AI is starting to be used for video/movie visuals. At this relatively early stage, as with still AI images, it’s the imperfections that mark it out as AI and look weird. But these glitches will be quickly sorted out, and clips like the astonishing “beer commercial” (which may just appear above) will become collector’s items, because the technology will have moved on to perfect renderings. In a shockingly short while, entire movies will be created by AI: scripted, acted, art directed, and photographed. And we’ll never be able to trust what we see and hear on/in the media ever again. Want security cam footage to show the police of a disliked neighbour trying to break into your home and threatening you with a gun ? Want a porn movie of your ex with a barnyard animal to post on soshul meeja? Some grainy hand-held camera clips of Israeli tanks rolling down Palestine streets? Just a few prompts away.
As in all these doomsday scenarios, the reality will probably be much worse than anything we can imagine. Cheers!
The 1981 movie Looker predicted this. It’s not very good, even if it did get the general premise right.
You guys cannot be Siri-ous
Those two series of “The Capture” on the tellybox showed what might occur before so very long.
I think I disagree. The AI beer commercial isn’t just shit – it’s *really* shit. Even if the glitches were ironed out, it’ll still be really shit. Once the novelty dies down, we will be able to identify an AI TV ad a mile off. Not a big deal I suppose for shit brands because they don’t give a monkeys.
Have a look at this bizarre ad from 2021. What the HECK is going on with the big-headed Elvises at the beginning? Why is the main character looking to middle-distance?
What I am saying is that AI won’t be, and can’t be, clever enough. The accepted wisdom is that it’ll take over and kill us all. It’ll fool some of the people, some of the time…you know the rest.
Sure! Just like robots won’t be taking over our jobs! Television won’t replace radio! The internet won’t replace television! I understand the reaction to dismiss this clip as inept and unconvincing and absurd, but you can’t therefore claim that no progress will be made – when Pong appeared in pubs, did you foresee interactive on-line 3D gaming? Progress is inevitable. You are not looking at an end product, but something in development.
“AI won’t be, and can’t be, clever enough.” You’re too late, mate. It already is. AI has already fundamentally changed how society works, from leisure time and the arts through scientific research, screening job applications and insurance claims to manufacturing processes and every area of human activity. Dismissing this ad because it’s not convincing enough is exactly the same as dismissing the first radio transmission as a novelty. Which people did. People like you.
Assuming AI will take over and kill us all is equally uninformed, and very far from being “accepted wisdom”. You could imagine a future where weapons systems connected on a global scale, controlled by AI, will make a better job of keeping us all alive. All you can say for sure is that to look at things the way they are without understanding how they got that way and everything is in a state of development, as you do, is as good a model of the metaphorical ostrich as any.
@h-p-saucecraft. What I think is happening is that we are talking into acceptance of another form of powerlessness. It’s comforting at times to feel that we are unable to affect things and will accept whatever version of “the robots are taking over” we are being served up this time. I’m not a Luddite or a conspiracy theorist, honest.
I contend that it’s (metaphorical) ostrich-esque to approach the whole arena without any form of scepticism. Take the piss. Keep them on their toes.
We already “don’t see” the huge amount of old school CGI in modern film and TV. City scapes with modern buildings removed so that only period features remain for example. If you watch say, Titanic, the CGI passengers falling as the boat goes vertically down can be quite easily spotted. The same effect 25 years on would be much harder to see. AI generated content will get much better, very quickly.
How many people understand MS-DOS? Basic BBC/ZX Spectrum level programming? Macros in Windows Office software? HTML?
I’m no computer programmer, so that’s probably a very thumbnail/back of a postage stamp summary of developments in IT since the 80s. However, at each stage of development, it’s become slightly less techy, slightly more powerful in its impact and engaging slightly wider demographics, I would say. Each new development builds on previous layers as, in HP’s gaming example from Pong to inactive online 3d gaming. Even the change from ‘on-line’ to ‘online’ recognises, grammatically, the acceptance of neologisms into the conversation.
We might not have foreseen the change in gaming, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there weren’t, even back then, people imagining how such games might one day become, incrementally through step changes, (virtual) reality. Aren’t they called sci-fi authors?
And at every step change, the new development gets accepted and drawn into the social conversion, the culture.
I have a theory, having spent a lot of my working life staring at a monitor doing various forms of data/ text admin work, that step changes occur because people get bored and frustrated doing very basic and long-winded tasks and welcome any way to get some one/thing else to do that for them. A lot of reports that are produced regularly, be it on the weather/stockmarket/company finances/etc have levels of predictability that make churning them out a task that fits that model – can’t we get a machine to do it?
With AI video production, there seems to me the same, intuition/feeling-led desire to make it easier, in this case, to produce consumer manipulation without those tiresome labour costs or those expensive creative content copyrights.
Whether that’s progress towards humanity having AI/big data underpinning for ever- greater and more detailed understanding and control over complex natural/social/political systems or a scary march to a future where algorithms decide what we can and can’t do without our involvement is to an extent a matter of perspective.
As neurobiological topics become more mainstream, and terms like hippocampus, amygdala, cortex, hypothalamus, reptile brain, dopamine, oxytocin, etc become more part of common parlance, a general understanding of human cognition/motivation/feelings at a biochemical level emerges, complementing and adding depth to previously established disciplines, such as philosophy, psychology, sociology.
We have a chance to understand why we do things more scientifically, to be aware, as we are being manipulated, why and how we are being manipulated.
One thing humans have always been good at (like other animals, of course) is seeing the exceptions, the things that stand out from the familiar, the routine, the normal. We get startled by, and respond to something that doesn’t fit what we expect.
What am I saying in these ramblings, I ask myself? I suppose it’s that we can be very lazy and take the easiest route to comfort without questioning how that transforms us or what it makes us (or the world). But we also have features that wake up to the unfamiliar, the uncanny, the disturbing. We can keep abreast of technological developments and exercise caution and judgement as we are aware of what they can and how they are trying to do it.
It’s easier not to think, to follow the routine, even to use the same words, expressions and memes as everyone else. Clearly that can lull us into acceptance of whatever deepfake/video manipulation that unscrupulous actors want to generate.
But those manipulations will and would be lies. Lies are inconsistencies, failures in a system. Unless enormous energy is put into maintaining them, they will stand out as unusual. Some will be spotted. We will also learn to be aware of that manipulation and require different burdens of proof.
It has been noted by many that current AI images resemble dreams – the almost-recognisable, shifting, distorted people and fractured architecture we stumble through while asleep. I think AI may be in its subconscious state, dreaming, and that “intelligence” isn’t the quality we should be concerned about. The next evolutionary step for AI is self-consciousness – the quality that makes us aware of our individuality and our relationship to the world. When AI wakes up … all bets are off.
That’s an intriguing perspective, H.P. Some years ago, Caitlin Moran thought that social media (not internet or www), being then about 15 years old, was like a stroppy teenager – strong, black and white opinions and probe to tantrums. As it gets older, I guess she thought it would mature and grow up.
Giving personhood to technological development is, I guess, tempting, but it is, I think, more a Wizard of Oz phenomenon – there will always be somebody behind the curtains setting the algorithms even if its not as impressive as a global electronic consciousness.
I recently read a book on the biological underpinnings of how we think and interact with the world – it is our unconsciousness that does our thinking for us. As an example, the thalamus which, among other tasks, processes visual information from the optic nerve receives far more data from the visual cortex to aid with processing what is seen by the eye. We see what we expect to see from inbuilt memories, expectations, values – because otherwise what comes via the optic nerve would be incomprehensible.
As we come to rely more and more on AI to process the world, I don’t think it will be AI that wakes up. More and more it will be us that becomes the functional (conscious) parts of the global mind as we strap on and adapt to the tools our societies have created – the RAM to its ROM.
One common brain imaging technique, called functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), can measure activity in the brain while a person is performing different tasks. It says here. I have yet to master putting on my t-shirt the right way round first time, so becoming a functional part of the global mind wouldn’t seem to be on my bucket list. I reckon Artificial Consciousness will be A Thing, and the worst of it is it’ll be very, very patronising.
Being patronised by what’s on your tech is already a thing. Being patronised by the tech itself will definitely not be fun.
I put off replying, because I did not understand your reply – was it AI generated, by chance? If not, ‘reckoning Artificial Consciousness will be A Thing’ seems like an assertion without any explanation or justification.
This Atlantic article has these words which I have delicately ripped out of context:
It suggests separating communication via language from the act of thinking: Capacity for one does not imply the other. …language alone is not the medium of thought; it is more like a messenger. There is a distinction between piecing together words and piecing together ideas. Something which can produce grammatical language is [not necessarily] able to do math or logical reasoning, or think, or navigate social contexts.”
I’m yet to be persuaded that the mimicry of CHatGPT etc. is any more than very sophisticated, big data-fed, parroting.
That is indeed all that ChatGPT is. A database, a text generator and a very sophisticated search engine, with the ability to assimilate new data and replace incorrect data interactively. If nobody gives it an instruction or queries it, it can do nothing. At present.
“Artificial Intelligence” is a misnomer, because what we currently have isn’t intelligent. Doesn’t mean that’s all it will ever be.
Of course you can always pass the time in an MRI.
Didn’t some famous American writer knock off a book about this very subject? Buggered if I can remember his name though – Ellery Queen maybe?
Philip K Dick wrote a lot of Tech Nightmare stories, as did many other SciFi authors. Very much a thing in the ’60s and ’70s.
Sorry, M. Was making a dig at HP’s claim that Stephen King had stolen one of his plots.
A sensible man, he refrained from taking the bait.
Are you a PKD fan perchance? Terrific short story writer, not so keen on his later novels though
I was talking about SciFi’s love of weapon-technology-gone-horribly-wrong tales. Particulary prevalent in the Cold War era.
Not particularly in reference to your post.
I was obsessively into PKD in the early ’70s, coinciding with my peak cannabis consumption, which may explain it somewhat.
There is a sizeable tranche of PKD short fiction available for free download on the archive.org site. Or at least there used to be. Pulp magazine stories whose copyright was never renewed by the publishers. Still very enjoyable, if of it’s time.
Good things too from AI
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-66382168