The rumour that Dakota Johnson fired her whole team because they misled her into thinking she would be in a mainline marvel movie until she signed on is one of the most tragically funny Hollywood stories I've heard
My fave Madame Webb moment was near the end at the hospital where one of the girls says Ben Parker is lucky since he's an uncle and doesn't have to raise the kid. And then Cassie joyfully says remarks that he will have to - the thought of Peter Parkers' parents dying brings a smile to her lips.
Yeah I'm not surprised and I can't say I'm exactly invested in whether they use the word or not I just don't like that it completely derailed the discussion. I guess that's just how discussions work; it's normal to go on weird tangents but I was just thinking "why is Adum so passionately talking about this right now". Like they can quote the movie or whatever without super super long tangents trying to defend being able to say it. It just seems incredibly defensive and silly. Like I know people listening in bad faith would be offended even if it was just a verbatim movie quote but I think most people in the audience can understand if you just say "this was used in the film" so it's weird to go on an entire discussion about "what are the ethics of just saying this in general". They can talk about what they want but it just is a little tedious to listen to.
Even if Ralph's not returning any time soon, a third host would really liven things up and give Adum and Alex something different to bounce off. Also, Adum's personal and political belief tangents are getting out of hand.
I mostly do TV series for a living, and can confirm that usually the directors are there to punch in, basically. Showrunners and producers are the real decision makers.
Couple disagreements on A.I. First the writers did win protection against A.I. and they are able to negotiate again in 3 years not 10. It’s also representative of the actual solution to this problem on the labour side, which is not UBI, but instead strong labour power through unions and co-operatives. If workers actually have the power to decide how A.I. is used in their industry A.I. will become a companion and not a replacement. The second thing is that yes art is derivative and A.I. Art is also derivative but A.I. can not add new data itself. It must be told new data by us. If an A.I. was trained on all media before the year 1500 and then asked to show a picture of a airplane it simply could not do it because it doesn’t know what that is. As society changes it influences our material reality which in turn changes our art, A.I. as it stands now, can not do that. So this argument of “well it’s just doing what we do” is incorrect because it can’t do what we do. And that is why it is bad for art in general because it is stagnant and only operates off of what it knows. It is not doing anything new and can not do anything new
@@trapadvisor I’ll just quote myself “if workers actually have the power to decide how A.I. Is used in their industry it will become a companion, not a replacement” A.I. Like you said is a tool. It can have certain applications. When I said it’s bad for art I mean in its current form. Because the argument I was arguing against was being used to justify its current use
The idea of the airplane didn’t pop into the heads of the Wright Brothers by completely original inspiration. I don’t see any reason to believe such a thing exists. The airplane was the result of decades work which engineers continually built on until they cracked human flight. Maybe AI is capable of reaching a similar conclusion given those inputs, maybe it isn’t. Either way, it doesn’t make sense to just assume the conclusion you want to be correct is true. It’s not clear to me exactly what counts as original and what doesn’t. It’s a vague enough concept you can draw whatever conclusion you want. Is pulling thousands of different elements from thousands of sources and altering and reorganizing them in a way that feels original “new”. I’d say so, that’s exactly what human artists do. Not trying to make predictions here, but these ideas seem poorly reasoned and don’t engage with basic counterpoints. Maybe there’s some magical quality of human creativity that makes it different from hypothetical future AI, maybe there isn’t. We don’t have any way to definitively know.
Rereading your airplane example, it doesn’t really make any sense. AI and human artists are both limited by the information available to them. If you plucked a painter out of 1500, and trained an AI on all data before 1500, neither would be able to draw a plane as we know them now. Your example only makes humans seem exceptional when we arbitrarily limit the AI’s data more than the human artist’s data. Neither would paint a current airplane because they don’t know what an airplane is. You’ve not provided any reason that AI couldn’t create what we recognize as artistic progress given the same inputs human artists use. Confusing example. Obviously current AI sucks and can’t do any of that, but the discussion of artists being replaced isn’t about current AI, it’s about hypothetical future AI. Only deluded bored ape pfp techbros think current AI can replace artists.
@@samaustin8690 I’m not even arguing about originality. The core of Adam’s argument is that “it’s doing what we do” when it simply can not do what we do. “Maybe an AI is capable of reaching similar conclusions” it’s not, it knows what you give it and nothing else. It can not come up with new things, it must be given them. And that’s not an assumption that’s how the tech works. That’s why it is “generative AI” it’s essentially just providing an answer to a prompt. For example a guy asked an AI to show him a picture of an autistic person and it would consistently show him a picture of a sad, thin, white, boy. Out of 148 images it only made two that deviated from that description, both of which showing a girl instead of a boy. Sad in all of them and none of a different race or age range. Because the people who made it didn’t give it enough data to go beyond that. So the airplane point is meant to illustrate that if you gave it that data set of everything until 1500, that’s all it has. If you left it like that for 500 years it would still only have that data. And only be able to give a response based on that data. This is simply not the case for humans. As the ways in which we formulate society (particularly economically) change so does the world around us which gives rise to new ways of thinking, new ways of producing and so on. Which then change art. My point is that AI is stagnant and we are not, so AI is not doing what we do as we are not stagnant
Your first paragraph has big vibes of, "We need to preserve work for some unspecified reason". UBI is necessary because human work isn't. We need things to get done in society, we don't need humans to do them. The fact that robots are able to automate and replace us in certain fields, even non-artistic ones, and the response is appropriate fear just shows that our system is fucked up. Being able to produce more with less should be a good, but since we can't live unless we find some capitalist to pay us for our labor, the labor itself is now the goal, not the actual production. It's craziness.
The first time I ever heard of I Am Sam was from Drawn Together of all things. In one episode, Clara's "special cousin", Bleh (Yes, that's her name), comes to visit the house. Her only defining characteristic aside from her disability, is that she speaks in review quotes for the film I Am Sam. Oh, and she's also revealed to be a knockout, with Captain Hero developing feelings for her in a "special kind of way". Both works share something in common: they'd get a mob after them in a heartbeat.
Hi! Professional illlustrator + writer + longtime listener here. Don't comment much but I wanted to here; don't take anything I say too seriously. Also don't read if long things annoy you. I'm not an overly panicky or defensive person, I'm not terrified the way some of my colleagues are, and I think demystifying AI as a threat is important. So I was on board with Adum's commentary for a while. Something happened towards the end, with combining the argument for AI with the nihilism, the simulation-theory-adjacent tangent, comparing human brains with machinery, that read more to me like someone who's lost the plot a little here. The last third of this is very hard to listen to. I agree that adapting is an uncomfortable but necessary part of being an artist, or an innovator. Not necessarily adapting to include AI in your process, but finding ways to continue to be an interesting and provocative artist next to it. And again as a long time listener to Adum and Alex (mostly talking about Adum here since he led the conversation), I think in overselling his own 'nothing-matters-theres-no-free-will-we're-all-nothing' ideology he's missing the simplicity of this issue from most others' perspectives. People are upset because they think there will be no jobs left for them; some are mad philosophically about the threat, but the fear is coming from a reasonable place. And yeah, artists adapt. Or quit. But contrary to what Adum says here, people DO have jobs to make money; because we don't live in a utopia, because universal basic income is not a thing that exists yet for most people, and likely new levels of human suffering and poverty will have to be inflicted for anything like that to be considered in places where capitalism is king. Because lots of people have jobs they don't enjoy, especially in something as multi-faceted as the art industry. Will AI bring legislation like that in the future? Maybe! And I think that was Adum's point, but it's so bogged down in a nihilistic mindset that frankly doesn't really align with the core of this sentiment. 'Nothing matters', for most people, means 'I can be unethical. I can be hateful. I can be exploitative. Because who cares?' I think to Adum it means something else, since he DOES ethically source the AI he uses. He advocates for pragmatism but also being a decent, not horrible person. He must know he isn't nothing, because he wields his influence in mostly positive directions. This conversation turns into a bit of a mess because it relies on a listener having a vast contradictory knowledge of Adum to even understand how he can be drawing some of these conclusions. The human brain is not like a computer, I can't agree with statements like that. Some art is made like that, sure. But in my opinion (and in Adum's opinion, based on things he's said in streams and other episodes), art is interesting because it's a look into another person's head. Really earnest art made by even 'untalented' people can still be extremely provocative, bizarre, and riveting. So I guess my question is, what's riveting about art that wasn't made from someone's mind? In which strange decisions aren't concocted by an individual, but by a machine that doesn't have those personal eccentricities? Would you be half as interested in a Charlie Kaufman movie that just guesses what might be in a Charlie Kaufman film, with no true human perspective, with nothing new to say? Is AI not infinitely more boring than the sport of observing what strange things a human might decide to make? Just something to chew on I guess! I also saw Madame Web with my wife in theaters on Adum's rec and we had a great time! Anyway, if you read all of this I hope you have a good one o7
Very well said. I hope artists will adapt by pushing their creativity and skills beyond their limits to compete with AI, instead of resorting to using it in their place. Obstacles and opportunity, and all that.
The funny thing about this comment is it's not original at all, it's a sentiment you heard dozens of times before and regurgitated about AI, exactly how an AI would do it, but much slower
@@Hedgpig Exept your "point" is compeletely unrelated to the point i'm making. You clearly have trouble following the conversation so i'll make it easier for you. I said that AI will fuck over a ton of people. How good AI at regurgitating pre-existing opinions is not related to the fact that it's created to fuck people out of jobs, and concentrate even more money at the top.
Are you guys aware that “artificial intelligence” as it currently exists is very much not sentient? All it does is generate output based on user inputs
Probably not. Most people that aren’t experts in computers tend to get caught up in the hype. Personally I feel Adam’s commitment to materialism clouds his thinking regarding machine learning. Computers don’t process or replicate information in the same way an organic brain does. They’re completely different processes. It’s not superstitious thinking to draw a sharp distinction between a brain and a computer, they are fundamentally, structurally not the same thing.
The speed at which AI is currently evolving, it probably won't be possible to 'extract' artist credits from AI generated art, because the AI models used to generate the content will be too large/complex in terms of training data, architecture and computing power. Whatever video you or a studio will have generated, it'll be based on trillions of intermingled datapoints, even more operations, and will ultimately be entrenched in a black box that won't ever be understood by humans on a higher level of abstraction (unless we augment ourselves or something). There needs to be regulation for the use of art in training these AI models. You as an artist should be able to view some kind of gigantic list of all the content used to train the newest OpenAI video model, for example, so that you can be sure that you either gave your permission and they used it as agreed upon, or that you'll be able to get some kind of compensation for that. Whether or not that'll ever happen or at least soon enough, I don't know.
Ye, at minimum it should be able to spit out the list. This way people can crtl + f. Even it is TB of data, but then, maybe we are creating solutions for a problems that shouldn’t exist. AI is very interesting stuff
If I doodle a picture of a dog (as a human) do I have to list every copyrighted or uncopyrighted photograph or drawing of a dog I've ever seen? If someone likes my sketch and buys it from me what is the cut to every dog photograph copyright holder? Do I have to pay a fee back to every drawing tutorial I've watched, and whatever company created my pencil?
@@cgnomazoidYou’re talking about inspiration, something a machine is wholly incapable of. A machine cannot do anything unconsciously, and so every act it takes must be treated as having been done with intent. A human using another’s art as reference is tribute, a machine doing it is theft. The insinuation that they should be held to the same standards as us laughable. Artistic expression is the most human thing one can do. To sell it out to a machine is to debase our entire species.
2:10:29 How does the machine understand the texture? Regular image generation just applies the texture, given the prompt, in a way that deceives the viewer in the most convincing manner. There's no understanding going on there.
In the comics, the bad guy is a guy in a business suit. He's barefooted because his spider powers are weak so he needs direct contact to climb walls. I'm pretty sure all black spider suit stuff was added after the original filming.
using a rhyming substitute for a given slur acknowledges the power of the slur itself and acts as a mild protest of the word being considered off-limits at all. otherwise, given the inclination one would move to another word or phrase entirely, e.g. calling someone dumb/stupid/a dumbass/etc. loved the podcast as usual, keep it up guys
I only use regard and cigarette because every website filters comments based on keywords now. Like adum said, it's about intent and context, but our robojanny overlords don't care and neither do the cigs that he's sucking up to these days
@@All4TanukiI've just been telling people they probably have a blue badge that allows them to park anywhere, it's a longer way of saying regard but I prefer it.
This is some wanky bullshit to fill out time, and you're right. Homie needs the Tarnation approach.. maybe if he put other people over, his position may hold more water.
When Adam started explaining the Dream sequence getting screenshotted irl, I thought to myself "the only way this could get any fucking stupider is if they used a face app setting to digitally remove the fucking masks" I was wrong, Adam said they ALSO de-aged them digitally. Unbelievable, 10/10.
About the whole discussion about words shifting into and out of consideration as a slur, "retarded" literally means slow, and appears outside the context of medicine quite often, most notably in physics (retarding force), chemistry (fire retardant), and music (ritardando (slow down the tempo over time)). This is just me, but it'd be pretty fucking it-started to call those things "it-startant", "it-starting force", and "it-startando" because those contexts are CLEARLY not derogatory in any way, shape or form
Your AI logic has a critical flaw. The current AI techs which are a meme rely EXCLUSIVELY on past works to effectively copy paste part of them or at least synthesize from them. For originality that comes from none of that: you need something called AGI (which is close to what a layman thinks as "human intelligence") and we are nowhere near that (hence human originality is STILL extremely important even if it's only to feed the original data of AI).
I went to a school for people with learning disabilities and in health class when we got to the portion on learning disabilities our teacher made us watch radio and I am same.
About *I Am Sam.* Interestingly enough I saw clips of a Soap Op called Abott Elementary today, which I’d say tackled Autism and comments on how various institutions will handle autism. There’s a scene where a kid who was obsessed with that cartoon Bluey was interrupting a class. It felt very real, way way better than this, and that was a Soap opera sitcom I got shown it by my friend a fan of Bluey who watched anything that references Bluey in it.
By the way, I’m out of the loop. Is anyone able to tell me about why Ralph is only a guest now? Is he working for a movie studio and doesn’t have time for TH-cam? I did see he still makes new content which is great, but I wouldn’t say the videos are coming out so fast that it wouldn’t seem like he would have time to still appear on the podcast. So if he didn’t leave to do his own channel, then I just have to assume he has a job
I didn’t even know DBOX existed until I watched Godzilla Minus One. I felt it was used pretty well for that movie, made you feel like you were there in a lot of the scenes.
i cant get behind the idea that ai art is the same as man made art. just typing words and having a program spit something out, that aint art its just a product. guess im a caveman man
I think we will never not appreciate something which takes time and skill to do( even if it gets to a level where AI art ant human art are absolutely indistinguishable).
I thought I Am Sam was ok. I don't remember thinking it deserved the praise it got. I don't like the women involved with Madam Webb so I won't be seeing it. As for AI and it coming for our jobs.....do you think they could be movie critics? 😅 no really. Just think of a Robot Jay Sherman saying it stinks. I think AI isn't all its cut out to be. There is too many random factors unaccounted for.
AI isn't human inspiration at all. Inspiration molds your creative spirit, just like anything else and it's output might invoke similar ideas, but it is still its own thing. AI is literally just copying data from one movie or image into a new one. So to say it wouldn't have to pay licensing fees because of inspiration is pretty dumb.
I'm an American from PNW I went to Dvox to see Dune Part Two and the seats were fine they were electronic but only to recline back, it could be different from place to place.
Really weird that you both had a tangent about how the r-word is not really important enough to regard as a slur, when many people do, and you just regurgetated 2010 talking points that weirdos used to justify the n-word, like "the n-word doesn't even mean black people anymore, it just means someone who is lame". (they did not say those words obviously, but the points they raised amounted to a similar argument but for the r-word) That type of bs thought process is how this remains in language and culture as a demeaning slur to people affected by it. Just because you have a linguistic relationship with a word, doesn't make it ok. Also, using the word to demean other people is using it in the context of demeaning people with mental or other disabilities by comparison. It can't be used out of context for people who aren't part of that community. Adum claiming it is used out of context when insulting people is absolutely wild. Again, sub in any other slur and it takes a different context, but because disabled people are such a lower class of people that most people don't want to see, it is just seen as fine.
If you spend your entire life crying about someone saying a word, you’re a child you can’t handle the world. Legitimately, if a word is what makes you angry, you need to learn to grow up
The theater that I go to has a 4DX screen (although it's called Mx4D). The only time I saw a movie there was when I saw Top Gun Maverick, and it enhanced the experience. Any other movie would be ruined with that technology.
Man I did Dbox for Mad Max Fury Road and I thought it was interesting but definitely not something I would do again. I actually don't think my theater even has those seats anymore. I do think one of the strangest Dbox integrations I've ever seen is that the Blu Ray for Die Hard 1 has a Dbox feature. So I guess if for some reason you either own a Dbox seat somehow or can can rent out a theater that has Dbox seats in it I guess you can go nuts. It just seems like a weird feature for just a regular bluray to have.
Back in 2011 when they first put out the Jurassic Park trilogy on Bluray, not only did Jurassic Park (1993) have D-Box support, but so did The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) and Jurassic Park /// (2001). Like, someone had to painstakingly program D-Box movement for JP3 in 2011 for like five people in the world to try out. So bizarre. And cool.
First time I’ve come back to this pod in years and it’s only because I heard Ralph left. Idk why everyone keeps whining about a third host, this is the most listenable the pod has ever been
Edit: sorry for the wall of text, I kind of needed to get this out of my chest. You (whoever you are) can go ahead an skip! The conversation about the place of hypothetical real artificial intelligence and how can we feel about it is pretty cool. But I just wanted to point to a bit of a distinction (at the risk of being pedantic or non-original). The current Artificila Intelligence models are (as they have been for the past half century) classifiers. We could argue if they make original images the same way we do and so on. But there is a limit in the technology, that it cannot adapt beyond the training set it uses. And the training set has any meaning at all because we specify what each entry of the training set means (e.g. there is a dog, an apple, and Will smith in this picture). What I mean is that it cannot learn to detect or classify something we didn't put in there. I bring this up because the main problem I see, is how these training sets are getting made as of now. We need transparency in that. Not just crediting authors of the reference used, but WHO tagged that reference for the AI to learn from. (see data labelling in africa) These are no hypothetical futures, is what is happening right now to feed this market monster
Where’s ralph? It just isn’t the same without that third voice there to not pay any attention, then stop the conversation occasionally to say “uh, haha, i don’t know” or “haha yeah, exactly, [the exact opposite of what was just said]”
I’m usually in agreement with a lot of the political angles the conversations take but the r-slur segment gotta be one of the most poorly thought out, awful points I’ve heard on the matter. The fact they talk about it in a way that makes it sound as if people are going out of their way to ban certain words and control language in some fashion just seems to be a misunderstanding of how languages function. Languages constantly evolve over time and words falling out of fashion because of negative connotations they garner is just a part of that which naturally happens. I mean go back and look how often “negro” was used in the 1900s and before. Naturally, it gained a horrible reputation because of its history with subjugating a class of people. Although the r-word is technically in goal just trying to call someone mentally slow, the issue is that in history it’s been associated with people who have learning disabilities. So in calling someone the r slur, you’re essentially equating that person to someone who actually has a learning disability and beyond that, you’re insinuating that it’s a bad thing. Clearly as we grow as a society and our concept of learning disabilities has changed from initially “this person is mentally slow and that’s bad” to “this persons brain functions differently and that’s neither good nor bad”, there’s going to be some growing pains and naturally some dead and dismissive lingo that goes with it. Also find it quite amusing that they don’t bring up the fact that many of the classic curse words we used today actually used to have WORSE connotations but because so much time has passed we no longer associate them with their original meanings. Thus they get reintegrated into our language and take on new meaning. So yeah maybe in the future the r-slur won’t have that historical power anymore because time has passed and societies viewpoints have changed but to not acknowledge that only mere decades ago it had ties that led it to where it is today is just short-sighted as hell. Also To try and equate the r-slur to the words stupid and dumb is ignoring so much current-day history and if you sub out the meaning of the words retarded with its other synonyms or related words just show how offensive it is. Think about how it sounds to call someone disabled, mentally slow, or r-slurred versus stupid or dumb. The intent may be the same by the user of the word but the connotation that is brought about in our present day society is vastly different. To say stupid holds the same power now as the r-slur does is well, stupid. Ironic how in showing that stupid was reintegrated and gained a different meaning over time, they also try to argue that our society is going out of its way to “ban” or “limit” words. Clearly not if that’s part of your argument
Madame Web is a really dumb remake of The Eye, and The Eye was really dumb to begin with. She has horrific premonitions of the future which leads her to travel to some weird southern country, and in the end she gets blinded by an explosion in her face. And, craziest of all, The Eye also has an evil spider guy who gets crushed by a Pepsi sign. Shameless!
For the record guys, you both described Nihilism a couple times and then said 'but In a way that isn't Nihilism' lmao Nihilism is generally a positive school of thought
to add on, "straw nihilism" is an edgy teen's idea of nihilism, which stains the reputation of the real thing. it approaches things like "life is meaningless" or "bad things happen" with an extremely surface level understanding, basically starts and stops at "life isn't built with a meaning" (and everyone around me is ignorant for being happy)
I literally just had my first 4DX experience for Dune 2. It was awful. The water being sprayed and the "bullet" sounds on the back of my ear... Yeah no. I had to go watch it again on IMAX. I have to say the tickets I got for the 4DX were a gift, but yeah.
Man, I know it must be a unpopular opinion, but I really can't stand Adam talking about AI. I'm just skipping this. Too much "wow our brains are like computers not free will"; like yeah, no. Great podcast as always, but Adam cynicism on that matter is far from enjoyable.
Something that excites me with AI, is being able in the future to put myself and my friends as the lead characters in already made movies. That just seems so fun to me. To be able to possibly watch ourselves in the movies we love. It sounds terrifying and also awesome haha
SNL has always been kind of half-baked. Drew Gooden made a video about it a couple years ago where he watched a couple episodes from each and every single season. The quality has always been inconsistent and it's always had a lot of political stuff. It's always had some dumb choices for hosts as well.
I liked this when Ralph was still a part of it. Now it's just the one who loves to hear himself talking nonsense and the one who likes to agree. What a lame podcast.
Re the discussion around Retarded : I feel like its weird to argue that eventually language has to be fixed - when i think in practice language is only ever truly fixed after it dies. I feel like in the very arguement about medical terms becoming slang you miss why its not really going to be possible to freeze languages. I also think its a little funny to say people who are mentally disabled arent discriminated against? I think its perfectly acceptable in context, when your speaking about someones actual disabilities.
There's a Spanish film called "Champions" (from 2019, I think) that is about a basketball team of mentally disabled people (the actors are disabled people too) and it has FROM START TO FINISH a fucking tuba doing silly noises. Never stops. It' so fucking ridiculous.
"we are just a biological code" is such a cold ugly way to look at a life. I can handle many Adams questionable opinions but this is just sad and off putting way of thinking.
I watched Madame Web and Zone of Interest back to back and I felt like I had schizophrenia
Ahh yes, the rare Web of Interest double feature
why didn’t you save the better film for last?
Her web really did connect them all for you
The sound design of madame web is amazing. If you listen closely, you can hear the sounds of Dakota Johnson firing her whole team in the background
Man I can imagine, that is hilarious lol
The rumour that Dakota Johnson fired her whole team because they misled her into thinking she would be in a mainline marvel movie until she signed on is one of the most tragically funny Hollywood stories I've heard
Imagine having to campaign for this after the fact
Reminds me of when Bill Murray got trapped into doing 2 Garfield movies because he thought they were being written by Joel Coen not Joel Cohen
That or Liam Neeson signing onto the Phantom Menace without reading the script since it was Star Wars and thought it has to be good.
@@nagger8216
I don’t think he is as hung up on that as you are 😉
@@nagger8216 at least he got to play the best character in the movie (with lines)
What are we, some kind of moms researching spiders in the Amazon right before we die?
My fave Madame Webb moment was near the end at the hospital where one of the girls says Ben Parker is lucky since he's an uncle and doesn't have to raise the kid. And then Cassie joyfully says remarks that he will have to - the thought of Peter Parkers' parents dying brings a smile to her lips.
Big missed opportunity for the YMS review to be called Adam Web. 😂
aDUM web
Will I Am Madame Sam Web: Let's get it started
Adum Web
@Jdudhhsuxbsksj stealing this because you wasted it on a reply lol
@@NeutralGuyDoubleZero okay cool with me
Nice of them to include Ralph in the thumbnail despite him leaving the pod !
Lmao
It’s peak Adum to spend half of the I Am Sam segment defending the R-Word
Yeah I'm not surprised and I can't say I'm exactly invested in whether they use the word or not I just don't like that it completely derailed the discussion. I guess that's just how discussions work; it's normal to go on weird tangents but I was just thinking "why is Adum so passionately talking about this right now". Like they can quote the movie or whatever without super super long tangents trying to defend being able to say it. It just seems incredibly defensive and silly. Like I know people listening in bad faith would be offended even if it was just a verbatim movie quote but I think most people in the audience can understand if you just say "this was used in the film" so it's weird to go on an entire discussion about "what are the ethics of just saying this in general". They can talk about what they want but it just is a little tedious to listen to.
1:44:40 the fact this was said after that rant is hilarious
It’s a shame Ralph loved madame web so much he disowned Adam and Alex and will never appear on the podcast again.
Views dropped off after Ralph left by 50%, both Adum and IHE don’t have the same clout and following as DADDY RALPH never question this again
@@debodatta7398I haven’t listened to satdonicasr in ages I come back and Ralph is gone. Something happen?
I wanna know too
@@Corvy952can’t remember the specifics but Ralph got busy with some stuff so he left the podcast
They’re all still friends don’t worry
2:05:51 The scary part here: 2060 is 36 years away, 1950 was 74 years ago.
Did a double feature of Madame Web and Poor Things and I gotta say, Poor Things has some competition for funniest movie of the year
I think Poor Things is a 2023 film technically, but I also saw it last month
Even if Ralph's not returning any time soon, a third host would really liven things up and give Adum and Alex something different to bounce off. Also, Adum's personal and political belief tangents are getting out of hand.
Jenny Nicholson would make for a great third host.
I mostly do TV series for a living, and can confirm that usually the directors are there to punch in, basically. Showrunners and producers are the real decision makers.
Aim to be as persistent with your ambitions as Sony are with having a cinematic universe
I just don't know if I have the hubris to persist after not improving from one failure to the next
@@doubtfulhenry can't develop hubris if you don't have a raimi trilogy to take too much credit for
Couple disagreements on A.I. First the writers did win protection against A.I. and they are able to negotiate again in 3 years not 10. It’s also representative of the actual solution to this problem on the labour side, which is not UBI, but instead strong labour power through unions and co-operatives. If workers actually have the power to decide how A.I. is used in their industry A.I. will become a companion and not a replacement.
The second thing is that yes art is derivative and A.I. Art is also derivative but A.I. can not add new data itself. It must be told new data by us. If an A.I. was trained on all media before the year 1500 and then asked to show a picture of a airplane it simply could not do it because it doesn’t know what that is. As society changes it influences our material reality which in turn changes our art, A.I. as it stands now, can not do that. So this argument of “well it’s just doing what we do” is incorrect because it can’t do what we do. And that is why it is bad for art in general because it is stagnant and only operates off of what it knows. It is not doing anything new and can not do anything new
@@trapadvisor I’ll just quote myself “if workers actually have the power to decide how A.I. Is used in their industry it will become a companion, not a replacement” A.I. Like you said is a tool. It can have certain applications. When I said it’s bad for art I mean in its current form. Because the argument I was arguing against was being used to justify its current use
The idea of the airplane didn’t pop into the heads of the Wright Brothers by completely original inspiration. I don’t see any reason to believe such a thing exists.
The airplane was the result of decades work which engineers continually built on until they cracked human flight. Maybe AI is capable of reaching a similar conclusion given those inputs, maybe it isn’t. Either way, it doesn’t make sense to just assume the conclusion you want to be correct is true.
It’s not clear to me exactly what counts as original and what doesn’t. It’s a vague enough concept you can draw whatever conclusion you want. Is pulling thousands of different elements from thousands of sources and altering and reorganizing them in a way that feels original “new”. I’d say so, that’s exactly what human artists do.
Not trying to make predictions here, but these ideas seem poorly reasoned and don’t engage with basic counterpoints. Maybe there’s some magical quality of human creativity that makes it different from hypothetical future AI, maybe there isn’t. We don’t have any way to definitively know.
Rereading your airplane example, it doesn’t really make any sense. AI and human artists are both limited by the information available to them. If you plucked a painter out of 1500, and trained an AI on all data before 1500, neither would be able to draw a plane as we know them now. Your example only makes humans seem exceptional when we arbitrarily limit the AI’s data more than the human artist’s data. Neither would paint a current airplane because they don’t know what an airplane is.
You’ve not provided any reason that AI couldn’t create what we recognize as artistic progress given the same inputs human artists use. Confusing example.
Obviously current AI sucks and can’t do any of that, but the discussion of artists being replaced isn’t about current AI, it’s about hypothetical future AI. Only deluded bored ape pfp techbros think current AI can replace artists.
@@samaustin8690 I’m not even arguing about originality. The core of Adam’s argument is that “it’s doing what we do” when it simply can not do what we do.
“Maybe an AI is capable of reaching similar conclusions” it’s not, it knows what you give it and nothing else. It can not come up with new things, it must be given them. And that’s not an assumption that’s how the tech works. That’s why it is “generative AI” it’s essentially just providing an answer to a prompt. For example a guy asked an AI to show him a picture of an autistic person and it would consistently show him a picture of a sad, thin, white, boy. Out of 148 images it only made two that deviated from that description, both of which showing a girl instead of a boy. Sad in all of them and none of a different race or age range. Because the people who made it didn’t give it enough data to go beyond that.
So the airplane point is meant to illustrate that if you gave it that data set of everything until 1500, that’s all it has. If you left it like that for 500 years it would still only have that data. And only be able to give a response based on that data.
This is simply not the case for humans. As the ways in which we formulate society (particularly economically) change so does the world around us which gives rise to new ways of thinking, new ways of producing and so on. Which then change art. My point is that AI is stagnant and we are not, so AI is not doing what we do as we are not stagnant
Your first paragraph has big vibes of, "We need to preserve work for some unspecified reason". UBI is necessary because human work isn't. We need things to get done in society, we don't need humans to do them. The fact that robots are able to automate and replace us in certain fields, even non-artistic ones, and the response is appropriate fear just shows that our system is fucked up. Being able to produce more with less should be a good, but since we can't live unless we find some capitalist to pay us for our labor, the labor itself is now the goal, not the actual production. It's craziness.
Talk about Leaving Las Vegas w/ Nic Cage God Dammit. I know Adum hasn’t seen it.
Most accurate depiction of a horrible alcoholic I've ever seen. This is coming from an alcoholic and movie lover
Adum needs to see Sorry To Bother You.
The first time I ever heard of I Am Sam was from Drawn Together of all things. In one episode, Clara's "special cousin", Bleh (Yes, that's her name), comes to visit the house. Her only defining characteristic aside from her disability, is that she speaks in review quotes for the film I Am Sam. Oh, and she's also revealed to be a knockout, with Captain Hero developing feelings for her in a "special kind of way".
Both works share something in common: they'd get a mob after them in a heartbeat.
I have no fucking clue what I've just read. I genuinely don't understand it.
That’s Drawn Together for you
That show was always so out of pocket lol
🎵Girly girly girl🎵
Cumtown
I thought that was Ralph in the thumbnail
Hi! Professional illlustrator + writer + longtime listener here. Don't comment much but I wanted to here; don't take anything I say too seriously. Also don't read if long things annoy you.
I'm not an overly panicky or defensive person, I'm not terrified the way some of my colleagues are, and I think demystifying AI as a threat is important. So I was on board with Adum's commentary for a while. Something happened towards the end, with combining the argument for AI with the nihilism, the simulation-theory-adjacent tangent, comparing human brains with machinery, that read more to me like someone who's lost the plot a little here. The last third of this is very hard to listen to.
I agree that adapting is an uncomfortable but necessary part of being an artist, or an innovator. Not necessarily adapting to include AI in your process, but finding ways to continue to be an interesting and provocative artist next to it. And again as a long time listener to Adum and Alex (mostly talking about Adum here since he led the conversation), I think in overselling his own 'nothing-matters-theres-no-free-will-we're-all-nothing' ideology he's missing the simplicity of this issue from most others' perspectives. People are upset because they think there will be no jobs left for them; some are mad philosophically about the threat, but the fear is coming from a reasonable place. And yeah, artists adapt. Or quit. But contrary to what Adum says here, people DO have jobs to make money; because we don't live in a utopia, because universal basic income is not a thing that exists yet for most people, and likely new levels of human suffering and poverty will have to be inflicted for anything like that to be considered in places where capitalism is king. Because lots of people have jobs they don't enjoy, especially in something as multi-faceted as the art industry. Will AI bring legislation like that in the future? Maybe! And I think that was Adum's point, but it's so bogged down in a nihilistic mindset that frankly doesn't really align with the core of this sentiment.
'Nothing matters', for most people, means 'I can be unethical. I can be hateful. I can be exploitative. Because who cares?' I think to Adum it means something else, since he DOES ethically source the AI he uses. He advocates for pragmatism but also being a decent, not horrible person. He must know he isn't nothing, because he wields his influence in mostly positive directions. This conversation turns into a bit of a mess because it relies on a listener having a vast contradictory knowledge of Adum to even understand how he can be drawing some of these conclusions.
The human brain is not like a computer, I can't agree with statements like that. Some art is made like that, sure. But in my opinion (and in Adum's opinion, based on things he's said in streams and other episodes), art is interesting because it's a look into another person's head. Really earnest art made by even 'untalented' people can still be extremely provocative, bizarre, and riveting. So I guess my question is, what's riveting about art that wasn't made from someone's mind? In which strange decisions aren't concocted by an individual, but by a machine that doesn't have those personal eccentricities? Would you be half as interested in a Charlie Kaufman movie that just guesses what might be in a Charlie Kaufman film, with no true human perspective, with nothing new to say? Is AI not infinitely more boring than the sport of observing what strange things a human might decide to make? Just something to chew on I guess!
I also saw Madame Web with my wife in theaters on Adum's rec and we had a great time! Anyway, if you read all of this I hope you have a good one o7
Very well said. I hope artists will adapt by pushing their creativity and skills beyond their limits to compete with AI, instead of resorting to using it in their place. Obstacles and opportunity, and all that.
I'm so angry that they cut the line "Madame Web, I Am Sam" out of both movies
Great podcast bro
AI fucking over tons of people is not a bug, it's the main feature
The funny thing about this comment is it's not original at all, it's a sentiment you heard dozens of times before and regurgitated about AI, exactly how an AI would do it, but much slower
@@Hedgpig Wow... Some people have similar opinions, how Insightful
@@DanMiller. I bet an AI wouldn't miss the point as much as you either
@@Hedgpig Exept your "point" is compeletely unrelated to the point i'm making. You clearly have trouble following the conversation so i'll make it easier for you. I said that AI will fuck over a ton of people. How good AI at regurgitating pre-existing opinions is not related to the fact that it's created to fuck people out of jobs, and concentrate even more money at the top.
Slander is spoken, in print it’s libel.
Meat. That's right, a nice box of Christmas meat.
To quote Hayao Miyazaki when reacting to AI. “I strongly feel that this is an insult to life itself.”
That wasn't in relation to AI "art". But I'm sure he has the same sentiement about it
Im from Peru, can confirm we have magic spiders
What do you mean Morbius wasn’t that funny to watch? I literally don’t think I’ve laughed harder in my life than at them flying in the subway.
You know it’s going to be good if they’re covering a Sony movie.
Reddit: Why doesn't Sardonicast cover better movies.... Sardonicast: Hold my Web...
Are you guys aware that “artificial intelligence” as it currently exists is very much not sentient? All it does is generate output based on user inputs
duh. if it was sentient it would be really scary. right now it just generates text and images based on prompts
Probably not. Most people that aren’t experts in computers tend to get caught up in the hype.
Personally I feel Adam’s commitment to materialism clouds his thinking regarding machine learning. Computers don’t process or replicate information in the same way an organic brain does. They’re completely different processes. It’s not superstitious thinking to draw a sharp distinction between a brain and a computer, they are fundamentally, structurally not the same thing.
The speed at which AI is currently evolving, it probably won't be possible to 'extract' artist credits from AI generated art, because the AI models used to generate the content will be too large/complex in terms of training data, architecture and computing power. Whatever video you or a studio will have generated, it'll be based on trillions of intermingled datapoints, even more operations, and will ultimately be entrenched in a black box that won't ever be understood by humans on a higher level of abstraction (unless we augment ourselves or something).
There needs to be regulation for the use of art in training these AI models. You as an artist should be able to view some kind of gigantic list of all the content used to train the newest OpenAI video model, for example, so that you can be sure that you either gave your permission and they used it as agreed upon, or that you'll be able to get some kind of compensation for that. Whether or not that'll ever happen or at least soon enough, I don't know.
Ye, at minimum it should be able to spit out the list. This way people can crtl + f. Even it is TB of data, but then, maybe we are creating solutions for a problems that shouldn’t exist. AI is very interesting stuff
if its so diluted literally who cares? do you not swim in the ocean for it is full of piss and corpses?
If I doodle a picture of a dog (as a human) do I have to list every copyrighted or uncopyrighted photograph or drawing of a dog I've ever seen? If someone likes my sketch and buys it from me what is the cut to every dog photograph copyright holder? Do I have to pay a fee back to every drawing tutorial I've watched, and whatever company created my pencil?
@@cgnomazoid of course! don't you know that copyright and intellectual property is the only thing between us and savages?!
@@cgnomazoidYou’re talking about inspiration, something a machine is wholly incapable of. A machine cannot do anything unconsciously, and so every act it takes must be treated as having been done with intent. A human using another’s art as reference is tribute, a machine doing it is theft. The insinuation that they should be held to the same standards as us laughable.
Artistic expression is the most human thing one can do. To sell it out to a machine is to debase our entire species.
When r y'all gonna review Godzilla Minus 1?
The camera work in I Am Sam, is a pet peeve of mine, like relax with the camera.
2:10:29 How does the machine understand the texture?
Regular image generation just applies the texture, given the prompt,
in a way that deceives the viewer in the most convincing manner.
There's no understanding going on there.
In the comics, the bad guy is a guy in a business suit. He's barefooted because his spider powers are weak so he needs direct contact to climb walls. I'm pretty sure all black spider suit stuff was added after the original filming.
4:30 if Ralph was here, he'd definitely mention Mr. Robot
Was thinking the exact same thing 😂
The Spiderverse® (Spiderman not included)
I am Sam always reminds me of that one episode of drawn together 😂
using a rhyming substitute for a given slur acknowledges the power of the slur itself and acts as a mild protest of the word being considered off-limits at all.
otherwise, given the inclination one would move to another word or phrase entirely, e.g. calling someone dumb/stupid/a dumbass/etc.
loved the podcast as usual, keep it up guys
I only use regard and cigarette because every website filters comments based on keywords now. Like adum said, it's about intent and context, but our robojanny overlords don't care and neither do the cigs that he's sucking up to these days
@@All4TanukiI've just been telling people they probably have a blue badge that allows them to park anywhere, it's a longer way of saying regard but I prefer it.
This is some wanky bullshit to fill out time, and you're right. Homie needs the Tarnation approach.. maybe if he put other people over, his position may hold more water.
It acknowledges the power immature outrage from a vocal minority has on the internet, not of the word
Never listened to the Black Eyed Peas, huh?
When Adam started explaining the Dream sequence getting screenshotted irl, I thought to myself "the only way this could get any fucking stupider is if they used a face app setting to digitally remove the fucking masks"
I was wrong, Adam said they ALSO de-aged them digitally. Unbelievable, 10/10.
About the whole discussion about words shifting into and out of consideration as a slur, "retarded" literally means slow, and appears outside the context of medicine quite often, most notably in physics (retarding force), chemistry (fire retardant), and music (ritardando (slow down the tempo over time)).
This is just me, but it'd be pretty fucking it-started to call those things "it-startant", "it-starting force", and "it-startando" because those contexts are CLEARLY not derogatory in any way, shape or form
Your AI logic has a critical flaw. The current AI techs which are a meme rely EXCLUSIVELY on past works to effectively copy paste part of them or at least synthesize from them. For originality that comes from none of that: you need something called AGI (which is close to what a layman thinks as "human intelligence") and we are nowhere near that (hence human originality is STILL extremely important even if it's only to feed the original data of AI).
I went to a school for people with learning disabilities and in health class when we got to the portion on learning disabilities our teacher made us watch radio and I am same.
About *I Am Sam.* Interestingly enough I saw clips of a Soap Op called Abott Elementary today, which I’d say tackled Autism and comments on how various institutions will handle autism. There’s a scene where a kid who was obsessed with that cartoon Bluey was interrupting a class. It felt very real, way way better than this, and that was a Soap opera sitcom I got shown it by my friend a fan of Bluey who watched anything that references Bluey in it.
I've never heard anyone call Abott Elementary a soap opera 😂.
@@joshsny143my stupidity is bliss lifestyle has led me to make a grand mistake
By the way, I’m out of the loop. Is anyone able to tell me about why Ralph is only a guest now? Is he working for a movie studio and doesn’t have time for TH-cam? I did see he still makes new content which is great, but I wouldn’t say the videos are coming out so fast that it wouldn’t seem like he would have time to still appear on the podcast. So if he didn’t leave to do his own channel, then I just have to assume he has a job
I didn’t even know DBOX existed until I watched Godzilla Minus One. I felt it was used pretty well for that movie, made you feel like you were there in a lot of the scenes.
RIP Ralph, i can't believe his demons finally won
I like the part where they interrupt the movie discussion to talk about how cool slurs are for 13 minutes
Time stamp
Typical Canadian and Brit
@@TheBrothers759They are _getting started_ at 1:20:10
not even remotely what their point was but okay
@@AlfredSoul I see what you did there
I tried D-Box once as well but it for The Martian. The feeling of weightlessness actually enhanced the experience.
i cant get behind the idea that ai art is the same as man made art. just typing words and having a program spit something out, that aint art its just a product. guess im a caveman man
I think we will never not appreciate something which takes time and skill to do( even if it gets to a level where AI art ant human art are absolutely indistinguishable).
Ahhh another eps of Adam defending AI "art"
Are we really going to have a discussion on why it's kind of okay to say the R word? Also, thanks for monopolizing the conversation again, Adam.
I thought I Am Sam was ok. I don't remember thinking it deserved the praise it got.
I don't like the women involved with Madam Webb so I won't be seeing it.
As for AI and it coming for our jobs.....do you think they could be movie critics? 😅 no really. Just think of a Robot Jay Sherman saying it stinks. I think AI isn't all its cut out to be. There is too many random factors unaccounted for.
AI isn't human inspiration at all.
Inspiration molds your creative spirit, just like anything else
and it's output might invoke similar ideas, but it is still its own thing.
AI is literally just copying data from one movie or image into a new one.
So to say it wouldn't have to pay licensing fees because of inspiration is pretty dumb.
I'm an American from PNW I went to Dvox to see Dune Part Two and the seats were fine they were electronic but only to recline back, it could be different from place to place.
I'm one of those idiots that watched Dune in 4D and that was a wild experience, last time i do that.
7:06 I feel that way about Harrison Ford
My Damn Web Movie Goofed
Really weird that you both had a tangent about how the r-word is not really important enough to regard as a slur, when many people do, and you just regurgetated 2010 talking points that weirdos used to justify the n-word, like "the n-word doesn't even mean black people anymore, it just means someone who is lame". (they did not say those words obviously, but the points they raised amounted to a similar argument but for the r-word) That type of bs thought process is how this remains in language and culture as a demeaning slur to people affected by it. Just because you have a linguistic relationship with a word, doesn't make it ok.
Also, using the word to demean other people is using it in the context of demeaning people with mental or other disabilities by comparison. It can't be used out of context for people who aren't part of that community. Adum claiming it is used out of context when insulting people is absolutely wild. Again, sub in any other slur and it takes a different context, but because disabled people are such a lower class of people that most people don't want to see, it is just seen as fine.
If you spend your entire life crying about someone saying a word, you’re a child you can’t handle the world. Legitimately, if a word is what makes you angry, you need to learn to grow up
Get the Spider-Man versus craven from the 90s mini-series it's fuckin awesome! Peter is buried and comes out the grave like a beast!
What an amazing double feature
The theater that I go to has a 4DX screen (although it's called Mx4D). The only time I saw a movie there was when I saw Top Gun Maverick, and it enhanced the experience. Any other movie would be ruined with that technology.
Day 71 of asking for an episode on the Evil Dead trilogy
Wait but you guys aren't Sam. The real Sam is the friends we made along the way. Right?
Sam is family, and that is what's so powerful about him.
@@devilous90 true true. You got a good point there.
Man I did Dbox for Mad Max Fury Road and I thought it was interesting but definitely not something I would do again. I actually don't think my theater even has those seats anymore.
I do think one of the strangest Dbox integrations I've ever seen is that the Blu Ray for Die Hard 1 has a Dbox feature. So I guess if for some reason you either own a Dbox seat somehow or can can rent out a theater that has Dbox seats in it I guess you can go nuts. It just seems like a weird feature for just a regular bluray to have.
Back in 2011 when they first put out the Jurassic Park trilogy on Bluray, not only did Jurassic Park (1993) have D-Box support, but so did The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) and Jurassic Park /// (2001). Like, someone had to painstakingly program D-Box movement for JP3 in 2011 for like five people in the world to try out. So bizarre. And cool.
How the hell did they manage to mention skibidi toilet in theaters and now an actual skibidi toilet movie is going to be made? Wtf
First time I’ve come back to this pod in years and it’s only because I heard Ralph left. Idk why everyone keeps whining about a third host, this is the most listenable the pod has ever been
Agreed with total peace and love towards Ralph.
Edit: sorry for the wall of text, I kind of needed to get this out of my chest. You (whoever you are) can go ahead an skip!
The conversation about the place of hypothetical real artificial intelligence and how can we feel about it is pretty cool. But I just wanted to point to a bit of a distinction (at the risk of being pedantic or non-original). The current Artificila Intelligence models are (as they have been for the past half century) classifiers. We could argue if they make original images the same way we do and so on. But there is a limit in the technology, that it cannot adapt beyond the training set it uses. And the training set has any meaning at all because we specify what each entry of the training set means (e.g. there is a dog, an apple, and Will smith in this picture). What I mean is that it cannot learn to detect or classify something we didn't put in there.
I bring this up because the main problem I see, is how these training sets are getting made as of now. We need transparency in that. Not just crediting authors of the reference used, but WHO tagged that reference for the AI to learn from. (see data labelling in africa) These are no hypothetical futures, is what is happening right now to feed this market monster
A big glass of orange story.
2:27:21 indoctrination theory believer? What is this a reference to? Can't tell if i just missed it or not.
Search up: Mass Effect 3 Indoctrination Theory
Where’s ralph? It just isn’t the same without that third voice there to not pay any attention, then stop the conversation occasionally to say “uh, haha, i don’t know” or “haha yeah, exactly, [the exact opposite of what was just said]”
I’m usually in agreement with a lot of the political angles the conversations take but the r-slur segment gotta be one of the most poorly thought out, awful points I’ve heard on the matter. The fact they talk about it in a way that makes it sound as if people are going out of their way to ban certain words and control language in some fashion just seems to be a misunderstanding of how languages function. Languages constantly evolve over time and words falling out of fashion because of negative connotations they garner is just a part of that which naturally happens. I mean go back and look how often “negro” was used in the 1900s and before. Naturally, it gained a horrible reputation because of its history with subjugating a class of people. Although the r-word is technically in goal just trying to call someone mentally slow, the issue is that in history it’s been associated with people who have learning disabilities. So in calling someone the r slur, you’re essentially equating that person to someone who actually has a learning disability and beyond that, you’re insinuating that it’s a bad thing. Clearly as we grow as a society and our concept of learning disabilities has changed from initially “this person is mentally slow and that’s bad” to “this persons brain functions differently and that’s neither good nor bad”, there’s going to be some growing pains and naturally some dead and dismissive lingo that goes with it. Also find it quite amusing that they don’t bring up the fact that many of the classic curse words we used today actually used to have WORSE connotations but because so much time has passed we no longer associate them with their original meanings. Thus they get reintegrated into our language and take on new meaning. So yeah maybe in the future the r-slur won’t have that historical power anymore because time has passed and societies viewpoints have changed but to not acknowledge that only mere decades ago it had ties that led it to where it is today is just short-sighted as hell. Also To try and equate the r-slur to the words stupid and dumb is ignoring so much current-day history and if you sub out the meaning of the words retarded with its other synonyms or related words just show how offensive it is. Think about how it sounds to call someone disabled, mentally slow, or r-slurred versus stupid or dumb. The intent may be the same by the user of the word but the connotation that is brought about in our present day society is vastly different. To say stupid holds the same power now as the r-slur does is well, stupid. Ironic how in showing that stupid was reintegrated and gained a different meaning over time, they also try to argue that our society is going out of its way to “ban” or “limit” words. Clearly not if that’s part of your argument
Madame Web is a really dumb remake of The Eye, and The Eye was really dumb to begin with. She has horrific premonitions of the future which leads her to travel to some weird southern country, and in the end she gets blinded by an explosion in her face. And, craziest of all, The Eye also has an evil spider guy who gets crushed by a Pepsi sign. Shameless!
The true theme of the movie is that the ability to sense the future makes you dumb.
Madame web is on Netflix now!!!
2:30:38 amazing impression adum 👏
Saw someone on Letterboxd say I Am Sam was so offensive that it almost made them woke.
Maybe it was just really effective agitprop this whole time.
It's webbin' time
Adam Web. Dakotadam Johnson.
Picturing Adam in a retirement home in 50 years time insisting that he's said idiot his whole life & he's not going to stop now
11:55 😂 😆 oh no
Dune part 2 discussion next video PLEASE
This and Godzilla minus one would be fun
Respect given to handicapped people.
Christopher Titus' Special Unit > I Am Sam. PROVE ME WRONG!
For the record guys, you both described Nihilism a couple times and then said 'but In a way that isn't Nihilism' lmao Nihilism is generally a positive school of thought
to add on, "straw nihilism" is an edgy teen's idea of nihilism, which stains the reputation of the real thing. it approaches things like "life is meaningless" or "bad things happen" with an extremely surface level understanding, basically starts and stops at "life isn't built with a meaning" (and everyone around me is ignorant for being happy)
tickets are too expensive im on the fence if i want to see it
There is no price high enough for tickets to Madame Web
It's webbing time
Unlike Morbius or Suicide Squad, Madame Web made back its budget. People are seeing for how bad it is. We have to get a Madame Web 2
I literally just had my first 4DX experience for Dune 2. It was awful. The water being sprayed and the "bullet" sounds on the back of my ear... Yeah no. I had to go watch it again on IMAX. I have to say the tickets I got for the 4DX were a gift, but yeah.
Madame Web goated film
Man, I know it must be a unpopular opinion, but I really can't stand Adam talking about AI. I'm just skipping this. Too much "wow our brains are like computers not free will"; like yeah, no. Great podcast as always, but Adam cynicism on that matter is far from enjoyable.
Something that excites me with AI, is being able in the future to put myself and my friends as the lead characters in already made movies. That just seems so fun to me. To be able to possibly watch ourselves in the movies we love. It sounds terrifying and also awesome haha
The AI discussion is thought provoking. Good job, adum and alex.
SNL has always been kind of half-baked. Drew Gooden made a video about it a couple years ago where he watched a couple episodes from each and every single season. The quality has always been inconsistent and it's always had a lot of political stuff. It's always had some dumb choices for hosts as well.
I liked this when Ralph was still a part of it. Now it's just the one who loves to hear himself talking nonsense and the one who likes to agree. What a lame podcast.
4dx is dumb but when matrix 4 came out they released the first matrix in 4dx and it was actually pretty dope for that one
What are we, some kind of web?
Re the discussion around Retarded : I feel like its weird to argue that eventually language has to be fixed - when i think in practice language is only ever truly fixed after it dies. I feel like in the very arguement about medical terms becoming slang you miss why its not really going to be possible to freeze languages. I also think its a little funny to say people who are mentally disabled arent discriminated against? I think its perfectly acceptable in context, when your speaking about someones actual disabilities.
A word is a word. It shouldn’t be treated as anything with power. By trying to make words taboo, you give them more power
Can someone explain again why Sony hasnt just made another spiderman movie? I thought they had the rights to the spidernan
There must be a part of their agreement with Disney that they can't make a live action Spider-Man
Out of Pocket™
UH OH! I MADE JUICE!
There's a Spanish film called "Champions" (from 2019, I think) that is about a basketball team of mentally disabled people (the actors are disabled people too) and it has FROM START TO FINISH a fucking tuba doing silly noises. Never stops. It' so fucking ridiculous.
"we are just a biological code" is such a cold ugly way to look at a life. I can handle many Adams questionable opinions but this is just sad and off putting way of thinking.
He’s not wrong. You just don’t like to hear it cause it’s depressing
@@Blappyboop truth is subjective and so is how you interpret that information. whats wrong with just being biological code on legs?