“Soon you’ll be able to ask AI to generate an action movie with yourself as the lead!”
“Imagine Netflix, but every show is created according to your specific tastes!”
“Hollywood’s days are numbered, soon everyone will be a filmmaker!”
Statements like these have been thrown around for years now, with an air of capital-backed certainty behind them. These ideas, however, fundamentally miss the point of the industry they’re purporting to disrupt.
The very purpose of art is communication. It is a conduit through which an emotion, idea, or perspective can be expressed in a way that is otherwise inexplicable. Art is fundamentally human; art can not exist without an artist.
An infinite, self-generating Netflix ignores this notion entirely. It is instead a library of content: passive media designed to generate dopamine, or be played in the background (or loudly, on the train) rather than actively engaged with.
This is not inherently bad, but the two simply can not be equated. They are separate things, with separate expectations from their respective consumers. Simply stating that all movies will “soon be AI generated” makes as much sense as saying that blogs will “soon replace books.”
I got into an argument with someone on an AI subreddit a while ago (I know, I know) who posted a scene from The Office, and argued:
“Does every shot really have a reason? Why this song? Why this exact location? What even is the point of this human created scene?”
To me, this is a deeply unfortunate comment that displays not only a lack of understanding of the filmmaking process, but of human ingenuity in general.
The creators of the office didn’t fire up the “mockumentary office drama” template in Final Cut and fill in the blanks. The concept didn’t exist until someone created it. Every shot has an army of people behind the camera stressing over things they know you will never see, every location selected from a variety of options.
To many people, things just are—they live their lives not once stopping to think about how those innumerable decisions that make up the world around them. The person who posted that statement would never have paid for that video, AI generated or not, because they simply place no value on it whatsoever.
So, this begs the question, why go through all the effort of trying to AI generate full movies, when a 2 hour compilation of cats sneezing would satisfy these requirements just the same? Film enthusiasts will have no interest in seeing AI generated movies, and content consumers will have no interest in paying for them.
Code is a tool. A beautiful tool, but ultimately a means to an end: code is written to accomplish a task, and a programmers value is tied to how they to use code to accomplish that task. A good programmer can build a result—a product—that generates more value than what was put originally in. This mindset is at the very core of the entire AI and tech space.
Art is completely different. The “product” of art, the physical instantiation of an idea, is a byproduct of the expression itself. A painter can look at the work of a peer and be wowed by their technical mastery—but that mastery is incidental. Each brushstroke is a scar in from a battle against the artists own inner drive.
I believe this is frustrating for the tech industry, who spend a huge amount of time honing their skills in “code bootcamps” and learning more programming languages to add to their resume. Tech is about achieving goals and hitting targets; art is messy and unknowable. Therefore, there must be something wrong with them, and if they just applied themselves, they could create so much more value!
Since they seem incapable of doing this themselves, well, I guess the tech industry has to step in and do it for them!
This difference in ideals long predates AI, but AI has magnified the confusion and uncertainty it causes. And I want to just be clear here:
If tomorrow, Sora released an update that allowed users to generate the equivalent of “2001: A Space Odyssey” from a simple prompt, it wouldn’t matter. The existence of “2001” is not the purpose of “2001.”
The people who want to watch “2001” are not watching because of the funny monkeys. They’re watching to experience a unique perspective, and that even if they don’t understand it, they know that it is there to uncover.
You guys remember those JibJib e-cards were you can put a friends face on singing characters? It’d be pretty weird if that company claimed they’re trying to disrupt the Hollywood film industry, right?
Yes, an AI generated song topped a chart recently. But it certainly did not dominate the genre in streaming, and the circumstances of the chart it did top are fishy at best.
However, this does draw attention to the middle of the venn diagram, the intersection between “makeup unboxing” and “The Godfather.” This is a complicated area, because the motivations of creators don’t always align with the motivations of consumers.
I have no doubt that the artists who create pop music strive to do the very best work they can, that they agonize over every note and attempt to imbue their own personal taste into every song.
I also have no doubt that the majority of people who listen to pop music do not give a shit about any of that, and just want something to sing along to in the car.
However, as before, the money is made from those who do care about those things. From the fans who are passionate enough about the musician to go to their concerts, wear their merch, and buy products endorsed by them. An AI generated song may top the charts, but turning that statistic into dollars is another matter entirely.
“AI will democratize art! Anyone will be able to create a song, or write a book, or paint a painting!”
Anyone can do those things. We’ve been able to do those things for thousands of years. Pick up a pencil and just draw. Go to a coffee shop and write, grab your phone and shoot a movie. Asking a computer to do the work for you is completely antithetical to the entire creative process.
This myth that certain people just “have a gift” for a certain talents is is a lie that these companies will happily exploit to drive up shareholder value. Hold off making your dream project—soon, you’ll be able to just prompt it into existence!
The fear from this rhetoric is effectively putting a pause on genuine creative and technological development. Students are being told their chosen degrees are soon to be worthless. I just had a conversation with someone who insisted a person could not 3D model an airplane, that it had to be done using AI.
For me, the most frustrating part about all of this is thinking about all the genuinely useful uses of AI that are not being made in favor of “disruption.”
I can think of a dozen AI tools that would make my daily life easier, but none of them will ever see the light of day, because a million dollar idea means nothing when (theoretically) billion dollar ideas are everywhere.
We’re spending so much time trying to find new ways to change the world, that we’re forgetting how to use the ways we already have.