Tesla Robo Taxi, the clean up robot that break AirBnB furnature, this Ai Movie compani ..

All news from THIS week about companies that just lie to get ahead. I'm tired of move fast and break things.

Simple fix, stop hovering the HN frontpage every hour, don't read every news item you come across, it isn't needed, and probably isn't good for our psyche either :)

Some things of course impact your day to day life, but most of these "Hate / Love" articles and news are mostly made to drive clicks, not to actually make your life better.

"There is always a well-known solution to every human problem -- neat, plausible, and wrong." --H. L. Mencken :)

A, yes, denial with fix everything.

Like when the AI either costs them their job, or crashes as a bubble and takes the economy and their livelihood with it.

Try sitting and reading about death, suicide, harassment, violence exclusively for a week, like if you were a social media moderator, and you'll notice how quickly you're affected by these things, even if it doesn't feel like it in the moment.

> Like when the AI either costs them their job, or crashes as a bubble and takes the economy and their livelihood with it.

Yes, this sucks, regardless of why it happens, it just straight up sucks. In 2008 we had a large financial crisis here, it sucked for most people in the country, either directly or indirectly. But you move forward, find other ways to live your life, adjust what you can and life goes on.

Today obviously is different, but back then it felt impossible things would ever change and return to normal.

And that feeling was right: they never did return back to normal. If anything, they've gotten worse!

Maybe try a better country next time? :)

But that starts with telling you off. Someone says "I am tired of Y happening so often", and you talk to them like you're their nanny.

> Yes, this sucks, regardless of why it happens

No, the reasons why it happens is why it sucks. And the reasons are of supreme importance, being the reasons, and are also the key to making things better. It starts with paying attention.

> you move forward, find other ways to live your life, adjust what you can and life goes on.

Yes. You say "this sucks", someone tells you how to live your life, you tell them off and move on.

I think we're talking about two different countries here, everything did go back to normal here, and things are today better than ever for most people. I'm sad that that didn't happen where you live too, but it is very rational and real, it's actually what has already happened.

How do you get from "I'm tired of the frequency of these scams" to "doomscrolling"?

People discussing things, finding out they're all against being exploited and driven into poverty or death, and coordinating to change that is very powerful. It's the reason we discuss this by being able to read and write, rather than while slaving in a mine.

Why do you think so much slop is generated? In part also to keep that from happening. Because that's what healthy humans normally do, if you let them, if you don't interfere. Just like a wound normally simply heals. These natural and common reactions of humans to such things are the solution, not the problem. Let them actually do their work. If you are exhausted or just apathic, the positive contribution you can still make is to stand aside.

Apathy is for cowards.

Apply whatever insult you want to it, but I'm finished.

Making a data center in my home town? I'm going to do anything I can to stop it.

Entertainment companies serving slop instead of art? Meh, I'll just rewatch old favorites.

Some people put their efforts towards changes that will reduce the most suffering for the most people.

Others enact change that will most individually benefit themselves.

Still others enact whichever attempts at change require the least effort.

And some (like me) want to eact whichever changes will reduce suffering specifically for the people close to them.

If the only thing that changes from me reading headlines is my emotional state and not my decisions, I'm going to just stop with the headlines because they exacerbate anxiety and insomnia and my family needs my attention more.

I don't find this position pathetic at all.

No one is suggesting apathy here, I'd suggest direct action if anything, but being mindful of what content you consume isn't "apathy", that sounds like the words of a coward :)

(Ironic saying that on HN, in the comments on an article of extremely dubious merit. I don't always follow my own advice. But I do keep it to a minimum.)

Way too many companies have figured out that exaggerating, misleading, or outright lying gets them headlines, investors, and free marketing long before anyone verifies the claims.

Next month is the IPO of Space-X which will be worth trillions because sending people to mars and building data centers in space is a trillion dollar business now...

:|

https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/cannes-not-show...

edit: scratch that; it's an AI-rewrite, just like the article OP posted yesterday, the day before that, and so on.

Now, Cannes specifically – and entertainment generally – is rife with hucksters and people who started off as hucksters only to later become credible. Culture jamming is often looked back on as innovative!

But the difference between this and, say, Adbusters is that Adbusters and artists in general tend to punch up, whereas this – regardless of merit – is looked at by other artists as punching down, simply because it doesn't carry any intangibles.

And art is intangibles.

Time, culture, sweat, friction, a personal POV; art is an inherently human-to-human communication tool anyway. When you strip all of that away you lose something, in the same way a Big Mac is not the same as your mom's spaghetti.

I think that AI filmmakers, if they believe they can make films of high critical and/or or commercial success, need to avoid engaging in culture jamming and take a more honest approach. "This is my chosen medium" and then develop in public while treating the intangibles as legitimate, instead of something to be hacked around.

I don't think these are filmmakers. They aren't here for the art, they're here to find product market fit and, increase revenue, and raise another round at higher valuation.

This company is not that. They're a venture backed silicon valley startup. Not a film studio. Not a production house. Their business is not about films, it's about raising venture capital, and (maybe) providing an exit to their investors. Whether they do it by producing a blockbuster movie or some other thing is immaterial, and they'll pivot towards whatever is the most expedient path. They're an "AI tools" company.

None of that really matters. Ultimately films are rated based on how much they make at the box office, which is a function of the content, audience preferences and marketing. A director becomes well known by the impact of their production, not the other way around. Really doesn't matter - to the majority spending to see a given film - who the director was, beyond as a marker to find/avoid similar works in the future. If a director makes a crappy film with humans, they'll be known as a crappy director. And if they make a good film using AI, they'll be known as a good director (UNLESS there are a lot of specifically anti-AI people in the crowd AND it's known the film was made using primarily AI). And the good director will be praised for the artistry they put into the work.

Is it, though? If all you want is a movie, you can make it for both less money and less time. And if you actually have some modicum of talent, you can make it higher-quality to boot; see Joel Haver, who challenged himself to author, film, edit, and release 12 feature-length films during the course of 2024 on effectively no budget whatsoever (playlist here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-ZRRTsa5SY&list=PLKtIcOP0Wv... ).

The cube was not “done” in 3 weeks. Maybe they shot it in 3 weeks, but there were years of pre-production, and at least months of post-production. (According to wikipedia.)

Saying that it was done in 3 weeks is like saying that windows 11 was done in 45 minutes, because that is how long the compilation lasted.

> with budget of $350,000 CAD

“50% of the budget as C$350,000 to C$375,000 in cash and the other 50% as donated services, for a total of C$700,000. Natali considered the cash figure to be deceptive, because they deferred payment on goods and services, and got the special effects at no cost.”

Direct quote from wikipedia.

Last year many developers were saying that it produces slop and so-on which is genuinely annoying when we know it's months/years to be GUARANTEED to be solved, as theory already proves we can go way further with models (theory means practice eventually), so we must not talk about "now" as in 1 week near but what it will be, as if it's already there imo. Even more annoying about the image gen AI, it's OBVIOUS that it will reach perfect accuracy (at least for human eye), as if we will just throw TRILLIONS of investment by the window and just stop here, nope, this will reach camera level, runtime, instantly rendered.

Else for the job loss, it's like the moment we realize that it can automate 99% of white collar jobs, we would suddenly be surprised when Opus 10 can do it? We shouldn't, we KNOW there will be Opus 10 that reach 99.9% in all benchmarks, like we know we will have Opus equivalent models running on our phones.

I won't be surprised when I see Opus 4.8 equivalent performance running on a 10B model, as this is just logical, I start to kinda hate it that we all act "surprised" with new models every few months as if the science behind it all changed suddenly, no... we just start developing what science is backing up already.

So obviously, music, video, writing... will be produced at a much higher level than humans, soon enough, there is no ceiling with AIs, humans are pretty limited.

I’m not taking anything away from those that use AI to make videos but to call yourselves directors… rofl.

I suspect their next movie will get nominated for an award at some academy, bonus points if Oscar Micheaux[1] or anyone else with that given name gets mentioned.

As long as BS sells, BS will get produced I guess.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Micheaux

And if it comes out that you lied you still get lots of trailer views, maybe even people checking out the full movie. All numbers you can show off to future investors about how successful your movie was

But there will never be a successful, fully AI generated film. I don't believe it, anyway.

Check again in a couple of years.

We just meant in the city of Cannes.

My vibe from this film.

That said, I wonder if in a couple years it'll be capable of making decent films. Maybe by then the costing of AI will be more realistic and people will choose not to spend the money on slop.

I thought AI was supposed to be democratizing creativity and putting the power of Hollywood into the hands of regular people? What regular person can afford that kind of price tag? Isn't inference supposed to be cheap?

Why is an AI movie startup trying to obtain social proof through the snooty film festival circuit anyway? If this is about "democratizing creation", why not just post the film on Youtube and let the public decide?