this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2023
360 points (95.9% liked)

Technology

59243 readers
3375 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

So, how much money do you think Matt and Trey are going to sue them for?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fubo@lemmy.world 120 points 1 year ago (3 children)

False. The Hollywood strikes (plural) are not principally about AI.

A more salient issue is that streaming TV & movie services do not pay residuals.

[–] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 113 points 1 year ago

They are about both.

Short term streaming residuals are important.

Long term AI protections are a must.

[–] Transcendant@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago

I almost feel like the AI proposal was a form of 'dead cat' strategy; while everyone is understandably angry about AI and fixated on that, no-one is talking about the actual issue that kicked all this off (the share of residual royalty payments)

[–] Wander@yiffit.net 56 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Just watched it. Writers have nothing to worry about for now. I do admit I laughed once, though.

[–] holemcross@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I took a look and it's honestly a lot further along than I was expecting in terms of capability. In all honesty, for low level conent this is already surpassing the minimum necessary and I can already imagine greedy, low effort art thieves going all in on these and jaming out completely shows. And I expect people will watch them, or at least tolerate some of them.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago

I'm rather impressed by how coherent it was. It had themes, distinct characters, a plot arc, and so forth. And some very nice meta humor. I don't know how much of this comes entirely out of the LLM scriptwriter and how much was prompted in, but even assuming that this was done from a human-created outline it's still a big step.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Its so wooden and all the jokes replaced with generalized statements. Did you actually watch it? Most low grade Youtube content knocks this out of the park.

The only thing these media companies will be doing by replacing a single writer with AI is making their content closer to the static noise floor of content that comes out of Youtube and similar sites already.

[–] generic_lemmy_user@lemmy.twilightparadox.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

AI generated YouTube channels are already a thing and bring in millions of views.

[–] 6daemonbag@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

Ugh I've left autoplay on other some science videos while indie other stuff and it took me a long while before I realized it had progressed to ai jargon space videos. So fucking annoying

[–] Wander@yiffit.net 2 points 1 year ago

I can imagine this being a problem for low effort youtube kid shows, like the ones that caused the whole elsagate controversy.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You are making the same mistake I see a lot of people make when it comes to AI, which is looking at the status quo as a snapshot rather than a change over time.

The last widely reported on AI generated 'show' was the Seinfeld one from...checks notes...a few months ago.

The leap between what that was a few months back and this here is quite something.

So your "right now" may be true for today, but quite possibly by as early as the end of this year there will very much be something to worry about.

(Though really, there still won't be much to worry about, as the future will almost certainly be AI plus human efforts, not either or.)

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think you’re making the same mistake as people who thought self-driving cars would be here 5 years ago. You can’t just extrapolate out technological progress. The relatively easy things get solved first and relatively quickly but we may need a decade to solve some of the most challenging scenarios.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Steeve@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Though really, there still won't be much to worry about, as the future will almost certainly be AI plus human efforts, not either or.

Think the concern is AI+humans means a lot less humans needed to do the job

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

There are a few fields where there's capped demand so extra supply would mean less humans.

But I think people will be surprised by just how much of our economy is capped by supply, and what happens to niche demand as supply rapidly increases.

The people most in trouble are the ones that really suck at what they do, and whose only job security is constrained supply.

But at the same time, lowering transactional costs (in the sense of the essay "the nature of the firm") will mean a lot more opportunities for small and medium entrepreneurship around passion side gigs suddenly being economically viable as full time gigs.

In reality, the groups most screwed long term here are going to be larger corporations who lose the advantages of scale but are still weighed down by the hindrance of slow moving bureaucracy.

[–] restingboredface@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

My thinking is that from a studio's perspective it may be like a proof of concept that AI can get close enough to do what they care about make a passable imitation that gets buts in seats that will generate ad revenue or ticket sales. Fundamentally they aren't really concerned about producing quality material as long as it sells, so if the AI can get them to something kind of good its likely worth their attention. I think that's what writers and actors are concerned about and that is why even an unfunny south park episode is a threat. Fable can say their work is research all day long but their goal can easily change the second a studio shows up with a check in hand.

Also it is not clear here is how much human editing and tweaking was done after the AI was finished with it's part. I suspect people kind of helped the AI get to a final product, but without them disclosing their procedure it's hard to know.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jeena@jemmy.jeena.net 32 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But doing something like this during that time is totally in character for Southpark.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Indeed, they already did an episode about ChatGPT. It wasn't bad, and in traditional South Park style it roasted both "sides" of the debate.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Where can you watch this? I wanna see how well it works.

[–] Badass_panda@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Thanks! Clips were dull and weird. The first clip felt like “insert name here” material. The longer episode everyone just stares straight ahead and speaks in monotone. I have to wonder how much the material was “massaged” or edited to get the final result.

[–] Badass_panda@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm guessing there was a fair amount of prompting scene by scene. It's very impressive technically but it definitely falls flat at the moment

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

I'm not so sure. There were some bits where there was simply stage directions or general descriptions of things happening, like "(Mett Porker makes some racist jokes)", with the characters just standing there staring instead of doing what was described. That looks bad, but suggests to me that very little human touch-up was done to the output. Those would have been obvious and easy for a human to fix if there was a human touch intervening any of this.

I wouldn't be surprised if the AI was provided with a paragraph or so of prompting telling it what sort of episode to generate, and then it just let fly and we got this.

[–] teutoburg1@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Here's the episode since it's not linked in the article. Not bad for ai. Not really comedy either.

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Reminds me of the AI Seinfeld awhile back that ran 24/7 before it got shutdown.

[–] Mr_Buscemi@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago

I've seen a few more since that one. The SpongeBob ai stream was funny at times but got taken down a few weeks ago right after Squidward sang Frank Sinatra wonderfully.

Currently there is a family guy one going 24/7 and I keep going back to it every now and then. The prompts the viewers use is so dumb but somehow entertaining.

[–] AnonymousLlama@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Cheers for the link mate

[–] Jackcooper@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Thanks for the link!

It's not bad. For some reason Stan Kyle and Tolkien have pretty accurate voices, then Cartman and Garrison aren't even close.

South Park would've made the mett porker pig go much further lol

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] testuserpleaseupvote@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Where's the profanity, the swearing? AI, more like Artificially limited, that's the only joke. Kyle not calling Cartman a fatass once, what?

[–] Aussiemandeus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

If that's really from the show I'm amazed. That seems super self aware,

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Anissem@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago

‘Animate’ is a generous term here… there’s no animation beyond a simple idle animation, lips and eyes. Other then that every character is just frozen in place.

[–] thallamabond@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"Fable started in 2018 as a spinoff from Facebook’s Oculus (how times have changed since then), working on VR films — a medium that never really took off. Now it has seemingly pivoted to AI, "

I wonder how much of the ai hype is just huge investments into hardware, looking for profits.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] tallwookie@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

SP is already really shitty animation though, so they're setting the bar really, really low

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

AI is too polite to make a compelling South Park episode honestly could be an interesting premise for a South Park episode though

[–] PixelProf@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Only when it's intentionally censored and trained to react in a particular way. When it's not, you remember it was trained on random internet content.

[–] TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Exactly. Anybody who remembers the Taybot fiasco knows this. AI turns into the edgiest neckbeard incel ever when it is trained on the internet with no safeguards.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TawdryPorker@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Just FYI, the CEO of Fable Studios is one Edward Saatchi. His father is Maurice Saatchi whose advertising agency was partially responsible for ten years of Conservative rule under Margaret Thatcher. The family absolutely has previous with union bashing.

[–] exohuman@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

You can definitely tell the writing was AI. The characters spoke like they are in an infomercial. I couldn’t watch the whole thing.

[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

It's truly impressive and severely boring all at the same time. Thing is, this is really early.

Even if they don't advance the AI significantly a couple more years in r&d and they could probably make something out of this at least something that would power South Park episodes.

[–] MargotRobbie@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Oh no, what if they use this technology to make cartoon version of celebrities like me say things that I would never actually say?

[–] Aimhere@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I remember how, years ago, an AI was asked to write a script for a Batman comic book, given a bunch of real comic issues as its learning input. The resulting script was horribly stilted, and hilarious to read. It was popular enough that an artist turned it into an actual comic book.

Today's AIs have come a long way.

Edit: just out of curiosity, I asked ChatGPT to "write a Batman comic book script, with The Joker as the villain". That's it. No other input.

What came out was far less stilted than the one mentioned above, but bare-bones, extremely generic, and boring. The real Batman writers have little to fear at the moment.

[–] Tedesche@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

The better question is: do they have to sue the AI instead?

load more comments
view more: next ›