sorry wrong link this one should be right--> https://x.com/EHuanglu/status/2023449238114320514?s=20
Chinese director gives it a whirl. This is Seedance 2.0, if you notice any oddities or anything slightly off, I would expect that to be gone in Seedance 3.0.
In the hands of a skilled artist, what does this AI work become? Is it still slop?
Has anyone discussed how this technology might be equitable, removing all gatekeepers and barriers to entry? Anyone in any situation could be their own film studio. Is being against it, being against equitable outcomes for all? Who am I to demand everyone must play the game (film school, grunt work, clawing your way up the industry ladder, etc)? I might not like it, but objectively, it means that soon, anyone in any part of the world or financial status could create a 300 million dollar blockbuster film. Is that a bad thing? Will it all be slop or will the cream rise to the top? Are we only being subjective about this opportunity?
There may also be environmental questions. A blockbuster film is a city sized effort, estimated 3,500 tons of pollution at the core of it. An AI blockbuster would be estimated 1 ton. "But more people will make more films, creating more pollution".. Well, a new photonic/metamaterial based chip is already being built and heavily backed. 1 of these chips = 100 GPUs and is 1% the power usage of 100 GPUs. Eventually a film studio capable system will run locally on a cellphone.
Don't get me wrong, I am quite irked AI companies have chosen to encroach on the arts. I would rather those cycles be put elsewhere. At the same time, am I the one with the problem? Am I refusing to be objective due to feeling less special, or humans becoming less required in art? It's a lot to ponder.
Chinese director gives it a whirl. This is Seedance 2.0, if you notice any oddities or anything slightly off, I would expect that to be gone in Seedance 3.0.
In the hands of a skilled artist, what does this AI work become? Is it still slop?
Has anyone discussed how this technology might be equitable, removing all gatekeepers and barriers to entry? Anyone in any situation could be their own film studio. Is being against it, being against equitable outcomes for all? Who am I to demand everyone must play the game (film school, grunt work, clawing your way up the industry ladder, etc)? I might not like it, but objectively, it means that soon, anyone in any part of the world or financial status could create a 300 million dollar blockbuster film. Is that a bad thing? Will it all be slop or will the cream rise to the top? Are we only being subjective about this opportunity?
There may also be environmental questions. A blockbuster film is a city sized effort, estimated 3,500 tons of pollution at the core of it. An AI blockbuster would be estimated 1 ton. "But more people will make more films, creating more pollution".. Well, a new photonic/metamaterial based chip is already being built and heavily backed. 1 of these chips = 100 GPUs and is 1% the power usage of 100 GPUs. Eventually a film studio capable system will run locally on a cellphone.
Don't get me wrong, I am quite irked AI companies have chosen to encroach on the arts. I would rather those cycles be put elsewhere. At the same time, am I the one with the problem? Am I refusing to be objective due to feeling less special, or humans becoming less required in art? It's a lot to ponder.