Why would they change? The AI tools in movie industry have been doing miracles for decades. Especially when it comes to tracking and replacing things in footage, which jumpstarted the new era of CGI. OP, do you also want to ban movies like Avatar?
Its probably better this way.
Otherwise you end up with people accusing movies of using AI when they didn't.
And then there's the question of how you decide where to draw the line for what's considered AI as well as how much of it was used to help with the end result.
Did you use AI for storyboarding, but no diffusion tools were used in the end product?
Did one of the writers use ChatGPT for brainstorming some ideas but nothing was copy/pasted from directly?
Did they use a speech to text model to help create the subtitles in different languages, but then double checked all the work with translators?
Etc.
Otherwise you end up with people accusing movies of using AI when they didn’t.
Or worse, all movies lying into everyone's face that they don't use AI much like they have been doing with the 'No CGI' lies in recent years.
Also AI isn't only LLMs and image generation, it's a massive field that's been used in different things for decades. "No AI" would mean "back to snipping movies using practical effects together from spools of film", as basically every CGI and editing software uses something "AI" in it these days.
Those rules actually seemed pretty reasonable to me. Shitty, obvious uses of AI will obviously not win Oscars.
Ahh the great hivemind pendulum where if something is hyped and has some notable cons, it’s time to throw it away completely and resist it without prejudice.
This is happening with crypto too. To me, it just signals that a person is highly receptive to adopting whatever the hivemind tells them to think without question.
Obviously crypto and AI have some properties that make them utterly horrible (especially in the hands of bad people). But they also have some properties that have the capability to revolutionize or accomplish certain things like no other technology can.
No one seems to acknowledge this dichotomy when they’re unflinchingly under the influence of the hivemind. For example, I’m ~~100% positive that this comment will get downvoted heavily~~ pretty sure I’d be ratioed for saying this on Mastodon.
I’m 100% positive that this comment will get downvoted heavily
Don't worry, buddy, I'll get you started. 🫡
But it's icky because the issue of remuneration for legacy actors remains the unspoken part here. Actors train for their whole lives and these models have the potential to undermine the value of these actors.
I don't have a problem with AI in filmmaking but I'd have a problem if AI actors were suddenly winning awards in the acting category.
Paired with the recent change that Oscar award judges are no longer allowed to skip parts of the media they're reviewing (because apparently that was a thing), the number of AI slop movies is going to be absolutely gruelling for them to wade through.
One possible outcome is that this means AI kills the Oscars... but it's more likely to get that watch-all rule rolled back.
And either way, it would probably mean that we'll never see another 2001: A Space Odyssey again because a bunch of that movie looks like AI slop.
... I just realised this means that AI-generated movies could well end up being trained - accidentally or on purpose - to determine what would generate the most Oscars by exploiting underlying psychology that exists only in the sort of people who are employed as Oscar judges, but which somehow manages to mostly exclude everyone else.
That said, many people disagree with the Oscar nominations and awards anyway, so whether that makes any real difference is probably moot.
They shouldn't care since "AI" doesn't actually exist.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
