It won't upend the VFX industry.
If a workflow cannot support iterating on every detail in isolation with psychotic levels of control, it won't even be adopted by the VFX industry.
If a workflow cannot support iterating on every detail in isolation with psychotic levels of control, it won't even be adopted by the VFX industry.
An AI model doesn't get tired of receiving direction and doing retakes.
It's a matter of time.
Kids at home will be making Star Wars, not Industrial Lights and Magic.
People who don't mind having output that's an aesthetic amalgam of whatever it has already ingested won't mind using these sorts of tools to generate work. For a movie studio that lives and dies on presenting imagery so precisely and thoughtfully crafted that it leaves a lasting impression for decades, I doubt it will be anything more than a tool in the toolkit to smooth things along for the people who've made careers figuring out how to do that.
I think there's two reasons this sort of thinking is so prevelant. A) Since developers are only really exposed to the tools-end of other people's professions, they tend to forget that the most important component is the brain that's dreaming up the imagery and ideas to begin with. Art school or learning to be an artist is a lot more about thinking, ideas, analyzing, interpreting, and honing your eye than about using tools... people without those skills who can use amazing generative tools will make smooth, believable looking garbage in no time flat from the comfort of their own living rooms. Great. B) Most people, especially those from primarily STEM backgrounds, don't really understand what art communicates beyond what it physically represents and maybe some intangible vibe or mood. Someone who really knows what they're talking about would probably take longer to accurately describe an existing artistic image than would be reasonable to feed to a prompt. Once again, that will be fine for a lot of people-- even small game studios, for example, that need to generate assets for their 3rd mobile release this month, but it's got miiiiles to go before it's making a movie scene or key game moment that people will remember for decades.
I'd hope so, but there are a lot of films churning out the next Michael Bay Transformers-type movie which also get the vast majority of VFX work and make the most revenue that upending the VFX industry might remove a lot of jobs.
Why do people say stuff like this? How do you know what machines will ever be able to do, can you tell the future? And more fundamentally, do you believe humans are more than a biological machine? If you don't (and thus aren't a physicalist) then sure, you can make statements like this because you'd believe that humans have something fundamentally different that no machine can replicate, but if you do think so, you'd believe that anything humans can do, machines will eventually be able to do, even if it takes a long time.
At first you seemed to be insinuating that AI will "upend vfx" because a lot fof movies are "like transformers" and now you're saying "never is a long time and what if AI becomes like a human"
What makes you think industrial light and magic or anyone in the vfx thinks this way? It has been one of the most competitive and rapidly changing industries in the last 40 years.
I'm completely done with this pointless pedantic argument against your lack of understanding.
And if you're done with this argument, as you've mentioned a few times over threads, I'm not sure why you continue to reply.
We're not even close to knowing what every part of the brain does, or even have a complete model of how individual biological neurons work, let alone know how we would replicate them, let alone have the potential for doing so in my career.
https://nautil.us/the-big-problem-with-big-science-venturesl...
Might this happen in a really, really long time? Maybe? We're sure as hell not going to do it with a cluster of GPUs. The actual functions of the neurochemical parts that drive emotion are one of the parts we know least about.
So I guess I'm in this for the long haul. What other aspect of this topic can you make bold declarations about without actually having checked if they're correct?
--------
EDIT: I once again can't reply because HN probably has better sense than I do.
The context of this conversation is the VFX industry. Your assertion was that people who work in the VFX industry shouldn't be surprised if AI takes their jobs. You've moved the goalpost continents from that argument, instead arguing that you're still theoretically correct because in some distant future, science will prevail in mimicking or creating biological machines that can perceive emotion.
Please re-read what I said. In the very first comment I made where I said "Maybe a subsequent generation that is vastly more precise, but this isn't even ballpark." And then after that I said that when we get to the stage where machines can do this, it'll philosophically be actual intelligence and not artificial intelligence. Pretending that's in the scope of this conversation is just daft. And then in this very comment where I mused that it might happen in a really long time. We both know that's not relevant to the current VFX industry and you're just not capable of admitting you're wrong.
Any other topics you'd like to pretend the discussion is about so you can pretend you're still correct?
You are again missing my entire point, which is to not say things like something is "never" going to happen if we already observe it happening. I'm not sure how many times I can repeat this point over and over. If you disagree that brains are not biological machines or that they can be replicated by humans through technology, just tell me now and we can stop, that is a fundamental difference that is unreconcilable in just an HN conversation.