• Match!!@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    That’s not even AI is it? It’s like a 90s Windows movie maker CG model

    • TheFunkyMonk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I really don’t understand why everyone uses AI as a term to describe anything generated by a computer.

      • hiddengoat@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Because technical literacy levels have never really improved.

        It’s why every game console is “a Nintendo” to people over 50.

      • hedgehogging_the_bed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

        • Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          If it’s in your server it’s not in “the cloud”, the cloud is code for “someone else’s server.”

    • hiddengoat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

      • Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

    • hiddengoat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

      • DeriHunter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        I’m guessing they noticed the sits empty only after filming… But this looks like a dogshit lol

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    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!

  • DarkThoughts@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

  • Sigmatank@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    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”

        • Sendbeer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          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?