This is a common perspective among people that don't realize how much goes into making a movie. That stuff informs which movies get approved and it certainly can inform broader script changes, casting changes, and in some cases editing decisions, but there's a UNIVERSE of other artistic decisions that need to be made. Implying that the people involved are mere technicians implementing a marketing strategy is exponentially more reductive than saying developers and designers aren't relevant to making software because marketing surveys dictate the feature development timeline. A developer's input is far more fungible than an artist working on a feature film.
I assure you, they don't do surveys on the punchiness and strategy used by foley artists; the slope and toe of the film stock chosen for cut scenes by the DP or that those cut scenes should be shot like cut scenes instead of dream sequences; the kind of cars they use; how energetic the explosions are; clothing selection and how the costumes change situationally or throughout the film; indescribably nuanced changes in the actor's delivery; what fonts go on the signs; which props they use in all of the sets and the strategies they use to weather things; what specific locations they shoot at within an area and which direction they point the camera, how the grading might change the mood and imply thematic connections, subtle symbolism used, the specifics of camera movements, focus, and depth of field, and then there's the deeeep world of lighting... All of those things and a million others are contributions from individual artists contributing their own art in one big collaborative project.
> Implying that the people involved are mere technicians implementing a marketing strategy
Well no. Instead, I am implying that they are as much of a "technician" so someone who is putting in a huge amount of effort into making AI videos.
If you want to say that it is perfectly possible for someone to put a high amount of vision and make a large amount of creative decisions into AI videos, then I agree.
> All of those things and a million others are contributions
Yes I agree that there can be a million other contributions to making AI videos. Glad you agree too.
Your sarcastic, bad faith, I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I-level statements attack positions I dont hold, yet avoid addressing anything I said— all of which is based on my professional experience with using generative AI in media creation, and also film production pipelines and workflows. Your retort might have made you feel better about making baseless statements but it certainly didn't lend credibility to those statements or you in anybody else's eyes.
Never in my entire life have I said it's not possible for the AI image generation process to include a lot of creative decisions. In fact, I've repeatedly said the opposite. Like I said, you're attacking positions I don't have.
I use prompt-based generative AI in creative ways as part of my professional processes all the time. And you know what? They are nowhere close to being useful for generating anything that plays a significant on-screen role in high-end media creation. Anybody who says they are does not know how different the requirements for high-end use cases are.
You're using me as a proxy to toe the line of a ridiculous ideological polemic that I have nothing to do with. If you want to argue with someone that has the uniform, standard-issue set of anti-AI opinions you expect to encounter so you don't have to consider your arguments too much, there's like thousands of them right over on reddit. Easy.
You seem to have forgotten what this conversation is about in your herculean effort to still feel right about saying something utterly ridiculous. You said this:
> You still aren't getting it. Movie directors aren't making these decisions either.
> What they are doing, is listening to market focus groups and checking off boxes based on the data from that.
> A market focus group driven decisions for a movie is just as much, if not more so, of an "algorithm" than when a literal computer makes the decision.
> Thats not art. Its the same as if a human manually did an algorithm by hand and used that to make a movie.
I responded as a professional in the field pointing out how ridiculous that take is, and then everything else that you said is putting words in my mouth based on opinions you assumed I had, but do not. I'm not arguing a "side" here-- I'm pointing out that something you said about practices in my field is entirely baseless. I have too much of a professional stake in this to pick a "side" because I actually have to deliver great work to spec, on time, and can't be bothered to field a whole bunch of people either with dunning-kruger confidence in their understanding technology or dunning-kruger confidence in understanding art having the nerve to be condescending while making entirely baseless, glib comments about what I do for a living, and acting like the righteousness of their cause makes it ok to be full of shit. If you want to be able to argue a "side" where you're just vaguely responsible for your grand idea and it doesn't really matter if you're full of it because nobody else there knows what they're talking about, either, then reddit is a tiny little ascii string down the street.
> Never in my entire life have I said it's not possible for the AI image generation process to include a lot of creative decisions. In fact, I've repeatedly said the opposite.
Hey well you said this. This is agreeing with what my point is, and I am glad we were able to clear up any possible misunderstandings, or I convinced you or similar.
As far as I am concerned you don't have any disagreements with my central point, which is good enough for me.
I am glad we cleared up the main miscommunication.
Cool. Nothing says intellectual confidence like refusing to acknowledge someone pointing out that you're spouting complete nonsense. Glad you were able to protect your ego by deciding I was talking about something that was more convenient for you. I sure hope you decide not to challenge your Dunning-Kruger confidence in backing up your ideas with "facts" and "information" based on the "content-aware fill" your brain uses in lieu of actual knowledge of movies as an artform and professional media production. I'm really happy that you think your "central point" means you can use naive assumptions lacking requisite information by orders of magnitude to condescendingly disparage real people's jobs and artistic practices. Surely, lacking knowledge of commercial art production doesn't negatively affect your ability to reason about the usage and effects of generative AI in commercial art production on both a practical and philosophical level. Surely. I hope you'll continue to pontificate about the finer points of this topic while refusing to consider dramatically more informed sources if they don't completely match your line of reasoning.
I assure you, they don't do surveys on the punchiness and strategy used by foley artists; the slope and toe of the film stock chosen for cut scenes by the DP or that those cut scenes should be shot like cut scenes instead of dream sequences; the kind of cars they use; how energetic the explosions are; clothing selection and how the costumes change situationally or throughout the film; indescribably nuanced changes in the actor's delivery; what fonts go on the signs; which props they use in all of the sets and the strategies they use to weather things; what specific locations they shoot at within an area and which direction they point the camera, how the grading might change the mood and imply thematic connections, subtle symbolism used, the specifics of camera movements, focus, and depth of field, and then there's the deeeep world of lighting... All of those things and a million others are contributions from individual artists contributing their own art in one big collaborative project.