion of a threat from AI. It would be easier for the creative talent to leverage AI against the studios than the studios to leverage generative AI against the creative talent. All in all, this doesn't end well, like the one in 2008 didn't end well.
@kameronjones7139 which is why I can't see AI replacing the roles of business executives. Not because I think the role is complex or challenging, but because we are still incredibly far from an AI thinking for itself and make executive decisions. Like what would they even train on? AI has no concept of responsibility, what business interests actually are, or any meaningful way to interact with its board and/or shareholders, unless we replace all boards with programmers.
@@roychen5235 they are past tense replacing executive and administrative positions. It has already happened. It literally is one of the simplest integrations for current AI. It's as simple as: [business environment and factors]. What is our best course of action for [goals]? Just doing that increased revenue because the LLMs have been trained on business literature and they pick the objective course of action. There is no ego, no games&politics, pure input and best matched output. Shareholders prefer that way. Also plenty of small businesses are unlikely to fall victim to themselves being incompetent at managing their small business and so the success rate of new businesses is likely to increase. Administration has been a solved problem for at least a century now, and likely longer. They just reinvent ways to say the same things so it seems like business fundamentals have changed, when really it's just been the "meta" of the business landscape that has.
Reminds me of the Calvin and Hobbes strip where Calvin is trying to persuade his father to buy a computer and how it would help him with his homework. His father replies: “You know you have to tell the computer what to say, right?”, and Calvin walks off muttering: “I don’t understand the big fuss about computers?”
Maybe eventually, but right now, no. GPT will output the most generic things possible because it's trained to do so, to output the word most likely to follow the preceding context. If they want to produce more generic garbage then yes. And I mean, if they fire literally all writers, just imagine how horrendous the scripts the marketing people would come up with. You need to coax AI to give you the answer you're looking for. You need to know what questions to ask, what input to give it, to get good output. Garbage in, garbage out would be the case with corporates who have no soul.
I think we've become so accustomed to technology being invented and then improving exponentially over time that we've forgotten that that isn't a given, it's a feature of our specific technological moment.
Personally, as someone who has taken multiple college courses on machine-learning and has tried out the tool extensively, I do not believe that it is suited for the kind of task that creative writing is. And I don't think that more improvements to the tech will change that. Chat GPT does not "think". It uses a black box algorithm to condense every piece of text filtered into it into something that a person would, at-a-glance, say could be written by a person in response to your prompt. This immediately falls apart when it is asked to produce a longer piece of text with motivating ideas and forethought, because, again, the AI does not think.
So how would you even get Chat GPT to be a "writer"? By you, the human being a good writer and knowing what to look for and cherry pick from it's output. And at that point, the question has to be asked, why not just write the damn thing yourself.
I suppose it could be used as a springboard tool. Say you're a writer with writer's block and you feed the AI a prompt to give you a basic idea that you yourself flesh out. That seems like it would be the best way to go about using ChatGPT for writing purposes.
@@DracoMagniusI've tried yhis and gotten absolute dogshit nonsense or the most predictable things ever, which I suppose is still technically on par with Hollywood writing.
It’s more about speed and scale. For a movie it doesn’t make sense but for stuff like background dialogue for video game npcs where quantity matters more than quality it makes perfect sense.
@@DracoMagnius It can be good for those purposes, essentially as a tool for brainstorming or solving the blank page problem. And that's neat! Chat GPT definitely isn't useless for writers, just limited.
@@nerdy_crawfish I guess? Like if you wanted to produce a bunch of variations on "Hello, how are you?" that'd probably be a good use. That kind of dialog works because it all has the same content, but needs to be repeated a ton. But most games don't have or need a ton of repeated dialogue of this kind. Even for low-impact side dialogue for NPCs, if the dialogue isn't repeated, doing the work to craft a good prompt is probably harder than just writing the line directly.
My computer class teacher from the early 2000's once said "the computer is the dumbest technology ever, because it can't do anything by itself". He was talking about input devices, how a PC can't output anything without a human user directly inputting the commands into it.
The same logic applies to AI tools. ChatGPT cannot give you a nice movie script without you knowing exactly what prompts to use. Midjourney cannot give you artistic masterpieces without inputting all the right prompts. And who knows what to input? Real writer and artists with real life experience. They know what to type to get exactly what they want. Otherwise tools like ChatGPT and Bing AI are just glorified chatbots that summarize information.
Your teacher sounds dumb.
A paint brush is dumb because it can't paint a masterpiece by itself, a guitar is dumb because it can't create music by itself.
Just because something sounds profound doesn't mean it is.
You people aren't ever going to be philosophers who say absolute brainrot takes like what you posted.
Yes, everyone can use it. whos to say the company in charge of distributing the product won't just do it themselves.
@@MesiasMark What I was trying to say is that only writers and artists with real life experience will be able to extract the most of these AI Tools. Everyone can use ChatGPT, but will only get the most generic outputs. This will apply to Hollywood if they cut writers and artists to save money.
@@CanaldoZenny It still lowers their bargaining power in the workforce, because whos to say Someone in the higher ups can't do the same? All ai have to do is touch the basics again then its game over. most people said that Ai can never take over digital art because it needs creativity, surprise surprise it can, it only needs to touch the basics and I say this as an artist myself. I never understood why most of my peers believed that Ai can never take over the art world when it is the most vulnerable to it. Anything that has basic fundamentals can be learned by the Ai, and the creativity part will just come from the person asking the ai to do it.
I wonder where the issue with modern movies etc comes from. Is it that the writers are bad or is it the corporate culture over riding what they write. We have seen this happen to the automotive industry, music, movies, tv, consumer goods, shopping, etc. And most recently notable, video games. When the suits are involved its about extracting wealth. We end up with trend chasing, same things over and over again. All more expensive with bigger numbers that always have to go up.
Let me put it this way: it's not a writer who gets to decide that Disney's gonna spend over half a billion dollars on Indiana Jones 5.
@@NJdaniels96also keep in mind, Disney is infamous for delaying certain films like Indy 5 and Rogue One due to lengthy reshoots that ballooned their budgets because they were worried about it not testing well enough with test audiences
@@KhanumXAnd then in like 10 or so years, the movie or TV show that everyone hated or said was forgettable will they come back and everybody will praise it like a masterpiece (eg Megamind.)
I am a Hollywood writer fresh out of the film school oven and it's actually genuinely nice to hear someone discuss the strike from outside without saying that the work of my colleagues is so bad that they deserve to be unemployed and homeless
Homeless? No. Unemployed from writing jobs for putting out garbage? Absolutely.
I can't think of any group of people more deserving of AI than these fine folks.
Thanks to you both for your extremely helpful feedback
people acting like it’s the writers fault that everything being put out recently isn’t very good. they literally are not being paid and they have money driven business executives controlling and changing their work and switching out the writing rooms. those conditions do not foster good writing. if you blame the writers then you either know nothing about the industry or you’re just plan stupid
@@soapy6 I've read so many fantastic scripts from friends and colleagues - and when they finally get made, the studio has gutted everything that made it interesting and turned it into formulaic slop.
Writers are only in control of the beginning of the project, why do people think we're responsible if the end product sucks? That's like blaming a farmer for shitty banana bread.
Legally no. A judge ruled recently that AI material is can not be Copyrighted. And I put money on Hollywood valuing that over the cost of writers.
I don't think that ruling is strong enough to be a concern, the amount of human work required to make a work "derivative" and thereby copyright-able is unclear. The bar might be as low as "the human arrangement of AI content is sufficient".
Also, there is no ruling that cannot be struck down. Considering this ruling restricts the property rights of corporations I don't have high hopes it could survive a full assault by armies of corporate lawyers
All those at the top are pros at finding loopholes, bet they will find a way to have an AI shit cheap content and copyright it
@germanyballwork5301 agree. We're talking about the people that made copyright last virtually two lifetimes.
Welp, that settles that. I'm sure Mass Media will NEVER find a way to lobby for more favorable laws involving copyright!
But that is exactly what Hollywood _doesn't_ want - at all costs...
Let's say that ruling sticks, and AI made stuff isn't copyrightable. Some Hollywood bigwig decrees his 'minions' to make a film by using AI - and _because it isn't copyrightable_ , anyone can make a derivative work from it, without consequences. Sure, Bigwig can try to tie that 'anyone' up in court for years, but in the end, he will lose the case, and anyone _can_ and _will_ make derivatives from any of those movies - and that movies are then burnt for all times: Hollywood can't ever make a sequel of it and earn money from it (what they like to do most, after all...) without anyone and their dog making their own new version, killing their revenue (what little there will be, with the quality that comes out of that process...).
And for getting that ruling struck down: they can try - but that will take years and years in court, and I'd almost bet on one of the requirements of the court being that the movie in question can't be played or otherwise marketed while all those legal shenanigans aren't solved. Imagine making an expensive movie (because it still won't be anything _nearly_ approaching 'cheap'...), and then not getting any money out of it for a decade or more...
TL;DR: Good luck with trying that - paying the people making your movies better will make you tons more money in the long run...
It seems to me the lack of good writing is not a technical problem. It's purely a structural one. There are good writers out there, but their best work isn't winning out over mediocre content. Either because the people making decisions don't want to use their best work and the cost and risk it carries, or writers are forced to change their work in order to keep their jobs. AI really does nothing to help executives make better decisions.
So what I'm hearing is, don't replace the writers and actors with A.I., replace the marketing department. Just imagine how much money you could save by using an intern with a laptop instead. You could even afford to pay that intern a livable wage, and still pay only a fraction of the price.
No, let’s replace the writers too. Execs are hiring crappy writers, and all this garbage isn’t making money anyway, so everyone’s losing.
I'd prefer we just have AI supplement the current marketing departments
That intern will still be paid like shit, need all the money for the stockholders
@@mrshmuga9 What you're really saying, replace Eiger with AIger.
@@mrshmuga9By your logic, just replace the execs. They get paid millions a month and yet make terrible decisions like hiring idiots to write and spending huge amounts of money on failed projects.
When the film industry was in its infancy in the 1910's, Thomas Edison and a cartel of other film technology developers created a trust to monopolize film technology, and those who use it. This lead to a bunch of folks to leave New England for places like Orlando and Hollywood as well as the passing of modern anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws we have on the books today (and rarely enforced). Maybe I'm being too much of a history/film history geek, and maybe I'm giving Hollywood's writers and actors too much credit to want to do something like that but this feels like the starting's of corporate greed causing a second film industry schism that killed it and saw it reborn somewhere else.
Sort of sounds like the pilgrims leaving Europe because of religious oppression, then oppressing the Native Americans.
@@Horatio787Certified protestant moment. Virgin puritans killing natives vs Chad Portuguese royalty going to Brazil, turning Brazil into kingdom and marriage between Portuguese and natives common.
This is a come to Brazil message
Time to watch foreign films.
It’s probably all going to move to Canada.
Writers do not get to pick the shows that get made, they may even have to hit certain plot points to appease the studios. Additionally, plot points are decided in a writers room and then each episode is handed off to a writer or writers. They are working off of the idea of someone’s idea of someone’s idea of a 70 year old IP. They can’t make good content if we force them to reboot Shrek every 5 years.
AI isn't going to 'write' better stories but they'll be cheaper so the studios will go with it until they lose more money. Executives think they *are* the company and the people doing the work are just resources to make *them* money.
Somone has to write the prompts, and if real writers quite, prompt writers will also want more money the more they are in demand. So it will not cut costs, it will only lessen the qualiy of productions, rather than just being poorly written slop, you'll get uncanny, robotic imitations of what a show or movie should be, and i guarantee people will catch on and be creeped out, and just not see this stuff.
no - but i want to see them try! can you imagine how awful it would be!?
Well, a fanfic tier chat GPT script will, most likely, be free of 'murican political nonsense, so there' something
It can’t be any worse than what we’re currently getting
@@snowfox4277what movies did you actually watch this year?
@@tanostrelok2323Likely it will be included since the politics will be included in the training data
@@sadham2668are you really gonna sit there and defend things like The Flash, Shehulk, Dial of destiny, blue beetle, etc?
you forgot a key issue at play here: Hollywood won't be able to copyright AI written scripts
sorta, AI itself cant be given ownership as a human must provide the guiding creativity for the creation. So a chatGPT prompt by itself would fail but one that is refined post output would probably pass.
Wrong. Copyright is determined by whomever can pay the politicians the most. No big companies have lobbied for AI scripts yet.
@@SangoProductions213 courts have already said AI generated content can't be copyrighted, scripts included
@@Artorias920 debatable. courts haven't really defined how much human contribution there actually needs to be for a work to be eligible for copyright, and it's such a messy issue that I doubt any studio will bother fighting lengthy court battles for scripts that were half written by a human when it would be easier to just pay someone to write the whole script or accept that other people will use your script.
@@AnimeKaiserWillyII Again, you misinterpret. They said "wholly AI-generated." Which is a simple case of "How many grains of sand is a pile?"
And that, again, disregards that no large companies have overturned it - yet.
Imagine if this video was AI generated and it turned out KnowledgeHusk was AI all along
Aight you’re a bot. That’s a pre generated comment with little to do with the video
This could explain some of the stuff that came out in the shitpost era of KnowledgeHub. Because some of that felt like a bizarre fever dream of a script. So maybe that was early AI musings...
Is funny that a bot says this
I don’t think it’s fair to characterize the writers and actors as idiotic rich people most actors aren’t rich and practically no writers are. These people do the most important parts in media creation and get the least amount of money back.
I believe that this part was meant to be saracastic
@@manyseas1219 yeah i agree but the comments don’t seem to be 💀
@@soapy6 I wasnt sure whether he was sarcastic or not until I watched Husks conclusion at the end of the video.
@@Dave102693 The same people who blame the actors for their own problems with Hollywood probably didn't even consider the existence of writers before the strike. They have a barely functioning sense of object permanence if the only people they think are affected are A-listers. It's not worth arguing with them because they'll just parrot back the words of the executives responsible for the current state of media like especially stupid sock puppets.
He knows, he is just playing with the stupid argument some people who are against the strike have.
I feel that the use of AI in writing would only exacerbate the trend towards bland, generic and nonsensical rather than reverse it.
Honestly we have no one to blame for ourselves. If we kept throwing money at mid movies while ignoring the good ones, we shouldn't be shocked when everything starts to turn to trash.
But there's also the fact that Hollywood used to mainly make movies for North American audiences, and that's just not really the case anymore. Our movies feel strange and alienating because they're not just aiming for a lowest common denominator American audience, but a lowest common denominator global audience.
I can see a future where the studios swap out writers for AI and everyone simple accepts it, with having a real writer being seen as more of a mark of prestige for a film. Because long term, the real threat isn't AI's replacing writers, but replacing the entire process. People sit down in front of their TVs and simply ask it to formulate a show or movie based on their fanfic desires of the day.
I'm sure everyone would love that level of solipsistic and masturbatory fiction, but it does sadden me somewhat. I think we've forgotten what makes writing special in our obsession with breaking it down to the atomic elements. Writing is essentially getting inside another person's head, with the story told through their perspective and idiosyncrasies. This is the reason why we tend to find the very best and very worst movies the most fascinating - because we understand there is a human connection there. The worst thing is when a script has very little human element to it, either because the writer has very little to say, or, increasingly, because they've deliberately crippled their writing voice out of fear of honest emotion and bury it under tons of irony. AI is only going to make the issue of the mission human connection worse.
Little did we know that the Hollywood Elites™️ had already devised a new sinister plan: upload Bob Iger’s mind into a new super computer and develop their own AI.
Honestly I don’t see how this would be different than the current situation lol
I for one welcome our new Bob A.I.ger overlord.
Calling it now, if anyone is going to make AI generated content copyrightable its gonna be Disney
You always have hilarious visuals. Not the normal “practical, simple, and direct” boring graphics you’d see in COMM 101 class (or other TH-camrs). Awesome job, I love your work!
Cant wait to see a movie and get the same feeling as when im eating a 4 dollar industrial meatball pack
I think most writers who write bad shows could write better shows. It’s hard to do good work through all the red tape
The only thing AI’s ever been good at and probably ever will be good at when it comes to writing is coming up with titles for already written movies/books/video games.
I’m making a video game right now, and the AI’s name for it, “Heretics of the Stormlands”, is a WAY better name than anything I came up with.
AI is one of those tools for artists to use like how you used it. Like if I needed a bunch of names or some ideas to get through a creative block you can just whip up a bunch of random shit from AI
Then DO SOMETHING ELSE. Clearly, you're not a writer, or a thinker.
People wildly downplay the difference between what ChatGPT does and what a good writer does. It's basically the difference between really good predictive text and full sentience. If a computer ever comes along that's actually capable of writing something of artistic merit, it'll be in like 100 years at least.
People really watch one video essay on The Hero's Journey and start saying "Humans aren't special. Creativity is just a formula so computers can do it even better."
Anyone that says AI will surpass our intellect in 100 years doesn't pay attention to its capabilities and the rate of improvement. Some people will say this for ever and ever until all of a sudden it happened
@@Galaxia53 It's not some existing thing that needs to be "improved" upon, though. Artificial general intelligence fully does not exist. It needs to be invented in the first place before it can improve.
@@ohno5559 Artificial general intelligence is not a thing just yet indeed. It's something they are working towards by making large language models more capable and allowing it to utilize more than just language. If it did exist right now then it could self improve to infinity very quickly.
@@NJdaniels96that's because most people who say that don't watch/ play/ read anything beyond the basic plots let alone anything challenging.
The reason new media is garbage doesn’t have to do with the writers, it’s the shareholders and corporate greed deciding what gets produced. That’s why we don’t have the same variety of cinema as, say, the 80’s and 90’s, with small studios and projects taking risks and making classics like Evil Dead, Dogma, Falling Down, Best In Show, The Big Lebowski, etc etc etc.
It’s all about profit motive, not making good cinema. Hell, Kung Fury is a great example of a passion project that was released on YT to huge success, with a tiny production.
I'm more curious about how A.I. will make the need to even buy into the media they make pointless. Once it gets to the point where you can make your own movies on any character or story setting you want, as a full made movie with sounds and visuals and everything, is there really a need to go to the movies or get a subscription to a streaming service?
I often fear in the future companies might try and shutdown open AI or try to hide them behind a huge subscription fee, because of this reason.
I love this guy’s channel… especially his voice which is both funny and unique to hear
It all comes down to the "writer's room" issue. Go back in time and look at award-winning shows like Hill Street Blues, St. Elsewhere, and L.A. Law. Episodes might have two or three writers , PLUS the same writers would write every show of the season. And what a shock, there was consistent quality (that also holds true for bad shows). There's absolutely no show that requires 10+ people to write a single 40-minute episode.
The names you see in the credits are the writers who wrote the first draft. After the first draft, everyone else in the writer's room gives input, but their names aren't put on the episode. Since you mentioned St. Elsewhere, I looked up the first few seasons. Seasons 2 and 3 have 8-9 credited writers. So that's their writer's room *minimum*. They probably had a few more writers who just didn't get to write a first draft for those seasons. So 10 people in a room isn't a stretch.
The reason the union is demanding minimums is because the studios have been shrinking writer's rooms, reducing staffed positions to rely more on freelance writers, and eventually want to turn writers into gig workers where they're hired day by day instead of for whole seasons at a time.
Another problem is movie theaters are too expensive. Why spend almost $60 per movie viewing when I can just wait for when it hits streaming.
And most televisions are huge, high definition screens now. Watching a movie at home isn't a 14" 480i screen playing a vhs tape anymore.
And theaters aren't exactly using film projectors these days, either: I sat in the front row to see Logan in theaters and realized that I could make out the individual pixels on the screen.
Where are you going where you're consistently spending $60 to see ONE movie??
@@Arander92 I’m not rly speaking for myself but since I didn’t make it clear above I’ll say it like this. The main theater audience would be couples and families of about 4. With ticket prices rising and food rising with it in theaters, it’s becoming less affordable for these people (aka most theater goers)
Todays generative AI is not real AI yet its just really really good at responding to English language prompts based on the enormous data they were trained on. That data is still human creative works.
the cut from stepbrothers to robots was impeccably well done
4:29 To my knowledge, it is more the price of an original screenplay versus the price of an adapted screenplay.
If I was a producer and asked Bob Writer to make a script about Mermaids and Werewolves, then Bob Writer came back 2 months later with a script, I would contractually pay him $$$$.
If I was a producer and asked Bob Writer to ADAPT Mermaids and Werewolves script I told Chat GPT to make, then Bob Writer came back 2 months later with a script, I would contractually pay him $$$. Less money than before.
Even if Bob Writer has to throw out everything my ChatGPT weremerwolfmaid script had and wrote a coherent story from scratch, Bob Writer (unless he already had a well paid lawyer team) would be fucked by contract because I "HIRED" him to "ADAPT" a script and I WON'T give him more money for the same ass busting amount of work he had to do.
And since we live in a world where World War Z the movie reasembles NOTHING about World War Z the book BECAUSE some jackass bought the rights the book to use the name to sell his own shitty zombie script, you should not be surprised by Hollywood rights bullshit.
We made 4 Fantastic 4 movies NOT BECAUSE ANYONE WANTED TO MAKE MONEY on the Fantastic 4 or merchandising AROUND the FF. But Because studio rights holders for the FF needed to make the films to renew the IP rights for later trading and claims.
OR how HBO MAX Nuked a giant chunk of its IP library JUST for a tax write off.
Or made Space Jam 2 just as a sales pitch to Zazlav and Discovery.
Or Justice League giving Superman a fake upper lip.
Or hiring Marry Poppins to play Godzilla in an Aquaman movie so she would be contractually unavailable for Marry Poppins Returns.
Point is, Hollywood screws eachother over for petty shit all the time. AI generated art and scripts WILL NOT REPLACE ARTISTS..............except they will ripp their paychecks in half or smalled because "Technically, I wrote Ironman vs Batman first with Chat GPT, therefore, I am not required to pay you more than the adaptation rate, Bob Writer. So suck my dick like my 4th trophy wife".
The endless cycle of rewrites and reshoots in Movies and Streaming tells me two things: Production is happeneing way too quickly (especially with streaming) with rushed scripts full of issues, and that Studio executives are very reactionary and will demand changes be made mid-production.
AI will turn the entire writing industry into a handful of editors who punch up the garbage the AI spits out.
TBH a lot of the artists complaining about AI are angry that people are asking them to do this.
The use of copyrighted data in training sets is, IMHO, a side-show legal battle. What artists are *really* worried about is having the fun part of their job taken away and replaced with half-assed stochastic parrot nonsense.
@@SuperSmashDollsAlso it being faster and requiring less people would mean massive layoffs.
This is even more so as a court has ruled in favor of the copyright office that AI work can not be copywritten. For studios, that is a problem because that would mean any AI work they make would go straight to the public domain, meaning less profit potential
AI may not be able to replace human writers. But that sure won't keep corpos from trying to.
Depends on how fast the technology advances, GPT 5/6/7 could be leaps and bounds ahead of what 4 is. It just has to do a good enough job to justify not paying the writers for the executives to cut the writing staff.
Ultimately though, company produced content is doomed (looking at you Disney), people will be making their own video games, movies, books and TV shows soon.
Making your own video games is surprisingly easy now and making your own tv show is basically what TH-cam was made for. People have been making books for free online just for the fun of it for decades now. It's already happening.
@@scienceface8884 Oh yeah, but what I mean is AGI will make the process a lot faster for the majority of people who aren’t familiar with game design. Once you can interface with your general purpose AI you’ll basically be able to create, tweak and play whatever your hearts content.
Can't wait for the ChatGPT CryptoBro AI-generated web 3 movie
On the point that movie are too high at prices. That is very important point. You can't have constantly movies that are 300 million budget with another 600 million marketing budget and expect to make a profit that is double the budget.
"i dont get it. we made a 50 billion dollar movie. how come it didnt make 100 billion dollars?"
Whoever can do it best is the winner.
I don't know how some people can still believe in the power of the free market to improve quallity when so much of the business decisions modern industries do can clearly be summed up as "our sales aren't increasing so we will pay less to our workers. This way we will have more profit from the same amount of product"
I really don't get the people who think that replacing writers with ai is going to make things better. Like "Hey you know all those generic scripts writers turn out when not given enough time or resources to make a good script? Imagine that but now even more generic because the ai can only reference existing things"
Yo, I love when this channel posts videos!
AI isn't capable of keeping a plot structure in mind. It can't forshadow a plot twist, because it can't know that a plot twist is coming. AI can't use symbolism and themes.
yet
Mere Text generation is exactly what it sounds like.
@@qtar1984 Yeah you're right ChatGPT and the open source AIs I got on my computer do exclusive text generation. I had to think on this for a while but when it comes to for shadowing a human can imagine the future. We don't know the future but we can imagine one. Now I was thinking what if the text generator generates text ones and then builds upon that generation by generating and edited version of it so that the previously unforshadowed plot twist now becomes foreshadowed. Maybe it could even come to the conclusion that the plot twist was stupid in hindsight. They are text generators, but they're smart text generators.
They need to be more than text generators to get closer to our level though. OpenFlamingo is a multi modal language model that can take in both text and pictures so that's a cool first step for open source multi modality.
This is ultimately the problem with using AI for everything. I work in IT and sure there could be someone out there that is less skilled then myself that puts the tasks into ChatGPT and then pasts the commands it vomits out into a Red Hat server and get paid a fraction of what I'm getting paid to do it, but ultimately someone needs to be liable if something goes wrong. I get paid what I do because I know whether what ChatGPT vomits out is actually going to do what is expected or if it is going to completely nuke an environment. The only thing that AI does is make certain tasks associated with a job easier to do. I love ChatGPT because it makes me much more efficient at my work and I learn a lot from it. I am not concerned that it is going to take away my job and I don't think it's going to take away the job of writers. The union strike is about studios wanting to say that AI wrote the script and having writers just be a secondary source that they producers get to pay less. Just because you have this shiny new tool for making things easier doesn't mean that you get to pay the people who need to interpret that information less.
Hollywood: let's replace all the writters with AI trained with their scripts and make the films/series with AI trained with the work of artists and actors to reduce costs.
Free infinte AI generated movies
Kids in 2040: What's Hollywood? Is it an app?
AI is a tool and should never be a direct replacement, I think the first ones to embrace it as the useful tool it is will be leading the pack in the future.
Kind of like the early adopters of CG artwork and Animation, most of them became instructors teaching those following in their footsteps.
Exactly, people consider it as the magical being that will replace everyone in no time but the truth is that it will simply be another tool in the toolbox of items to create supreme product.
@@Edge50199 there is a problem with that statement: humans aren't unique. Humans can be replaced and we're pretty damn close to the time when humans become the horse in the horse vs car argument.
@jeansanchez2805 that is not the case, I'm afraid. Humans are replaceable, and AI will come to that point sooner than later.
@jeansanchez2805 that is not the case, I'm afraid and stinks of an outdated mentality. AI and automation is evolving faster than anything previous, and the best case scenario is that we run out of jobs by 2050... the more plausible case is literally the end of the decade.
how about hollywood CEOs, what do ceo's and executives do that ai can't do for them at this point?
The people striking are only asking for three things : being paid enough money to eat and afford healthcare, having good enough working conditions to do they jobs properly and not being treated like garbage. The AI problem is only incidental to that.
Now if we’re talking about AI writing and stuff: no, AI won’t be able to replace human writers before the end of the year. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t regulate its use while it’s still not too widespread.
There was a very strange feature in this case, strange because of its extremely rare occurrence. This man had once been brought to the scaffold in company with several others, and had had the sentence of death by shooting passed upon him for some political crime. Twenty minutes later he had been reprieved and some other punishment substituted; but the interval between the two sentences, twenty minutes, or at least a quarter of an hour, had been passed in the certainty that within a few minutes he must die. I was very anxious to hear him speak of his impressions during that dreadful time, and I several times inquired of him as to what he thought and felt. He remembered everything with the most accurate and extraordinary distinctness, and declared that he would never forget a single iota of the experience. ‘About twenty paces from the scaffold, where he had stood to hear the sentence, were three posts, fixed in the ground, to which to fasten the criminals (of whom there were several). The first three criminals were taken to the posts, dressed in long white tunics, with white caps drawn over their faces, so that they could not see the rifles pointed at them. Then a group of soldiers took their stand opposite to each post. My friend was the eighth on the list, and therefore he would have been among the third lot to go up. A priest went about among them with a cross: and there was about five minutes of time left for him to live. ‘He said that those five minutes seemed to him to be a most interminable period, an enormous wealth of time; he seemed to be living, in these minutes, so many lives that there was no need as yet to think of that last moment, so that he made several arrangements, dividing up the time into portions-one for saying farewell to his companions, two minutes for that; then a couple more for thinking over his own life and career and all about himself; and another minute for a last look around. He remembered having divided his time like this quite well. While saying good- bye to his friends he recollected asking one of them some very usual everyday question, and being much interested in the answer. Then having bade farewell, he embarked upon those two minutes which he had allotted to looking into himself; he knew beforehand what he was going to think about. He wished to put it to himself as quickly and clearly as possible, that here was he, a living, thinking man, and that in three minutes he would be nobody; or if somebody or something, then what and where? He thought he would decide this question once
for all in these last three minutes. A little way off there stood a church, and its gilded spire glittered in the sun. He remembered staring stubbornly at this spire, and at the rays of light sparkling from it. He could not tear his eyes from these rays of light; he got the idea that these rays were his new nature, and that in three minutes he would become one of them, amalgamated somehow with them. ‘The repugnance to what must ensue almost immediately, and the uncertainty, were dreadful, he said; but worst of all was the idea, ‘What should I do if I were not to die now? What if I were to return to life again? What an eternity of days, and all mine! How I should grudge and count up every minute of it, so as to waste not a single instant!’ He said that this thought weighed so upon him and became such a terrible burden upon his brain that he could not bear it, and wished they would shoot him quickly and have done with it.’
my opinion on the matter follows thusly
whatever makes Hollywood suffer the most is the best option, no contest
AI is capable of writing well enough, but it produces trite and derivative by-the-numbers slop. It isn't capable of writing anything bold, original or memorable because it, by design, needs to be trained on human input. AI wouldn't create an original and instantly classic plotline from scratch because it doesn't understand how tropes intersect and interact enough to subvert them the way a writer could. I know from experience that being reliably creative on demand is hard (it's my job) and AI isn't actually much help on that front for the reason that it can't be creative or original. AI is basically good enough for spam generation that's engaging sure, but it won't create stuff that people will want to see and then remember after seeing it.
I don't see AI ever "replacing" writers. Like you said, humans will still have to write the prompts and review the material. AI might be able to produce something that looks and "functions" like a script. But I don't see it playing a serious role for anything except the most rudimentary trash content, like sitcoms or something.
Ai cannot be used commercially,whatever works it would create would be uncopyrightable:This goes for art,music,writing and other things too
why not?
camera man can copyright his picture, Even though Camera is doing 99% of the work.
I do not want AI stories, story telling is a human art, since we sat in caves telling stories by the fire, to the epics of Homer, the writing of Shakespeare, screenplays of the golden age of film, humans tell stories to other humans, a robot is not human, it does not now what it means to be human, it only assumes what it's like to be human.
#1 The movies are bad.
#2 The movies do not make money.
#3 Because the movies are bad.
Ah, yes, this is the type of deep analysis and insight I‘m coming here for 😏
Yes if they want quantity.
No if they want quality.
We haven't been getting quality anyway, so nothing changes.
Fair point. @@Cybertech134
Chatgpt to write the scripts and prompts for Midjourney and RunwayML to produce your stories.
The current new job is "Prompt Engineer"
I have no idea what the going rate for a prompt engineer gets, but that is the future.
Then Apples Vision Pro, is a Early vr holodeck using small hand gestures and text inputs, which would have some kind of gpt ai. Maybe Applegpt
advanced AI in the future may be able to generate new ideas, not just pair out old ones like it does not
I mean if the studios want to spend essentially zero on writing they can do what they did last time the writers went on strike: replace scripted content with reality TV.
The real danger comes from studios using AI to generate baseline content and then paying real writers less money for money to edit and punch up that content. It doesn't replace them entirely, but it reduces their role (and also probably the quality of the content, as there's only so much one can do to improve upon shitty AI content). If a writer has technically only edited something that AI wrote, theoretically you don't have to give them any sort of credit, purchase any IP rights, grant any residuals, etc. That's why the writers are absolutely right to fight for prohibitions on the use of AI in Hollywood. It's not about being replaced, it's about being downgraded to editors for shitty AI content that's just good enough to draw in a broad audience.
Imagine how thrilled actors are going to be, dramatizing the polished AI turds.
I don't think so honestly. But it sounds like a rich ceos wet dream. So they might try that.
We can only hope it can
I took a break from studying economics just to watch your video explaining market equilibrium.
Maybe the AI was the friends we made a long the way
Show runner: How can we express the inner turmoil of this character?
Writer: I have an idea!
Show runner: Really? What is it?
Writer: Have a whole episode trauma dumping, based off my life story. Also, weird sexual stuff.
Show runner: ...
AI Writer: Hello, master.
Also, how much are the heads of each studio making compaired to the writers. Plus, the movie Deadpool was rejected how many time before it was made with a slim budget because the head of that studio did not want it made, and they got little marketing budget. The heads are the problem here. They are the ones that make such bad desisions.
Julia was twenty-six years old... and she worked, as he had guessed, on the novel-writing machines in the Fiction Department. She enjoyed her work, which consisted chiefly in running and servicing a powerful but tricky electric motor... She could describe the whole process of composing a novel, from the general directive issued by the Planning Committee down to the final touching-up by the Rewrite Squad. But she was not interested in the final product. She "didn't much care for reading," she said. Books were just a commodity that had to be produced, like jam or bootlaces.
People talk about how the LLMs are going to improve but I don't think that the way they'll improve will actually lead them to writing good stories. The way this software works on a fundamental level is just not suited to it. It digests data to find patterns and then acts like text prediction software. It doesn't actually understand characters, themes, continuity, humor, etc. And even along the axis where it *can* improve, it's not going to exponentially improve forever. We have no idea where it will plateau. It could plateau next year for all we know. A lot of models are already having issues with the quality degrading.
Also all the people who say fiction writers should embrace LLMs and use it as a tool seem to have no idea what actually goes into writing. They almost never state specific uses, and when they do the uses sound horrible.
@@Dave102693 yeah a lot of pro-LLM (trying to avoid calling it AI as much as possible) have very anti-art and anti-artist motivations
"Joker is a clown buy insane, Twoface is a man but attorney" a better batman line that anything said in the dceu
*Studio execs get replaced with AI*
*Surprised Pikachu face*
That's the dumbest thing about this argument. In a few years those writers won't be striking, because ai will give those writers freedom that the studios would never give them. And then the billion dollar studios will be left as holding companies for ip's they buried into the ground.
It can. It will just be terrible (in quality)
Not yet, eventually if it becomes sentient. And that's waaay in the future. But for a good new story human experiences have to play a part.
THE CITY OF TOWNSVILLE IS ON FIRE!!!
9:15 The WGA wants a mandatory minimum amount of writers in a writer's room
How many and where can I find this info!
6 months ago, this technology was the realm of scifi and magic. To say that in 10 years it won't be so much more insanely better than it is now is going to age very badly.
I will say ai could have replaced the writers for antmam quantum mania. But that shouldn't reflect good on ai, you could have replaced them with a a collection of chickens with varying degrees of brain damage and enede up with a better screen play.
I can name at least a handful of writers that can replaced by ai...
He's my magical solution: replace ALL CEOs with AI. Think of the BILLIONS each corporation will safe!
I think saying AI won't be taking people's jobs anytime soon is on par with some guy in the 80s goin "this internet thing is never gonna take off, atleast no time soon :)" lol I think people are severely UNDERESTIMATING what's around the bend.
Yeah. I hope AI does replace them.
No they can't, and they will never be able to.
Great video.
The problem is that you wouldn't be able to sell your scripts. The executives would take all control because they would type a prompt in based on hashtags and hot ideas from market research. That's in the fantasy scenario where AI could possibly ever be better than a human writer.
Holy cannoli a new knowledgehusk video
sugar spice and CHEMICAL X. wait what?
It’s not about what chapgpt can do now. It’s about what it will be able to do in 5 years
HOLYSHIT WHERE does one go to buy Boomerang-theme warbly saltNpeppa shakers?!
It could replace the ones that write sequels and reboots.
even then what would, change if the people at the top still keep approving bad sequels and reboots it won't mader who wrote them they'll still be bad
I love the 1960's Lost in Space and "War of the Robots" is a fabulous episode!
I also love Forbidden Planet! But what are those clips from? Robby is on the ship at the end, but Morbius never sets foot on the ship in the movie.
well Tyler, are you going to show us the result of your "she hulk with giant gazoongas" prompt?
Did you guys know that this man has a awesome SoundCloud
Poor Eiger with his earger all torn up.
What if we replaced the execs with AI? Put the .EXE into Exec?