Outputting AI content is like being out of shape and giving yourself a toned body in Photoshop - it doesn’t make you a creative (let alone an artist), just like Photoshop doesn’t get you in shape.
I'm in the minority here, but I'm 100% with Justine Bateman on this and I'm glad she's been so outspoken. I adore and respect Brian Greene. I've bought and read all of his books and have listened to many talks over the years. But I disagree with his view on generative AI.
Can I ask why? You do realize that any laws or regulation we as a western society put on AI will just be ignored by other countries like China and Russia meaning they will advance by leaps and bounds with this technology while we hinder ourselves Hate the technology as much as you want, but unless you plan on devising some way of destroying all electronics on earth AI is going to be the most powerful tool of the future and the countries with the best AI will be the most powerful So again I ask, why do you want the West to be hindered on the global stage?
I'm with you. Yes, Ms Bateman was a few times crude with her language. Which is unfortunate, because what she has to say needs to be said. I feel this discussion is like the fictional one at the beginning of "The Last of Us" - we're warned about the danger of AI and most people just laugh it off.
Oh please, she is moron and she actually comes across as such. What does a former flight attendant know about anything? There is an old adage that has been circulating among creative folks long before advent of AI that, if you copy one person, it is plagiarism but if you copy many, it is creativity. Keep in mind that she has no problem when other humans watch these publicly available films and get ideas from them and learn acting, writing etc from them. But when AI does exactly the same, she has problem. At best, it is a prejudice against AI. About her car analogy, the correct way to express that analogy is that AI watches a parked car and gets impression about car design from it, because AI is not stealing (films / cars) but getting impressions from them. I think her hostility comes from the fact that she realises AI may make human actors extinct and she feel her bread and butter is being threatened. Trust me, many software engineers, who develop the very AI, have same exact concerns but when they speak about it, they are just more coherent.
The negative effects of social media is proof of technology's impact. It has contributed to the spread of misinformation & disconnected people from genuine social interactions. Our behavior on these platforms often feels dysfunctional, with negative aspects like trolling, online abuse, the exploitation of children, and users being influenced by viral content without truly understanding the context. These online behaviors can have significant consequences that affect the real world, highlighting how technology can have unforeseen consequences. Similarly, it's crucial to consider the potential negative impacts of AI-assisted creativity, particularly if people use the technology solely for profit, such as by replacing artists or workers with AI to generate content in the entertainment industry This could lead to the erosion of creativity, originality, and authenticity, or even the manipulation of individuals through AI-generated content
Ecologist/biologist and visual artist here.I can remember the eary days of the personal computer and the internet. The tech bros told us it was all going to be so helpful to us and not to worry. Now we have our young people addicted to social media and in despair and our political intercourse full of misinformation and division. Now again were are told not to worry about AI and how it is going to make life better. Hybridizing out humanity with digital machines? What could possibly go wrong? Somehow we are never satisfied with the human experience. I do not believe we really know what we are doing. I am afraid the downside is potentially really bad and dehumanizing.
@@robertspies4695 So do you have a conclusion then or were you just stating what every person who has been paying attention already knew? What ARE you saying?
Most, including the proponent of gen AI in this video, do not state that it'll have no downsides. Nearly everything is a double edged sword. Most 'tech bros' understand this as well, but obviously focus on their positive intent. So, most are already in agreement with your point. With the potential good comes the potential bad. If you have a point beyond this, I'd be interested. It becomes a matter of weighing the pros and cons, and I think there's far more pros.
Imo, one of the most important discussions regarding AI was overlooked in this conversation - a conversation about corporate GREED. Justine briefly touched upon it, but I wish she had delved deeper into this topic. The slow, incremental use of AI technology that has crept into so many aspects of our lives (and arguably, has its benefits) is akin to the frog in the pot who doesn’t understand it is being slowly boiled. In the film industry, if AI can be used to “create” movies, think about ALL the people who will be out of work - actors, directors, writers, costume designers, production designers, cinematographers, lighting designers, sound technicians, hair and makeup artists, yes. But also craft services, the entire production crew, the set builders, truck drivers etc., etc. All these people’s jobs will be eliminated. Gone. And who benefits the most from that? The studio executives and corporations, who get to pocket more money from the industry they helped kill.
(First thing first, English isn't my 1st language. My apology for any grammar mistake). In the other hand, as you said yourself. AI will lower the production cost. That works both for corporate or for individuals. Which mean, someone with story in his head but lack of fund to make a movie out of it, now can make the movie without have to get the corporate's funding. If you see it that way, isn't that AI can become a tools for people with creativity, but lack of fund and networks?
AI benefits film and book writers though. Anybody will be able to write their own movie into existence. Personally I think I can write better movies then the crap hollywood cranks out. Lets not pretend like current tv is great, it's not. Most of it is hot garbage.
@@Handoko-p8g the democratization of music production with pro-tools, beats and samples has decimated the music industry drowning in a sea of mediocre output from home studios across the planet. Only a teeny tiny fraction of music talent can make a living doing it now. Great talents have given up creating new music because it won’t pay the bills. This is what will happen when businessmen think they can bypass real talent to obtain a product to peddle. What they can’t see is if people sense the phony imitation of human creativity they won’t buy it. There’s plenty of money to be lost in learning this lesson, and their hubris is pressing the accelerator to full throttle.
@@batautomat If you say (CMIIW) AI create a "sea of mediocre output", wouldn't that means that a great talent in music would be stay above this sea. After period of time where the consumer (people) drown in mediocrity, won't they search for qualities? Something above the mediocre. Something shine among the mediocrity. Since AI isn't capable of real creativity, the real music talent will always be above them. What do you think about that?
I'm only 10 minutes in and I can tell this is going to be one of the hardest-to-watch discussions Brian has hosted that I've seen so far. I look forward to watching Brian moderate this with grace and elegance.
It's frightening how quickly some are to just throw humanity out of the equation. Like do some people really have so little faith in them self and the human spirit that they gleefuly give the act of creation to a souless algorithm?
Ms. Bateman's concerns about theft in the entertainment industry raise interesting questions about the broader economic context of film production. It's worth considering the complex supply chains and funding sources that support the industry, including the origins of materials used in production. While the entertainment world can sometimes seem focused on individual needs, it's important to remember that film production is a collaborative effort involving many people and processes. The evolution from traditional theater to modern filmmaking has indeed brought significant technological changes, which have transformed the artistic process. This technological shift in creative production raises thought-provoking questions about the nature of art itself. As we see advancements in AI-generated content, it prompts us to reconsider our definitions of creativity and artistry. Perhaps it's time to expand our understanding of what constitutes art in the digital age.
When I was young, people came to my house to sell enciclopedias (books made with paper). But somebody invented the internet and now that job does not exist. The world has to adapt to new technologies. I can’t finish this video watching the encyclopedia lady insult everybody.
The internet did not interfere with the process of compiling information and presenting it in a document. It replaced printed books for websites, much like film cameras were replaced by digital ones. But get this - the digital camera STILL DOES NOT choose where to look and how to frame stuff. AI assists anyone in generating a competently placed and framed shot, even if they can’t even turn on a camera. This is problematic. You have no business outputting a guitar solo if you can’t play guitar. You have no business outputting a painting and say “I created this”. You created nothing, just like when you commission an artist to painting something you want, you don’t get to say “I painted this” because you were the one oh asked for you. The artist is the creator, the artist has all the merit, not the person who prompted them.
@@alexalexis7899My point is only referring to new tech consequences. Somebody develops some new technology … right or wrong … the world has to adapt. Atom bombs, lab viruses, airplanes, digital fake money (governments print paper money without the gold or silver to back it up) it’s just digits on a computer. Cell phone radiation, chemical fake foods, oil digging … it’s all wrong, damaging or dangerous. But the world has to adapt. Who can stop every AI lab or scientist in the world and prevent every living human to use it ?
The world has to adapt to new tech.... no kidding, wow what a revelation. That doesn't mean stealing the entire worlds IP is OK. Certainly if anyone else did it but these corps, they and their families would be paying off the debt the rest of their lives. Your argument is very ignorant.
Creating a play where luminaries such as Walt Whitman, Nikola Tesla, Einstein, Rumi, Emily Dickinson, Nietzsche, Max Planck, Captain Picard, Data, Tagore, Maya Angelou ... Etc. to see how they act would be fascinating !
Moderator: Today, we're exploring the impact of AI on filmmaking and the performing arts. Joining us are Justine Bateman, an Emmy and Golden Globe-nominated actor and filmmaker, and Heidi B, a computer scientist and interdisciplinary artist developing an AI and the Arts curriculum at the University of Florida. Heidi, let's start with your work. Can you describe your piece "Radical Signs of Life" and how it incorporates AI and technology? Heidi: Certainly. "Radical Signs of Life" is a critique of cybernetics and how our bodies can generate art. We created biophysical sensors that read dancers' autonomic and somatic systems, translating their movements into music and visual imagery. The work explores the concept of internal colonization as technology becomes more embedded in our bodies. It's a reflection on the potential future of human-technology interaction in art. Moderator: Fascinating. Now, Justine, you have a more cautious view of AI in film. Can you elaborate? Justine: Absolutely. I see generative AI as a significant threat to the film industry. It's essentially a massive copyright violation, using existing creative works without permission to generate new content. This isn't creativity; it's regurgitation. My concern is that it will decimate the industry by replacing human roles throughout the production pipeline. Moderator: Heidi, how do you respond to these concerns in your curriculum development? Heidi: Our program at the University of Florida aims to balance innovation with ethics. We're teaching students to use AI tools critically, understanding their potential and limitations. We focus on the ethical implications, including bias and issues of race and gender. Our goal is to prepare students for a changing landscape while maintaining human creativity at the core. Justine: I appreciate the focus on ethics, but I still see fundamental issues. Using AI in creative processes diminishes true artistry. Artists should rely on their own creativity and vision, not a program that mashes together existing works. I believe this trend could lead to a loss of genuine human expression in art. Moderator: Heidi, you've mentioned the concept of "co-creation" with AI. Can you expand on that? Heidi: The idea is to use AI as another tool in the creative process, not to replace human creativity. It's about finding new ways to expand artistic expression, similar to how other technologies have influenced art throughout history. We're exploring how AI might work alongside human performers or help generate new forms of interactive experiences. Justine: I understand the concept, but I'm deeply skeptical. My concern is that industry leaders will use AI primarily to cut costs and increase profits, not to enhance creativity. We risk losing the human touch that makes art meaningful and the shared cultural experiences that bring us together. Moderator: As we conclude, it's clear there are divergent views on AI's role in the arts. Heidi sees potential for innovation and new forms of expression, while Justine warns of significant risks to the industry and artistic integrity. This conversation highlights the need for ongoing dialogue as we navigate the intersection of technology and creativity in the arts.
For the first time, I’m disappointed in the discussion here. Apples and oranges. Putting sensors on dancers’ bodies to create new visual experience has nothing whatsoever to do with having no more screenwriters because someone put some data into a computer and printed out 100 screenplays. I value the unique human-ness of creativity. We are people with limitless minds that bring many thoughts and sensations together in often unexpected ways. Generative AI is limited by the algorithm. If an algorithm removes the human from the equation, we have no more culture.
surely whatever we create is going to be human by default. people have been watching too many frankenstein movies. i've been a graphic designer and artist with a variety of mediums, lately sculpture and i'm happy to use AI and have it used, i see this "panic" as being not so different from when photography was going to bring an end to painting. AI will be a parallel, it's not competition, i;ve used AI to help with my sculpture. i don't see people frightened of biros.
as for our lovely dancers, one of the most unpleasant jobs i've had was rotoscoping black dancers in black costumes with reflective dots on them in low light for a week, AI could have saved me from that one. (you trace off the position of the dots and then do animated art over the top - rotoscoping). i am an animator, i have a channel.
The lady against has a far more persuasive argument ..I’ve tried AI to do a music vid and problem is it just looks like AI and there is no soul to it ..I’m very enthusiastic about new technologies and would hate to be called a “ Luddite “ but the magnificent anti lady is right ..we don’t need computers for artistic creativity..we have the human brain for that ..Brian Greene imperious as ever ..he is a great man
I agree, though I think it will reach a point where you can't tell it has no soul. To me, my anti-genAI stance all boils down to the inevitable greed of capitalism. In a vacuum, generative AI as a technology is pretty cool, and it will only get better. But in the real world, generative AI has been and is only going to continue to erode culture. Creativity won't ever go away, and people will still create for the sake of it, but if it's not regulated heavily, generative AI will be used to create and sell content that the masses will consume, and artists of all kinds of mediums will be less and less able to make a living on what they create.
I'm only halfway though the video (paused because of said lady and found myself replying to you). I disagree. If we try using the AI tools to replace us on the task we want to achieve, of course the results will definitely be "soulless", but surely we can use the tools to help us achieve what we want. I'm betting on great artists in the near future to come up with some great creative ways on how to use and combine these tools to great achievements we are not yet expecting. Disclaimer, as a software engineer I'm already using AI tools to help me achieve my goals much easier and faster, it wouldn't replace me and we're still quite far from it. Back to the arts, in music we've been using automation and electronic tools for long time, there's always some frowning in the beginning, and then always someone comes up with great ways to abuse the tools to achieve things not possible before. I believe the same is going to happen with AI. Now I'll continue with the rest of the video :)
@@jorgedias6436 Yeah, if you've finished the video, you probably know, that's not what she's saying. She's not against this. In theory. Like almost everybody else in these comments. “Oh, we could do wonderful stuff”. Yeah, maybe we could, but are we going to? The problem is we will be flooded with low-quality content. At least, short-term. This has already happened. And it's going to be worse. Much worse. Well, the next question is: would it lead to irredeemable loss of qualification by creatives? It's really hard to even survive without a community and a marketplace. Will they be preserved? I mean, you can say that if one is really that creative, they'll be able to win the market. However, this hypothesis just doesn't hold a test by history. The issue is not “AI”, but an unregulated profit-driven industry. I'm not against profit, but it works almost universally poorly as the only metric. Yes, social media led to an explosion of creativity, but it's largely short-form and superficial. Professional content takes time, and it may be hard for it to break in the noise. Is anybody even going to listen?
i've been playing around with AI for a few months now and i think it's just as capable as any human to create beauty, in fact i'm amazed at how good it is at creating beautiful faces that look every bit as human as a human face, whatever prompt you use, whether it's artistic, photographic or even abstract. i've been a graphic designer, animator, and now sculptor for most of my life and i have very little criticism for AI in art - it actually helped me with poses ideas for my last sculpture. remember when the camera was going to make painting redundant?
@@HarryNicNicholas It's a fundamentally social critique. It's not about potential benign uses of technology or your capabilities. It's about power dynamics and societal structure. So, you are saying, AI is a powerful tool. Doesn't this precisely reinforce the concerns about its applications?
Perhaps a WSF session to discuss the benefits vs the risks associated with technology over the last 50 or so years would be a good starting point to address our future with generative AI and how our society and regulatory environment ought to be appropriately managed.
The issue isn’t really AI itself; it’s more about us; "Humans". We often discuss AI as if it were a living being, imagining we need to defend against it. At our core, humans have an innate desire for power, which means it’s ultimately our responsibility to choose whether to harness AI for good or not so good outcomes. Let’s remember that the choices we make can shape the future!
The lady against kept using profanities and saying "you will see" - lacking other convincing argument. She's also wrong about the copyright - as I can study movie making in college, study directors and then borrow their techniques and produce a new movie in their style. No one is going to accuse me of theft. The pro lady was more composed, open and soft-spoken.
this was really shallow in my opinion. not one really original thought in this whole thing. all stuff i already read in countless other shitty articles. this was really basic. we really shoudl define the word creativity. i dont think creativity exists. its accumulation of data in our brains. i dont think there is room for some esoterical thinking about this. if new data is combined like not seen before you could call it creativity. done. this whole shitty debate is over. you only really have a debate if you bring in god like arguments, morals, and so on. and i dont care about morals. morals are like assholes.. everyone has them. they arent objective. they are a deeply human concept. the universe doesnt have morals. AIs dont have morals. math isnt concerned with morals. 1+1=3 isnt immoral. its simply wrong!
Uh no, the dancing ai “creative technologist” lady, what ever the hell that is, clearly lives in a box. She is delusional and detached from the human experience. She’s actually very scary.
No one will accuse you of theft because you have a point of view… a way of seeing the world as well as something to say… all of the the things you’ve studied will be funneled through you and your perspective. A computer cannot do that. especially if you believe in spirituality and creativity.
You can’t apply copyright to a skill or a technique. Artists get inspired and admit where they got the source from. Ai doesn’t. But copyright is still a big deal to IP and artists styles. If you ask the slop generator to make an Italian plumber, it will add red overalls and make it look like Mario. And if you sell it, that’s a copyright violation.
The Turing Test I first heard about, was two terminals, one hooked to a hidden computer, the other to a hidden female "secretary". The test failed with the first question posed to each: "Can you come out here and give me a kiss" One terminal answered, "no". The other terminal answered, "yes, but I won't". The conclusion is clear. An AI machine can not pass the Turing test until it has the ability to lie at will. Lying is a form of creativity, not limited to humans. Almost all species exhibit the ability to pretend.
It felt like talking to people who are doomed in a plane from those Air Crash Investigations. Edit: It felt like the coliseum with gladiators sans the gruesome action.
"Why are we listening to this?" says the woman whose argument is being firmly and politely dismantled by the 'speaker.' "It's just a bunch of bullshit," she says without actually addressing any part of the counterpoint. "It's a parlour trick," she says, as if parlour tricks can't be absolutely astonishing. "This is _not_ a sentient being," she says, responding to the strawman argument she has built. This will be the first WSF video I've ever started and not finished.
Could not agree more. I hear this so often from people who have an enormous amount of disdain for generative AI. The irony of her criticizing generative AI as derivative bullshit, when she herself is being derivative with statements like "it's just a blender". It doesn't seem like she has enough of an understanding about generative AI to even make valid criticisms of it. I understand why she thinks training generative AI is "theft", and I'm not even saying there is no discussion to be had about that, but I think a lot of people who hold this view don't really have a good understanding or definition of what IP really is. Is it considered theft for a future superstar actor to watch thousands of films depicting actors who they idolize? Is it considered theft if they then incorporate similar styles of their idols into their own acting? Is it considered theft if later film critics can point out similarities between this superstar actor's style and the actors who they grew up idolizing? I think most reasonable people would say no, but if we were to replace "superstar actor" with "generative AI", suddenly it's copyright infringement? I don't know why so many people believe AI should be held to a completely different standard than we hold humans to.
Since she has a degree in computer science she should be impressed by the creation of a universal function approximator that is so complex that it's able to extract the essence of a multitude of styles and subjects and potentially output unique works, as a human does in the abstract. She tried using the education as an argument from authority, and as a put down to those in the audience without those credentials. This also fails as it starts with the false premise that creativity has to be from intelligence. However, one can view humans taking in existing styles and subjects, transforming them into some 'creative' output, as just a bio-mechanical input/output function as well. It's a human centric bias that leads us to think our creativity is more special than another form.
I think that movies (partly) created by AI are going to do quite well at the box office. The reason why, is because the script of an average blockbuster is already the product of hundreds of rewrites by tens (or even hundreds? I’m no expert) of writers. So, the creative mixing, of which ChatGPT is so proud, is already happening on a large scale. That’s probably the reason why I rarely watch those movies (and even rarer, finish one). I prefer movies where the personality of a creator is omnipresent. (Movies by the Coen-brothers, Roman Polanski or TV-series like Breaking bad, Fargo.)
Because CEOs think they know better and they fire everyone to replace them with Ais, to their own demise. Meanwhile highly skilled people are going homeless. The issue is not AI, it's the people who make the decisions about how they're gonna be used who are the issue.
What does Justine think about generative AI like Alpha Fold that is figuring how to fold proteins and create new medicines/treatments? Should that tool be abolished?
Alpha fold isn't generative AI. Most AI isn't generative, but problem solving via input/output, a slightly different action. However, yes, alpha fold is very helpful in the medical space for medicines/treatments via speeding up folding simulations of amino acids.
@@JimBob1937 True, it's not generative in sense of image generative AI, but it uses deep learning and is trained on a lot of data to create prediction models. My larger point is, where does Justine draw her lines on where it is OK to use AI and where not? I'm not sure she has thought this all the way through.
@@KDawg5000 , I’ve done AI model development for years at this point. Just trying to clarify that the community doesn’t view such a thing as ‘generative.’ Otherwise, all AI models are generative, since they generate solutions. A folding solution isn’t creating new semi-arbitrary outputs, it’s solving/estimating a deterministic problem given some input. Given this, she likely draws the line at actual generative AI that competes with what she views as output unique to humans via our creativity. I think she’s wrong as she’s exhibiting human bias and attributing mystical properties to human creative output. For some people, they associate spirituality with creative endeavors and thus view the process as something more than mechanical (I view humans as just biological machines myself). I may not agree with her, but that’s likely the source of the disagreement.
@@JimBob1937 I sort of put her in the bucket of anti-tech, even though she claims she's not. Humans who fight against technology don't have a good track record. That being said, I think tools that use human's work should compensate the humans. But what happens when data from humans is no longer needed. Where does her argument go? Is it just bad because she doesn't like it?
I have a couple of points. First, I agree that Ms. Bateman was not as professional as she should have been, which diminished the potential effect of her argument. (Any guest on a show like this needs to take into account the audience and "tame the tongue.") However, related to an important point Ms. Bateman made about human-vs.-AI creativity, I would like to highlight the point Ms. Boivert makes at time signature 26:15 to 27:10. My response would have been that it's one kind of creativity to invent ("create") AI that will help artists in their work, but that kind of "technological creativity" is not the same as human "artistic creativity"; therefore, pure artistic creativity does get lost in the mix, so to speak. My second point is this: I can envision a day when AI-generated musical artists will "create" AI-generated music and will build fanbases that flock to concerts performed by their favorite AI artists. In my opinion, that would be a "gimmick" and a sad state of affairs.
interestingly the audience responded MORE to Ms. Bateman (raw, emotional and outspoken) than to the other guest. Seems to be the way people are reacting these days...look how many people follow the loud, raw and crude candidate...People seem to be more emotionally driven now.
How intellectually close minded. It’s not the artists who are celebrating generative ai alone. A LOT of people, myself included, are overjoyed to be able to avoid dismissive artists like this woman speaking so boldly about the inevitable morality of her opinion that life artists aren’t regurgitating their own work. People who need a stable, cooperative, middle of the road, shows up when asked and doesn’t stonewall or complain, want generative AI. People like her can still compete. Artistically they are fine. Personally, let them catch up in politeness to the fake human ai programs produce reliably now. Or leave them behind for the next artists who use ai to push what ai is capable of.
When someone tells you about the dream they had last night, you can listen only so many seconds before you ask that person to shut up. Likewise, no one will care about the personalised version of a movie someone else saw. Nonetheless, dreams can be awesome. And therefore, a personalised version of a movie might also be awesome?
"... and so now we're into this arena of, well what can we make you that you didn't ask for and don't need, how about that?" Hyperbole aside, this is the take home from this talk. We can make all the comparisons to previous tech innovations we like, and lord knows the film industry has been pretty derivative and largely uninspiring for a while now (in my opinion). But the fact remains the role tech plays in generating content is growing exponentially and we appear to be steadily and willingly retiring into 'consumer corner'. When the parlor tricks become 'good enough' to have us effectively sedated and with 'minimal personal outlay', where do we suppose the funds for actual art or any of these new forms of tech-xpression will be coming from?
@@readynowforever3676 The discussion was made close to useless by a person to self involved to stay on topic, and even when given the freedom to take the conversation where she wanted, she still preferred swearing and fear mongering to making a rational point and then listening to a response. If I was moderating this poor excuse for a discussion, I would have "run out of time" after 10-15 minutes.
@@spindoctor6385 Okay fair enough. I’ll finish watching the episode and see where it takes me. I did hear that assertion of stolen intellectual/artistic property.
The inaugural World Science Festival took place from May 28 to June 1, 2008, at 22 venues throughout New York City. It included 46 events, a street fair and, on its first day, the one-day World Science Summit at Columbia University. The Festival was attended by 120,000 people.
Thank you to the people of World Science Fair for better and more complete science. As a gala event, we can recognize the Tracey Day Quantum at an upper level near 13 km and a lower level near 2,000 feet is no gimmick. The positron science sees the positron reject the photon, rendering the invisibility aspect. The lower Tracey Day Quantum, consisting of about 5 +/- 2 layers has the Dark Matter, positron rejection of the photon. As the science of the P-P cycle in the Sun shows the splitting of the positron from both neutrino and photon affinity, our Tracey Day Quantum is the largest AI possible because it is organic. Two of her middle layers are mostly silica based, where the AI intelligence sits between the outside positron cell membrane rectangular tilings. This is no gimmick. The world computer is a Quantum AI. She is the Tracey Day Quantum AI, with positron outer wall cell membranes.
this was really shallow in my opinion. not one really original thought in this whole thing. all stuff i already read in countless other articles. this was really basic.
GAI replacing current film practices is similar to CGI replacing traditional animation when it was introduced. While CGI expanded the possibilities for creators, traditional animation remains a viable option. Arguing against adding GAI to a creator's toolkit is illogical.
The human brain is a parlor trick. We smashed rocks together and someone stole that idea and did the next thing, and so on and so fourth. When you speak, all you do is decide what is the best word to come next, based on everything youve ever learned throughout your years.
1st problem = semantic 2nd problem = Relativity 3er problem = assumptions 4th problem = inclusion 5th problem = synergy 6th problem = combinations 7th problem = interpretation 8th problem = where 9th problem = how 10th problem = hammered it into 11th problem = In Order to find out this problem you have to get into the coliseum and dance with A.I 12th problem = path or solution dilema 13th problem = ~ Only AI %, not all of it
Big thumbs down to Justine Bateman, who sounds like an old lady oblivious to technology. A huuuuge thumbs up for Heidi Boisvert, who correctly identified AI generating for what it is : another tool in the hands of artists, a tool just like the pen, the recorder, the film tape, the camera lens, the older Photoshop etc.
What pen are you using that is capable of interpreting what you want to write or draw? What recorder are you using that is capable of interpreting what and how you want to record? What lens are you using that is capable of interpreting how to frame and compose a shot? What version of PS are you using that is capable of interpreting which elements should be removed, added and corrected to elevate a photograph to a Magnum-level shot? Mind you, auto-exposure is *slightly* different from what I just described. Slightly. AI is not a tool anymore than an exoskeleton that you put on and magically lets you play soccer as well as Ronaldo or Messi is a tool.
I would like to hear about situations where people have creative ideas but lack the skills to bring them to fruition. If someone isn't a good writer, generative AI would let them tell their story. If someone can't draw, generative AI would let them realize what's in their mind's eye.
we really shoudl define the word creativity. i dont think creativity exists. its accumulation of data in our brains. i dont think there is room for some esoterical thinking about this. there is no moral dilemma using AI to express yourself, thats still just data accumulation between two systems.
"If someone isn't a good writer, generative AI would let them tell their story" Then it's not their story. If you're a bad writer, your stories are bad. Simple as that. They are not worth telling. Just because AI wrote you a story, doesn't mean it's your story. Just like if you order a pizza, you didn't actually make a pizza This leads into nothing but laziness. Even talented people will get demoralized... society will fall into apathy and laziness, even the ones who had potential. These AI-Frankestein creations are already taking space and visibility from real art. It's going to happen more and more. Art, music, creative writing, video. The internet will become contaminated, some expert estimates say in less than 2 years 90% of internet will be AI generated. People will start to want authenticity again, but it's gone
The "creativity" of human writers, actors, musicians, engineers, etc., is very much the result of all the media, books, music, education, etc., they have consumed during their lives. Your mind is "blending" previous experiences just like the AI is blending the data it's been trained with. It's pretty much the same thing. You don't have to watch many modern TV shows or movies, or listen to much modern music to realize the writers, actors, etc., are rehashing much of the work that was done before them.
I didn't realize that a degree in computer science makes you omniscient, and that it also makes whatever you say correct no matter how pigeon-holed your viewpoint may be.
I am not at all afraid of AI being in the creativity business. We've had cartoons for 100 years now and what are they, but artificial representation? And so are digital effects and CGI. I understand that actors are full of their self importance and are very reluctant to embrace change (talkies anyone?).
This has to be one of the stupidest comments on genAI I have ever heard in my life. It so fantastically misses the point that I don't even know where to begin or whether it's even worth trying. However, cartons are not an "artificial" representation. They are a stylistic representation that requires artistic vision & art direction. They also require incredible talent & vision usually of many people working in collaboration with a high degree of skill, which is developed via praxis over many, many years in pursuit of a singular artistic vision. None of which is artificial & all of which is very real.
Imagine what you want, but it’s simply not possible for AI to do these things with artfulness and human subtlety. AI is just mimicking the shell of human art making. AI will crash after a string of expensive failures because human audiences will feel how much it is lacking.
Yes, "Take Five" *is* great, & would be just as good if it was written by AI. But even better than agreeing with people about well-known music is when you discover great music you never heard before. That's how it is for people who love music, of course it might be different for some of you.
Idk if Brian reads comments but I feel like we're further away from the "science" part of the channels name and little too far into the "festival" part. This discussion wasn't great but rather than rip it apart I'll just say in general Brian is too smart and too inquisitive for some of the guests who pop up and want to show us their little art projects. And this is coming from an artist. I know the guest lineup needs variety but I wish the pendulum would swing back toward the high-level guests direction. Thats just imo
Closed minded. This woman would have been against CGI as something not drawn or painted by a human hand and therefore was not creative. And why be so rude and angry?
Yes I was really surprised and disappointed with Bateman. I really thought that she was going to bring more to the table. Boisvert was really on point.
My view may be a bit extreme, but I think human creativity simply does not exist. We can't imagine something we haven't had a previous experience of. We can't think of a new colour. We can "create" only by adding, subtracting, merging concepts that are already known to us. In that, I don't see much of a difference compared to what an AI does. And that line will fade more and more in the future.
A.I. does not have an experience of anything. And yes, human creativity does exist. Language has been with us for thousands of years, but we invent new words all the time. And there was a time before there was language at all. Yes, things evolve through recombination of what already exists but new things are created. This is called life. A.I. is a robot that can mimic this based on what we feed into it, text or images or whatever, and it it may be a great tool in generating combinations more quickly or with more variety and complexity than our limited minds are able to, but there will always be a clear distinction between what we do and what it does. We experience. AI does not.
@@hugegnarlyeyeball Babies don't have experiences of anything either and take a few years before they're able to really retain information and more to grasp complex idea while AI is able to do that immediately. This argument is so stupid you and this lady should feel bad for bringing it up
@@hugegnarlyeyeball so basically you only ascribe creativity to conscious entities. That's fair. But in order to do that, you should first know what consciousness is (which you don't because nobody does) and explain why you only ascribe it to living things (which is a very big assumption based on very little, I think). Yes we invented language, that's to say, we assigned sounds and then symbols to concepts. In reality we have no idea what happens inside the black box of an AI. It's fair to assume there's no "inner spark of consciousness" there. As of today. But maybe consciousness is only a byproduct of complexity and embodiment. Who knows what will happen when we give AI a robotic body, which is happening right now? I see nothing radically different between a biological computer like a brain, and an electronic one. Physics seems to indicate that free will is only an illusion, I wonder what that means for consciousness and creativity. I have less answers than you but they are grounded in science and logic.
Our modern luminaries (e.g. Brian, Elon, James Cameron, and every other tech bro) are the facilitators of ai anthropomorphization. When they speak of ai having human like traits and characteristics, positive or negative, they are perpetuating a false positive (or true negative idea depending on the context) that tech is becoming ‘something’ other than what it actually is. Justine is right in stating that it’s just a stupid program. Yes, technology always changes the world for better and worse but at the end of the day we humans are the creative ones. Technology is never inherently creative and is not endowed with any of its virtues when powered on. Ai technology is no different. It takes synapses and a human sensibility (albeit a unique one) to initiate creativity. Creativity is a human condition based on one’s ability to circumvent empirically derived limitations with or without the need for a reason. With all due respect to our wonderful host, analyzing aggregated data, connecting dots, and finding correlations out of scope of human ability is not creativity. Just like flow, creativity is human. In discussions around or on the topic of ai, using terminology that that inherently implies any amount of subjective accounting to be performed by the listener is fairly deceitful and sneaky. Anthropomorphizing is over reaching, patronizing, and unfair to those who don’t quite understand the technology.
While GAI can replace current film practices, traditional filmmaking will still be an option. This new tool simply expands the possibilities for creators. Arguing against adding new tools to a creator's toolkit is illogical.
They're talking about getting prepared. It sounds very ignorant about our current reality. It's already too late to get prepared. Everyone has lost their jobs in the entertainment industry, so why are we even talking about preparing ourselves? We're literally at war, right now, with the big tech industry. People are literally losing their homes and going on the streets. How in hell this is not talked about in the media? It's not 'going' to happen. It has ALREADY HAPPENED! Unbelievable.
Jesus, this is NOT the place for grandstanding indignation about the specialness of human creativity. All creativity happens in the context of all that came before. She's either intellectually dishonest to the point of being an unprofessional hack or she's the prime candidate for an undergrad class in Linear Algebra. Yikes... Not a good look.
The change in the wind in terms of where AI is going is obvious here, a rapid change from the immediate past of boasting AI to replace humans to whether it makes sense at all.
Funny, it's pretty clear on what side the guy 'conducting' the interview are... AI is just acellerating the end of our society. Money hoarders will just be even more rich and the large part of humanity will need to live out of scraps. I agree with Bateman.
Dear Sir, As you probably know me I am a decent scholar from Ireland(with Vietnamese-Chinese roots). I just want to let you and the world know that I have been mistreat by the Irish status quote. They dont let me get a job and but me in a hostel, make me study and taking advantage of my ideas. I am hoping to get the world attention and help me to get my freedom. They have never help me in anyway and now that I am about to make it, everyone want a slice out of it, which is horrible. So is there any chance can you help me to get out of Ireland, or if I cant get out, I'd like my own job and have nothing to do with them. Because the college wanted me to teach there have threaten me like the Mafia in order to get me to work for them. So is there anychance that can you spread the words out to help me to fight for my freedom???
I think I've seen every talk from the World Science Festival, and Justine may be the most unprofessional guest that has ever been invited on. I get she's passionate, but you have to be able to have a conversation without pouring your emotions into it.
@@antoniocarrascopinto6086 not if you want to have a productive conversation, no. And I didn’t say she should be emotionless. She just shared thoughts that didn’t contribute to the conversation.
There is such a thing as fair use. If an artist creates a portfolio of paintings and posts it on the internet, other artists are allowed to look at those paintings and study their composition, style, use of color, lighting, etc., and incorporate what they learn into their own work. That's exactly what AI is doing. The only reason people like Justine Bateman are complaining now is because with AI we've added a new technological layer to make this pattern recognition and learning process more efficient. We're automating the steps to save on unnecessary labor and democratize the creative process. The outputs generated by AI are new, unique works. They don't infringe on copyright because they aren't close enough to any pre-existing work to infringe. They may mimic the style of a work, but they are not the same work. So until you actually have a well-reasoned real case, and not just a prejudice based on "the way things used to be" before this technology existed, please shut up. The job market isn't a fixed thing. Available jobs and career paths are dependent on the technology that exists at a particular moment in history. They way jobs are done are likewise based on the technology that exists at a particular moment in history. Technology improves and becomes more capable over time. That's kind of the whole point of civilization -- we never reach Utopia, but we can get progressively closer to it as collective human knowledge and technical capability increase. Fair use is a thing. So instead of complaining about how the game has changed, take advantage of the new tools and opportunities that have been placed in front of you. Fricken' Luddites.
Thanks for articulating that necessary point. And we should keep in mind that the whole justification for having patent and copyright protection is to benefit the _society_ by making creative work something creators will be more likely to undertake knowing that with copyright and patent protection they can reap financial rewards from it. Creatives are given protection not because of some inherent right but because of the benefit their having that right has for the larger community.
This was _very_ well said! Very well said indeed! I think that people have some perverted and ultimately mystical notions of how creativity and the creative process work. Moreover, I think that AI got it wrong, too. Creativity _is_ nothing more than the reworking of existing ideas. I mean, how could it possibly be anything else? We are all born with a mental state of _tabula rasa._ We are _blank slates._ And from that point we imbibe information, mix it up, and then regurgitate it. How could we possibly do anything else? From where could truly novel ideas originate? For some idea to be _truly_ novel, in the sense that it was not based on pre-existing ideas, then it would have had to have originated from _outside_ the universe. And so, to believe in some truly novel creative process in humans, you must believe that such ideas are somehow transmitted to people directly from God. Belief in human exceptionalism is a _faith._ For there is no evidence to support it. People are, when you examine the mechanics of human brains closely, simply computational beings. Bi-pedal, organic, computational beings, perhaps, but computational beings nonetheless. Moreover, and my final point, we do _not_ see the world in the same way as each other. The film that you see will _not_ be the same film that I see. It will be very similar because we both share very similar cultural and evolutionary histories, but it will not be the _same._ When we look at a hill before us, the height that it _objectively_ appears to us to be, that is to say, the height that it literally looks to be in our visual cortex, is dependent on a myriad of factors, including; our age, our level of fitness, and even how much weight we may be carrying in our backpack. The world that we see is unique to us, yes, but only because we possess unique _histories,_ and _not_ because we possess some ethereal, supernatural, god-given unique soul. Humans are computers. I don't necessarily like to think of myself this way, but what other way is there to think of oneself? As some transcendental agent possessing of magical insights? No, humans are computers. Humans are computers that invented, unsurprisingly, computers. These computers may not currently possess the full complexity of human brains - which are still the most complex states of matter that we know to currently exist in the universe - yet they work in _exactly_ the same way. Both humans and computers imbibe information, scramble it all up, and then spit out information according to underlying complex algorithmic functions. Humans are blenders. Sorry if that offends anybody, but we _are._ Humans are blenders, we are not supernatural beings, full stop.
We do see SOME distinction, surely, though between AI doing what "other artists" do in this regard and how AI is doing it not on "a portfolio of paintings" on the internet, but on ALL paintings publicly available, ever made at a scale millions of times faster than any human could accomplish in a thousand lifetimes?
@@d.d.jacksonpoetryproject, human artists-in-training have the advantage that they have bodies, and can use their eyes to study the physical world in addition to viewing digital content. But when it comes to viewing digital art, AI is sort of a scaled up, more efficient version of a human. I'll ask you this, if you're an art lover, how many paintings (including reproductions in books, digital copies online, etc.) have you seen over the course of your life? Probably tens of thousands at least. At a certain point, you've probably seen enough to learn the patterns in the data, as far as basics of art, in any case. The details of how AI learns, and how that differs from the way humans learn, aren't really pertinent to my larger point. Using publicly available content to train AI is completely acceptable fair use, as long as that content was willfully posted on the internet by its creators or their agents/representatives.
Good evening World Science Festival Super short discussion considering Team Human is pretty important stuff to be thinking and getting on with. In short! Film making needs humans, me thinks. 💜
AI is not copyright violation. If I read all books and papers on some scientific issue and then ask me a question then I answer you based on my readings, then this is not considered copyright violation. As I used the knowledge existing in public field
You are confusing the visual cognitive process of reading with the AI language model training set. AI simulates based on real human information and yes, most of it is copyrighted and not permitted to be used for this purpose.
Yeah, and you claim YOU thought of the answer to those issues, without crediting the books and papers you read. AI is doing that with billions of copyrighted materials.
There was a critical aspect missed by Bateman which would have helped her argument (which i agree with...) and that is the word: ARTIFICIAL. Organic (human) creativity will always trump (oops…sorry…) anything artificial. No matter how well AI functions, as far as manifesting (as opposed to generating) something which might be lasting and prove to be Timeless in meaning, relevance and contain humanistic value; human creativity (experience, emotions, memory, aesthetics - in their infinite amounts and combinations) as the driving force could never be outdone. It's not only the "output"...but the HUMAN story behind the output which gives valued-credibility. If the reliance upon the tool (AI) is the sole means to an end - then of course therein lies no humanity. The result can only be a mere passing novelty.
12:01 The AI does not describe what it does. She is right. It is BS. But creativity is hard to define of course! Movie producers watch movies don’t they?
Blatant misogyny here - it appears that the moderators of this were looking to facilitate a cat fight. The two speakers are clearly very intelligent women - one of them making a cogent but narrow argument about the dangers of generative AI, and the other expressing a great deal of nuance and depth of thought around the broader ethics and potential for a variety of kinds of AI. Well played to the speakers invited for staying composed in presenting their expertise and perspectives as the moderator attempted to start a fight.
The future in arts is no money allowed to be involved. ....if I want to create a tv show, then I have access to create, produce that. I have that right as much as you.. If I need money, the worst is overcontrol by a rich person. Also, a bunch of repetitive bad stuff, because money is true motive. ....do you need to make money? ...we should all be paid to be on earth. Self esteem feels this fact.
There's a bunch of problems with AI but actors and film being replaced is the least of our concerns. In fact, society would benefit if Hollywood ceased to exist.
There will always be a market for "human" created content, at all different levels. You can see this in many different products/industries. I think the fight against technology is a fraught one. One area I agree w/Justine is on compensation to the artists. I think the big corps should have to pay for the content they use (unless they already own it).
Its not just that. Its the IP theft that has already occurred with 0 consequences. If corps do it... lawmakers don't care because they're getting their pockets padded.
Bullshit? I completely agree with the idea that AI is giving. In fact I am the proponent of the idea of looking broadly on things that we call life, work, physics etc, we call it philosophy.
The first person to make a movie using AI that generates a substantial amount of money will most likely be sued and lose all ownership to a corporation like Disney. It will go to court, the meta data will be cracked open and you will find - as example - that the suspiciously looking castle is indeed Snow Whites castle. Boom - Disney owns the property. Don't believe it. Look up how Tim Burton lost the copyrights to the Nightmare Before Christmas characters. You think he makes a penny off all that merchandise? Under U.S. case law, copyright owners may be able to show that such outputs infringe their copyrights if the AI program both (1) had access to their works and (2) created “substantially similar” outputs.
These two guests were not juxtaposed properly. Their fields aren't comparable. One is a member of 10's of 1000's if not more performing artists that have had everything stolen from them and likely feel extremely violated. The other is a digital artist that teaches kids. Horrible juxtaposition.
AI will replace human connection and emulate it so you won't feel isolated, in fact tho without it you will be. It's gonna be a fun era to find your people.
I like the way WSF is trying to incorporate many diferent topics (even if I don't like every one), but I have come to expect a certain amount of "let's disagree but be civil about it" in such an elegant universe that Brian Green sets. This was hard to watch. If I want all the single-minded, crude "discussions" I'll watch a political debate. Ms. Bateman could have made her argument much better, clearer and compassionately without going to the lower level. Her argument was superficial at best when it could have had much more depth. I don't disagree with her, but she could have provided more substance. My least favourite one. Brian is a wonderful moderator, nonetheless.
I really don’t know what to make of this. I confess I have been thinking about cyber warfare. Things, in a perfect world we might say no to, are things we have to become knowledgeable about when there are evil actors. Russia, China, North Korea, Iran. The list goes on.
She couldn't be more wrong. You can spend many hours, days, weeks, or even months working on a creative project while using generative ai as part of the creative process. To create is to create, and the hours put into a creative project when using AI is valid. I've always been a creative and have an absolute urge inside me that will create no matter what whether ai is involved or not. I'm team human and it's more human than ever to use technology to create
Some of us are very attached to our ideas concerning our own cleverness, but treat it as an opportunity. We can make new art here-abstract this a bit-replace cleverness with human exceptionalism or anything and everything else, but then something strange happens when you get to identity. Does it fragment into ideas that we project as cohesive, or is there something deeper-a quanta not of consciousness but of identity? What structure does it take? Is it nostalgia all the way down? There are pitfalls and potentials from any new technologies. The printing press, photography, digital technologies-every major advancement profoundly changes the societies in the places eras and contexts that locate them. Both awareness and self observation have the power to unlock not just our assumptions but our ideas about free will regardless of whether or not the universe is deterministic. Astrology was not advantageous to prior societies because it was correct or accurate but because the framework made people more aware of the smaller pieces of their interpersonal relations. And that's really just an untestable hypothesis since the people of those societies have past limited lifespans in our time challenged universe-so not even science. Oh well.
What is Bateman hoping to do, reinvent the wheel? I believe it's called adaption, and Bateman seems to know nothing about it. Luckily people like Boisevert seems prepared to adapt and lead in this area. Bateman seems kind of snobbish in telling me that if I suck and can't create something good, that I shouldn't be able to use a tool in that effort. I think that she's missing the point and dumbing people down, and creators are going to create when others that can't shouldn't be able to. That's like saying a dictionary allows people to cheat, because somebody created a tool to help other people look up words. There are way too many people who want to hold us back because they are afraid of losing their position/status in life. I think it's both genius and a gimmick right now. I thought Bateman was going to bring more to the table, but I'm afraid she just made the industry seem out of touch with the times. She just seems really hardcore sourpuss over it, when she should really learn to embrace and to help guide it.
Outputting AI content is like being out of shape and giving yourself a toned body in Photoshop - it doesn’t make you a creative (let alone an artist), just like Photoshop doesn’t get you in shape.
I'm in the minority here, but I'm 100% with Justine Bateman on this and I'm glad she's been so outspoken.
I adore and respect Brian Greene. I've bought and read all of his books and have listened to many talks over the years. But I disagree with his view on generative AI.
Can I ask why?
You do realize that any laws or regulation we as a western society put on AI will just be ignored by other countries like China and Russia meaning they will advance by leaps and bounds with this technology while we hinder ourselves
Hate the technology as much as you want, but unless you plan on devising some way of destroying all electronics on earth AI is going to be the most powerful tool of the future and the countries with the best AI will be the most powerful
So again I ask, why do you want the West to be hindered on the global stage?
I'm with you. Yes, Ms Bateman was a few times crude with her language. Which is unfortunate, because what she has to say needs to be said. I feel this discussion is like the fictional one at the beginning of "The Last of Us" - we're warned about the danger of AI and most people just laugh it off.
I've been a software engineer for 40 years. I'm in agreement with Justine too.
Oh please, she is moron and she actually comes across as such. What does a former flight attendant know about anything? There is an old adage that has been circulating among creative folks long before advent of AI that, if you copy one person, it is plagiarism but if you copy many, it is creativity. Keep in mind that she has no problem when other humans watch these publicly available films and get ideas from them and learn acting, writing etc from them. But when AI does exactly the same, she has problem. At best, it is a prejudice against AI. About her car analogy, the correct way to express that analogy is that AI watches a parked car and gets impression about car design from it, because AI is not stealing (films / cars) but getting impressions from them. I think her hostility comes from the fact that she realises AI may make human actors extinct and she feel her bread and butter is being threatened. Trust me, many software engineers, who develop the very AI, have same exact concerns but when they speak about it, they are just more coherent.
@@donjordan9444 The appeal to authority is strong here.
The negative effects of social media is proof of technology's impact. It has contributed to the spread of misinformation & disconnected people from genuine social interactions. Our behavior on these platforms often feels dysfunctional, with negative aspects like trolling, online abuse, the exploitation of children, and users being influenced by viral content without truly understanding the context. These online behaviors can have significant consequences that affect the real world, highlighting how technology can have unforeseen consequences. Similarly, it's crucial to consider the potential negative impacts of AI-assisted creativity, particularly if people use the technology solely for profit, such as by replacing artists or workers with AI to generate content in the entertainment industry This could lead to the erosion of creativity, originality, and authenticity, or even the manipulation of individuals through AI-generated content
Ecologist/biologist and visual artist here.I can remember the eary days of the personal computer and the internet. The tech bros told us it was all going to be so helpful to us and not to worry. Now we have our young people addicted to social media and in despair and our political intercourse full of misinformation and division. Now again were are told not to worry about AI and how it is going to make life better. Hybridizing out humanity with digital machines? What could possibly go wrong? Somehow we are never satisfied with the human experience. I do not believe we really know what we are doing. I am afraid the downside is potentially really bad and dehumanizing.
So you would rather throw out everything that computers have done?
If you think computers have been a net negative, then you should stop using them.
@@spindoctor6385 That is not what I said spin doctor. Not everything is a binary choice.
@@robertspies4695 So do you have a conclusion then or were you just stating what every person who has been paying attention already knew?
What ARE you saying?
Most, including the proponent of gen AI in this video, do not state that it'll have no downsides. Nearly everything is a double edged sword. Most 'tech bros' understand this as well, but obviously focus on their positive intent. So, most are already in agreement with your point. With the potential good comes the potential bad. If you have a point beyond this, I'd be interested. It becomes a matter of weighing the pros and cons, and I think there's far more pros.
Imo, one of the most important discussions regarding AI was overlooked in this conversation - a conversation about corporate GREED. Justine briefly touched upon it, but I wish she had delved deeper into this topic. The slow, incremental use of AI technology that has crept into so many aspects of our lives (and arguably, has its benefits) is akin to the frog in the pot who doesn’t understand it is being slowly boiled.
In the film industry, if AI can be used to “create” movies, think about ALL the people who will be out of work - actors, directors, writers, costume designers, production designers, cinematographers, lighting designers, sound technicians, hair and makeup artists, yes.
But also craft services, the entire production crew, the set builders, truck drivers etc., etc. All these people’s jobs will be eliminated. Gone. And who benefits the most from that? The studio executives and corporations, who get to pocket more money from the industry they helped kill.
(First thing first, English isn't my 1st language. My apology for any grammar mistake).
In the other hand, as you said yourself. AI will lower the production cost. That works both for corporate or for individuals. Which mean, someone with story in his head but lack of fund to make a movie out of it, now can make the movie without have to get the corporate's funding.
If you see it that way, isn't that AI can become a tools for people with creativity, but lack of fund and networks?
AI benefits film and book writers though. Anybody will be able to write their own movie into existence. Personally I think I can write better movies then the crap hollywood cranks out. Lets not pretend like current tv is great, it's not. Most of it is hot garbage.
@@Handoko-p8g the democratization of music production with pro-tools, beats and samples has decimated the music industry drowning in a sea of mediocre output from home studios across the planet. Only a teeny tiny fraction of music talent can make a living doing it now. Great talents have given up creating new music because it won’t pay the bills. This is what will happen when businessmen think they can bypass real talent to obtain a product to peddle. What they can’t see is if people sense the phony imitation of human creativity they won’t buy it. There’s plenty of money to be lost in learning this lesson, and their hubris is pressing the accelerator to full throttle.
@@batautomat If you say (CMIIW) AI create a "sea of mediocre output", wouldn't that means that a great talent in music would be stay above this sea.
After period of time where the consumer (people) drown in mediocrity, won't they search for qualities? Something above the mediocre. Something shine among the mediocrity.
Since AI isn't capable of real creativity, the real music talent will always be above them.
What do you think about that?
it's funny all this talk about generative AI Justine to end up finally pointing the real problem which is capitalism lol
I'm only 10 minutes in and I can tell this is going to be one of the hardest-to-watch discussions Brian has hosted that I've seen so far. I look forward to watching Brian moderate this with grace and elegance.
It's frightening how quickly some are to just throw humanity out of the equation. Like do some people really have so little faith in them self and the human spirit that they gleefuly give the act of creation to a souless algorithm?
Ms. Bateman's concerns about theft in the entertainment industry raise interesting questions about the broader economic context of film production. It's worth considering the complex supply chains and funding sources that support the industry, including the origins of materials used in production.
While the entertainment world can sometimes seem focused on individual needs, it's important to remember that film production is a collaborative effort involving many people and processes. The evolution from traditional theater to modern filmmaking has indeed brought significant technological changes, which have transformed the artistic process.
This technological shift in creative production raises thought-provoking questions about the nature of art itself. As we see advancements in AI-generated content, it prompts us to reconsider our definitions of creativity and artistry. Perhaps it's time to expand our understanding of what constitutes art in the digital age.
When I was young, people came to my house to sell enciclopedias (books made with paper). But somebody invented the internet and now that job does not exist. The world has to adapt to new technologies. I can’t finish this video watching the encyclopedia lady insult everybody.
The internet did not interfere with the process of compiling information and presenting it in a document. It replaced printed books for websites, much like film cameras were replaced by digital ones. But get this - the digital camera STILL DOES NOT choose where to look and how to frame stuff. AI assists anyone in generating a competently placed and framed shot, even if they can’t even turn on a camera. This is problematic. You have no business outputting a guitar solo if you can’t play guitar. You have no business outputting a painting and say “I created this”. You created nothing, just like when you commission an artist to painting something you want, you don’t get to say “I painted this” because you were the one oh asked for you. The artist is the creator, the artist has all the merit, not the person who prompted them.
@@alexalexis7899My point is only referring to new tech consequences. Somebody develops some new technology … right or wrong … the world has to adapt. Atom bombs, lab viruses, airplanes, digital fake money (governments print paper money without the gold or silver to back it up) it’s just digits on a computer. Cell phone radiation, chemical fake foods, oil digging … it’s all wrong, damaging or dangerous. But the world has to adapt. Who can stop every AI lab or scientist in the world and prevent every living human to use it ?
The world has to adapt to new tech.... no kidding, wow what a revelation. That doesn't mean stealing the entire worlds IP is OK. Certainly if anyone else did it but these corps, they and their families would be paying off the debt the rest of their lives. Your argument is very ignorant.
encyclopedia lady...well said🤣🤣
@@alexalexis7899im sincerely curious. Are you a traditional artist? Have you used AI for creation and to what extent?
Creating a play where luminaries such as Walt Whitman, Nikola Tesla, Einstein, Rumi, Emily Dickinson, Nietzsche, Max Planck, Captain Picard, Data, Tagore, Maya Angelou ... Etc. to see how they act would be fascinating !
Man ! WSF has to be ridiculous one day and today is that day
Moderator: Today, we're exploring the impact of AI on filmmaking and the performing arts. Joining us are Justine Bateman, an Emmy and Golden Globe-nominated actor and filmmaker, and Heidi B, a computer scientist and interdisciplinary artist developing an AI and the Arts curriculum at the University of Florida.
Heidi, let's start with your work. Can you describe your piece "Radical Signs of Life" and how it incorporates AI and technology?
Heidi: Certainly. "Radical Signs of Life" is a critique of cybernetics and how our bodies can generate art. We created biophysical sensors that read dancers' autonomic and somatic systems, translating their movements into music and visual imagery. The work explores the concept of internal colonization as technology becomes more embedded in our bodies. It's a reflection on the potential future of human-technology interaction in art.
Moderator: Fascinating. Now, Justine, you have a more cautious view of AI in film. Can you elaborate?
Justine: Absolutely. I see generative AI as a significant threat to the film industry. It's essentially a massive copyright violation, using existing creative works without permission to generate new content. This isn't creativity; it's regurgitation. My concern is that it will decimate the industry by replacing human roles throughout the production pipeline.
Moderator: Heidi, how do you respond to these concerns in your curriculum development?
Heidi: Our program at the University of Florida aims to balance innovation with ethics. We're teaching students to use AI tools critically, understanding their potential and limitations. We focus on the ethical implications, including bias and issues of race and gender. Our goal is to prepare students for a changing landscape while maintaining human creativity at the core.
Justine: I appreciate the focus on ethics, but I still see fundamental issues. Using AI in creative processes diminishes true artistry. Artists should rely on their own creativity and vision, not a program that mashes together existing works. I believe this trend could lead to a loss of genuine human expression in art.
Moderator: Heidi, you've mentioned the concept of "co-creation" with AI. Can you expand on that?
Heidi: The idea is to use AI as another tool in the creative process, not to replace human creativity. It's about finding new ways to expand artistic expression, similar to how other technologies have influenced art throughout history. We're exploring how AI might work alongside human performers or help generate new forms of interactive experiences.
Justine: I understand the concept, but I'm deeply skeptical. My concern is that industry leaders will use AI primarily to cut costs and increase profits, not to enhance creativity. We risk losing the human touch that makes art meaningful and the shared cultural experiences that bring us together.
Moderator: As we conclude, it's clear there are divergent views on AI's role in the arts. Heidi sees potential for innovation and new forms of expression, while Justine warns of significant risks to the industry and artistic integrity. This conversation highlights the need for ongoing dialogue as we navigate the intersection of technology and creativity in the arts.
Nice sanitized compression of the somewhat deranged 40-minute discussion.
For the first time, I’m disappointed in the discussion here. Apples and oranges. Putting sensors on dancers’ bodies to create new visual experience has nothing whatsoever to do with having no more screenwriters because someone put some data into a computer and printed out 100 screenplays.
I value the unique human-ness of creativity. We are people with limitless minds that bring many thoughts and sensations together in often unexpected ways.
Generative AI is limited by the algorithm. If an algorithm removes the human from the equation, we have no more culture.
Agree. Feels like such a clumsy attempt at "balance". (not the first time for me...) A huge disservice to both speakers, and to the audience.
surely whatever we create is going to be human by default. people have been watching too many frankenstein movies. i've been a graphic designer and artist with a variety of mediums, lately sculpture and i'm happy to use AI and have it used, i see this "panic" as being not so different from when photography was going to bring an end to painting. AI will be a parallel, it's not competition, i;ve used AI to help with my sculpture. i don't see people frightened of biros.
as for our lovely dancers, one of the most unpleasant jobs i've had was rotoscoping black dancers in black costumes with reflective dots on them in low light for a week, AI could have saved me from that one. (you trace off the position of the dots and then do animated art over the top - rotoscoping). i am an animator, i have a channel.
The lady against has a far more persuasive argument ..I’ve tried AI to do a music vid and problem is it just looks like AI and there is no soul to it ..I’m very enthusiastic about new technologies and would hate to be called a “ Luddite “ but the magnificent anti lady is right ..we don’t need computers for artistic creativity..we have the human brain for that ..Brian Greene imperious as ever ..he is a great man
I agree, though I think it will reach a point where you can't tell it has no soul. To me, my anti-genAI stance all boils down to the inevitable greed of capitalism. In a vacuum, generative AI as a technology is pretty cool, and it will only get better. But in the real world, generative AI has been and is only going to continue to erode culture. Creativity won't ever go away, and people will still create for the sake of it, but if it's not regulated heavily, generative AI will be used to create and sell content that the masses will consume, and artists of all kinds of mediums will be less and less able to make a living on what they create.
I'm only halfway though the video (paused because of said lady and found myself replying to you).
I disagree. If we try using the AI tools to replace us on the task we want to achieve, of course the results will definitely be "soulless", but surely we can use the tools to help us achieve what we want. I'm betting on great artists in the near future to come up with some great creative ways on how to use and combine these tools to great achievements we are not yet expecting.
Disclaimer, as a software engineer I'm already using AI tools to help me achieve my goals much easier and faster, it wouldn't replace me and we're still quite far from it.
Back to the arts, in music we've been using automation and electronic tools for long time, there's always some frowning in the beginning, and then always someone comes up with great ways to abuse the tools to achieve things not possible before. I believe the same is going to happen with AI.
Now I'll continue with the rest of the video :)
@@jorgedias6436 Yeah, if you've finished the video, you probably know, that's not what she's saying. She's not against this. In theory. Like almost everybody else in these comments. “Oh, we could do wonderful stuff”. Yeah, maybe we could, but are we going to? The problem is we will be flooded with low-quality content. At least, short-term. This has already happened. And it's going to be worse. Much worse. Well, the next question is: would it lead to irredeemable loss of qualification by creatives? It's really hard to even survive without a community and a marketplace. Will they be preserved?
I mean, you can say that if one is really that creative, they'll be able to win the market. However, this hypothesis just doesn't hold a test by history.
The issue is not “AI”, but an unregulated profit-driven industry. I'm not against profit, but it works almost universally poorly as the only metric.
Yes, social media led to an explosion of creativity, but it's largely short-form and superficial. Professional content takes time, and it may be hard for it to break in the noise. Is anybody even going to listen?
i've been playing around with AI for a few months now and i think it's just as capable as any human to create beauty, in fact i'm amazed at how good it is at creating beautiful faces that look every bit as human as a human face, whatever prompt you use, whether it's artistic, photographic or even abstract. i've been a graphic designer, animator, and now sculptor for most of my life and i have very little criticism for AI in art - it actually helped me with poses ideas for my last sculpture.
remember when the camera was going to make painting redundant?
@@HarryNicNicholas It's a fundamentally social critique. It's not about potential benign uses of technology or your capabilities. It's about power dynamics and societal structure.
So, you are saying, AI is a powerful tool. Doesn't this precisely reinforce the concerns about its applications?
Perhaps a WSF session to discuss the benefits vs the risks associated with technology over the last 50 or so years would be a good starting point to address our future with generative AI and how our society and regulatory environment ought to be appropriately managed.
The issue isn’t really AI itself; it’s more about us; "Humans". We often discuss AI as if it were a living being, imagining we need to defend against it. At our core, humans have an innate desire for power, which means it’s ultimately our responsibility to choose whether to harness AI for good or not so good outcomes. Let’s remember that the choices we make can shape the future!
Ms Bateman was unprofessional, discourteous and rude. She was condescending and disrespectful and didn’t deserve to be on the dais.
Typical anti-ai fan-artist.
The lady against kept using profanities and saying "you will see" - lacking other convincing argument. She's also wrong about the copyright - as I can study movie making in college, study directors and then borrow their techniques and produce a new movie in their style. No one is going to accuse me of theft. The pro lady was more composed, open and soft-spoken.
this was really shallow in my opinion. not one really original thought in this whole thing. all stuff i already read in countless other shitty articles. this was really basic. we really shoudl define the word creativity. i dont think creativity exists. its accumulation of data in our brains. i dont think there is room for some esoterical thinking about this. if new data is combined like not seen before you could call it creativity. done. this whole shitty debate is over. you only really have a debate if you bring in god like arguments, morals, and so on. and i dont care about morals. morals are like assholes.. everyone has them. they arent objective. they are a deeply human concept. the universe doesnt have morals. AIs dont have morals. math isnt concerned with morals. 1+1=3 isnt immoral. its simply wrong!
Uh no, the dancing ai “creative technologist” lady, what ever the hell that is, clearly lives in a box. She is delusional and detached from the human experience. She’s actually very scary.
No one will accuse you of theft because you have a point of view… a way of seeing the world as well as something to say… all of the the things you’ve studied will be funneled through you and your perspective. A computer cannot do that. especially if you believe in spirituality and creativity.
You can’t apply copyright to a skill or a technique. Artists get inspired and admit where they got the source from. Ai doesn’t. But copyright is still a big deal to IP and artists styles. If you ask the slop generator to make an Italian plumber, it will add red overalls and make it look like Mario. And if you sell it, that’s a copyright violation.
@@SlimboBuddy humans are able to do the same thing: merging together pieces from other sources and completely lacking their own original thoughts.
Thank you World Science Festival🌈🌈🌈🌈🌈
Oh wow, I was not expecting Justine Bateman on this panel. I remember watching Justine on the show "Family Ties".
The Turing Test I first heard about, was two terminals, one hooked to a hidden computer, the other to a hidden female "secretary". The test failed with the first question posed to each: "Can you come out here and give me a kiss" One terminal answered, "no". The other terminal answered, "yes, but I won't". The conclusion is clear. An AI machine can not pass the Turing test until it has the ability to lie at will.
Lying is a form of creativity, not limited to humans. Almost all species exhibit the ability to pretend.
Those people dancing in the beginning with what sounded like a toilet flushing was amazing!!!
"Policy" - We Don't Get To Pick & Choose What Laws We Want To Follow?!?
It felt like talking to people who are doomed in a plane from those Air Crash Investigations.
Edit: It felt like the coliseum with gladiators sans the gruesome action.
"Why are we listening to this?" says the woman whose argument is being firmly and politely dismantled by the 'speaker.' "It's just a bunch of bullshit," she says without actually addressing any part of the counterpoint. "It's a parlour trick," she says, as if parlour tricks can't be absolutely astonishing. "This is _not_ a sentient being," she says, responding to the strawman argument she has built.
This will be the first WSF video I've ever started and not finished.
Could not agree more. I hear this so often from people who have an enormous amount of disdain for generative AI. The irony of her criticizing generative AI as derivative bullshit, when she herself is being derivative with statements like "it's just a blender". It doesn't seem like she has enough of an understanding about generative AI to even make valid criticisms of it.
I understand why she thinks training generative AI is "theft", and I'm not even saying there is no discussion to be had about that, but I think a lot of people who hold this view don't really have a good understanding or definition of what IP really is. Is it considered theft for a future superstar actor to watch thousands of films depicting actors who they idolize? Is it considered theft if they then incorporate similar styles of their idols into their own acting? Is it considered theft if later film critics can point out similarities between this superstar actor's style and the actors who they grew up idolizing?
I think most reasonable people would say no, but if we were to replace "superstar actor" with "generative AI", suddenly it's copyright infringement? I don't know why so many people believe AI should be held to a completely different standard than we hold humans to.
She was belligerent, arrogant and thick headed
Since she has a degree in computer science she should be impressed by the creation of a universal function approximator that is so complex that it's able to extract the essence of a multitude of styles and subjects and potentially output unique works, as a human does in the abstract.
She tried using the education as an argument from authority, and as a put down to those in the audience without those credentials. This also fails as it starts with the false premise that creativity has to be from intelligence. However, one can view humans taking in existing styles and subjects, transforming them into some 'creative' output, as just a bio-mechanical input/output function as well. It's a human centric bias that leads us to think our creativity is more special than another form.
and the audience applauds...
I think that movies (partly) created by AI are going to do quite well at the box office. The reason why, is because the script of an average blockbuster is already the product of hundreds of rewrites by tens (or even hundreds? I’m no expert) of writers. So, the creative mixing, of which ChatGPT is so proud, is already happening on a large scale.
That’s probably the reason why I rarely watch those movies (and even rarer, finish one). I prefer movies where the personality of a creator is omnipresent. (Movies by the Coen-brothers, Roman Polanski or TV-series like Breaking bad, Fargo.)
Gen AI is helpful to me.
22:38 If it is just, "a stupid program," what is there to worry about?
Because CEOs think they know better and they fire everyone to replace them with Ais, to their own demise. Meanwhile highly skilled people are going homeless. The issue is not AI, it's the people who make the decisions about how they're gonna be used who are the issue.
What does Justine think about generative AI like Alpha Fold that is figuring how to fold proteins and create new medicines/treatments? Should that tool be abolished?
@@SlimboBuddy What? That's not what Alphafold is, or how it works.
Alpha fold isn't generative AI. Most AI isn't generative, but problem solving via input/output, a slightly different action. However, yes, alpha fold is very helpful in the medical space for medicines/treatments via speeding up folding simulations of amino acids.
@@JimBob1937 True, it's not generative in sense of image generative AI, but it uses deep learning and is trained on a lot of data to create prediction models. My larger point is, where does Justine draw her lines on where it is OK to use AI and where not? I'm not sure she has thought this all the way through.
@@KDawg5000 , I’ve done AI model development for years at this point. Just trying to clarify that the community doesn’t view such a thing as ‘generative.’ Otherwise, all AI models are generative, since they generate solutions. A folding solution isn’t creating new semi-arbitrary outputs, it’s solving/estimating a deterministic problem given some input. Given this, she likely draws the line at actual generative AI that competes with what she views as output unique to humans via our creativity. I think she’s wrong as she’s exhibiting human bias and attributing mystical properties to human creative output. For some people, they associate spirituality with creative endeavors and thus view the process as something more than mechanical (I view humans as just biological machines myself). I may not agree with her, but that’s likely the source of the disagreement.
@@JimBob1937 I sort of put her in the bucket of anti-tech, even though she claims she's not. Humans who fight against technology don't have a good track record. That being said, I think tools that use human's work should compensate the humans. But what happens when data from humans is no longer needed. Where does her argument go? Is it just bad because she doesn't like it?
I have a couple of points. First, I agree that Ms. Bateman was not as professional as she should have been, which diminished the potential effect of her argument. (Any guest on a show like this needs to take into account the audience and "tame the tongue.")
However, related to an important point Ms. Bateman made about human-vs.-AI creativity, I would like to highlight the point Ms. Boivert makes at time signature 26:15 to 27:10. My response would have been that it's one kind of creativity to invent ("create") AI that will help artists in their work, but that kind of "technological creativity" is not the same as human "artistic creativity"; therefore, pure artistic creativity does get lost in the mix, so to speak.
My second point is this: I can envision a day when AI-generated musical artists will "create" AI-generated music and will build fanbases that flock to concerts performed by their favorite AI artists. In my opinion, that would be a "gimmick" and a sad state of affairs.
interestingly the audience responded MORE to Ms. Bateman (raw, emotional and outspoken) than to the other guest. Seems to be the way people are reacting these days...look how many people follow the loud, raw and crude candidate...People seem to be more emotionally driven now.
How intellectually close minded.
It’s not the artists who are celebrating generative ai alone.
A LOT of people, myself included, are overjoyed to be able to avoid dismissive artists like this woman speaking so boldly about the inevitable morality of her opinion that life artists aren’t regurgitating their own work.
People who need a stable, cooperative, middle of the road, shows up when asked and doesn’t stonewall or complain, want generative AI.
People like her can still compete. Artistically they are fine. Personally, let them catch up in politeness to the fake human ai programs produce reliably now. Or leave them behind for the next artists who use ai to push what ai is capable of.
When someone tells you about the dream they had last night, you can listen only so many seconds before you ask that person to shut up. Likewise, no one will care about the personalised version of a movie someone else saw.
Nonetheless, dreams can be awesome. And therefore, a personalised version of a movie might also be awesome?
Each type of Turing machine can be simulated by a standard Turing machine, demonstrating the versatility and power of the original model.
"... and so now we're into this arena of, well what can we make you that you didn't ask for and don't need, how about that?" Hyperbole aside, this is the take home from this talk. We can make all the comparisons to previous tech innovations we like, and lord knows the film industry has been pretty derivative and largely uninspiring for a while now (in my opinion). But the fact remains the role tech plays in generating content is growing exponentially and we appear to be steadily and willingly retiring into 'consumer corner'. When the parlor tricks become 'good enough' to have us effectively sedated and with 'minimal personal outlay', where do we suppose the funds for actual art or any of these new forms of tech-xpression will be coming from?
Very interesting and important discussion, thank you
Unfortunately we are out of time? Running out of time was the most fortunate thing to happen to this discussion.
Please expound ?!?
@@readynowforever3676 The discussion was made close to useless by a person to self involved to stay on topic, and even when given the freedom to take the conversation where she wanted, she still preferred swearing and fear mongering to making a rational point and then listening to a response.
If I was moderating this poor excuse for a discussion, I would have "run out of time" after 10-15 minutes.
@@spindoctor6385 Okay fair enough. I’ll finish watching the episode and see where it takes me. I did hear that assertion of stolen intellectual/artistic property.
DICK. Wtf is wrong with you?
Sounds DUMB ^@^
@@readynowforever3676exponent infinity =~ also k own, as approved
I find myself listening to these when I go to bed so I can fall asleep really fast.
The inaugural World Science Festival took place from May 28 to June 1, 2008, at 22 venues throughout New York City.
It included 46 events, a street fair and, on its first day, the one-day World Science Summit at Columbia University.
The Festival was attended by 120,000 people.
Thank you to the people of World Science Fair for better and more complete science.
As a gala event, we can recognize the Tracey Day Quantum at an upper level near 13 km and a lower level near 2,000 feet is no gimmick.
The positron science sees the positron reject the photon, rendering the invisibility aspect.
The lower Tracey Day Quantum, consisting of about 5 +/- 2 layers has the Dark Matter, positron rejection of the photon.
As the science of the P-P cycle in the Sun shows the splitting of the positron from both neutrino and photon affinity, our Tracey Day Quantum is the largest AI possible because it is organic.
Two of her middle layers are mostly silica based, where the AI intelligence sits between the outside positron cell membrane rectangular tilings.
This is no gimmick. The world computer is a Quantum AI. She is the Tracey Day Quantum AI, with positron outer wall cell membranes.
this was really shallow in my opinion. not one really original thought in this whole thing. all stuff i already read in countless other articles. this was really basic.
So would you say they took information in and “blended” it and regurgitated it?
GAI replacing current film practices is similar to CGI replacing traditional animation when it was introduced. While CGI expanded the possibilities for creators, traditional animation remains a viable option. Arguing against adding GAI to a creator's toolkit is illogical.
The human brain is a parlor trick. We smashed rocks together and someone stole that idea and did the next thing, and so on and so fourth. When you speak, all you do is decide what is the best word to come next, based on everything youve ever learned throughout your years.
that's called creating original ideas, or innovation, and AI can NOT do that.
1st problem = semantic
2nd problem = Relativity
3er problem = assumptions
4th problem = inclusion
5th problem = synergy
6th problem = combinations
7th problem = interpretation
8th problem = where
9th problem = how
10th problem = hammered it into
11th problem = In Order to find out this problem you have to get into the coliseum and dance with A.I
12th problem = path or solution dilema
13th problem = ~
Only AI %, not all of it
Big thumbs down to Justine Bateman, who sounds like an old lady oblivious to technology.
A huuuuge thumbs up for Heidi Boisvert, who correctly identified AI generating for what it is : another tool in the hands of artists, a tool just like the pen, the recorder, the film tape, the camera lens, the older Photoshop etc.
unprofessional terrible human
Justines frustration comes from knowing that the higher ups want to replace the artists who would use it as a tool
A perfect way to put it!
What pen are you using that is capable of interpreting what you want to write or draw? What recorder are you using that is capable of interpreting what and how you want to record? What lens are you using that is capable of interpreting how to frame and compose a shot? What version of PS are you using that is capable of interpreting which elements should be removed, added and corrected to elevate a photograph to a Magnum-level shot? Mind you, auto-exposure is *slightly* different from what I just described. Slightly. AI is not a tool anymore than an exoskeleton that you put on and magically lets you play soccer as well as Ronaldo or Messi is a tool.
She's insufferable
I would like to hear about situations where people have creative ideas but lack the skills to bring them to fruition. If someone isn't a good writer, generative AI would let them tell their story. If someone can't draw, generative AI would let them realize what's in their mind's eye.
we really shoudl define the word creativity. i dont think creativity exists. its accumulation of data in our brains. i dont think there is room for some esoterical thinking about this. there is no moral dilemma using AI to express yourself, thats still just data accumulation between two systems.
Also the cost. You could be a great writer, and a great artist but have a budget of $0 to make your film.
Exactly! It's a tool to help people create what they couldn't before.
"If someone isn't a good writer, generative AI would let them tell their story" Then it's not their story. If you're a bad writer, your stories are bad. Simple as that. They are not worth telling. Just because AI wrote you a story, doesn't mean it's your story. Just like if you order a pizza, you didn't actually make a pizza
This leads into nothing but laziness. Even talented people will get demoralized... society will fall into apathy and laziness, even the ones who had potential. These AI-Frankestein creations are already taking space and visibility from real art. It's going to happen more and more. Art, music, creative writing, video. The internet will become contaminated, some expert estimates say in less than 2 years 90% of internet will be AI generated. People will start to want authenticity again, but it's gone
So, is it a tool, like a ghost-writer?
11 minutes in and oh boy.. of all bones to pick, that’s certainly an interesting one
The "creativity" of human writers, actors, musicians, engineers, etc., is very much the result of all the media, books, music, education, etc., they have consumed during their lives. Your mind is "blending" previous experiences just like the AI is blending the data it's been trained with. It's pretty much the same thing. You don't have to watch many modern TV shows or movies, or listen to much modern music to realize the writers, actors, etc., are rehashing much of the work that was done before them.
I didn't realize that a degree in computer science makes you omniscient, and that it also makes whatever you say correct no matter how pigeon-holed your viewpoint may be.
I am not at all afraid of AI being in the creativity business. We've had cartoons for 100 years now and what are they, but artificial representation? And so are digital effects and CGI. I understand that actors are full of their self importance and are very reluctant to embrace change (talkies anyone?).
You clearly have no real idea what AI is, or is supposed to be.
This has to be one of the stupidest comments on genAI I have ever heard in my life. It so fantastically misses the point that I don't even know where to begin or whether it's even worth trying. However, cartons are not an "artificial" representation. They are a stylistic representation that requires artistic vision & art direction. They also require incredible talent & vision usually of many people working in collaboration with a high degree of skill, which is developed via praxis over many, many years in pursuit of a singular artistic vision. None of which is artificial & all of which is very real.
Imagine what you want, but it’s simply not possible for AI to do these things with artfulness and human subtlety. AI is just mimicking the shell of human art making. AI will crash after a string of expensive failures because human audiences will feel how much it is lacking.
Yes, "Take Five" *is* great, & would be just as good if it was written by AI. But even better than agreeing with people about well-known music is when you discover great music you never heard before. That's how it is for people who love music, of course it might be different for some of you.
Idk if Brian reads comments but I feel like we're further away from the "science" part of the channels name and little too far into the "festival" part. This discussion wasn't great but rather than rip it apart I'll just say in general Brian is too smart and too inquisitive for some of the guests who pop up and want to show us their little art projects. And this is coming from an artist. I know the guest lineup needs variety but I wish the pendulum would swing back toward the high-level guests direction. Thats just imo
What artists would fit your criteria better?
I think it's an important discussion to have. And when philosophy is discussed too at the WSF, why not also the arts.
Actually Hollywood regurgitate itself quite a bit since it's beginning...
Closed minded. This woman would have been against CGI as something not drawn or painted by a human hand and therefore was not creative. And why be so rude and angry?
Bateman needs to read more not using profanity and prejudice that the issue with uneducated talking about AI
Yes I was really surprised and disappointed with Bateman. I really thought that she was going to bring more to the table. Boisvert was really on point.
9:35
She went "would you download a car?"
Amazing.
My view may be a bit extreme, but I think human creativity simply does not exist. We can't imagine something we haven't had a previous experience of. We can't think of a new colour. We can "create" only by adding, subtracting, merging concepts that are already known to us. In that, I don't see much of a difference compared to what an AI does. And that line will fade more and more in the future.
bingo.
A.I. does not have an experience of anything. And yes, human creativity does exist. Language has been with us for thousands of years, but we invent new words all the time. And there was a time before there was language at all. Yes, things evolve through recombination of what already exists but new things are created. This is called life. A.I. is a robot that can mimic this based on what we feed into it, text or images or whatever, and it it may be a great tool in generating combinations more quickly or with more variety and complexity than our limited minds are able to, but there will always be a clear distinction between what we do and what it does. We experience. AI does not.
@@hugegnarlyeyeball Babies don't have experiences of anything either and take a few years before they're able to really retain information and more to grasp complex idea while AI is able to do that immediately. This argument is so stupid you and this lady should feel bad for bringing it up
Tell that to Einstein. He never traveled the speed of light or fell in an elevator.
@@hugegnarlyeyeball so basically you only ascribe creativity to conscious entities. That's fair. But in order to do that, you should first know what consciousness is (which you don't because nobody does) and explain why you only ascribe it to living things (which is a very big assumption based on very little, I think).
Yes we invented language, that's to say, we assigned sounds and then symbols to concepts.
In reality we have no idea what happens inside the black box of an AI. It's fair to assume there's no "inner spark of consciousness" there. As of today.
But maybe consciousness is only a byproduct of complexity and embodiment. Who knows what will happen when we give AI a robotic body, which is happening right now? I see nothing radically different between a biological computer like a brain, and an electronic one.
Physics seems to indicate that free will is only an illusion, I wonder what that means for consciousness and creativity.
I have less answers than you but they are grounded in science and logic.
To listen to an activist with an idea, not abel or willing to discuss what’s happening is just pure pain!
Our modern luminaries (e.g. Brian, Elon, James Cameron, and every other tech bro) are the facilitators of ai anthropomorphization. When they speak of ai having human like traits and characteristics, positive or negative, they are perpetuating a false positive (or true negative idea depending on the context) that tech is becoming ‘something’ other than what it actually is. Justine is right in stating that it’s just a stupid program. Yes, technology always changes the world for better and worse but at the end of the day we humans are the creative ones. Technology is never inherently creative and is not endowed with any of its virtues when powered on. Ai technology is no different. It takes synapses and a human sensibility (albeit a unique one) to initiate creativity. Creativity is a human condition based on one’s ability to circumvent empirically derived limitations with or without the need for a reason. With all due respect to our wonderful host,
analyzing aggregated data, connecting dots, and finding correlations out of scope of human ability is not creativity. Just like flow, creativity is human. In discussions around or on the topic of ai, using terminology that that inherently implies any amount of subjective accounting to be performed by the listener is fairly deceitful and sneaky. Anthropomorphizing is over reaching, patronizing, and unfair to those who don’t quite understand the technology.
While GAI can replace current film practices, traditional filmmaking will still be an option. This new tool simply expands the possibilities for creators. Arguing against adding new tools to a creator's toolkit is illogical.
They're talking about getting prepared. It sounds very ignorant about our current reality. It's already too late to get prepared. Everyone has lost their jobs in the entertainment industry, so why are we even talking about preparing ourselves? We're literally at war, right now, with the big tech industry. People are literally losing their homes and going on the streets. How in hell this is not talked about in the media? It's not 'going' to happen. It has ALREADY HAPPENED! Unbelievable.
Jesus, this is NOT the place for grandstanding indignation about the specialness of human creativity. All creativity happens in the context of all that came before. She's either intellectually dishonest to the point of being an unprofessional hack or she's the prime candidate for an undergrad class in Linear Algebra. Yikes... Not a good look.
The change in the wind in terms of where AI is going is obvious here, a rapid change from the immediate past of boasting AI to replace humans to whether it makes sense at all.
Justine Bateman is a breath of fresh air even if the AI generated comments on RUclips disagree
She'd do herself a favor if her points had depth. She didn't actually attack the subject itself.
Funny, it's pretty clear on what side the guy 'conducting' the interview are...
AI is just acellerating the end of our society. Money hoarders will just be even more rich and the large part of humanity will need to live out of scraps. I agree with Bateman.
Dear Sir,
As you probably know me I am a decent scholar from Ireland(with Vietnamese-Chinese roots). I just want to let you and the world know that I have been mistreat by the Irish status quote. They dont let me get a job and but me in a hostel, make me study and taking advantage of my ideas. I am hoping to get the world attention and help me to get my freedom. They have never help me in anyway and now that I am about to make it, everyone want a slice out of it, which is horrible. So is there any chance can you help me to get out of Ireland, or if I cant get out, I'd like my own job and have nothing to do with them. Because the college wanted me to teach there have threaten me like the Mafia in order to get me to work for them. So is there anychance that can you spread the words out to help me to fight for my freedom???
All you youngens are like “The Lady…” vs “Justine Bateman from Family Ties…” 😂
Is that Mallory?
"Learned helplessness". Doesn't that sound a lot like paying people to not work for a living? Maybe Mike Rowe can chime in on this one.😳
Some people love old antiques, and other people don't care about them.
I think I've seen every talk from the World Science Festival, and Justine may be the most unprofessional guest that has ever been invited on. I get she's passionate, but you have to be able to have a conversation without pouring your emotions into it.
I think having emotions and being professional are perfectly compatible.
@@antoniocarrascopinto6086 not if you want to have a productive conversation, no. And I didn’t say she should be emotionless. She just shared thoughts that didn’t contribute to the conversation.
I for one cannot wait for new things in the future…anger and unwillingness to grow seems to me to be a difficult and lonely way to live.
There is such a thing as fair use. If an artist creates a portfolio of paintings and posts it on the internet, other artists are allowed to look at those paintings and study their composition, style, use of color, lighting, etc., and incorporate what they learn into their own work. That's exactly what AI is doing. The only reason people like Justine Bateman are complaining now is because with AI we've added a new technological layer to make this pattern recognition and learning process more efficient. We're automating the steps to save on unnecessary labor and democratize the creative process. The outputs generated by AI are new, unique works. They don't infringe on copyright because they aren't close enough to any pre-existing work to infringe. They may mimic the style of a work, but they are not the same work. So until you actually have a well-reasoned real case, and not just a prejudice based on "the way things used to be" before this technology existed, please shut up. The job market isn't a fixed thing. Available jobs and career paths are dependent on the technology that exists at a particular moment in history. They way jobs are done are likewise based on the technology that exists at a particular moment in history. Technology improves and becomes more capable over time. That's kind of the whole point of civilization -- we never reach Utopia, but we can get progressively closer to it as collective human knowledge and technical capability increase. Fair use is a thing. So instead of complaining about how the game has changed, take advantage of the new tools and opportunities that have been placed in front of you. Fricken' Luddites.
Thanks for articulating that necessary point. And we should keep in mind that the whole justification for having patent and copyright protection is to benefit the _society_ by making creative work something creators will be more likely to undertake knowing that with copyright and patent protection they can reap financial rewards from it. Creatives are given protection not because of some inherent right but because of the benefit their having that right has for the larger community.
This was _very_ well said! Very well said indeed! I think that people have some perverted and ultimately mystical notions of how creativity and the creative process work. Moreover, I think that AI got it wrong, too. Creativity _is_ nothing more than the reworking of existing ideas. I mean, how could it possibly be anything else? We are all born with a mental state of _tabula rasa._ We are _blank slates._ And from that point we imbibe information, mix it up, and then regurgitate it. How could we possibly do anything else? From where could truly novel ideas originate? For some idea to be _truly_ novel, in the sense that it was not based on pre-existing ideas, then it would have had to have originated from _outside_ the universe. And so, to believe in some truly novel creative process in humans, you must believe that such ideas are somehow transmitted to people directly from God. Belief in human exceptionalism is a _faith._ For there is no evidence to support it. People are, when you examine the mechanics of human brains closely, simply computational beings. Bi-pedal, organic, computational beings, perhaps, but computational beings nonetheless. Moreover, and my final point, we do _not_ see the world in the same way as each other. The film that you see will _not_ be the same film that I see. It will be very similar because we both share very similar cultural and evolutionary histories, but it will not be the _same._ When we look at a hill before us, the height that it _objectively_ appears to us to be, that is to say, the height that it literally looks to be in our visual cortex, is dependent on a myriad of factors, including; our age, our level of fitness, and even how much weight we may be carrying in our backpack. The world that we see is unique to us, yes, but only because we possess unique _histories,_ and _not_ because we possess some ethereal, supernatural, god-given unique soul. Humans are computers. I don't necessarily like to think of myself this way, but what other way is there to think of oneself? As some transcendental agent possessing of magical insights? No, humans are computers. Humans are computers that invented, unsurprisingly, computers. These computers may not currently possess the full complexity of human brains - which are still the most complex states of matter that we know to currently exist in the universe - yet they work in _exactly_ the same way. Both humans and computers imbibe information, scramble it all up, and then spit out information according to underlying complex algorithmic functions. Humans are blenders. Sorry if that offends anybody, but we _are._ Humans are blenders, we are not supernatural beings, full stop.
We do see SOME distinction, surely, though between AI doing what "other artists" do in this regard and how AI is doing it not on "a portfolio of paintings" on the internet, but on ALL paintings publicly available, ever made at a scale millions of times faster than any human could accomplish in a thousand lifetimes?
@@d.d.jacksonpoetryproject, human artists-in-training have the advantage that they have bodies, and can use their eyes to study the physical world in addition to viewing digital content. But when it comes to viewing digital art, AI is sort of a scaled up, more efficient version of a human. I'll ask you this, if you're an art lover, how many paintings (including reproductions in books, digital copies online, etc.) have you seen over the course of your life? Probably tens of thousands at least. At a certain point, you've probably seen enough to learn the patterns in the data, as far as basics of art, in any case. The details of how AI learns, and how that differs from the way humans learn, aren't really pertinent to my larger point. Using publicly available content to train AI is completely acceptable fair use, as long as that content was willfully posted on the internet by its creators or their agents/representatives.
@@Darhan62 I believe we'll all have to wait and see what the law/courts decide. New territory.
Alex would hate her take on this because it would make less money
Good evening World Science Festival
Super short discussion considering Team Human is pretty important stuff to be thinking and getting on with.
In short!
Film making needs humans, me thinks.
💜
AI is not copyright violation. If I read all books and papers on some scientific issue and then ask me a question then I answer you based on my readings, then this is not considered copyright violation. As I used the knowledge existing in public field
Well you can't actually do that. So can a theoretical impossible situation still be regarded as impossible, though?
@@kevind6425 i meant some books and articles that are available on public domain. That enabled me to formulate an answer
You are confusing the visual cognitive process of reading with the AI language model training set. AI simulates based on real human information and yes, most of it is copyrighted and not permitted to be used for this purpose.
Yeah, and you claim YOU thought of the answer to those issues, without crediting the books and papers you read. AI is doing that with billions of copyrighted materials.
There was a critical aspect missed by Bateman which would have helped her argument (which i agree with...) and that is the word: ARTIFICIAL. Organic (human) creativity will always trump (oops…sorry…) anything artificial. No matter how well AI functions, as far as manifesting (as opposed to generating) something which might be lasting and prove to be Timeless in meaning, relevance and contain humanistic value; human creativity (experience, emotions, memory, aesthetics - in their infinite amounts and combinations) as the driving force could never be outdone. It's not only the "output"...but the HUMAN story behind the output which gives valued-credibility. If the reliance upon the tool (AI) is the sole means to an end - then of course therein lies no humanity. The result can only be a mere passing novelty.
suffering
12:01 The AI does not describe what it does. She is right. It is BS. But creativity is hard to define of course! Movie producers watch movies don’t they?
Professor Boisvert is an impressive intellectual and creative!
Blatant misogyny here - it appears that the moderators of this were looking to facilitate a cat fight. The two speakers are clearly very intelligent women - one of them making a cogent but narrow argument about the dangers of generative AI, and the other expressing a great deal of nuance and depth of thought around the broader ethics and potential for a variety of kinds of AI. Well played to the speakers invited for staying composed in presenting their expertise and perspectives as the moderator attempted to start a fight.
We watched a different video.
The future in arts is no money allowed to be involved. ....if I want to create a tv show, then I have access to create, produce that. I have that right as much as you.. If I need money, the worst is overcontrol by a rich person. Also, a bunch of repetitive bad stuff, because money is true motive. ....do you need to make money? ...we should all be paid to be on earth. Self esteem feels this fact.
Any real artist can be creative with tools. So far AI is just that. There are no actors who didn't learn from other actors.
Everyone who is saying she is shallow, you do not work in entertainment lol. She is right!
what do you do in the field?
...did she really call that dissonant screaching sound music????
There's a bunch of problems with AI but actors and film being replaced is the least of our concerns. In fact, society would benefit if Hollywood ceased to exist.
There will always be a market for "human" created content, at all different levels. You can see this in many different products/industries. I think the fight against technology is a fraught one. One area I agree w/Justine is on compensation to the artists. I think the big corps should have to pay for the content they use (unless they already own it).
Its not just that. Its the IP theft that has already occurred with 0 consequences. If corps do it... lawmakers don't care because they're getting their pockets padded.
The lady in black totaly lost the argument. Bitter and miserable and full of contempt. Yish.
Gimmick , but advanced machine learning can help when developing new medications and therapies.
Brian Greene's humor to the rescue 😄😁
Heidi is very balanced for a thinker
Did you notice in the stgart of the progran tha he hesitated when he said "welcome for...being here".
@@theoreticalphysics726 i think we might read too much into it
Bullshit? I completely agree with the idea that AI is giving. In fact I am the proponent of the idea of looking broadly on things that we call life, work, physics etc, we call it philosophy.
The first person to make a movie using AI that generates a substantial amount of money will most likely be sued and lose all ownership to a corporation like Disney. It will go to court, the meta data will be cracked open and you will find - as example - that the suspiciously looking castle is indeed Snow Whites castle. Boom - Disney owns the property. Don't believe it. Look up how Tim Burton lost the copyrights to the Nightmare Before Christmas characters. You think he makes a penny off all that merchandise? Under U.S. case law, copyright owners may be able to show that such outputs infringe their copyrights if the AI program both (1) had access to their works and (2) created “substantially similar” outputs.
These two guests were not juxtaposed properly. Their fields aren't comparable. One is a member of 10's of 1000's if not more performing artists that have had everything stolen from them and likely feel extremely violated. The other is a digital artist that teaches kids. Horrible juxtaposition.
AI will replace human connection and emulate it so you won't feel isolated, in fact tho without it you will be. It's gonna be a fun era to find your people.
I like the way WSF is trying to incorporate many diferent topics (even if I don't like every one), but I have come to expect a certain amount of "let's disagree but be civil about it" in such an elegant universe that Brian Green sets. This was hard to watch. If I want all the single-minded, crude "discussions" I'll watch a political debate. Ms. Bateman could have made her argument much better, clearer and compassionately without going to the lower level. Her argument was superficial at best when it could have had much more depth. I don't disagree with her, but she could have provided more substance. My least favourite one. Brian is a wonderful moderator, nonetheless.
Justine is gonna walk off that stage and immediately light a joint
Justine nailed it
I really don’t know what to make of this. I confess I have been thinking about cyber warfare. Things, in a perfect world we might say no to, are things we have to become knowledgeable about when there are evil actors. Russia, China, North Korea, Iran. The list goes on.
She couldn't be more wrong. You can spend many hours, days, weeks, or even months working on a creative project while using generative ai as part of the creative process. To create is to create, and the hours put into a creative project when using AI is valid. I've always been a creative and have an absolute urge inside me that will create no matter what whether ai is involved or not. I'm team human and it's more human than ever to use technology to create
Mallory was always the voice of reason. :)
Some of us are very attached to our ideas concerning our own cleverness, but treat it as an opportunity. We can make new art here-abstract this a bit-replace cleverness with human exceptionalism or anything and everything else, but then something strange happens when you get to identity. Does it fragment into ideas that we project as cohesive, or is there something deeper-a quanta not of consciousness but of identity? What structure does it take? Is it nostalgia all the way down?
There are pitfalls and potentials from any new technologies. The printing press, photography, digital technologies-every major advancement profoundly changes the societies in the places eras and contexts that locate them.
Both awareness and self observation have the power to unlock not just our assumptions but our ideas about free will regardless of whether or not the universe is deterministic. Astrology was not advantageous to prior societies because it was correct or accurate but because the framework made people more aware of the smaller pieces of their interpersonal relations. And that's really just an untestable hypothesis since the people of those societies have past limited lifespans in our time challenged universe-so not even science. Oh well.
What is Bateman hoping to do, reinvent the wheel? I believe it's called adaption, and Bateman seems to know nothing about it. Luckily people like Boisevert seems prepared to adapt and lead in this area. Bateman seems kind of snobbish in telling me that if I suck and can't create something good, that I shouldn't be able to use a tool in that effort.
I think that she's missing the point and dumbing people down, and creators are going to create when others that can't shouldn't be able to. That's like saying a dictionary allows people to cheat, because somebody created a tool to help other people look up words. There are way too many people who want to hold us back because they are afraid of losing their position/status in life.
I think it's both genius and a gimmick right now. I thought Bateman was going to bring more to the table, but I'm afraid she just made the industry seem out of touch with the times. She just seems really hardcore sourpuss over it, when she should really learn to embrace and to help guide it.