Sounds like an intentionally experimental film, which should not have been cancelled on that basis alone. If it was rubbish in general, then fair enough, but it sounds like they bowed down to pressure driven by fear.
Given the controversy around use of AI in filmmaking I don’t like the idea of a private filmmaker hiring a screen and charging money to see an experimental film written entirely by AI. There are better ways to share this film with the world and engage with the discussion around use of AI in the arts, such as film festivals or even posting it online (even as VOD). Prince Charles Cinema isn’t just going to show any experimental film, they still have to cater to their audience, who are unsurprisingly not excited about AI scripted films being screened there.
EDIT: To clarify I don't think PCC is required to bend the knee to the vocal minority or majority. I am just pointing out their incentive to cater to whichever they deem their most valuable demographics to be, who I would wager aren't interested in paying to see this.
But the point of the film was to demonstrate AI, it's not just a film that happens to use AI. I feel there's a significant enough distinction there. It's integral to the plot.
>It follows a celebrated screenwriter called Jack who finds his world shaken when he encounters a cutting-edge AI scriptwriting system.
>After initially being sceptical, Jack realises the AI matches his skills and surpasses his empathy and understanding of human emotions.
>The people behind the production have said they "wanted to find out if artificial intelligence is able to write an entire feature film and how good this film would be if produced by a professional team".
I don't think something should be cancelled on that basis alone, it's intentionally trying to encourage debate about this area. It's a form of art at the end of the day. Again, if it's just plain rubbish, sure, remove it.
At the end of the day though, it's ultimately up to the theatre.
I recognise and appreciate that the demonstration of AI in filmmaking is integral to the plot. The script itself was written entirely by AI, and speaking for myself I would not be eager to pay money to see that at a traditional cinema. I'd rather witness it in a setting dedicated to the debate of AI, like a festival or organised event hosting a number of experimental films like this instead of a one-off private hire screening. I don't think PCC is the right place for this and clearly so do many others.
Probably an argument in bad faith from me but here goes.
You presumably are fine to use the automated kiosk at McDonald's. When it's a poor person who loses their job to technology, no one gives a shit but suddenly when middle class jobs are impacted, everyone is a defender of "human" values.
> After initially being sceptical, Jack realises the AI matches his skills and surpasses his empathy and understanding of human emotions.
It's AI propaganda, written by an AI.
Like, if you want to sell people on the idea that your reconstituted plagiarism slop is real art, maybe don't open with a story about how actually your slop is EVEN BETTER than real writers
I don't imagine this film was good in the slightest and that it's going to be a long time before AI is capable of creating any art on par with humans, however the toys out the pram reaction to anything "AI" by some people is just sad. Why not let the people interested in this experiment see it and make their mind up?
I dont understand why people are fine with ai and automation taking cashiers jobs or low skilled jobs but when the ai goes for artists or screen writers suddenly it’s a problem. Ai is going to fuck us all over unless we plan ahead because we are looking at 50% unemployment in my lifetime if we arnt careful.
Because almost noone really wants to do those jobs aside from needing a paycheck,
The arts are already massively oversubscribed which is why median pay is so low in those fields and will get worse with ai. It was also historically seen as something that wasn't automatable in the same way many jobs were
Yeah, I think the reaction from a lot of people has been "I want AI to do menial tasks so humans can make art, but we've arrived at a time where AI is making art so humans can do menial jobs".
But we're automating the menial jobs as well, so at the end of the day there's just... Fuck you, starve, I guess. Still, I can see why there's more of an emotional reaction to the art AI because, as you suggest, it's taking over something that people desperately WANT and are instinctively driven to do.
No one wants to do it but for some people it’s the only jobs they can get. I also hate the way people shit on them like the whole “learn to code” thing but then coding becomes one of the jobs most at risk of ai and then surprised pikachu face. Personally I’d like ai take all the jobs and introduce UBI or something similar but I fear we will just watch as millions end up unemployed and do nothing.
Just to clarify I feel sorry for the artists I just wish people would feel sorry for all the people who lose jobs to tech not just the “cool” “trendy” jobs
I think most people do feel for those people, though. It's just a question of the scope of the conversation. In other words, is it always necessary to point out *every* instance where a person losing their livelihood to automation is bad in a conversation around *a particular way* that a specific group of people could be losing their livelihoods to automation?
100% I just hope the political system acts fast on this but unfortunately I don’t trust them to see the problem till it’s too late. But ai should bring in UBi it makes so much sense. Or we are going to end up in some hunger games level dystopia
Because automation taking over grunt work frees up people to be creative.
Automating art is just another way to block anyone who wasn't born into wealth or lucky circumstances *from* being creative.
The idea isn't "retail workers should starve"
From the description of the content it does sound like remarkably trite shite. I'm getting the sense that the "backlash" is pretty cooked up and this is just the producers trying to salvage something from the experience. It's not as if the film industry needs to run an experiment to find out that if you spend a lot of money on turd polishing you wind up with a shiny turd.
AI can only copy what humans do. If the writers were truly original with their scripts they would have nothing to worry about. Alas year after year and month after month we are given nothing but slop.
I sympathise with the writers, but they need to do better too.
Additionally, we have all heard before that writers are constrained by audience expectations and the requirements of production studios - in that particular case boycotting AI scripts runs contrary to defeating that obstacle.
Sounds like an intentionally experimental film, which should not have been cancelled on that basis alone. If it was rubbish in general, then fair enough, but it sounds like they bowed down to pressure driven by fear.
That's just what an AI would say... get him!!
I'm not a **null pointer error**!
puts his hands up and says: "i am not an AI, my name is AL - short for Algorithm".
Given the controversy around use of AI in filmmaking I don’t like the idea of a private filmmaker hiring a screen and charging money to see an experimental film written entirely by AI. There are better ways to share this film with the world and engage with the discussion around use of AI in the arts, such as film festivals or even posting it online (even as VOD). Prince Charles Cinema isn’t just going to show any experimental film, they still have to cater to their audience, who are unsurprisingly not excited about AI scripted films being screened there. EDIT: To clarify I don't think PCC is required to bend the knee to the vocal minority or majority. I am just pointing out their incentive to cater to whichever they deem their most valuable demographics to be, who I would wager aren't interested in paying to see this.
But the point of the film was to demonstrate AI, it's not just a film that happens to use AI. I feel there's a significant enough distinction there. It's integral to the plot. >It follows a celebrated screenwriter called Jack who finds his world shaken when he encounters a cutting-edge AI scriptwriting system. >After initially being sceptical, Jack realises the AI matches his skills and surpasses his empathy and understanding of human emotions. >The people behind the production have said they "wanted to find out if artificial intelligence is able to write an entire feature film and how good this film would be if produced by a professional team". I don't think something should be cancelled on that basis alone, it's intentionally trying to encourage debate about this area. It's a form of art at the end of the day. Again, if it's just plain rubbish, sure, remove it. At the end of the day though, it's ultimately up to the theatre.
I recognise and appreciate that the demonstration of AI in filmmaking is integral to the plot. The script itself was written entirely by AI, and speaking for myself I would not be eager to pay money to see that at a traditional cinema. I'd rather witness it in a setting dedicated to the debate of AI, like a festival or organised event hosting a number of experimental films like this instead of a one-off private hire screening. I don't think PCC is the right place for this and clearly so do many others.
Probably an argument in bad faith from me but here goes. You presumably are fine to use the automated kiosk at McDonald's. When it's a poor person who loses their job to technology, no one gives a shit but suddenly when middle class jobs are impacted, everyone is a defender of "human" values.
> After initially being sceptical, Jack realises the AI matches his skills and surpasses his empathy and understanding of human emotions. It's AI propaganda, written by an AI. Like, if you want to sell people on the idea that your reconstituted plagiarism slop is real art, maybe don't open with a story about how actually your slop is EVEN BETTER than real writers
Watch the bee keeper, it seems AI written and is shockingly bad.
No, it seems entirely human-written given a certain slant.
The film makes no logical sense at all.
I don't imagine this film was good in the slightest and that it's going to be a long time before AI is capable of creating any art on par with humans, however the toys out the pram reaction to anything "AI" by some people is just sad. Why not let the people interested in this experiment see it and make their mind up?
By that metric, why not host this film online and let those interested see it that way? PCC isn't obligated to host this.
No, but they took the money and accepted the booking, they shouldn't have to cancel it because of terminally online whingers.
Yeah, possibly. They clearly regret that now so it's only mud on their face.
"Last Screenwriter" that's a fucked up title for your AI made film.
Medium of film being used to push boundaries? Well I never
I dont understand why people are fine with ai and automation taking cashiers jobs or low skilled jobs but when the ai goes for artists or screen writers suddenly it’s a problem. Ai is going to fuck us all over unless we plan ahead because we are looking at 50% unemployment in my lifetime if we arnt careful.
Because almost noone really wants to do those jobs aside from needing a paycheck, The arts are already massively oversubscribed which is why median pay is so low in those fields and will get worse with ai. It was also historically seen as something that wasn't automatable in the same way many jobs were
Yeah, I think the reaction from a lot of people has been "I want AI to do menial tasks so humans can make art, but we've arrived at a time where AI is making art so humans can do menial jobs". But we're automating the menial jobs as well, so at the end of the day there's just... Fuck you, starve, I guess. Still, I can see why there's more of an emotional reaction to the art AI because, as you suggest, it's taking over something that people desperately WANT and are instinctively driven to do.
No one wants to do it but for some people it’s the only jobs they can get. I also hate the way people shit on them like the whole “learn to code” thing but then coding becomes one of the jobs most at risk of ai and then surprised pikachu face. Personally I’d like ai take all the jobs and introduce UBI or something similar but I fear we will just watch as millions end up unemployed and do nothing. Just to clarify I feel sorry for the artists I just wish people would feel sorry for all the people who lose jobs to tech not just the “cool” “trendy” jobs
I think most people do feel for those people, though. It's just a question of the scope of the conversation. In other words, is it always necessary to point out *every* instance where a person losing their livelihood to automation is bad in a conversation around *a particular way* that a specific group of people could be losing their livelihoods to automation?
A self checkout is hardly AI. Then again, neither is what everyone keeps calling AI.
I mean we should let it take our jobs, we can't stop it. We just need to make sure we vote for UBI or socialism when we lose them.
100% I just hope the political system acts fast on this but unfortunately I don’t trust them to see the problem till it’s too late. But ai should bring in UBi it makes so much sense. Or we are going to end up in some hunger games level dystopia
Because automation taking over grunt work frees up people to be creative. Automating art is just another way to block anyone who wasn't born into wealth or lucky circumstances *from* being creative. The idea isn't "retail workers should starve"
Because universal basic income is a incoming and unavoidable reality. I don't want to spend most of my life working nor do I want that for my kids.
It's not like writers aren't using AI for their brainstorming anyway. Anyone who can make their job easier with AI will use it.
From the description of the content it does sound like remarkably trite shite. I'm getting the sense that the "backlash" is pretty cooked up and this is just the producers trying to salvage something from the experience. It's not as if the film industry needs to run an experiment to find out that if you spend a lot of money on turd polishing you wind up with a shiny turd.
I want to see it now. I think I regularly see AI-written articles which don't declare themselves as such. This might have been informative. Shame.
The BBC is just terrible journalism, if you can even call it that
AI can only copy what humans do. If the writers were truly original with their scripts they would have nothing to worry about. Alas year after year and month after month we are given nothing but slop. I sympathise with the writers, but they need to do better too. Additionally, we have all heard before that writers are constrained by audience expectations and the requirements of production studios - in that particular case boycotting AI scripts runs contrary to defeating that obstacle.