Does AI have you worried about future job prospects?

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

Or is your position AI resistant?

[Aapo Lettinen]

pretty much all the "content-creating" positions are in danger either already now or in the following 1 to 2 years. The whole idea of the generative AI is that there is only the investors and the producer hired and everyone else is kicked out so that they don't need to pay wages at all and can keep all the profits. that is the whole purpose they created the whole technology and why they are constantly improving it. It is the absolute max of the ultra-capitalist greed... people kicked out in billions and the capitalists still think there would be the same amount of money flowing in for the companies (who the heck is buying their AI generated products if the real people don't have jobs at all? where that freakin money would be coming from huh?)

so everything which does not have "deep human soul" in it will be AI generated in the very near future or already is: the tiktok and youtube content and social media postings whether having video or not. pop music and other commercial music, voiceovers, ads, most of entertainment in general.

The thing which would probably be left would be very small, deeply connecting "art-house" type movies and other content. The old-school people who still remember what it was to listen to real music, watch real movies, read real books, enjoy real artworks... those are the ones asking for someone real human to make something they can connect with. They know what real art is, the art which resonates with the soul.

Most of other people, the ones who consume the AI generated garbage for it being "just fine" for them, turn slowly to mindless bored "lizard-people". They consume more of the AI slop, the nicer and cooler looking stuff, it still does not connect, they don't know what is wrong... slowly their mind turns so numb that nothing can make their heart beating again. they are slaves, the slaves of the machine they can't see anymore, the one which feeds them the endless stream of mindless goo which none of matters at all

[Aapo Lettinen]

that is why it is so important to start to tell stories which really really matter.

The days of the mindless shoestring "Michael Bay" style action flicks are over. 100 million other people would do that kind of stuff with AI in a heartbeat and no one would care to even watch them.

These are the last days of real cinema. The one with real actors, with real music, real stories, resonating with the viewer deeply. Let these last days be bright and loud, full of color. Everything will eventually fade into darkness but we can keep up the real cinema as long as we care to try, as long as we don't give up.

If anyone has any "too bold, too brave" scripts they thought could never be made, now is the exact time. Not next month, not next year, NOW. Humanity has never needed real art more than at this moment when the tech companies try to reduce the whole human culture to mindless "content" generated by software.

I have already planned another career but will make camera motors as long as there is enough orders. will want to support film originated real art until most of the usable cameras are repaired and I will know people can manage just fine with them. Probably about 2 years or so?   then will move on, probably to something aerospace related

Edited May 27, 2025 by Aapo Lettinen

[Jon O'Brien]

It will affect things like VFX and concept art in a big way. But really the whole film industry thing is heading down the gurgler with these massive VFX heavy films anyway in my opinion. Sure, lots of people still love those kinds of movies but I think the writing is on the wall. Apart from the latest Indiana Jones movie I don't go to see those types of films. It's like looking at computer generated pap for an hour and a half or 2 hours. No thanks. I want to see films made by filmmakers, not by screen sitters/graphics designers.

I was at Village Roadshow studios Gold Coast, the other day, and man that place was a hive of activity. The extras carpark was huge and it was totally full. Cars and people everywhere! A massive amount of effort and energy there, making movies. It looks like, so far, real moviemaking with real actors and extras is very much still with us.

In the circles I move in, no one cares about AI in the creative arts. People are happily making films and making music, the same as they always did. Even with digital cinematography and all that, creative types are still making films and shows the traditional way. Musicians are still training with physical, real instruments.

People who like cheap junk are going to love the next few years, and there you go. You can't change such people. They like cheap junk. They seek it out. Real stuff looks boring to them. You were never going to interest such people in real films and real music anyway. They are lost to art, for the rest of their lives, unless they have some kind of artistic awakening but don't wait for that to happen. They are addicted to junk.

As time goes by people of taste will keep seeking out real art made by real people. It is so amazingly obvious to see and hear the difference between AI generated stuff and real material made by real people. Even on YT with the sort of news and current affairs type videos it is so obvious to pick the fake ones. And you can read down in the comments that everyone else can tell the content is fake too.

It's like anything else. Everything has a creative vibe to it. People with taste will still seek out quality. And more so. Real filmmaking and real music making will continue. The other half will be happy with their artificial cheese twisties. They always were ... no one can help that type except themselves and for many it is too late I suspect.

The number of those seeking true art and culture is growing. Where I live I can see it.

The one way to ensure a completely human-made, handmade (as it were) creative process in filmmaking is to go back to a totally photochemical work flow. Movies made this human-made way, totally without digital to completely dismiss the possibility of any artificial computer based input, could be marketed with a simple logo or slogan. Like the way movies shot on film now often have something like "Shot on Kodak film" put on the movie posters.

Edited May 28, 2025 by Jon O'Brien

[Jon O'Brien]

1 hour ago, Jon O'Brien said:

The one way to ensure a completely human-made, handmade (as it were) creative process in filmmaking is to go back to a totally photochemical work flow. Movies made this human-made way, totally without digital to completely dismiss the possibility of any artificial computer based input, could be marketed with a simple logo or slogan. Like the way movies shot on film now often have something like "Shot on Kodak film" put on the movie posters.

But I think that will probably be unneccesary. Productions, shot on film, projected digitally, maybe with a little note added towards the end of the credits: "No computer-generated imagery, beyond the scanning of the original camera film negative, was used in the production of this movie," or similar, would do the trick. A similar note on the posters/digital ads?

Edited May 28, 2025 by Jon O'Brien

[Jon O'Brien]

Cinema goers have to decide, and they are, believe me, whether they want to see films, or video games.

[Jon O'Brien]

Real film in a real cine camera as the image capture, and the resulting edited footage projected in an actual cinema, was and always will be the foundation and basis of the film industry. Not video. Video is at heart a TV and computer games technology. The blending of video, computer imagery, and cinema is dragging down the whole film industry.

Edited May 28, 2025 by Jon O'Brien

[Robin Phillips]

I'll say this, just about every time a new video AI model comes out my film friends get anxious, but my non film friends are annoyed by the unfocused (in the sense of action, not actual optical focus) AI slop. It probably wont last, but I think there will be a point where, much like with movies where the vfx have taken over the show yet become kinda boring, the technology is going to have its limitations for narrative. 

as for tv ads, internet ads, random quick shit on tiktok, thats harder to say. but it feels like the movies are already headed more toward character driven over plot and cool vfx driven work, so at least some of the audience out there is gonna be pretty sensitive to this stuff even if they cant nail down whats wrong with it. 

that being said theres almost certainly a world right around the corner where we'll be able to shoot actors in a black box theater type environment and use AI to fill it out. 

what I'm actually most interested are the lawsuits here in the US going after unauthorized reproduction of training data, given that the very nature of these systems is such reproduction, even if in small bits. once discovery moves forward on some of the cases in the US, we're likely to see some interesting results that will complicate much of this. Surely the big AI companies will do everything they can to avert that situation, but we've seen with Apple's case with Epic how an arrogant, bad faith company can face serious consequences from a judge who has had it. 

[Jon O'Brien]

1 hour ago, Robin Phillips said:

... as for tv ads, internet ads, random quick shit on tiktok, thats harder to say. but it feels like the movies are already headed more toward character driven over plot and cool vfx driven work, so at least some of the audience out there is gonna be pretty sensitive to this stuff even if they cant nail down whats wrong with it...

that being said theres almost certainly a world right around the corner where we'll be able to shoot actors in a black box theater type environment and use AI to fill it out...

New markets open up. A fair few people, enough to sustain a market, will get so sick of the stink of artificial crud that they will feel they need to take a shower. Those are the people that will want their weddings shot on film ... or whatever (I just use that as an example. There are many others), or they will want to avoid going to see movies at the cinema that are made by computers ...... the urge to get away from the great fake will run deep. I see it in my own extended family. The younger ones are sick of the taste of fake in their lives. They want to live. They want what's real. They want real leather. Real wood. Not plastic. Computers are great at some things but they suck at real. A lot of people want real, and they are finding it.

Films made with actors in black boxes? Oh yes, there will be those who pay for it. But many will be running the other way with their hard-earned.

Edited May 28, 2025 by Jon O'Brien

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I won't say too much because this is all still very new. One thing that tech can't replace is the experience of seeing live theatre. A good script, with good actors and decent sound & lighting design is really good stuff. There's a reason why theatre still exists, and it's because people love it.

Also, a computer can't enjoy a video game for you. The point is that you play it and enjoy doing so.

I'm a photographer and I know that CGI has been replacing photography for decades. Not years - decades. Whatever is in the client's best interest is okay with me. I am not here to rip off clients (I don't have many ATM), and if CGI or AI is better for them, I will say so. So far, I haven't had those conversations.

If someone wants a photograph of their 1920s chandelier, or their Ferrari Testarossa, you need a camera for that. Even if photogrammetry is desired, you still need to capture the object. You can't simulate it. Because by definition, photography is about capturing the world, not creating a world.

[David Lawson]

I have three movies I watch repeatedly:

Lawrence of Arabia

Doctor Zhivago

Shakespeare in Love

Lawrence, because I like sand ;-D also, Peter O'Toole is incredible, watch his performance. Then go to the bathroom, and watch it again.

Zhivago, because I was thirteen when I saw it in the theater upon its release. NOTHING was as profound to me at that age.

Shakespeare because Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard are the best at writing. Period.

Exactly none of these movies are AI generated, and I continue to believe that most people will have a non-AI generated movie that will resonate with them, at some point. AI (yes I have an AI workstation at home) is great at finding the patterns in data (including visual data), but it cannot completely generate the same effect that great acting and marvelous cinematography can produce (watch Newman's performance in The Verdict, or Matt Damon's in Good Will Hunting).

There will be that segment of the population that will still be moved by a great performance, and it will be some time before an AI can replicate that.

So keep making movies, even if you have to use a Blackmagic 17K and a set to Tokina lenses because there's no more Eastman cine film.

[Jon O'Brien]

6 hours ago, David Lawson said:

So keep making movies, even if you have to use a Blackmagic 17K and a set to Tokina lenses because there's no more Eastman cine film.

Even if Eastman goes belly up, to quote Yoda: "There is another." I suspect film will be around a long, long time (if civilistion as we know it continues). Just keep shooting film, cinematographers. I'd like to see a computer load a film camera. Sure, no doubt possible, but cheaper and simpler to let a person do it.

[Jon O'Brien]

There is this apathetic attitude: "Oh ... evolution of technology is happening ... there is nothing we can do ... it's inevitable."

Bah!

(Doctor Smith)

If you don't like the trend, change it. Do something about it.

[Jon O'Brien]

I watched "The Incredible Hulk" (2008) on television last night (with all the ads). It actually wasn't bad. It had a very human element, and of course it was mostly shot on film, and the vfx shots though very 'digital' in character were made by people, not by AI. It's once you get past a certain point, with an all-digital production, with lots of CGI, and now these days with lots of AI, that you get computer-content overload. The level of 'real' in the production drops to miniscule, and you are watching a production made by a computer. But "The Incredible Hulk" was watchable because it was a very human picture. It had a lot of handmade elements in it, being shot largely on film (except for the 'hulk' sequences).

Edited May 29, 2025 by Jon O'Brien