I promise this question is asked in good faith. I do not currently see the point of generative AI and I want to understand why there’s hype. There are ethical concerns but we’ll ignore ethics for the question.
In creative works like writing or art, it feels soulless and poor quality. In programming at best it’s a shortcut to avoid deeper learning, at worst it spits out garbage code that you spend more time debugging than if you had just written it by yourself.
When I see AI ads directed towards individuals the selling point is convenience. But I would feel robbed of the human experience using AI in place of human interaction.
So what’s the point of it all?
Video generators are going to eat Hollywood alive. A desktop computer can render anything, just by feeding in a rough sketch and describing what it’s supposed to be. The input could be some kind of animatic, or yourself and a friend in dollar-store costumes, or literal white noise. And it’ll make that look like a Pixar movie. Or a photorealistic period piece starring a dead actor. Or, given enough examples, how you personally draw shapes using chalk. Anything. Anything you can describe to the point where the machine can say it’s more [thing] or less [thing], it can make every frame more [thing].
Boring people will use this to churn out boring fluff. Do you remember Terragen? It’s landscape rendering software, and it was great for evocative images of imaginary mountains against alien skies. Image sites banned it, by name, because a million dorks went ‘look what I made!’ and spammed their no-effort hey-neat renders. Technically unique - altogether dull. Infinite bowls of porridge.
Creative people will use this to film their pet projects without actors or sets or budgets or anyone else’s permission. It’ll be better with any of those - but they have become optional. You can do it from text alone, as a feral demo that people think is the whole point. The results are massively better from even clumsy effort to do things the hard way. Get the right shapes moving around the screen, and the robot will probably figure out which ones are which, and remove all the pixels that don’t look like your description.
The idiots in LA think they’re gonna fire all the people who write stories. But this gives those weirdos all the power they need to put the wild shit inside their heads onto a screen in front of your eyeballs. They’ve got drawers full of scripts they couldn’t hassle other people into making. Now a finished movie will be as hard to pull off as a decent webcomic. It’s gonna get wild.
And this’ll be great for actors, in ways they don’t know yet.
Audio tools mean every voice actor can be a Billy West. You don’t need to sound like anything, for your performance to be mapped to some character. Pointedly not: “mapped to some actor.” Why would an animated character have to sound like any specific person? Do they look like any specific person? Does a particular human being play Naruto, onscreen? No. So a game might star Nolan North, exclusively, without any two characters really sounding alike. And if the devs need to add a throwaway line later, then any schmuck can half-ass the tone Nolan picked for little Suzy, and the audience won’t know the difference. At no point will it be “licensing Nolan North’s voice.” You might have no idea what he sounds like. He just does a very convincing… everybody.
Video tools will work the same way for actors. You will not need to look like anything, to play a particular character. Stage actors already understand this - but it’ll come to movies and shows in the form of deep fakes for nonexistent faces. Again: why would a character have to look like any specific person? They might move like a particular actor, but what you’ll see is somewhere between motion-capture and rotoscoping. It’s CGI… ish. And it thinks perfect photorealism is just another artistic style.