finally some good news :3
this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2026
175 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
6456 readers
535 users here now
Which posts fit here?
Any news that are at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies or tech policy.
Post guidelines
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's not gonna save Hollywood, they mean.
True, I suppose it already has permanently decreased the quality of life of CGI artists because their labor will now always be judged as a more costly alternative to AI that doesn't actually work but still serves as a good bargaining chip against employees in negotiations.
Hopefully we'll see a shift towards people that gets displaced from these big studios banding together and forming their own independent studios. This has happened quite a bit in the games industry, which is undergoing a similar shift. As long as people keep pushing back against AI-created content and favor human-created things, at least; if that public opinion shifts, we're just fucked.
I mean that's Glitch Productions' entire schtick basically and it seems to work well for them
Yeah but what makes me sad is that smaller independent studios cannot maintain an industry of artists alone and thus the gaming and movie world is going to exit the golden age we have been in.
There needs to be large, boring more "institutional" companies making large movie or game projects to provide the capacity for entry level jobs at scale, to provide more stable places for an artist to work while raising a family or to provide a stepping stone in employment between more meaningful jobs at smaller more focused companies.
I love Indie Games, I love smaller art projects of all kinds, but my point is the labor market is broken in these industries and it can lead to nowhere else than collapse of the industry.
This is a perfect example of the myth that capitalism is efficient, it can be seen here clearly that it leads directly to a periodic shattering of industries leaving only a couple of massive companies to buy up the entire landscape and consolidate control over the industry after the cataclysm.
Remember when the world shat on CGI endlessly 25 years ago?
It's like all of this is the fault of a pattern of human nature, instead of one specific technology.
Remember when Pixar and DreamWorks destroyed hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland in order to erect enormous Gray boxes filled with computers that run complex operations 24/7, consuming massive amounts of fossil fuels and fresh water, leading to unmitigated pollution; not to mention political corruption, global surveillance, rolling back privacy protections, and economic gangsterism that hasn't been seen in 100 years?
People be like "ai is just a tool" and yeah, but thats also incredibly reductive considering what AI actually is. Maybe it is a tool, but it is a tool that uses us, not the other way around. What gets called a pattern of human behavior, used to cause wars and uprisings. the pattern isnt something essential to human nature, it's socially constructed.
The fact that we find ourselves in these patterns over and over shows that the ruling class has learned to fuck us in a way so that we complain but not actually try to do anything to change society. Which shows the lack of actual freedom we have in order to live by our actual human impulses.
Remember when Pixar and DreamWorks destroyed hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland in order to erect enormous Gray boxes filled with computers that run complex operations 24/7, consuming massive amounts of fossil fuels and fresh water, leading to unmitigated pollution; not to mention political corruption, global surveillance, rolling back privacy protections, and economic gangsterism that hasn’t been seen in 100 years?
You act like data centers are a new concept that was invented in the 2020s. We've had data centers even before we had the Internet.
Rich assholes make those kind of decisions to pump trillions into AI pipe dreams, just like the rich assholes who run Hollywood.
The fact that we find ourselves in these patterns over and over shows that the ruling class has learned to fuck us in a way so that we complain but not actually try to do anything to change society. Which shows the lack of actual freedom we have in order to live by our actual human impulses.
That's because we're too scared to project violence to solve the core problems. The best we have is useless protests that don't sway psychopaths, because psychopaths don't have feelings.
You act like data centers are a new concept that was invented in the 2020s. We've had data centers even before we had the Internet.
The incredible scale of data centers that are trying to be built out with for AI is environmentally catastrophic in BOTH energy and water usage. That is new. Don't condescend the rest of us by conflating the idea of some data centers and an enviromentally catastrophic amount of data centers, it is a lazy way to make an argument.
That's because we're too scared to project violence to solve the core problems.
Violence doesn't solve core problems you dangerous idiot.
Violence doesn’t solve core problems you dangerous idiot.
Then, tell me, what's the next step after protests that do nothing and failing to convince cult-programmed individuals to vote correctly?
Definitely not to tangentially encourage people to do violence on a thread about an unrelated topic.
The difference between a human artist working with digital media vs analog media is a difference in materials.
The difference between art and AI is AI is a lossy compression algorithm used to steal human art in a legally defensible way.
You can use anything to make art, AI techbros didnt prove that, my point is AI is a shitty self-defeating tool that hides the theft of our public commons of shared art made by humans behind a bunch of bullshit technobabble.
edit Also yeah CGI did make movies a lot lamer in some ways...? Do you know nothing about movies? Have you not lamented with others how you miss the prevalence of Live Action films and Practical Effects because now film makers almost always take the easy boring route out with CGI that misses the point of film in the first place?
The difference between art and AI is AI is a lossy compression algorithm used to steal human art in a legally defensible way.
If we can compress the entirety of human art, music, literature made by billions of people into the size of a 4-10 GB model, at around 1 person per byte, then we must have not been very creative in the first place.
If we can compress the entirety of human art, music, literature made by billions of people into the size of a 4-10 GB model, at around 1 person per byte, then we must have not been very creative in the first place.
What an awful, cynical way to look at reality.
You were the one suggesting that all of human art could be compressed into a file that could easily fit on a USB stick:
AI is a lossy compression algorithm used to steal human art in a legally defensible way.
These are your words.
Disney must be so Sora
We didn't need AI for the Hollywood slop. It's already in the streaming services. Miles and miles of terrible movies with glowing 8.5 scores (according to their own rating systems).
There recently was a video on YouTube about how they trained an AI to actually isolate content from greenscreen where the results were very promising. So while maybe not revolutionary, it did prove to be very helpful. Though we all know that's not the billion dollar thing these investments were for.
When you say isolate content from greenscreen what do you mean? Like take a finished shot and re-green the stuff that was greenscreened in?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ploi723hg4 this is the video, it's about situations where normal filters have issues cropping out the content without spill or when some objects are reflective or transparent.
You know this is desperately grasping for straws here given the massive economic AI bubble we are in right?
Hey, I'm well aware this doesn't justify it in any way and this isn't what any tech bro had in mind. I'm just saying there have been advancements in a maybe unexpected area of video editing. But I thought this was clear from three way I worded my comment
I can barely understand the expectation this will just blow over.
These programs turn whatever you have into whatever you describe... even if you have nothing. If you actually provide an animatic, a pre-vis pass, or stand-ins acting it out, it'll follow those, and work better. The less you ask for, the more it can do. Its shortcomings keep dwindling and the models keep shrinking. Sora shut down because this tech has moved on to local models running near real-time.
That's gonna revolutionize Hollywood the way refrigerators revolutionized selling ice for iceboxes.
Disney doesn't benefit because they have the money to do things the hard way. Most people don't. So a filter that turns cardboard sets into sci-fi blinkenlights is useful to plenty of people with no hope of securing a two-comma budget. It will let them make art that would otherwise be gatekept by capital. People might excuse any gap in quality knowing the thing otherwise would not exist. And that gap will shrink. Hollywood will find itself competing with manic weirdos, like print publishers who could no longer pick which comics and stories get read.
Cocteau said film will only become art when it's as cheap as pencil and paper. Digital cameras have brought us pretty close, but you can't point your iPhone at an incidental space battle. Conversely: Kraus said everyone has a book in them, and in most cases that's where it should stay. The first wave of popular use here is already rude fanfiction. But the stories the average person can tell, in motion, have now massively expanded. They can't all be Fruit Love Island.
The less you ask for, the more it can do.
Which is the entire ideology of the cult around AI.
Y'all want a world that gives you nothing you ask for while we are powerless to do anything about it.
You are wrong, or at least you are wrong to identify your beliefs as in the realm of rationality or science, what you are espousing are a set of religious beliefs in the power of AI that there is zero evidence AI will ever fulfill and damn if it isn't a lame and depressingly cynical religion.
It is clear when dealing with folks from your cult that proving AI is shit and that it has fundamental problems and limitations is irrelevant to the world view of the cult as it just proves to whatever particular cultist you are talking to that whatever particular subbranch of the cult they are on is the True Sect unlike the other subbranches stuck on the old teachings that aren't really magical.... and that the REAL AGI is just around the corner and this is a distraction.
It is the same nonsense problem you get when you start proclaiming dates for the end of the world in your religion and they keep inconveniently passing by without the world ending. To maintain your delusion you must divide up the religion and say "oh it was that Sect over there that was wrong, we have the true knowledge!". Rinse Repeat.
I am fine with you having different spiritual beliefs then me just don't waste everyones' time by trying to force people into thinking your religion is reality.
No one cares who isn't already part of your cult.
Sora shut down because this tech has moved on to local models running near real-time.
No, Sora shut down because AI is a bullshit business model that doesn't produce anything consistently of useful value other than the obsfucation of theft or responsibility while it consumes a vast amount of resources to accomplish what a moderate amount of humans with food, water, shelter and love could make far more efficiently and with far more soul.
I regularly hear normal people describe shitty, fake things that come off hollow as "like AI", you can see how much of a false future AI is in how little people like what it makes almost as a rule. The reason normal people hate AI is because it is so suffocatingly often a boring black box that spits out sloppy unoriginal crap chopped up from stolen human labor, something most normal people are used to identifying in the hollow structures of society around them.
Literally what are you talking about.
I am describing how video-to-video models are better at 'change this one thing' than 'make up a whole scene.' It's not metaphysics. It's CGI for dummies.
Local models run on the same power draw as a video game, and some can process ten seconds of footage every five seconds. The best use - because 'change this one thing' works better - is processing things humans made the usual way. E.g., real actors on cardboard sets, and other things I actually said.
Nope, this is a bullshitters tool for people with no talent who want to pretend there is a shortcut to making good art.
The tool you are obsessed with is just a way of convincing yourself you made something when it was stolen from other human artists.
Everybody else can see that but people who have drunk the Kool Aid of AI too hard to admit it to themselves.
You're having a much more contentious conversation inside your head. Please stop projecting traits you'd rather be arguing against, when someone points out, it does the thing it's for. It demonstrably functions. You could make a coherent moral argument about how it was made - but you haven't. You've railed against an imaginary frothing psychopath, because someone politely described utility.
How it was made is addressable, by the way. It's fixable. There will be vegan models made from bespoke, licensed, and public-domain data. Will that change your opinion in any way? If not, that complaint is decorative.
How it was made is addressable, by the way. It's fixable. There will be vegan models made from bespoke, licensed, and public-domain data.
Stop referencing promises about the future to prove your point, you sound like a door-to-door salesperson.
Okay, here's reality from the recent past: some guy recreated GPT-2 for $20. Same size, similar training data, equal performance. The original required VC funding. This guy spent pocket change. That was a year ago. That's how much efficiency has already improved, for training these models. These assholes only spend billions because it's exclusionary, and they're all caught in a dollar auction to see who can lose the gentlest. I'm sorry any hypotheticals about that are incompatible with your moral crusade.
Meanwhile, it does the thing.
That's not going to change and you kind of have to deal with it. We now have programs that just do what you ask, for any output that's text, images, audio, or video. They often fuck up in horrifying ways. But they're usually about what you asked for. Especially if you asked for very little. That's quite useful where small changes are wildly complex, like 'make this guy look like another guy.' The robot won't do it as good as a team of human professionals, but I don't have a million dollars to hire a team of human professionals, and I'm betting you don't either. You can still consider projects that involve making one guy look like another.
That utility is new and it's not going anywhere.
They often fuck up in horrifying ways. But they're usually about what you asked for. Especially if you asked for very little. That's quite useful where small changes are wildly complex, like 'make this guy look like another guy.' The robot won't do it as good as a team of human professionals, but I don't have a million dollars to hire a team of human professionals, and I'm betting you don't either. You can still consider projects that involve making one guy look like another.
I am an artist so I understand when I have the shallow desire to make something into a copy of another thing and my artistic capability fails me, or my lack of resources confines me from reaching my initial vision, that this is the true beginning of my artistic journey and all of that stuff before was just a way of backing myself into wanting something new or changed when I couldn't get the perfect thing I wanted that was in my head. AI is more than anything else an attempt to seduce human beings into pushing this artistic genesis point of humility, listening and growth further and further away, which is in a way another way of explaining why AI so often leads people into Psychosis.
I have also done lots of community theater so I understand the foolishness of thinking that the important part of making one thing look like another is aesthetic mimcry and not capturing the minimal potent essence of something so it can be received as far more intense of an experience for the audience than a perfect copy could. Theater is a memory not a photograph and you are pointing to how amazingly AI can fabricate high quality fascimiles of photographs as if that doesn't insult the complexity of how the human brain approaches something it is invited to interpret.
The human brain was designed to see a vivid memory of a hunt through a couple of paint marks on a cave wall, the whole approach of AI and AI cultists deeply insults that magical relationship the human brain has with the most mundane, minimal arrangements of sensation.
Do you think for all these years everybody watching Shakespeare plays where two actors played characters supposed to be easily mistaken for one other as a key part of the plot, that audiences of these shows were getting a suboptimal experience because the two actors didn't look perfectly alike?
Do you care that in Hamnet that two siblings that are supposed to look so alike that they are frequently mistook for one another, even by death itself, don't actually look that similar? No, they are child actors who did an amazing job, to care about that in the context of the achievement of Hamnet is shallow and misses the point. You could presumably use AI to "fix" this part about Hamnet (and see Hamnet as Death experienced it and how AI would undoubtedly portray it) and everybody would hate you for it if you did...
My point is that even when AI is good at particular things, often the whole approach is hollow to the Why? with AI. This is something artists could have explained easily to techbros if they ever listened, because the Why? is the whole point.
Denouncing the pursuit of verisimilitude is a novel response to hand-wave CGI. Are you this philosophical when a movie does spend a million dollars, to make two unrelated actors look exactly the same? Should audiences be happier if a no-budget sci-fi film has cardboard displays? It's cute, certainly. But when a central complaint is that people will notice generated elements and object to low quality, I think they're gonna notice literal cardboard.
Films are photographs. That's why The Social Network didn't just say the Winklevii were twins and expect people to pretend. Movies are a visual medium, whereas theater is mostly heard. Like how television has viewers but theater has an audience. You can Dogville it, and people will roll with that, but anything that looks fake is more commonly a technical failure than a stylistic choice.
So yes, you can tell people the tin can is a spaceship... but they'd rather be shown. The preference for showing over telling is so ingrained that it's cliche. Nobody needs to announce 'we lay our scene in fair Verona' when you can put the mediterranean coastline onscreen, and then cut to a cobblestone village where people have pointy shoes. Folks will get it. They'll get it on a level deeper than narration, or an overlay reading "Verona, Italy, 15° E, 40° N, June 17th 1435, 0700 hours." They'll get it even if the aerial shot of the coastline was bought as stock footage. Or rendered, in one way or another.
but anything that looks fake is more commonly a technical failure than a stylistic choice.
Your lack of media literacy is wild, film is entirely a honest fabrication of obvious fakes, that is the basis of cinema, the fundamental concept of the movie screen being itself simply a fake window that is honest to you about the speculative nature of the world revealed beyond.
Movies don't convey impossible things by actually creating them, they present destabilized artifice from perspectives that invite us to see the mundane everywhere as a facade disguising something quivering underneath.
So yes, you can tell people the tin can is a spaceship... but they'd rather be shown. The preference for showing over telling is so ingrained that it's cliche. Nobody needs to announce 'we lay our scene in fair Verona' when you can put the mediterranean coastline onscreen, and then cut to a cobblestone village where people have pointy shoes. Folks will get it. They'll get it on a level deeper than narration, or an overlay reading "Verona, Italy, 15° E, 40° N, June 17th 1435, 0700 hours." They'll get it even if the aerial shot of the coastline was bought as stock footage. Or rendered, in one way or another.
You almost make a coherent point here but then you topple your entire logic.
The first lesson you learn as a writer is to show not tell and the first lesson you learn as an artist working with video is that to tell is actually something that is desperately hard to avoid doing with a video camera because at the heart of it that is all moving images can do moment to moment, unlike words untethered from direct sensation.
Thus the true skill of an artist working with photographs or video is how they continously subvert the tendency of images to exhaustingly tell instead of show.
This is kind of a basic aspect to an exploration of movies as art....?
Whether it be documentaries having to grapple with the inherent paradox of the production of the documentary affecting and telling upon what it is attempting only to honestly show a picture of, or movies about fictional things having to constantly avoid the catastrophe of the audience only attending to the literal quality of the thing presented to them scene to scene, it is all the same existential question.
Yeah imagine if I had the media literacy to describe an establishing shot's form and function, even if it was borrowed or fabricated. But as someone who's never seen a movie before, I could never suggest costume and set dressing conveying expectations beyond their literal imagery.
What are you doing?
Yes, professor, how and why I show an elephant will matter more than 'hey look, an elephant.' But in order for my intent to matter, when showing an elephant, I do require the ability to show an elephant. A depiction can't mean anything unless it happens. If I just tell you to use your imagination, that's not a movie, that's a book.
These tools let you show basically anything at basically no cost. What you want and why is your own problem. The premise, the message, and the edit are still entirely human art. This only replaces the part where real photons bounce off a fake building and look real enough on a sensor. (Or the part where a guy fakes that in Blender.)
Why must they shit on cool Kingdom Hearts guy and the blue skies and the concept of emptiness in general, with their AI nonsense?
view more: next ›