Wonder how long until Hollywood CGI shops have these types of models running as part of their post-production pipeline. Big blockbusters often release with ridiculously broken CGI due to crunch (Black Panther's third act was notorious for looking like a retro video-game), adding some extra generative polish in those cases is a no-brainer.
Hollywood has incredible financial and political power. And even if fully AI generated movies reach the same quality (both visually and story wise) as current ones, there’s a lot of value in the shared experience of watching the same movies as other people, that a complete collapse of the industry seems highly unlikely to me.
What quality? Current industry movies are, for lack of better term, inbred. Sound too loud, washed out rigid color scheme, keeping attention of the audience captive at all costs. They already exclude large, more sensitive, part of population that hates all of this despite the shared experience. And AI is exceptionally good at further inbreeding to the extreme.
While of course it isn't impossible for any industry to reinvent itself, movie as an art form won't die....having doubts about where it's going.
I wouldn’t have any confidence in any predictions I make 100 years into the future even if we didn’t have the current AI developments.
With that said, I’m pretty confident that the movie industry will exist in 10 years (maybe heavily tranformed, but still existing and still pretty big). If it’s still a big part of current popculture by then (vs obviously on its way out) then I’d expect a collapse of it to require a change that is not a result of AI proliferation, but something else entirely.
My point is that many talk about AI as though it's not going to evolve or get better. It's a mindset of "We don't need to talk about this because it won't happen tomorrow".
Realistically, AI being able to replace Hollywood is something that could happen in 20-50 years. That's within most people's lifetime.
Bingo. Except it looked like magic because the tech was so expensive and only available to them.
Limited access to the tech added some mystique to it too.
Just like digital cameras created a lot more average photographers, it pushed photography to a higher standard than just having access to expensive equipment.
yeah and the only reason we don't see more of it was prohibitively expensive for all but basically Disney.
the compute budgets for basic run of the mill small screen 3D rendering and 2D compositing is already massive compared to most other businesses of a similar scale. the industry has been under paying their artists for decades too.
I'm willing to bet that as soon as unreal or adobe or whoever comes out with a stable diffusion like model that can be consistent across a feature length movie, they'll stop bothering with artists altogether.
why have an entire team of actual people in the loop when the director can just tell the model what they want to see? why shy away from revisions when the model can update colour grade or edit a character model throughout the entire film without needing to re-render?
