I don't mind fake shit (if it's good), but I too hate it when it's passed off as real. For now, there are always giveaways that it's fake, but it will get harder and harder to tell. I don't necessarily want the law to get involved, but it'd be nice to have some system to flag these. Or at least have rules on platforms that require flagging them.
And that's the problem. Aunt Gertrude who believes in chemtrails and the Plandemic is going to think whatever she's watching is legitimate. Sony's newest camcorder will be getting this in a firmware update: The PXW-Z300 is the world’s first camcorder – according to Sony data and as of July 2025 – to embed digital signatures directly into video files, enabling content authentication to address the evolving needs of the content creation industry, including the growing demand for content authenticity. The camera supports the C2PA standard for recording authenticity information. Recording authenticity information in video content requires a separate upgrade license. This license is available in limited regions and is compatible with the MP4 video format. I don't know how that digital signature would work (is it something you see on screen? Do you need a special reader or something?) and, as the bolded parts imply, not all outlets will spring for the extra license and it won't be available in every country.
I imagine there's metadata in the MP4 datastream that holds this information and it's encrypted in a way that any tampering is easily detected because the cipher is based on the actual picture data. Does it get erased if you transcode to another format? Apparently so. First, because the metadata won't transfer and second, because the picture data changes. This is something suppliers across the industry need to agree to support in order for it to become commonplace (and therefore useful).
I saw this YouTube short of a critic in 1977 railing against Star Wars because of its abundance of and over-reliance on visual effects and couldn't help being reminded of this discussion about AI. YouTube short: Critic Destroys Star Wars in 1977 Now, it would be wrong to say that because critics have wrongly predicted bad outcomes from technological innovation before that all technical innovation will be good. But it's true that sometimes people are only able to see the potential downside. They can't imagine the good.
"AI" as it is now isn't the AI we were promised by utopian science fiction. Nor is it Skynet. It's...human beings tracing to be Borg King with stock bubbles instead of nanites. And "AI" is the bicycle pump for the bubble. It would need to be in better human hands, and it just isn't.
Everyone glosses over how the world outside the simulation in "Ready Player One" is a dystopic fucking nightmare. The economics of this bullshit isn't sustainable.
No, but it's early days yet. AI will probably follow the standard hype curve for technological development, but there doesn't seem a way to short cut it. In the end, AI will probably fall short of the grandest expectations and settle into being a solid productivity gain. The better hands--whomever you think them to be--aren't the ones who actually develop technologies. It probably has to happen the way it does or not at all. But I don't see how you can lose (at least in the long run). Movie studios and producers want to make money and if AI helps--attracts bigger audiences and/or lowers production costs--it will become another standard tool in the toolbox. If not, it will be abandoned.
No, that's demonstrable bullshit. Silicon Valley was founded by nice guys. These narcissistic libertarian fuckwads are a new batch. I wish I had the slightest cause for optimism, but I'm just not seeing the signs of it. I've seen the way these tech giants have deliberately gotten more and more flat out adversarial to the end user, and it's not a good environment for this tech to be sprouting in. It's like if someone gave the crusaders phasers, and the inquisition laser whips.
Had you an awareness of the politics of the Silicon Valley pioneers, you may well have found them objectionable as well. But the situation has changed. And yet we still have more, better, and cheaper options than ever before. I think your problem is not so much with the development of technology, but who uses it and for what. Not trying to be argumentative, but what's gotten worse and in what way? The Crusades and the Inquisition were all about using force to compel adherence (or to eliminate non-adherence). I don't see force being applied. Many critics are saying that there's too much freedom and not enough regulation or control (which probably hides a desire to control for cynical purposes).
That's exactly my point. Supposed to, but mostly never evolved beyond the gimmick phase (not as gimmicky as D-Box, but still...). I myself will avoid 3D for most films; I certainly am not inclined to pay more for it. I think most moviegoers feel similarly, so it's kinda died off from the hype of over a decade ago. The last 3D movie I watched was because a 3D showing was the only one available in the window of time I had to watch a film. AI for filmmaking will either succeed or it will similarly fail. Disney's putting a billion dollars on the belief that it will succeed.
Humans have this tendency to saturate markets with greater and greater schlock. Yes, AI will eventually become the status quo and draw upon other AI for its source material. Is that a huge win for capitalism? Not likely.
Similar thing as the last: AI guy gets selfies with the casts of the shows he watched in his childhood.
From that very post: "In 2–3 years, there will be no way to tell what’s real and what’s not… and I have no idea how humanity will deal with this enormous problem."
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you know of Schlock, but I am kinda impressed that your go-to reference was the trailer!
More slop, you demand? This one's pretty good. It's got the TNG cast and Pamela Anderson, though the Tiffani-Amber didn't look quite right in the Saved by the Bell bit.
I like the idea on paper of Starfleet having an anthem....but some of the lines in that are Weird Al level goofy, and take me out of it.
