I'm going to play Devil's Advocate on this one. I agree that it's clever. It's just a short, and designed to show what AI can do. But it's sort of a fake newsreel, to the point that it comes with a disclaimer on Youtube. Rather "War of the Worlds."
Also in the disclaimer: "None of it is real. It’s just a movie, made mostly with AI, which took care of writing the script, creating the concept art, generating all the voices, and participating in some creative decisions."
Just to take that apart a bit:
* "Made
mostly with AI." I'd be curious to know what bits weren't AI. The editing? No one talked about that. (For more questions, see below.)
* "...creating concept art, generating voices..." - That's what it does...no issues, really, except that the art was pretty 2-D and not great, nor were the voices. But I'll give it the benefit of the doubt that it was a cheap and quick one-off.
* "...which took care of writing the script." From whose concept? What do you have to ask the AI in order for it to generate a script? Can you just say, "Write a script?" I'm going to guess that the director of this AI film had a pretty good idea of what he wanted it to do, and possibly chose sci-fi for a reason. How much did he tell it before it "wrote" the script? How much of it is "guided" script-writing?
Surely producers will eventually be able to plug in things they want, and let the AI do the work, without hiring a creative on the script, to some extent: "Write me a rom-com to 110 minutes for Ryan Reynolds and any A-List Female aged 20-28." Would it be formulaic? A lot of rom-coms are, though they can be lifted by actual comedy, and charming performances. In this, you can't substitute great actors and what they bring. I'm also curious to know how long before AI has a sense of humor. I know any number of human beings that don't have one.
* "...(AI) participating in some of the creative decisions." Now there's a gap. "Some" of the creative decisions?" Not even "most"? Then, who IS making the creative decisions? The poster credits himself as the director. This goes to my point above, as in, who is the creative person who asks the AI the questions? I will stand by the notion that every film does need a director. And a producer. (And a writer, if the director isn't one, and actors, and a production designer, and an editor, at the very least. I won't bore you with the crafts people that it will still take to turn it into something that can be broadcast or screened.)
Again, it's just a short, but it would take a lot to turn it into a feature film. And what would make it watchable for 2 hours? The human stories that go with it. (This story comes from "Star Wars," "Independence Day," etc., and it's a LONG way from those. It's a faux newsreel, not a narrative.)
I am obviously advocating for the need for the human creatives in my business. These are my people. At the very least, I think writers and actors are a long way from being replaceable.
This film is not 100% AI, (self-described) so don't be fooled by that, and it's pretty far from original.
I appreciate your putting up this example,
@tented, and I'm not trying to just slag it. It helps make my case as to why the AI question in creative contract negotiations is so complicated.
