1. They are NOT Artificial Intelligence. They are Large Language Models – they have NO intelligence and cannot reason or think. What they do is learn patterns of numbers and repeat those patterns.
The reason they are being called “Artificial Intelligence” is marketing: the spruikers are trying to drum up investor cash to keep their new companies funded until they come up with something that actually makes money.
2. Artbots will not replace human artists. Well, not in the near future. You still need someone to tell the artbot what to “draw” and apply quality checks to what it does.
Yes you can get the
artbot to draw nice images that could be photos but they can’t be
anything really “original”.Whatever that is.
3. Artbots can’t make content with consistent characters and sets. Yet. Maybe in future.
If you want a one-shot image of something, fine – but if you want to make a full movie of a character’s adventures the best you can get is that the Artbot will do it all in one go: Reshoots with the same scenes and actors are going to be a problem. This is mainly a problem of the nature of Artbots: it’s all about processing power and memory. In theory if you had enough computing power to devote to this task you could churn out movies directly from a terminal just by typing in commands – but I doubt that they would be very good.
Big computing power costs big money and time on big systems and that means big studios will be the only ones trying that. Maybe the big studios will try to do this but then they won’t be “studios” any more, just server farms. Big ones.
Even if you got the scenes to all be consistent and the actors to be consistent you still need a script.
See below.
4. Artbots can’t write. Well to be exact they don’t write. They can absorb a library of books by human authors and assemble something from, say, five or six of them into a script but once again There is nobody home: you will need a human writer and/or director to read the script and check it to see if it even makes sense let alone makes a good story.
If we are talking movie making it needs to be interesting enough to get people to watch it which is another thing again.
If you want a whole lot of sequels it is going to work just fine but if you want something new, with a new style and new ideas . . . . forget it.
Sounds like Hollywood already, right?
So there it is: I predict that big studios will pour zillions into “AI” movie machines and probably tell us all that it will bring “A new age of movies” or something like that, and no doubt there is will be some successes – but in the end they will still be derived from previous movies and media and not really anything original . . . . and you will still be able to see hints of the artifical nature of them in places.
Small Independent movie makers will pop up doing their best to provide real live action works that don’t go big on special effects and have real actors who you can see in other media and people will always connect with that because we need real identities to identify with in stories.
People want real people in their stories. Unreal people can still be attractive but they don’t have a real existence so they don’t have opinions or families or get in car accidents or have cousins or do dumb things that tell us they are real fallible humans.
As stated above, AI is a sales pitch, not a real thing.
Getting robot electronic brains and hardware to work well enough to replace humans in menial tasks (General Purpose AI) is a big, big, BIG challenge and our hardware and software is still not up to it.
Nowhere near it.
Robots that operate in pre-prepared situations and do limited operations such as the robots on a production line are plentiful and cheap because they are very simple.
General Artificial Intelligence is not near and when it is eventually reached (if ever) it will be running on huge server systems because the requirement is so huge that nothing on a desktop will have enough processing power and memory to do it.
Don't believe the hype.
