Soon we'll be able to make 100% convincing movies without any real celebrities whatsoever. Imagine a world of no celebrities. No TMZ. No gossip columns. No infotainmant on the news. No faux outrage scandals.
sniff its beautiful isn't it.
You'd still have all of those things, because those are all part of the business that drives entertainment. The entire scandal complex would just be automated and generated by AI along with the rest of consumer culture, but it won't go away. Why would it, when there's so much money to be made?
There will be probably be more of it, not less, because once you have perfectly convincing virtual celebrities, you can include perfectly convincing virtual dead celebrities as well, and fictional characters within their respective fictional worlds.
"Like a gossip magazine about non-existent people"
It seems that people would actually buy and read them avidly.
They would. It's basically making an industry out of what already happens in fandom.
Being able to mimic particular people is quite different to being able to:
- make the AI act in a compelling way in a new movie (e.g. getting the emotion and delivery right for a particular scene)
- create a compelling actor from scratch.
Bullet point 1 probably isn't too far off.
That article is about creating fake faces. That's all.
Being able to create a virtual actor that can somehow generate a compelling performance from a script, or which can even be programmed to create a compelling performance, is orders of magnitude more difficult, and far beyond anything we can currently do.
the technology can only get better, the question is will disclaimers become part of every video or just the assumption of what you see is always fake?
Or perhaps companies will start offering services that let you fake trips for social media. For just $25, they create videos of you having the trip of a lifetime anywhere in the world (basically a modern version of Mr. and Mrs. Everywhere from Stand on Zanzibar)
I think the approach will grow old really quickly, and it will turn people into (perhaps more healthy) skeptics.
This frustrates me so. Why does everyone think technology will always magically change human nature for the better?
People are not skeptics now, and they won't become skeptics once this tech comes out.
Just like a large percentage of people believe whatever is put in their Facebook feed, they will believe things that confirm their world view.
It's like saying "man once the internet becomes widespread there will no longer be things like climate change denial because anyone will have access to accurate information at their fingertips and can look up the data and reports." And yet, look where we are in the US.
Technology will never solve problems of human nature.
Via analogy, let's say you saw it as a problem that people like kinky sex and want it stopped. People have always liked kinky sex always will like it. There is no tech you can invent shy of physical or chemical lobotomy that will change that. But for some reason when we look at other qualities we forget that lesson.
That didn't happen with text, which is usually trivially easy to fact-check.
People believe any old bollocks so long as it aligns with their value systems.
Why does the text not simply explain what is going on?
It's been gaining popularity on Reddit recently, and someone had the idea to "replace all actors in every film with Nicholas Cage"
Seen here is a prototype.
> Top is original footage from Rogue One with a strange CGI Carrie Fisher. Movie budget: $200m
> Bottom is a 20 minute fake that could have been done in essentially the same way with a visually similar actress. My budget: $0 and some Fleetwood Mac tunes.
You sure? Didn't they just run the deepfake algorithm (trained on photos of young Carrie) on the CGI scene? So it went from "Hollywood CGI actress" to "allegedly improved deepfake actress"...
They basically just ran the algorithm on the existing movie scene.
The result is a fairly plausible Carrie Fisher, made more plausible (to my eyes) with deepfake. Obviously it helps that someone already made the original fake Carrie Fisher, because deepfake had to do less work, but it highlights the fact that deepfake could be useful in the industry: Make a plausible CGI version, and then improve it with deepfake.
Or if it isn't important who the author is, they can record a projection of a fake video with a verified camera, giving the fake the appearance of legitimacy.
I was impressed to find such tech in amateur fake porn lol.
I'd also suggest there was also a key factor accelerating the growth of VHS over Betamax, which was one of cost. VHS was supposedly cheaper than Betamax at the launch of VHS, and the price difference would only have increased as its market share grew and the effects of scaling up mass production were in place.
VHS - with it's longer length (meaning more films could be distributed as a single tape) and lower fees (the format was done by a consortium of manufacturers - IIRC, Panasonic and JVC were the main drivers?) meant that rental stores didn't have to pay so much for a film to rent out. At the time, VHS movies cost around $100.00 per tape (I remember this well, because as a kid parents made sure that they returned them properly and in good shape, because the cost to buy a replacement tape was insane).
I didn't really understand why renting films was a big deal back in the days,
You have to keep in mind this was before everything went digital/streaming. 800x600 desktop resolution on your PC was considered higher end, so your typical video file was something like 480x320 or less and the quality was crap (think MPEG-1, old school QuickTime, and gasp RealVideo). It didn't matter much for movies anyway, there wasn't bandwidth or storage space like we have now. I still remember the first time I saw a movie on DVD it was an honest Holy Shit! moment. Sorta-high bitrate MPEG-2 with a good 5.1 surround sound audio track on disc in your home was nothing short of revolutionary.
I had these stores in my childhood, till I was 16 or something.
My mother even worked in one when I was smaller. They had billiard tables, snacks and stuff there.
I always rented games for PSX back then, because one would cost 30-40€ and I was a poor child, hehe.
Well, the stores were kinda like you said when I was in my teens, but it seemed to me that not so many people were renting anymore. And yes they had the expensive games, which was good for poor children, but the movies weren't 100€ a VHS for long time anymore, so most people probably simply bought them.
My renting habits continued on through the Sega CD, PSX, and Sega Dreamcast (what a great system this was, mainly because CD burners were becoming cheap and you didn't need a hardware modification of your console to play burned games -- yes, I pirated the hell out of them [hello #kalisto and #echelon from EFnet] and this probably led to the console dying out long before it should have but I was a kid below the legal working age I couldn't buy them even though I wanted to.