Legendary filmmakers Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese have hurled buckets of ice-cold water all over the anti-AI Luddites.
Scorsese just “threw his weight behind an A.I. start-up that specializes in image generation,” according to the far-left New York Times. “In a statement and an accompanying video… Mr. Scorsese discussed how he had used technology from Black Forest Labs, a fast-rising A.I. venture, during preproduction for a new film.”
“I’m interested in the intersection of technology and storytelling, and seeing how that can push the bounds of creativity to create deeper and richer experiences for audiences,” he told the Times. “Remember, cinema is a young medium, only around 125 years old, so we have to be open to how it can evolve.”
“For 70 years, I’ve been creating my own storyboards,” he added. “There’s always been this problem of how do you communicate what you see in your head to your cast and crew. There are some things you have to see and feel.”
Late last week, Spielberg also embraced reality:
Spielberg believes there is a place for AI in the film industry, serving as a tool to make certain aspects of the filmmaking process easier. “If AI wants to help me find locations, that’s great,” he said. “Saves us all a lot of legwork.” But the acclaimed filmmaker refuses to allow AI to instruct him on how to do his job.
“Don’t tell me that I don’t have the right antagonist in this movie,” Spielberg added. “Don’t tell me how to write my dialogue for this character. Don’t tell me where the camera has got to go. And also, don’t tell me what the set should look like, unless AI is simply a tool in a large tool chest of the production designer.”
From the beginning, I’ve been laughing at the idea that this backlash against AI in the arts would result in even a smattering of success. Sorry, I just see no moral issue with AI. Just like CGI, it’s a tool, nothing more. Tell me, what’s the moral difference between a computer-animated movie and an AI movie? There is no difference. The whole debate is a joke.
I’m also not a hysteric who believes AI will become sentient. The human soul, the human spirit, human consciousness, those inexplicable things that separate us from inanimate objects and even, to a degree, from other life forms, cannot be replicated by a machine.
Either way, could AI create art any more soulless than the crap Hollywood’s been producing over the last 20 years?
If anything, by making the visual arts accessible to everyone, by making the production of movies affordable and easier by way of AI, the soul might return to the arts as more and more Normal People gain access to AI.
Look at the box office today. Two movies — Backrooms and Obsession — come from YouTube creators. Both are original movies making a fortune, and their creators honed their talent — not in a snooty, exclusive film school, but through affordable digital equipment. Then there was YouTube, which allowed them to distribute their work for no money at all, and through this distribution, they received crucial feedback and built an audience.
A full-length feature film that cost a measly $2,000 to produce through AI is about to premiere at a major film festival.
How is this not a good thing?
No matter what, great and lasting art will always require the human spirit. No computer can replace that. All AI allows the artist to do is turn his vision and ideas into reality without having to deal with the leftist gatekeepers in the entertainment business.
As far as Hollywood and AI, they see the writing on the wall. They’ve always seen it — meaning the benefits of cost-saving in AI.
Scorsese and Spielberg both said they would only use AI to a certain point. Don’t you believe it. That’s just them looking to avoid getting yelled at by the Luddites on social media. Whatever helps them realize their visions most conveniently and inexpensively, they are gonna do. Why? Because they’re not stupid.
AI is the future. Embrace it or eat the dust of those who do.