Ashton Kutcher: Entire Movies Can Be Made on OpenAI's Sora Someday (businessinsider.com) 47
Hollywood actor and venture capitalist Ashton Kutcher believes that one day, entire movies will be made on AI tools like OpenAI's Sora. From a report: The actor was speaking at an event last week organized by the Los Angeles-based think tank Berggruen Institute, where he revealed that he'd been playing around with the ChatGPT maker's new video generation tool. "I have a beta version of it and it's pretty amazing," said Kutcher, whose VC firm Sound Venture's portfolio includes an investment in OpenAI. "You can generate any footage that you want. You can create good 10, 15-second videos that look very real."
"It still makes mistakes. It still doesn't quite understand physics. But if you look at the generation of this that existed one year ago, as compared to Sora, it's leaps and bounds. In fact, there's footage in it that I would say you could easily use in a major motion picture or a television show," he continued. Kutcher said this would help lower the costs of making a film or television show. "Why would you go out and shoot an establishing shot of a house in a television show when you could just create the establishing shot for $100?" Kutcher said. "To go out and shoot it would cost you thousands of dollars,"
Kutcher was so bullish about AI advancements that he said he believed people would eventually make entire movies using tools like Sora. "You'll be able to render a whole movie. You'll just come up with an idea for a movie, then it will write the script, then you'll input the script into the video generator, and it will generate the movie," Kutcher said. Kutcher, of course, is no stranger to AI.
"It still makes mistakes. It still doesn't quite understand physics. But if you look at the generation of this that existed one year ago, as compared to Sora, it's leaps and bounds. In fact, there's footage in it that I would say you could easily use in a major motion picture or a television show," he continued. Kutcher said this would help lower the costs of making a film or television show. "Why would you go out and shoot an establishing shot of a house in a television show when you could just create the establishing shot for $100?" Kutcher said. "To go out and shoot it would cost you thousands of dollars,"
Kutcher was so bullish about AI advancements that he said he believed people would eventually make entire movies using tools like Sora. "You'll be able to render a whole movie. You'll just come up with an idea for a movie, then it will write the script, then you'll input the script into the video generator, and it will generate the movie," Kutcher said. Kutcher, of course, is no stranger to AI.
Ashton Kutcher (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
He was a professional actor. He still is an actor.
Re: (Score:2)
ARE you NOT entertained?!
Re: Ashton Kutcher (Score:2)
He also co-founded a VC firm that focuses on tech stocks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The actor was speaking at an event last week
How do we know that it wasn't an android?
Bye Bye HollyWEIRDO land (Score:1)
good thing unions will put an stop to it! (Score:1)
good thing unions will put an stop to it!
Re: (Score:1)
Just like they kept automobiles from replacing horses! That was such a success, nobody even knows what an automobile is these days!
It's inevitable. The technology is nearly there now, and will be very soon. And the people who make the decisions are the money people, not the talent, as it has always been. Nobody's going to spend millions of dollars (or hundreds of millions) making a movie with live talent that can be made for a few thousand with AI.
And once the quality is there, the audience won't give a dam
Re: good thing unions will put an stop to it! (Score:4, Insightful)
"the overall quality of movies may well improve"
Doubtful. This could help a real auteur with no budget deliver their vision, but most creators aren't talented enough to do all the human creativity themselves. Instead, they'll let the "AI" do the creative work and it will be soulless and lame.
That's assuming they can even get to that point of generating long form content without hallucinatory effects and without harnessing the power of a star to build the model.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead, they'll let the "AI" do the creative work and it will be soulless and lame.
Instead, they'll let the "Photoshop" do the creative work and it will be soulless and lame.
Literally the argument airbrush artist used back in the late 90s. How's that going for the airbrush artist?
Re: good thing unions will put an stop to it! (Score:2)
When someone who isn't talented uses Photoshop, it still comes out soulless and uninteresting. The human talent is necessary. Photoshop doesn't create art for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of. You still have to generate the prompt, and that will always require creativity. (AI companies will claim otherwise, but they'll be peddling BS when they do. Yeah, you can write an algorithm that will analyze the popular stuff from yesterday and write something like it. It's been done, with books, music, and movie scripts. And it always ends up being empty, sterile pap that nobody bothers with (with the exception of romance novels, but that's a very odd market)).
A hundred years ago, a commercial art
Re: (Score:2)
20 years from now, writing the prompts will be the necessary skill, with all else, at best, secondary
I believe that's highly simplifying the process. You need to select the correct models, lora, refiners, and so on. Use masking for guidance, select ip adapters, and other parts that make up the complete workflow to production.
Tossing a prompt at A1111 gets you an image, much about the same as copy and pasting a bunch of layers gets you a photoshoped image.
The entire point is that you'll need key frames for the AI to generate the in-between. Sort of like how the ToonCrafter tool works currently. There's
Re: (Score:2)
When someone who isn't talented uses Photoshop, it still comes out soulless and uninteresting.
And when someone who is talented uses Photoshop, but keeps getting notes from the client on changes that have to be made, and "the client" consists of multiple people who don't talk to each other, it ceases to matter how much talent the artist has. That's the scenario that AI moviemaking may, if we're lucky, mitigate.
Re: (Score:1)
The fastest way to make a movie that sucks so bad that becomes the only thing it's known for is to have too may people making creative decisions. Multiple script writers, multiple directors, multiple editors, some of the worst films ever made have had one or more of those.
When you eliminate people, you eliminate the clashing egos that product that crap.
(Mind you, most movies will still suck, because the people making them are freaks and pervs, but the ones who have actual talent won't get interfered with as
Re: (Score:2)
There are thousands and thousands of novels that would never be commercially viable due to either the length, detail, or even the actor salaries (assuming they're even still alive).
I can easily see importing some of the old Pocket Book STTOS novels and ha
Re: (Score:2)
Not in 50 years. The AI would have to assemble a cast to use consistently during the movie. Meaning that it would actually have to understand the contents instead of just "transcribing" text to video - you don't want the main character to look or act different between scenes. This makes the prompt way more complicated than "video of man shooting laser at alien".
The legal issues would further compllicate it. If I transcribe some Star Trek fan fiction and out comes a video featuring Jean-Luc Picard or Mr Dat
OpenAI (Score:2)
Nothing says "open" like not publishing research on how anything new is done, not releasing weights, and teasing everyone with this tiresome marketing loop of "OHHH this is too dangerous for you plebs to possibly handle! Seriously you have no idea, it's sooo scary! But we gave it to a bunch of celebrities and influencers and made sure they'd be free to tell you how good it is. Maybe one day we'll let you have a tiny little taste, but to make sure it's ethical we're going to have to charge you $20+/mo. and r
The guy who defended Danny Masterson? (Score:2, Insightful)
I try not to take pointers from a guy who defends people who sexually assault others.
Maybe he's right. Maybe Not.
Either way. I am not a fan.
Re: (Score:3)
Jim Keller said effectively the same thing recently. Ten years from now no one will go to "the movies." You'll be in the movie, talking to the characters.
Quality (Score:3)
I'm sure you could create a movie at a Ashton Kutcher quality level with AI today.
Something an adult might want to watch will take longer. Something worthy of a Best Picture award will take a LOT longer.
Re:Quality (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Something worthy of a Best Picture award will take a LOT longer.
Until AIs start deciding which get the rewards.
I can't wait (Score:2)
Sit down and tell the TV to make a movie for my current mood. Real actors and writers will become something special.
When it's actually good enough to do this, of course. It's a little horrifying to remove the person from art, but I guess I view it similarly to appreciating a singer/songwriter VS a good performer who has their songs written for them. One is maybe more impressive but both have their place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A good example would be Beck vs Beyonce. One can play 14 different instruments and the other puts out albums with over 100 different writing credits.
old news (Score:2)
An article like this appears on slashdot about once a week. The AI video generation tech may be new to Ashton Kutcher, but what he may fail to understand is that it will eventually make people like him largely unnecessary. Any goofball will be able to invoke a complete movie with just a few well chosen prompts. You'll get a list of acting styles to choose from, body types, etc. for populating your opus of the day. If it didn't work out quite right you can easily make some tweaks. It could be crowdsourced.
Ma
Re: (Score:2)
Many of these movies will be uninteresting garbage, but some talented and creative people will make unique and entertaining stories. Those people may be refugees from what remains of the movie business, all the better.
So nothing changes. It doesn't require an AI to create uninteresting garbage. https://m.imdb.com/chart/botto... [imdb.com]
Re: (Score:2)
>> So nothing changes
Maybe not. I suspect that a lot of great movies haven't been made because there wasn't enough funding.
Seriously? (Score:2)
First off, any random dude is more qualified to make these kinds of predictions. Second, he is an actor. Actors are literally paid to deceive you. You know that right. That's like the definition of what an actor is. A professional deceiver. I mean it’s a legit career and all, but lets not fool ourselves as to what their skill is.
Same story, different speaker. (Score:2)
It's the same song we've heard for generations.
With personal computers, ANYBODY can write their own books. With free software, ANYBODY can write programs. With the web, ANYBODY can publish what they want. With camcorders ANYBODY can make a video. With game engines ANYBODY can make a game. With generative AI systems ANYBODY can prompt the system to generate types of images.
Yes, new tools remove certain barriers to certain markets. And yes, generative video systems will reduce the need for certain types of
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing Kutcher is already rich (Score:2)
"you'll input the script"? (Score:3)
My favourite part of this AI boosting comment is that between the science fiction bits about it coming up with a unique script and generating flawless visuals, a human still has to "input the script " to connect these processes.
My innovation is a new AI that does this step automatically. I'll take my billion dollars in venture capital now please.
A question of standards (Score:2)
When you're Ashton Kutcher and the most memorable creative pursuits in which you've been involved are "That 70s Show" and "Dude, Where's My Car", then yes, I guess AI slop looks pretty attractive.
The most boring statistical average movies (Score:1)
Establishing shot of a house? (Score:2)
You can get stock footage of an establishing shot of a house for less than $100. You shoot it yourself so you own the copyright. With stock footage, someone else owns it. With AI, it is not clear at all who, if anyone, owns it. Way to not know your craft, Ashton.
Rumor has it (Score:2)
Hallmark has been doing this for years!
Ok... (Score:2)
"It still makes mistakes. It still doesn't quite understand physics."
So, just like modern Hollywood blockbuster movies then.