- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@derp.foo
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@derp.foo
cross-posted from: https://derp.foo/post/317313
There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.
You must log in or register to comment.
That’s not even AI is it? It’s like a 90s Windows movie maker CG model
I really don’t understand why everyone uses AI as a term to describe anything generated by a computer.
Because technical literacy levels have never really improved.
It’s why every game console is “a Nintendo” to people over 50.
I like to play Nintendo on my PlayStation.
Someone who’s 50 today would’ve been 12 in 1985 when the NES was released in North America. Basically the target audience.
You’re thinking of their parents (Boomers).
Literally nothing you said matters.
The same way they convinced everyone that they should say “cloud” instead of 'on our servers."
They stopped saying “algorithm” and started saying “AI”
Once it’s used as a marketing term, the technical term loses all meaning in conversational language.
If it’s in your server it’s not in “the cloud”, the cloud is code for “someone else’s server.”
I was thinking more from the marketing perspective " We keep your data on our servers!" verses “We keep your data in the cloud!” since the point was that the marketers of these things in particular are fucking up the terminology.
If you are already in possession of a server then you’re probably aware it’s not a cloud.
that’s what they said
“cloud” really means “several servers in parallel for redundancy” at which point it is kinda useful
Thanks to all the clickbait headlines, a lot of people suddenly think everything is AI.
Just like every aircraft with 4 rotors is a drone.
You’re wrong. Everything in a headline about a technology story is automatically AI.
This specific thing is not AI, but that’s not actually relevant because this is still an example of the issue at hand. Namely, it’s now cheaper to just throw some shitty CG in the background than it is to pay people to be there and executives don’t see a problem with this. While this particular example of four or five models may not seem like much (especially using stock-ass animations like that), it’s not long before you’ll be seeing scenes where fifteen or twenty background extras are replaced by AI driven CG that behaves like someone that played a similar role five years ago whose motions were cataloged and reused.
THAT is the crux of the issue. The studios basically want to scan and own everyone that ever appears onscreen. It’s fucking gross, and it needs to die on the vine.
CGI crowds have been a thing for literally decades. I think the last time you needed 100% extras to fill a scene was the 90s.
But this is so… janky. Usually, they put actors in the front, a couple of “layers” of extras, and then CGI where it’s harder to notice.
This is so obvious it almost looks like those intentionally janky CGI shorts or music videos and intended to be humorous.
I knew some dink was going to bring up Massive style crowd simulations which is why I VERY FUCKING SPECIFICALLY quoted a small crowd size where individual actions actually matter, which is a far different thing.
Older style crowd simulations don’t really use AI as we define it now. They use preset animations that can be cycled through for various circumstances. A few dozen walk cycles, maybe thirty or forty “CHOP HOBBIT IN HALF” animations, throw in some jumping or arm waving and you’ve got yourself a crowd simulation.
That is not what we are talking about.
AI? Looks rather like low tier CGI instead. Most “crowds” are CGI, have been for many years. They’re just usually made in a higher quality to hide it better.
In The Phantom Menace the crowds for the podracing scenes were just painted cotton swabs. They blew a fan at them to make them move.
That’s actually really cool. Practical effects and creativity >>>>>> lazy CGI.
https://youtu.be/bxN1xx-bdpM?si=4cn0Jzlh6LiHjfmk more at 17:57
That’s actually extremely creative and clever.
There’s been so, so much amazing design for this film series over the decades. Especially with regard to the sound design (known as foley). Iirc the ‘pew pew’ laser noises were made by tapping a taut pylon line with a hammer, and the lightsaber noises were discovered by accident when a microphone was swung near a TV set (though I could be misremembering some details there, been a while since I read the book about it).
That’s the funniest thing I’ve seen all week.
This technology will get better, to the point I imagine most of us won’t be able to see the difference. Scary stuff all around.
Though this shot is rather telling because that background character is “Center right” which basically gives it a spotlight. At that point, it is no longer a background, it is the scene.
Though, it is a high-school teen sports Disney movie, so I am not expecting much in the form of creativity or effort.
This article is designed to piss off the ignorant. Nothing more.
How the fuck can they be so greedy?
They make bazillions of dollars per year (if not per month), and they are unwilling to pay just a bit of money for extras.
Fuck film execs, I hope there is another strike.
We reach a new, comical level of greed, and then they find a way to top it.
This kind of thing isn’t new. [Here’s a clip](https://youtu.be/Zh7eAG2jJkA} from Three Amigos from 1986. The background characters are just a static painting.
Because we live in a system where paying more for doing the right thing will get fired and sued for lost profits as a CEO. If you run a publicly traded company, you are legally beholden to make the decision that yields the most profit, full stop.
I keep seeing people regurgitate this nonsense.
Source or gtfo.
Bro are you dumb
I’m as cynical as anybody else and there was a time I also would have repeated it as well.
But… show me the law. Show me where it says this.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_suit
I don’t know where you live so I can’t quote your local laws to you, but in this age of information you can Google terms and they will present relevant links. You should try it sometime.
Your phrasing was “legally beholden” which suggests to me that a law exists requiring directors and officers to choose the most profitable path. The wikipedia page you linked does not mention any such law. It describes a type of lawsuit that investors can bring against those running the company.
Perhaps they didn’t use the right words. Iirc the correct term is ‘fiduciary duty’. A publicly traded company has a fiduciary duty to create value for shareholders.
The duties of some fiduciaries have been codified, for example, the statutory duty of skill and care which is imposed upon trustees by section 1 of the Trustee Act 2000 (TrA 2000) and the relationship between company directors and the company under the Companies Act 2006
https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/fiduciary-duties
They are only legally beholden to do what their shareholders collectively want. While it’s not necessarily just for profit, if the shareholders are only demanding more profits, that’s how the company will behave.
There will be no sources provided because there are no sources to prove it.
I wouldn’t want to deal with additional background characters either even if they played the role for free.
It’s just more contracts to be signed, more people on set, more potential things that don’t go as planned. Its a lot of extra work and organisation needed for something that pretty much no normal viewer would notice if done at least semi professionally.
I’ve watched that clip probably a dozen times and laughed every time. They have an entire row of fake mannequin people in the middle of the shot surrounded by lots of real actors and extras. Utterly bizarre.
This is why I don’t use the word “content” to describe this stuff. That’s the word execs use, and it’s because they see this kind of thing as fine. It’s just mass-produced product to them.
I had a look as well, and that’s gotta be 1995 dancing baby tier CGI. The effects department must be dusting off the old SGI indys because the budget clearly went to Bob’s next yacht
To be fair, the actors and extras in those 2 seconds aren’t doing much better trying to not look robotic. Some of the CGI mannequins were obvious, but others were less obviously CGI than basketball player 2.
Holy shit they’re barely even trying
I thought they might have been doing it in protest because some of the mannequins are clapping off the beat, but then I realized it matches one of the real actors in the front, and now I’m just thanking myself that I haven’t watched a Disney movie since I took a gamble on their first SW flick.
What a bunch of manufactured outrage. Holy shit.
Yes, it’s outrageous that they manufactured some CGI actors rather than paying actual humans AND didn’t even bother upgrading their Poser-tier textures or animations.
If you’re going to do it, at least don’t suck at it.
I’m guessing they noticed the sits empty only after filming… But this looks like a dogshit lol
Genuinely, I wonder what the cutoff will be for calling something live-action.
Ask Toy Story Football.
What an embarrassment that was. I hope it got better, I could only bear like half of the first quarter.
Are we sure that isn’t a crash test dummy?
Slightly used
I can hear the executive after they got the crowd shot and somebody noted the stands looked pretty empty: “Just have the AI fill it in”
CGI is AI now? I guess if you really want to go out of your way to find something to complain about-
This would be something.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
While the WGA has since come to an agreement with studios, SAG-AFTRA’s strike is still ongoing — and the use of artificial intelligence in the industry has remained a huge point of contention, with actors calling for protections against studios using AI-generated versions of their voices or likenesses — and for good reason.
The clip, which first made its rounds on social media back in April, shows an audience seated on bleachers watching a high school basketball game.
The clip reignited a heated debate surrounding the use of computer-generated imagery in film, and how the tech could eventually replace human actors, a major talking point during SAG-AFTRA’s ongoing negotiations.
In a press conference immediately following the union’s call for a strike in July, executive director and chief negotiator Duncan Crabtree-Ireland revealed that the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers proposed to have background performers scanned, “get paid for one day’s pay, and their company should own that scan their image, their likeness and should be able to use it for the rest of eternity.”
“Disney is insane and just more reason why the AMPTP needs to ditch this plan to replace background actors with AI,” freelance writer Christopher Marc, who recently shared the “Prom Pact” clip, tweeted.
This week, SAG-AFTRA proposed a bill to lawmakers called the NO FAKES Act, “creating new and urgently needed protections for voice and likeness in the age of generative artificial intelligence.”
The original article contains 431 words, the summary contains 237 words. Saved 45%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
But you’re AIIIIII.
The AI summary was coming from inside the house
I remember this set in 3D Movie Maker
“Those bullies won’t bother me now”
“What’s up Wanda?”
For the folks saying this is nothing new and nbd - Id watch the animated version first lol
I don’t have any issue with CGI extras in general (plenty of movies have done it well), but this shit is just bad lol
I can’t believe this article is new, this happened months ago at the least. @Marbleturtle@theres.life sent me this meme making fun of it earlier this year:
This is not new and has nothing to do with AI. AI is like 5G, but for mass audience.
Who gives a shit?!
Anyone with more than two functioning brain cells.
Why is this bs relevant?!
It’s in a movie… this is a TV and movie community.?
Might not be interesting to you, but it’s relevant to the topic. The real question is why don’t you just move on?
