He used what was available at the time. For the original trilogy, that was practical effects.
The prequel trilogy was a bit more... Dodgy thanks to eagerly embraced CGI that wasn't fully baked yet.
People famously critiqued the reworked original trilogy due to various dubious creative tweaks. Like waking on Jabba and Jabba just having a funny reaction instead of how you would expect him to react.
Not going to get into the AI debate; I will agree that BAD CGI sucks; there’s so much CGI you never even notice and without it the scenes would be horrible. The main reason “CGI sucks” is because of the shift to go with the lowest bidder who’s then forced to work under horrific timelines and unable to actually do good work. CGI itself doesn’t suck, but it absolutely can when done by a low bidder in 1/4 of the time it needs.
Of course he did. He loves updating his classics every time some "new technology" comes along to let his freak-flag fly.
We'll be seeing a re-re-re-re-release of A New Hope shortly where he uses an AI generated Boba Fett and Solo giving them a scene or two to develop a backstory.
Instead of interviewing a rich, famous, busy person, wouldn't it be easier to ask an AI to pretend to be that person, and interview the AI?
Or even to ask the AI to just write both parts of the interview itself? Wouldn't that just be helping interviewers get the stories they want to share out into the world?
He became irrelevant the moment he sold the Star Wars franchise to Disney, and it's all been downhill from there (both for him and the franchise). Fuck him.
Lol I love how tone death Disney is with SW series tho. Andor is a anticapitalist and antifa story, told through the lens of some kid who was kidnapped when the Empire was ravaging his homeworld. I think the best storyline is when Cassian is wrongfully imprisoned and escapes within a week while stirring up revolts and enlightening prisoners.
i mean, he was there all along. he pioneered the all green screen wave of automation in movies. the abuse of green screen was the slop before ai was around. to him it’s just cutting out all the vestiges of imperfection still greasing the machine
I agree with your take, but I also agree with GL on this one... if you continue to get around in horse drawn carriages because cars are smelly and dangerous and non-traditional, you're going to get left behind.
There are plenty of things horses and carriages are "better at" than cars, particularly traversing long distances in a country with streams and fields and no gas stations. However... there are also things that cars are better at than horses and carriages...
I used to program in assembly language about 10-30% of my working time, up through the early 1990s. What changed? Optimizing compilers finally got better at writing assembly code than me. They had been around for decades, but they had always been a little bit lacking, until then. I still code for a living, but I haven't even looked at an aseembly listing in 25 years. I get significantly more done, faster and more reliably using compiled (and interpreted) languages than I do using assembly code, which I used to be able to use to make the complied (and especially interpreted) programs dramatically faster. Compilers do that for me now.
As of today, AI is kicking my ass at reviewing my colleagues' code. It's not saving me any work, I spend 2-3x more time in code reviews now than I did before AI code review "was a thing" - but now, those code reviews are 20-50x more valuable than they used to be. We're catching many more problems in the code (and documentation) at review time, not after the software gets into customers' hands. That's a very good thing, and today I would consider anyone who ships critical code without an AI review to be negligent.
I'm glad you find it useful! I think people are scared of creatives being cheated of their already few chances, and of the brainless marketing that Anthropic, OpenAI et al keep spouting.
I don't like to be cold like this, but I think "creatives" need to depend less on their agents and production companies and all that industry infrastructure promising 1 in a million "stardom" while stringing the other 999,999 along with breadcrumbs leading nowhere.
The same technology they're bitching about destroying those jobs that most of them never had in the first place, is technology that enables smaller budgets to create competitive entertainment. Self-publishing is a very real thing now alongside traditional "Best Seller List" promotional publishing houses. No, you're not likely to get on "Oprah" or whatever the magic promotional outlet is these days with your self published book, but every creative who achieves that kind of stardom that virtually all of them are hungering for is absolutely stealing the limelight from hundreds or even thousands of other people just as talented as themselves or more...
In other words, stop whining and start making things happen for yourself, you have better access today than ever. There's still a place for superstars in today's world, but instead of the "top 100" getting all the attention, it's time for a top 10 to be followed by 10,000 you might also want to check out. The long tail has gotten fatter, and it should continue to grow.
Using AI to double check your code is very different from using AI to replace your skilled creative talent on a motion picture. It's not even an accurate comparison.. GL isn't talking about coding, he's talking about visual effects, writers, even actors...all of whom who's careers are at risk.
You want to use AI to make sure you didn't miss a semicolon at the end of a line, great...knock yourself out. But that has literally nothing in common with what Lucas is blathering about here.
What's happening to movie production with AI is a lot like what happened to music production with digital audio workstations. The cost of making top tier production value product is plummeting like a stone falling to the moon.
You want to make music with a full symphony orchestra, you can still do that. We actually attend our city orchestra concerts a couple of times a year. However, if you want to produce your own music you can almost get better sound quality out of a smartphone today than the Beatles did out of Abbey Road studios back in their day.
The spontenaity of live performers, whether music or acting, is much MORE cost effective than painstakingly replicating that kind of performance through digital methods. I think we're going to see a continued appreciation of real actors in movies, in between all the slop that the industry "test markets" to see what they can get away with.
I met an out of work actress who had a thing or two-thousand to say about AI, none of them good. At the time, she was more blaming the industry and the pandemic for her woes - this was almost 2 years ago - by now I'm sure she's gone full ninja-berserker on AI "replacement" of stunt actors (which she used to be, still is in theory, but hasn't worked since 2020.)
I mean, I thought George could read a room a little better than this, but maybe the interviewer managed to put him at ease enough to say what he's really thinking.
I tend to think that the pro AI people are of a younger generation, because if they were closer to Gen X, they'd be feeling betrayed rather than excited.
Gen X and Millenials built the internet. We populated it with our forums, our blogs, our facbook profiles. We were the first ones sharing our photos, our very lives, with all of our friends and family. We created what it would become and we trusted that it was a community resource. Then along comes a couple of billionaires, they suck up everything that you have built and then have the balls to charge you an entry fee!
It's like if you and your neighbourhood all got together and decided to build a playground for your kids, and when it's done, some asshole asks the city for the right to the land and puts a toll booth up.
More than any other concern, THAT betrayal is what pisses me off the most. How fucking dare they say that I have to pay to access a system that was built on community content. They can fuck themselves sideways with a rusty sledge hammer.
yeah I'm not surprised, I watched the prequels. This guy was a legend in the 70s, that is like 50 years ago.
He hasn't done anything great since co-writing Willow 40 years ago. Go to his IMDB, he's lived out of star wars nostalgia since then, and all of them after the initial trilogy was a downgrade.
Its not political but he is an artist and that is why it is shocking
Edit: OP first wrote: something along the lines of "why is it now seen as political"
The majority of entries in the Star Wars franchise are objectively trash, or very close to it, much like Star Trek. It is odd, and disappointing, how a genre with so much freedom for creativity and expression, is so uninspired and sales driven. Popularity is not quality.
The original 3 Star Wars movies were something different partially because of how much effort would have been required to make them.
Everything is political - the toilet paper you buy, the corporations you support, the things you pay attention to and the things you don't, the media you consume, the books you read, your decision not to read, whether you pay union dues, the parks you visit, the roads you use, the services you rely on, what you decide to ignore.
People who say they are not political just mean they don't consciously engage with politics. But even the decision to not engage in politics is a political decision.
AI may eventually replace jobs, pollute water, take up energy, and concentrate wealth at the top even more. Whether you support, are against, or ignore AI, all 3 are political decisions.
Nolan is an elitist asshole and his movies are not that great, actually. That is just him going “kids these days” like an old fart. He is all in on the IMAX scam. He insists on bad audio mixing (horrible even on theaters) hiding under the “I only mix for IMAX theaters” excuse. At least he acknowledges that it is Hollywood that is terribly out of touch with reality. Backrooms is successful because it connects with the audience nothing to do with whether it uses CGI or not (the Oppenheimer nuclear explosion scene is SO bad in an otherwise fine movie). And Backrooms was filmed on a regular digital 35mm Red camera at 1.85 ratio with regular Dolby Atmos and you can absolutely hear the dialogue. He might denounce AI slop but doesn't realize that he's also been using tech as a crutch to his creative shortcomings.
AI detection by AI is not reliable. Lots of false negatives, and comparatively less but still too much reporting false positives to be reliable (and those are especially biased).
It's unlikely to get better too. If AI was able to reliably detect AI output, why not use that to correct itself to be less AI-like? And where is the seemingly infinite money thrown at in this struggle?
Yeah but to say humans can't do this when humans doing it were what provided it the data is a dumb statement. Humans classified the data so that AI could learn you wouldnt say humans can't classify data.
Software can't tell truth from lies because software doesn't even know what those are. It doesn't know anything. It's a parrot, a magic trick, a mirror to fool people (people like George Lucus) into thinking there's another person looking a back at them.
As opposed to your comment moving the goalposts from an AI doing something humans can't, to them just being better than humans (which is absolutely arguable in most cases)?
The parameters set for classifying that are basically non-existant. So no, they can't really do any of that. AI-bros will readily claim they can though, because it is like really important to them.
I mean......maybe? I didn't realize there was a strict code of conduct on Lemmy where our jokes had to adhear to realism. Very sorry for the mishap. I'll only tell jokes where the punchlines seem they could happen in real life.
So a guy walks into a bar. The bartender says "What'cha havin?" And the guy says "A MENTAL BREAKDOWN!!!!" and then proceeds to cry that his wife has left him.
..........I just don't know about this realism humor.
Your joke is hilarious because I'm sad now! I wish I could go back to imagining you being applauded for shredding a movie in a theater, but now I can only laugh at sad humor.
In an interview with A Rabbit’s Foot, Lucas discussed his career and the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art, opening this fall in L.A., which will be showcasing decades of human-made art and spotlighting, as its website calls it, “stories and people who tell them.” In the lengthy interview, Lucas shares some meaningful insights into filmmaking, discusses his collaborations with people like Indiana Jones director Steven Spielberg, and even offers some pithy observations about the pitfalls of testing films with focus groups and whether or not the average viewer is actually in touch with what they like about movies.
“If they don’t like a character, that’s interesting, and as a filmmaker I want to find out why,” he says. “But when the studios hear that, they take the wrong message. They let the audience actually make the movie. Of course, now they go crazy with that. Now, it’s all about what the fans think. That isn’t how you make the movie. You make a movie by finding someone that knows how to make movies, that has a story to tell and is passionate about it.”
Jarringly, this advocacy for human-led storytelling is followed by claims that AI is “the future,” and Lucas compares not using the new technology to relying on antiquated transportation in the face of cars.
“Artificial intelligence means it’s much easier for us to make movies,” he tells A Rabbit’s Foot. “It’s very much like sitting here saying, ‘Well, I believe the horse and the buggy is really where it’s at. These cars, they break down, they need gas, there’s all kinds of problems with them and pretty soon they’ll be making them into tanks, and then they’ll be killing people. It’s terrible.’ There’s nothing you can do about it. That’s progress, it’s the future.”
Though he acknowledged the risks of using the plagiarism machine when A Rabbit’s Foot questioned him further, he doubled down by highlighting other benefits he believes AI will provide in the future.
“If you want AI that tells you when something is fake and where it came from, AI can do that,” he says. “Humans can’t, we’re not that smart. The whole idea is you’re a human being, you’re responsible for what you say and what you do, and if you’re doing something that’s illegal you should be punished for that. Whatever you do, you should be recognized. It’s just like real life.”
There’s a scene in Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back where Luke Skywalker is training alongside Yoda and learning the ins and outs of being a Jedi, and he asks if the dark side of the Force is stronger than the light side. Yoda replies that it’s not, but that many fall to it because it is “quicker, easier, more seductive.” That movie was released 46 years ago, but it is certainly illustrative of the logic Lucas is using here.
He advocates for the importance of human-made art, but then argues that using technology that is notorious for stealing from humans and whose results generally look like shit compared to work made by hand would make the filmmaking process “easier.” It’s “the future” and there’s “nothing you can do about it”? It’s contradictory to believe both that it’s the human spirit that makes great films and also that a technology that’s being used to remove the human element from the process is the future of making movies. If that makes me naive and means I’m fighting against the inevitable, then I will go down swinging.
I would like to think that not every prestigious filmmaker is vulnerable to the AI propaganda, but
What a condescending opener. Whatever you think of George Lucas, he’s made some cool stuff, he did it the old fashioned way, and he’s not constrained by resources. But rather than listen to what this guy has to say on the topic, he begins with the presumption that no, he must be deluded from swallowing propaganda.
I’m hardly George Lucas’s biggest fan but this writer can blow me.
“It’s very much like sitting here saying, ‘Well, I believe the horse and the buggy is really where it’s at. These cars, they break down, they need gas, there’s all kinds of problems with them and pretty soon they’ll be making them into tanks, and then they’ll be killing people. It’s terrible.’ There’s nothing you can do about it. That’s progress, it’s the future.”
Ok, I'm sold. Where can I pick up this horse and buggy?
The guy that essentially added lasers to Japanese movies and somehow became a multi-billionaire is a fan of stealing other's work with minimal effort and reusing it without permission?
your mistake by selling SW rights to disney who ended using a slop generator, shouldve done a partial ownership instead. instead of getting rare sw films or shows that are decent, its just slop now.
GL already turned when he sold over to Disney. He himself was very limiting towards the progression of Star Wars even before that. I'll admit there are very convincing AI attempts online that IMO actually outdo what Disney has come out with since they've won rights, but that alone doesn't justify using AI.
What this all boils down to is that Disney should not hold the rights. At the end of the day, these AI users are still putting down some kind of story and better dialogue which Disney does not want to follow. They've forgone the real essence and telling of Star Wars and have replaced it with a very Disney vibe that appeals to what Disney chooses to. They've left out the fans entirely.
lol Nope. I'll happily watch the worst films made by the worst human hack writers over the even the best regurgitated slop "films" that a chatbot pisses out.
What I'm saying is, if the real people are the ones coming up with the story/scenes and dialogue IRL, that part of the content alone is still better than what Disney puts out where they're trying to make bank. Disney themselves used AI to make Mark Hamil's son take on Mark's face in Mandolorian. They are just as guilty as anyone using AI when it comes to Star Wars. I agree though, AI would not make a good story teller.
Harsh but accurate. Without Carrie Fisher to doctor his scripts (and his wife to find the film in the edit) Lucas was a director famously indifferent to dialogue or character.
CGI is one of the places where AI has been used for years. People were happy enough using generative AI before chatbots why stop now? I think the de-aging stuff is a pretty cool storytelling tool and the greenscreen filters save a lot of time and add quality.
Wonder how George will fuck it up will he use a movie generator?
Were these green screen AIs trained on the entirety of human knowledge (in many cases destructively)? Are they regurgitating original works verbatim? Do they need giant hyperscaler data centers to run? Are they used to justify firing people en masse? Do they steal and poison massive amounts of water from communities? Are they used to prop up an insane stock market? Are they used to create misinformation at a never-seen-before scale?
I am referring to generative models trained to take an image and output a chromakey'd image with some minor hair and transparency improvements. The lines are kinda blurred between classified and generated here but it is "generative AI".
I think we just all agree text-to-image/video is bad and not creative at all. I just have this strong feeling that these directors have access to real experts and tools so I give them the benefit of the doubt rather than fediverse members, by a huge fucking margin. (E: but not George L)
Some of the people doing the fan-based YouTube Star Wars videos are using AI and I can honestly say the short clips are amazing. So he's not wrong in that aspect.
My calendar app seems to have also "gone to the dark side." It says next year will be 2027.
When did "easily making an obviously accurate forecast" start being referred to as "going to the dark side?" I just don't see the connection...
Are the Sith, like, seers of the obvious in some of the expanded lore books?🤔 Maybe in the books the Sith tell people whenever water will continue to be wet, Sarlacc pits will remain dangerous places to practice parkour, and Space will continue to exist?
Who said you have to embrace it? Do what you want! Doesn't change what others are doing, nor should it.
I still have all three of those (so long as by Metaverse you actually meant VR). I'm guessing you've got none, but that doesn't change what other people use and value.
Edit: Here come the down votes. Why are so many on here self-centered, and feel like if they don't approve of something then no one else is allowed to? Posting my opinion of technology on Lemmy feels like wearing a two-piece bikini to Sunday School, without shaving. Such judgmental hypocrites.
Thanks, they're representative of the clueless masses blinded by irrational hatred. Nothing will change by pointing them out, but it sure is entertaining to the pragmatic few.
What will decay into a pathetic corpse of it's former self after destroying things with actual value? The only things I can think of that match that description are the USA in the short-term, and humanity in the long-term.
Hmmm... Maybe you meant to respond to someone else.
Dude, USA affects all of the world already in a very significant way. Western world especially. While the decay of American imperialism is something a lot of us would like to see, it will, in the short term affect everyone negatively. The USA will not go out without a fight. Already, people across the world suffer because of it. It is precisely because of the USA and their economy. Economy, which is undoubtedly, by their own accounts, dominated by the AI tech industry. So, although indirectly, people outside the USA are negatively impacted by the AI. Not to mention direct impact it has (military literally being driven by AI).
So AI is whatever makes you right and me wrong, basically? Of course the ones responsible are the people building products based on AI. Nobody is arguing LLMs themselves are evil. What I'm talking about are massive datacenters built overly fast so that they need to use evaporative cooling and micro-turbines is an utterly irresponsible use of that technology. It's like rushing to build a faster car than China and so you don't install brakes and your cars start killing everyone on the streets. Of course a car isn't evil, it's the people irresponsibly designing them. AI tech is constantly doing propaganda fear mongering that if you don't use their product RIGHT NOW - you're getting left behind. If you don't integrate them in your business RIGHT NOW, you're gonna get overrun by competition. And the product is not nearly as reliable as they push it and not nearly as powerful as they claim. It's a universal tool that is inefficient at any specific, specialized task. In fact, it's painfully INEFFICIENT. But you and I wouldn't know it, because nobody is publishing exactly how much it costs to run and how much they are subsidizing the use of it. The technology is useful, even revolutionary, but the way it's overwhelmingly being used right now is bullshit. This way is not sustainable, not profitable and will end up costing the entire world. That's what's gonna happen. The technology will stick and people will find best uses for it and start paying attention about its use. But I doubt it will survive in this current form.
183 replies
Its weird that he really was on the forefront once because he did physical effects with interesting camera shots. it felt new and different.
AI is not going to give you that, it will suck. CGI sucks already too.
Oh well not like he is relevant. A new hope was at least interesting, but its been nothing after that anyways.
He used what was available at the time. For the original trilogy, that was practical effects.
The prequel trilogy was a bit more... Dodgy thanks to eagerly embraced CGI that wasn't fully baked yet.
People famously critiqued the reworked original trilogy due to various dubious creative tweaks. Like waking on Jabba and Jabba just having a funny reaction instead of how you would expect him to react.
Only because he had to. As soon as it was possible he went cg and blue screens.
Not going to get into the AI debate; I will agree that BAD CGI sucks; there’s so much CGI you never even notice and without it the scenes would be horrible. The main reason “CGI sucks” is because of the shift to go with the lowest bidder who’s then forced to work under horrific timelines and unable to actually do good work. CGI itself doesn’t suck, but it absolutely can when done by a low bidder in 1/4 of the time it needs.
https://youtu.be/bL6hp8BKB24
Funny he uses Michael bay as an example in that video. Nothing will put me to sleep faster than a Michael bay movies effects.
I get your point though, it's a tool when used artistically and with skill can be fine.
Old Man Succumbs to Chatbot Flattery, volume 25841.
But also, Lucas was always exchanted by cgi, even when it looked way worse than practical effects.
Crap-looking Special Edition Jabba has awkwardly entered the chat.
Of course he did. He loves updating his classics every time some "new technology" comes along to let his freak-flag fly.
We'll be seeing a re-re-re-re-release of A New Hope shortly where he uses an AI generated Boba Fett and Solo giving them a scene or two to develop a backstory.
Lucas has always been on the forefront of utilizing tech in movie production so it's really no surprise he would adopt this mindset.
How to tell who invested heavily in AI with one easy trick.
I have always thought ai was like the Jar Jar Binks of computer programs.
Instead of interviewing a rich, famous, busy person, wouldn't it be easier to ask an AI to pretend to be that person, and interview the AI?
Or even to ask the AI to just write both parts of the interview itself? Wouldn't that just be helping interviewers get the stories they want to share out into the world?
Maybe an AI can read the story too, and they can all leave me the fuck out of it.
He became irrelevant the moment he sold the Star Wars franchise to Disney, and it's all been downhill from there (both for him and the franchise). Fuck him.
Lol I love how tone death Disney is with SW series tho. Andor is a anticapitalist and antifa story, told through the lens of some kid who was kidnapped when the Empire was ravaging his homeworld. I think the best storyline is when Cassian is wrongfully imprisoned and escapes within a week while stirring up revolts and enlightening prisoners.
He climbed the ladder, and now he doesn't care if it gets kicked down.
Guy with famously bad takes has bad take.
i mean, he was there all along. he pioneered the all green screen wave of automation in movies. the abuse of green screen was the slop before ai was around. to him it’s just cutting out all the vestiges of imperfection still greasing the machine
This is not the intelligence you are looking for...
Might be a controversial take but this guy's only achievement is to create a franchise for children that isn't even that good.
Raiders of the Lost Ark is a fucking awesome movie too.
Didn't see it tbf :D
THX 1138 was a solid film.
I agree with your take, but I also agree with GL on this one... if you continue to get around in horse drawn carriages because cars are smelly and dangerous and non-traditional, you're going to get left behind.
There are plenty of things horses and carriages are "better at" than cars, particularly traversing long distances in a country with streams and fields and no gas stations. However... there are also things that cars are better at than horses and carriages...
I used to program in assembly language about 10-30% of my working time, up through the early 1990s. What changed? Optimizing compilers finally got better at writing assembly code than me. They had been around for decades, but they had always been a little bit lacking, until then. I still code for a living, but I haven't even looked at an aseembly listing in 25 years. I get significantly more done, faster and more reliably using compiled (and interpreted) languages than I do using assembly code, which I used to be able to use to make the complied (and especially interpreted) programs dramatically faster. Compilers do that for me now.
As of today, AI is kicking my ass at reviewing my colleagues' code. It's not saving me any work, I spend 2-3x more time in code reviews now than I did before AI code review "was a thing" - but now, those code reviews are 20-50x more valuable than they used to be. We're catching many more problems in the code (and documentation) at review time, not after the software gets into customers' hands. That's a very good thing, and today I would consider anyone who ships critical code without an AI review to be negligent.
I'm glad you find it useful! I think people are scared of creatives being cheated of their already few chances, and of the brainless marketing that Anthropic, OpenAI et al keep spouting.
I don't like to be cold like this, but I think "creatives" need to depend less on their agents and production companies and all that industry infrastructure promising 1 in a million "stardom" while stringing the other 999,999 along with breadcrumbs leading nowhere.
The same technology they're bitching about destroying those jobs that most of them never had in the first place, is technology that enables smaller budgets to create competitive entertainment. Self-publishing is a very real thing now alongside traditional "Best Seller List" promotional publishing houses. No, you're not likely to get on "Oprah" or whatever the magic promotional outlet is these days with your self published book, but every creative who achieves that kind of stardom that virtually all of them are hungering for is absolutely stealing the limelight from hundreds or even thousands of other people just as talented as themselves or more...
In other words, stop whining and start making things happen for yourself, you have better access today than ever. There's still a place for superstars in today's world, but instead of the "top 100" getting all the attention, it's time for a top 10 to be followed by 10,000 you might also want to check out. The long tail has gotten fatter, and it should continue to grow.
Have you worked as or with a creative?
I'd call myself more "creative adjacent" but, to your "or with" question: definitely yes.
Using AI to double check your code is very different from using AI to replace your skilled creative talent on a motion picture. It's not even an accurate comparison.. GL isn't talking about coding, he's talking about visual effects, writers, even actors...all of whom who's careers are at risk.
You want to use AI to make sure you didn't miss a semicolon at the end of a line, great...knock yourself out. But that has literally nothing in common with what Lucas is blathering about here.
What's happening to movie production with AI is a lot like what happened to music production with digital audio workstations. The cost of making top tier production value product is plummeting like a stone falling to the moon.
You want to make music with a full symphony orchestra, you can still do that. We actually attend our city orchestra concerts a couple of times a year. However, if you want to produce your own music you can almost get better sound quality out of a smartphone today than the Beatles did out of Abbey Road studios back in their day.
The spontenaity of live performers, whether music or acting, is much MORE cost effective than painstakingly replicating that kind of performance through digital methods. I think we're going to see a continued appreciation of real actors in movies, in between all the slop that the industry "test markets" to see what they can get away with.
"Goes to the Dark Side"
Someone never saw the rerelease of the original series.
Lucas' best work was under an editor, whenever he got the full reigns, the product suffered.
The prequels got a breath of respect with how bad the sequel trilogy wound up. J J managed to rehabilitate George.
His ex-wife was one of the best film editors in history.
"Han shot first" dude is possibly the original slop author. But then his followers outslopped him.
But also: of course AI is the future. It's almost the current.
I met an out of work actress who had a thing or two-thousand to say about AI, none of them good. At the time, she was more blaming the industry and the pandemic for her woes - this was almost 2 years ago - by now I'm sure she's gone full ninja-berserker on AI "replacement" of stunt actors (which she used to be, still is in theory, but hasn't worked since 2020.)
I doubt ANYBODY is going to be surprised by this.
I mean, I thought George could read a room a little better than this, but maybe the interviewer managed to put him at ease enough to say what he's really thinking.
"AI" may be the future, but right now, in the present, it feels like rape.
I recently came across this post from a rape survivor that made exactly this comparison. It broke down all the parallels in between AI inevitability rhetoric and rape culture quite clearly: https://liberatedwriter.substack.com/p/ai-inevitability-acceptance-and-rape
It doesn't seem coincidental that "AI are the future" people heavily imply nobody should resist it.
I tend to think that the pro AI people are of a younger generation, because if they were closer to Gen X, they'd be feeling betrayed rather than excited.
Gen X and Millenials built the internet. We populated it with our forums, our blogs, our facbook profiles. We were the first ones sharing our photos, our very lives, with all of our friends and family. We created what it would become and we trusted that it was a community resource. Then along comes a couple of billionaires, they suck up everything that you have built and then have the balls to charge you an entry fee!
It's like if you and your neighbourhood all got together and decided to build a playground for your kids, and when it's done, some asshole asks the city for the right to the land and puts a toll booth up.
More than any other concern, THAT betrayal is what pisses me off the most. How fucking dare they say that I have to pay to access a system that was built on community content. They can fuck themselves sideways with a rusty sledge hammer.
yeah I'm not surprised, I watched the prequels. This guy was a legend in the 70s, that is like 50 years ago.
He hasn't done anything great since co-writing Willow 40 years ago. Go to his IMDB, he's lived out of star wars nostalgia since then, and all of them after the initial trilogy was a downgrade.
I lost every ounce of respect and admiration I had for this man after he sold the franchise to Disney.
You really held out for a while, huh?
Lemmy has some of the best takes in conversations. I love it here.
He's shit anyway.
Lucas creating star wars doesnt mean he's any sort of genius.
I thought Frank Herbert created Star Wars
No, Isaac Asimov did
You'll have to explain this one. I was making fun of the fact that George Lucas plagiarized Dune.
Its not political but he is an artist and that is why it is shocking Edit: OP first wrote: something along the lines of "why is it now seen as political"
Finger painting with your own poo does not make you an artist.
But writing a critical successful and belovid series of films does
The majority of entries in the Star Wars franchise are objectively trash, or very close to it, much like Star Trek. It is odd, and disappointing, how a genre with so much freedom for creativity and expression, is so uninspired and sales driven. Popularity is not quality. The original 3 Star Wars movies were something different partially because of how much effort would have been required to make them.
And all that is subtracted because he made Jar Jar.
Does it? He certainly worked with a lot of talented artists, and I guess he did think of doing Hero's Journey but in space.
I'm not denigrating the art, but something about the popularity contest tastemaking rubs me the wrong way.
What about attempting to ChatGPT his own work decades before GPTs were a thing?
...i doubt he wrote the Star Wars Movies with AI...
I didn't know liking AI was political
Everything is political - the toilet paper you buy, the corporations you support, the things you pay attention to and the things you don't, the media you consume, the books you read, your decision not to read, whether you pay union dues, the parks you visit, the roads you use, the services you rely on, what you decide to ignore.
People who say they are not political just mean they don't consciously engage with politics. But even the decision to not engage in politics is a political decision.
AI may eventually replace jobs, pollute water, take up energy, and concentrate wealth at the top even more. Whether you support, are against, or ignore AI, all 3 are political decisions.
You like what you like, but if you stan corporations enclosing our own culture and renting it back to us, that's political.
Well yeah, he’s a billionaire, of course he looks after his own class’s interests.
https://www.techspot.com/news/113114-christopher-nolan-believes-gen-z-push-back-against.html
And then we have actual creatives who get it.
Not sure if he gets it. He might be on the right side but there's not really a pushback.
Life sometimes feels like a comedy skit where everyone hates the idea of AI taking their jobs but still uses it anyway.
Nolan is an elitist asshole and his movies are not that great, actually. That is just him going “kids these days” like an old fart. He is all in on the IMAX scam. He insists on bad audio mixing (horrible even on theaters) hiding under the “I only mix for IMAX theaters” excuse. At least he acknowledges that it is Hollywood that is terribly out of touch with reality. Backrooms is successful because it connects with the audience nothing to do with whether it uses CGI or not (the Oppenheimer nuclear explosion scene is SO bad in an otherwise fine movie). And Backrooms was filmed on a regular digital 35mm Red camera at 1.85 ratio with regular Dolby Atmos and you can absolutely hear the dialogue. He might denounce AI slop but doesn't realize that he's also been using tech as a crutch to his creative shortcomings.
dead-eyed stare in librarian
AI detection by AI is not reliable. Lots of false negatives, and comparatively less but still too much reporting false positives to be reliable (and those are especially biased).
It's unlikely to get better too. If AI was able to reliably detect AI output, why not use that to correct itself to be less AI-like? And where is the seemingly infinite money thrown at in this struggle?
You just described adversarial training, something I've been hearing about for at least a few years now.
How could that even be true since it was humans thay trained ai. What a dumb statement ahh
Ai can do plenty of classification tasks better than humans though. It's not like every entity that trains another is fundamentally smarter.
Yeah but to say humans can't do this when humans doing it were what provided it the data is a dumb statement. Humans classified the data so that AI could learn you wouldnt say humans can't classify data.
Humans can, ai can do it better than humans in many areas though.
That's a MUCH different statement though, and not at all relevant to a claim that AI is able to do things humans CAN'T do.
In most areas it can't. It can do a much worse job though, if that is what you are looking for.
Software can't tell truth from lies because software doesn't even know what those are. It doesn't know anything. It's a parrot, a magic trick, a mirror to fool people (people like George Lucus) into thinking there's another person looking a back at them.
Regardless many ai classifiers outperform humans at classifying. Your comment seems irrelevant to the discussion.
As opposed to your comment moving the goalposts from an AI doing something humans can't, to them just being better than humans (which is absolutely arguable in most cases)?
The parameters set for classifying that are basically non-existant. So no, they can't really do any of that. AI-bros will readily claim they can though, because it is like really important to them.
Continuing that unbroken streak of bad artistic decisions towards an inevitable Star Wars Special 50th Anniversary Slop Edition reissue.
Dear gods, does this mean a second Holiday Special????
With AI gen Carrie Fisher
NGL I would buy a ticket to at least the first movie just to commentate as loudly and obnoxiously as possible until I got kicked out.
Not sure why you'd be kicked out. You're not disturbing anyone. You'd be the only one in there.
I know you're joking, but ya know... what kills the joke? Is how wrong you are. There's gonna probably be plenty of dumbass folks there.
Exactly, just as there are plenty of zombies using meta and twitter. Didn't anyone ever wonder why they wanted people to breed so much?
I mean......maybe? I didn't realize there was a strict code of conduct on Lemmy where our jokes had to adhear to realism. Very sorry for the mishap. I'll only tell jokes where the punchlines seem they could happen in real life.
So a guy walks into a bar. The bartender says "What'cha havin?" And the guy says "A MENTAL BREAKDOWN!!!!" and then proceeds to cry that his wife has left him.
..........I just don't know about this realism humor.
Dude my bad. Didn't mean to hurt you.
Also I was just launching off your joke. Cause the real joke is how much our society has become brain-dead drones.
Your joke is hilarious because I'm sad now! I wish I could go back to imagining you being applauded for shredding a movie in a theater, but now I can only laugh at sad humor.
No this isn't abnormal. He's been a shit for decades now.
Flukey dilettante regards stochastic parrot as unfathomable prodigy
Read all about it
This reads like one of those mass-delete gibberish Reddit comments, lol
It's not every day you get to use a word like dilettante, so I figured I'd make a salad
Thanks for that, Dennis Miller.
Kokaku’s website is blocking my VPN connection. Here’s the text of the article.
What a condescending opener. Whatever you think of George Lucas, he’s made some cool stuff, he did it the old fashioned way, and he’s not constrained by resources. But rather than listen to what this guy has to say on the topic, he begins with the presumption that no, he must be deluded from swallowing propaganda.
I’m hardly George Lucas’s biggest fan but this writer can blow me.
He made 2 and a half good movies in the 1970s. That's literally it.
💩
Ok, I'm sold. Where can I pick up this horse and buggy?
his genuine reasoning sounds like the kind of exaggerated strawman i'd use to mock AI supporters. if he only had a brain!
Classic George L, I wouldn't have expected any more from him
Disneys' hand up his ass
he sold his soul to disney long time ago(aka STAR WARS)
Yes. That's what im referring to
Frank Herbert wasn't around to tell him how to think about it, I guess.
Just curious, was Herbert involved with Lucas or Star Wars? Was not aware of that
no
Where's a good Butlerian Jihad when you need one?
inshallah, amigo
The guy that essentially added lasers to Japanese movies and somehow became a multi-billionaire is a fan of stealing other's work with minimal effort and reusing it without permission?
I'm shocked. Shocked I say.
I mean, to be fair to the 70s version of Lucas, that's basically how all art works. New combinations of old ideas.
This is what passes for journalism these days? Fuck off
Journalism went out the window with satire. Now you just get to see which flavour of bullshit you end up with.
common George Lucas L
I'm sure this thread will be full of rational discussion.
Ironically, you're the one who chose to make a snide remark about people you disagree with, instead of a productive and relevant comment.
Says the pot to the kettle.
He's in every AI thread with the same toxic behavior, bad faith arguments and personal attacks.
I've noticed and agree.
Do you have a point about the article, or are you just here to cry about "personal attacks" in the middle of making one?
I do have a point and you're making it for me.
Please, elaborate on it. So far, all you've done is be hypocritical and whine that people disagree with you.
Oh, stop. My feelings.
Aren't you the idiot who called me a misanthrope? Glad to know you're also a hypocrite.
your mistake by selling SW rights to disney who ended using a slop generator, shouldve done a partial ownership instead. instead of getting rare sw films or shows that are decent, its just slop now.
GL already turned when he sold over to Disney. He himself was very limiting towards the progression of Star Wars even before that. I'll admit there are very convincing AI attempts online that IMO actually outdo what Disney has come out with since they've won rights, but that alone doesn't justify using AI.
What this all boils down to is that Disney should not hold the rights. At the end of the day, these AI users are still putting down some kind of story and better dialogue which Disney does not want to follow. They've forgone the real essence and telling of Star Wars and have replaced it with a very Disney vibe that appeals to what Disney chooses to. They've left out the fans entirely.
lol Nope. I'll happily watch the worst films made by the worst human hack writers over the even the best regurgitated slop "films" that a chatbot pisses out.
What I'm saying is, if the real people are the ones coming up with the story/scenes and dialogue IRL, that part of the content alone is still better than what Disney puts out where they're trying to make bank. Disney themselves used AI to make Mark Hamil's son take on Mark's face in Mandolorian. They are just as guilty as anyone using AI when it comes to Star Wars. I agree though, AI would not make a good story teller.
it probably produces dialog that sounds more like it was written by a human
Harsh but accurate. Without Carrie Fisher to doctor his scripts (and his wife to find the film in the edit) Lucas was a director famously indifferent to dialogue or character.
Anyone who saw the Special Editions and expected anything else deserves to be unpleasantly surprised right now
Lucas has never seen a technology he wasn't willing to shoehorn and abuse in one of his films.
He's like the polar opposite of James Cameron.
George Lucas's integrity has been deleted by creator.
Old, white and wealthy. Of course he thinks AI is the future, all his kind do.
I'm sure he'll make gobs of money off of it, as contradictory as the fan base is they will fill the theaters
Which he would get exactly $0 from since he has no ownership of Star Wars anymore.
CGI is one of the places where AI has been used for years. People were happy enough using generative AI before chatbots why stop now? I think the de-aging stuff is a pretty cool storytelling tool and the greenscreen filters save a lot of time and add quality.
Wonder how George will fuck it up will he use a movie generator?
Are you seriously comparing using generative diffusion models to applying a chroma key in video editing?
Are you not aware of the AI assisted greenscreen tools? No well they are helpful and make the job faster.
Were these green screen AIs trained on the entirety of human knowledge (in many cases destructively)? Are they regurgitating original works verbatim? Do they need giant hyperscaler data centers to run? Are they used to justify firing people en masse? Do they steal and poison massive amounts of water from communities? Are they used to prop up an insane stock market? Are they used to create misinformation at a never-seen-before scale?
You've got some of the most laughable strawmen for justifying blind hatred that I've ever seen! Bravo.
I can only assume your reading comprehension failed you.
No, no, no, no, no, no, maybe?
https://youtu.be/3Ploi723hg4?t=1291 this is one of the things I was thinking of it's corridor crew everyone loves those guys.
So you agree, then, that comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges?
Comparing the two what?
Oh, I see, but it's still not the same as using a generative model
I am referring to generative models trained to take an image and output a chromakey'd image with some minor hair and transparency improvements. The lines are kinda blurred between classified and generated here but it is "generative AI".
I think we just all agree text-to-image/video is bad and not creative at all. I just have this strong feeling that these directors have access to real experts and tools so I give them the benefit of the doubt rather than fediverse members, by a huge fucking margin. (E: but not George L)
Well yeah, future is hot and dark
Some of the people doing the fan-based YouTube Star Wars videos are using AI and I can honestly say the short clips are amazing. So he's not wrong in that aspect.
Sounds like something a pedophile would say
Who cares. He has zero talent, and his movies are childish..
My calendar app seems to have also "gone to the dark side." It says next year will be 2027.
When did "easily making an obviously accurate forecast" start being referred to as "going to the dark side?" I just don't see the connection...
Are the Sith, like, seers of the obvious in some of the expanded lore books?🤔 Maybe in the books the Sith tell people whenever water will continue to be wet, Sarlacc pits will remain dangerous places to practice parkour, and Space will continue to exist?
That's a lot of words to smuggle in the baseless assertion that "AI is inevitable and we must embrace it"
NFTs are inevitable. Crypto is inevitable. Metaverse is inevitable.
Who said you have to embrace it? Do what you want! Doesn't change what others are doing, nor should it.
I still have all three of those (so long as by Metaverse you actually meant VR). I'm guessing you've got none, but that doesn't change what other people use and value.
Edit: Here come the down votes. Why are so many on here self-centered, and feel like if they don't approve of something then no one else is allowed to? Posting my opinion of technology on Lemmy feels like wearing a two-piece bikini to Sunday School, without shaving. Such judgmental hypocrites.
Mmm yesss, cry about the down votes more.
Thanks, they're representative of the clueless masses blinded by irrational hatred. Nothing will change by pointing them out, but it sure is entertaining to the pragmatic few.
Nah, they represent your shit take!
You're so witty. Did you come to Lemmy straight from Reddit, or did you spend a couple years on Musk's Twitter to really refine your brilliant takes?
Awe thanks, I guess it means something then, as a witty person, when I say your take is shit.
Never had Twitter, even before Musk's takeover, and haven't used reddit in about 5 years, wbu?
You can't (in good faith) claim "AI is the future" is "an obviously accurate forecast" when half of Lemmy is actively trying to dismantle that notion.
Why not? Like babies at a space opera, they can cry all they like about things they can't comprehend that they wish would go away.
Except they'll be just as effective as they were at making Bitcoin go away. (Bitcoin still exists, people still use it.)
Also, half is a very conservative estimate. I think hating AI is MUCH more popular on here. It feels like it should be the official Lemmy pastime.
Nobody uses Bitcoin lol, it's a speculative asset now, not a cryptocurrency. You're an idiot if you use it.
Appreciate the ignorant ad hominems. You represent Lemmy very well.
If by "it'll decay into a pathetic corpse of its former self after destroying things with actual value," then sure.
But we both know that's not what you were trying to imply lol
What will decay into a pathetic corpse of it's former self after destroying things with actual value? The only things I can think of that match that description are the USA in the short-term, and humanity in the long-term.
Hmmm... Maybe you meant to respond to someone else.
Of course an AI booster would be a misanthrope too.
Thanks for your slanderous and inaccurate assessment.
Of course someone who confuses the use of a technology with the technology itself would also confuse an observation with judgment.
You're the one who was reminded of the rot and failure of NFTs and decided to say "nuh-uh, actually people are bad instead." You're a misanthrope.
It's your job to prove these things are actually worth keeping around at all.
Dude, USA affects all of the world already in a very significant way. Western world especially. While the decay of American imperialism is something a lot of us would like to see, it will, in the short term affect everyone negatively. The USA will not go out without a fight. Already, people across the world suffer because of it. It is precisely because of the USA and their economy. Economy, which is undoubtedly, by their own accounts, dominated by the AI tech industry. So, although indirectly, people outside the USA are negatively impacted by the AI. Not to mention direct impact it has (military literally being driven by AI).
Only one disagreement: you're confusing the technology with it's use.
A gun isn't a blindfolded execution
A car isn't a vehicular manslaughter.
A pool of water isn't a homicidal drowning.
AI is not what you just described.
So AI is whatever makes you right and me wrong, basically? Of course the ones responsible are the people building products based on AI. Nobody is arguing LLMs themselves are evil. What I'm talking about are massive datacenters built overly fast so that they need to use evaporative cooling and micro-turbines is an utterly irresponsible use of that technology. It's like rushing to build a faster car than China and so you don't install brakes and your cars start killing everyone on the streets. Of course a car isn't evil, it's the people irresponsibly designing them. AI tech is constantly doing propaganda fear mongering that if you don't use their product RIGHT NOW - you're getting left behind. If you don't integrate them in your business RIGHT NOW, you're gonna get overrun by competition. And the product is not nearly as reliable as they push it and not nearly as powerful as they claim. It's a universal tool that is inefficient at any specific, specialized task. In fact, it's painfully INEFFICIENT. But you and I wouldn't know it, because nobody is publishing exactly how much it costs to run and how much they are subsidizing the use of it. The technology is useful, even revolutionary, but the way it's overwhelmingly being used right now is bullshit. This way is not sustainable, not profitable and will end up costing the entire world. That's what's gonna happen. The technology will stick and people will find best uses for it and start paying attention about its use. But I doubt it will survive in this current form.