Hallucinating it would be if it came up with the concept all by itself. Like I asked where I could see the latest Avatar film and it said "easy, just go onto ftp.disney.com and download it".
The year is 2026
"hey, how can I watch 'avatar 3 - tokyo drift' today? it's not out yet." "easy, just go onto ftp.disney.com and download it". "really?? can you do it for me?" "yeah here it is"
suspiciously fast response arrives, with a video which is a movie about blue aliens that gpt6 has just asked midjourney 8 to create for it.
In a not so distant future you will create your own movies.
Or even better: There will be models teached on a show you really liked but which was cancelled and you will be able to continue it to eternity.
You can't take the sky from me~
"Firefly season 2 by rustyBones447 is the best one"
Not really challenges, but business models. There is no free lunch so to say. Maybe there will be highly personalized subscriptions that allow for hyperparameter tuning in this way.
I doubt this is something Netflix fears, it is something they gonna embrace. Computation of such movies won't be cheap.
A large part of value of movies, TV shows, books, videogames - even paintings and sculptures - is that they're part of external and shared reality. With self-generated movies (shows, books, games, ...), there will be no process of discovery to enjoy, no immersion to experience. There will be nothing to share or discuss with others, as everyone will have their own version of the story. There will be no canonical version to talk about - there will only be everyone's headcanon, all equivalent, all personal. All boring and worthless.
Now imagine if anyone could casually just fork a piece of writing and adapt to their personal tastes. "Like this, but make X be in love with Y instead of Z. Also make Z not really die but make a surprise comeback in the final chapter." It might be fun to play with such capability for a moment or two, but I can't imagine anyone enjoying exchanging such stories - if everyone can trivially change anything, then everything becomes arbitrary. There is no story, only everyone looking at their own selfie.
Incidentally, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 already give us this capability with smaller pieces of fiction. You can literally alter any short story like I described above, today. Anyone can. And somehow, I don't see any takers. I think people realize there's no entertainment value in it. Hence, this is what might just save Hollywood et al.
Erotica is one exception to what I described above, as it's by nature the kind of fiction to be enjoyed personally, not in a wider context. And, of course, erotic story generators are as old as the Internet.
Writing, even prompting, is more work than reading, and it takes some of the fun out of it - plot twists are no fun if you told someone what they should be.
Plain ChatGPT still requires a bit back and force to get complex tasks going, but Auto-GPT already has a loop around it that makes it possible for GPT to feed into itself and perform complex tasks that are beyond a singular prompt line.
Even without that, ChatGPT can already provide quite serviceable short stories, with no effort on the user beyond "write a short story". The biggest practical show stopper right now is that ChatGPT has strict filtering, so the moment you have guns, action and death, the story just ends. BingChat is even more extreme with the filtering and will fail almost every time.
So no John Wick fanfic then
I don't think so. I think users will share what they've generated like they do now with midjourney images.
If I decided to "generate" a pilot episode of a show about robot ninjas fighting a secret war on mars, and it turns out really well, I'll share it on youtube. if enough people like it I might do ep2, or ep3. Then it becomes that shared reality.
Obviously if anyone can just say "gimme a show about robots on mars" instead of looking at what others have already created, the audience might not be as big, but no more than midjourney I'd imagine there will still be some talent and finesse involved in getting the prompts just right, and most people will be too lazy and prefer to browse what others have already done
Like it or not, on-demand fanfiction is where we're headed. It's not impossible that a canonical version of a story might be published though, like a video game. There's a main story about you saving the world from nuclear disaster, but if you spend 600 hours trying to romance the barfly in the first tavern and never fulfill your role, well, that's your story about a lecherous loser in the land of the lounge lizards, man.
This isn't anything new either; look at the Protestant Reformation. Everybody wanted a version of The Story that appealed to their own interests then too. Now you can pick a church whose ending you most prefer.
Would be awful.
The best movies I have seen I would not have been able to come up with.
https://i.ibb.co/XLFGdWp/DALL-E-2023-04-05-12-55-36-Mickey-M...
Mickey Mouse according to OpenAI is just a symptom, but the root of the issue is very deep if the people preparing the dataset intentionally decide to exclude examples due to commercial or political pressure.
https://preview.redd.it/n6wdyhyz9dra1.png?width=960&crop=sma...
https://preview.redd.it/9djj6tdflu3a1.png?width=1080&crop=sm...
https://www.reddit.com/r/midjourney/search/?q=mickey%20mouse...
And if we've learned anything about AI in the last 6 months we've learned:
1) AI is probably trained on data obtained without the creators permission
2) AI responses are very hard to control, and easily jailbroken
[1] https://petapixel.com/2023/04/03/midjourney-bans-ai-images-o...
He might just want to be able to visit china in the future
Wonder how much other open source software I am unaware of?
> that gpt6 has just asked midjourney 8
at the current rate gpt16 and midjourney --v 20 are more likely
We speak of "hallucination" when GPT provides completions that are not connected to any facts it was "provided with" in either training data or prompts, but ultimately factuality makes no difference to GPT.
It ALWAYS just "simulates" text, that's what it does.
If you'd want to use these words to describe factual accuracy, or to express if GPT "performs" an action, as opposed to "faking" a result, you have to bear in mind either of these qualifications are nothing but a human interpretation of the completion.
It being "correct" more often than not with the content of it's simulation is just a logical, but ultimately accidental consequence of being so well fitted to simulate the structure of data it trained itself on.
And a "halucination" is nothing but this simulation deviating from the context you provided, that fundamentally was simulated by the same rules that produced any other content which didn't deviate.
The truth is, we have no need for the notion as it applies to AI. It's just a catchy term that sounds great in the media. Nothing the algorithm spits out is a hallucination (or else ALL of it is) because, quite literally, It's all the same uncontrollable output.
It'd be as weird as saying your autocorrect feature "hallucinated" any time it presented the "wrong" word to you. (As if it's of clear mind the other times?!)
I'll pay, just gimme a file to download