4 Comments
User's avatar
Aaron Williams's avatar

I've thought about this and I think there some different ways this could go.

- The culture rejects it and the industry makes a huge misstep as it falls flat with the public.

My reason here is that it is obvious that the public dislikes these tools when they can sense them. I personally was interested in drawing, so I looked into image generation and learned a lot about it. I completely lost interest in it though when I shared some of the stuff I was working on with friends and they didn't care about it and weren't impressed by any of it. Most people don't want more generated content and I think the industry knows this.

- The culture reluctantly accepts it because the only source for new entertainment uses it.

Perhaps in the lack of viable alternatives people will just accept it because consuming low quality entertainment is better than not consuming any entertainment. If this happens, then I think the quality of movies, shows, and the like will be reduced to an imitation of the past with a downward trend in quality as the generative tools copy and paste art and then eventually begin to copy and paste their own generations.

- The industry embraces these tools, then struggles against the huge influx of competition from the wide availability of these tools.

If you reduce your output quality to that of a generative tool, then anyone with access to the tool is as "talented" as you are. Perhaps major movie industries find themselves in competition with teams the size of small YouTube channels making entertainment of equal quality.

I don't think that these generative tools are going to be a pathway towards greater artistry, but the financial temptation of being able to pay close to nothing for labor and get "good enough" results is an obvious attractor for large studios who care more about output than artistry.

Expand full comment
Chris Schini's avatar

At the end you're describing "Dead Internet Theory", which posits that a considerable amount of Internet content and interaction is bots interacting with other bots. It's scary to think of our resources (including cultural resources) could be used to create a feedback loop that does nothing for us (real, living humans).

Expand full comment
Andrew Scott Willis's avatar

I think it's important to note that it isn't IMAX that's doing this. They seem to be a partner, but the AIFF is in its third year. I think all the concerns you raised above are still legitimate and important, but looking at the previous winners is an interesting exercise. They're not the typical AI-generated slop we've come to expect, and several of them appear to be a combination of traditional production techniques and AI effects. It looks like the only requirement is that submissions "feature" AI-generated video content, but it doesn't elaborate beyond that.

Expand full comment
Jeff Rauseo's avatar

It is not IMAX’s festival, but they are hosting it, promoting it, and supporting it. Just really disappointing from the company that’s supposed to be the best for real filmmakers. But it appears they’ve sold out to Runway who probably threw a ton of money at them.

Expand full comment