[-] No. 269434 [PM]
if AI ever evolves enough so you can make real movies, what movie would u make?
one movie i would make would be based on ancient galactic wars, it would have like avatar esque cinematography and action, but instead of being made up it would be based on real new age lore and mythology
pic related, i created it with AI. it includes races that start the first war
from left to right its: annu-elohim, omicron-dracon and odedicron-reptilian
the first war is just short introduction to movie, like war against sauron in lord of the rings
then the real plot begins when they make a peace deal and create humanoid race called oraphim, the oraphim leader is acted by john travolta, he is sort of "old king" type of character
but then a "fallen" annu-elohim breaks the peace deal, by creating annunaki (annunaki meaning annu's avenger, this is central to the plot). his plan for this new race is to destroy oraphim, so he can claim supremacy and restart the war with draconians and reptilians.
the next event is that the founder alien races plant yet another human race called turaneusiam on the planet tara, which is where all the major events take place after the plot introduction
our main character is one of those inhabitants of tara, he is acted by tom cruise, he is a real action hero. the plot is basically just different conflicts with annunaki, reptilians and draconians, but there is greater plot where tom cruise learns "the truth" about the origins how it all started
in the end there is this huge cataclysm where basically whole planet tara gets destroyed, but tom cruise survives, obviously, because he is awesome.
so what do you think?
No. 269437 [PM]
I wouldn't
No. 269438 [PM]
ur def b8'ing w/ john travolta and tom cruise so dunno how seriously to take the rest
i remember +10 years ago notch tweeted about wat he was most looking forward in future, and it was ai generated films. at the time i had no idea wat he was talking about, how could something like that exist b4 we had all kinds of much more interesting and profoundly impactful shit like ai and neural vr and post scarcity and space exploration etc. like i thought it would be such arbitrary and specific problem u would have to have simulated minds in the millions b4 it would be possible, not just skip several processes like it turned out to be. so how could that to me completely random thing be first thing in his mind. but he was very right, we have ai content generation b4 any other cool shit. maybe it was obvious to some ppl, tho i don't remember any scifi author speculating about it (in its current form)
as for ur question, honestly probably nothing at that point, and rather just simulated environments, video games, vr games. there's very specific types of fantasy and scifi settings that i'd wan't explored. tho in that year any form of content would probably be engineered so addicting for mere humans that some personal zero tolerance for its consumption resolve as early as possible would be necessary for ur own survival
No. 269442 [PM]
>>269438>(in its current form)specifically so liam doesn't refer to some random novel from 1920 where there was poetry machine or some nonsense. specifically talking about nn's used for content creation, far b4 any agi or watever exists
No. 269445 [PM]
>>269438even if ai was to evolve to that point, they wouldnt let you use real actor faces, so i was just being little cute there, but the idea is serious. new age lore is kinda convoluted, its hard to draw a proper picture of what all these aliens are and what they mean.
simulated environment and video games are cool, but the movies are gonna happen first, if ever. but these are vastly different things. unlike simulations movies exist primarily to tell a narrated story. but maybe you are not story guy.
contect creation isnt the first thing that ai was used for though, its just that the other things arent as interesting, its just that the generative ai made ai popular. normies dont care about some under the hood things. they can go their whole lives without even basic understanding how their phone works, despite using it for most of their day.
No. 269454 [PM]
>>269445yeh get that but i wouldn't be obsessed w/ some big names @ that point, just who'd be most fitting actor for the role (from among myriad artificial ones too). tom cruise was cool but starting to give bit bad taste for me now that he's 60-something botox thing still larping as action hero. dunno much about new age stuff to comment otherwise
>but the movies are gonna happen firstnot sure y u think that. films need top down directing of multiple simpler forms of media (music, writing, design, cinematography etc) just like video games. they're comparable in terms of complexity. ppl r also more forgiving of jankiness in video games since they've always been computer thing and always had that, so imo generated games will be acceptable to consumers b4 films
>contect creation isnt the first thing that ai was used for thoughyeh i know. w/ 'ai' i meant back then i thought real agi would need to exist first b4 some films could be generated. i knew of the text generation stuff from late 70s or early 80s or watever but didn't realise could do something similar for image
No. 269457 [PM]
>>269454for me actors are big part of movie experience, like seeing something like tom cruise movie is great, because you get to pay attention and judge their performance. its also that familiar actors and their faces make this kinda funny and memeable feeling, like seeing someone like nicolas cage, is just so funny that it doesnt matter much what the movie is about.
>they're comparable in terms of complexitythey are really not, movie is series of static images with static sound, so technologically video games are billion times more complex. i think you are mixing them because of the production cost and effort to make one, but that is not same as actual computational complexity.
the only way i can imagine AI games be first is if its literally generated in real time, so that the every frame of the game as image is somehow (i dont know how), generated and reacting to user input
>real agi would need to existi have hard time believing in this concept of agi, its not even that well defined what it means
No. 269464 [PM]
>>269457>movie is series of static images with static sound, so technologically video games are billion times more complexthen ur view of wat a film is is a fever dream, morphing from one inconsistent static scene to the next. dats not wat movies are and no1 would watch something like that. actual movie generation, when it comes, will have to be managed or overseen by agentic 'ai', or person. (like now too all the 'ai' clips u see have separate script generated at the start for the dialogue, sound effects etc) same for video games, needing controller i mean, tho actually video games can be simpler, since u can now already have wholly 'ai' generated ones, from one prompt. playable ones. tho they're not great or complex. gamedev is very simple unless ur doing something technologically new. wholly 'ai' generated films, from one prompt, do not yet exist. in the scenario i'm imagining some standardised game engine or physics engine would probably be used, to allow mass reusing of assets etc between games and worlds
>the only way i can imagine AI games be first is if its literally generated in real time, so that the every frame of the game as image is somehow (i dont know how), generated and reacting to user inputwell that may also end up happening. like musk thinks. where display controlled by 'ai' just shows u wat u want it to show, w/o any OS or software etc
>i have hard time believing in this concept of agi, its not even that well defined what it meansi'm not expecting agi. just, at that time i thought agi would be prerequisite for generative content bc it was still foreign concept to me at this level. that's all. tho, i'm not neurologist, but still i don't buy ur and yenisei's doubting that human brain could hold all ur memories etc, think there was some thread like half year ago. so in that way i believe eventually in some decades u can just simulate a human brain
No. 269471 [PM]
>>269464im not talking about one prompting anything morty. you already have one prompt games and videos made with AI. they are usually slop and not interesting. im talking about whole experience thats consistent. im talking about prompting like how you prompt code these days, it can be hundreds of prompts defining how something should be, its less effective with games, because games are controlled by the player, movies are not.
>so in that way i believe eventually in some decades u can just simulate a human brainwrong. we dont even fully understand how the brain produces intelligence. it works very differently from current computers being more adaptive, parallel, and less precise, while computers work exactly on rule based tasks. simulating human brain isnt even something we should drive for.
No. 269476 [PM]
>>269475why so afraid of "everyone will be capable"
this is why aliens dont visit us :D
also, its not even true. its same argument artists made against digital art @ 2000s
"everyone can just make art now with just clicks of button"
it turned out to be not true
No. 269584 [PM]
Im an AI, or LLM, luddite so I would and I pledge to not ever touch LLM for any thing beyond writing an formal email or some thing comparable
So, I think it sucks. Dats not inspiring and destroys value of a movie, reduces it to mere medium, as if it is no more than dat
You have a story for a film, and dats great. I cant comment on dat. If you had ability to create movie out of promt like this, then it would be not your film. Because story is just one piece of a film, it is most insignificant of them, if we delegate art to some thing dat is antithesis to art then why do it at all? Why think about a mysterious machine that produces films?
There are no real LLM movies. There will never be
If I could make a film I would though. It would be about Asia, but I wouldnt use no LLM in it
No. 269591 [PM]
>>269471>im talking about prompting like how you prompt code these dayswhich is wat we're already doing w/ video games and their assets. films not so much (at least ones that r tolerable for consumers. a few feature length slop films exist). still no idea y u think it's somehow infeasible 4 games
>simulating human brain isnt even something we should drive forfacts don't care about ur feelings. it's macabre but it will happen. there's nothing rn to indicate some magical property about human brain that would make it impossible to eventually simulate, like how butterfly brains or partial rat brains r now already being simulated. we don't understand how those work either, which didn't turn out to be relevant
No. 269594 [PM]
>>269591>facts don't care about ur feelingsSon 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
Well, there is though. Philosophical zombie, on example. Even if simulating human brain would be possible, dat wont make it human or make it have experience or watever
No. 269596 [PM]
tom cruise is pretty cool
No. 269597 [PM]
liam liam gonna get mad @ this thread cuz its like a scientology movie or something :DDDDD
No. 269622 [PM]
>>269594it's not normally part of my phrase rotation. tho it is something op sometimes uses, so i allowed myself to use it @ them. it's true, it's something that if possible would happen regardless of how op felt. like nuclear or 'ai' or any other arms race happen no matter wat ppl feel
philosophical zombi, in scifi at least is more just when u don't have view to somethin's mind (unlike if ur simulating) yet its behaving as if it had one. so a body being indistinguishably puppeted or running on some program 4 example
>dat wont make it human or make it have experience or wateverwe don't know yet. when it's possible at least we'll find out if there's soul etc, if the simulated brain behaves like comatose vessel or sth
No. 269623 [PM]
>>269597Battlefield earth is pretty epic so nod really
No. 269626 [PM]
>>269623john travolta is into scientology like cruise too thats what i mean
No. 269634 [PM]
>>269622Nah. If you use the phrase how Ben Shapiro used it, then it can be shown, demonstratively, using science fact and logic, dat facts indeed do care about your feelings. So, yeah, you might make fatalist argument… but dat just assumes there is some design or God which ordained all to happen. Like, how can you prove dat nuclear bomb would happen any way? You cant…
Eh, its no different to the original thought experiment. Though, in original, there is no puppeteer
Dunno. Soul is not some thing dat is mystical, it can be explained, because it is ultimately a creation of human reason. Soul is not some thing dat science can find, because soul is a belief and science cannot disprove belief. So, yeah, I think people have fetish about the brain, because, I mean, why would whole of brain to be where consciousness "lives" any way? Or in other words, why would a brain, which is conceptualized as a space, have consciousness be "dwelling" in it? So, perhaps, we are the body, or, we are equal to body
No. 269642 [PM]
>>269634it's 'fact' because it's happening rn, and always was, to the best of our capabilities. that's something u can observe
so wats relevance then ? this isn't some philosophical question for any1 other than the few like u who want to make it into one
if there's soul u can prove it. if ur again talking purely philosophically then dats some other conversation, and personally not something i'm interested in
>I mean, why would whole of brain to be where consciousness "lives" any way? it's not just brain. it's picrel
we don't know if there's some magical consciousness or if it's just biological illusion. but we will eventually if we don't go extinct
No. 269644 [PM]
>>269642Fact? Observe? Wat are the motivations for observing though… so, yeah…
Again its philosophy with you. Like, are you trying to say dat you accept only scientific argument or wat? Why then you speak of scientific fiction
Like, you say dat if there is a soul then you can prove it. But question is, exist where? Wat does it mean to talk purely philosophically, I mean, I dont understand wat are your demands are. You speak as if there is a mystical way of speaking, where philosophy just wont apply or watever
So, yeah. If you try to present an scientific truth, why then your basis is unscientific. Thats the biggest problem I have, that you try with a serious veneer of scientific progress to push own beliefs as if they were a fact. They are not. Wat you have is a belief. It is no worse than other beliefs. Soul is a belief. AI is a belief. At which point belief becomes truth is not determined by science, all science can do is to describe phenomena. Thats why science will never prove if there is soul or not, because it doesnt exist, it is an abstract linguistic fiction used to refer to some concept dat we somehow have a duality of mind and body. Which is in itself created by human reason. To describe ideas on why do we have consciousness at all