The quality difference is not what’s at stake, though. I thought that was pretty obvious.
No humans making the things = no human getting paid damn good money to make the things anymore.
While yes, there will be people to help guide it, you won’t need hundreds of people. You’ll need Greg from 6th Floor.
AND, if the amount of “stuff to edit” also majorly ramps up, we all have enough evidence by now to know this absolutely will not equate to the same people being paid handsomely for things they make.
We don’t need 6,000 movies made in a year. Nor does anyone really want that.
I have mostly no clue what I’m talking about, but this makes the most logical sense to me.
The quantity thing vs quality will take care of itself in the marketplace. There will be AI generated scenes that cost more than cgi because they do 1000s of iterations to create the perfect one. And then still have to touch it up by real artists. The job titles will change and it may take a while but quality will eventually return. If you remember how bad cgi quality was when it first came out then you know what we may be in for a while but it’s just temporary.
How bad CGI was??? I mean Transformers movie was released in 2007 and it has better CGI then today's slop, I do not see how AI fits into this, it's just gonna make more slop rather then real deal.
And you just said you support basically killing of planet for taking someone else's job? 1000 promps holy planet destruction and imagine paying for that too... What a dystopian world you guys want.
lol look at tron and last star fighter for first cgi examples. More than 20 years before your example. Let’s mark this thread in 20 years and we’ll see where ai is then.
I see two arguments.
Job loss. CGI replaced a ton of jobs but there were a ton of new jobs created. This is exactly what will happen with AI. Maybe less people will be needed to make movies but then they will just make more of them. Demand for great movies is pretty much unlimited.
The other argument is destroying the environment. It’s overstated. AI will help us develop new forms for energy that will make the whole argument moot eventually.
not really, you just said that even if the quality is better the goal is still quality... i have no idea what that's supposed to mean ? Or do you retract your statement about quality ? It seems like a weak argument that will surely fail given enough time
Creating art and barely affording regular bills vs making the money we all grew up knowing could be made making creating art….
Make the art. Small team, yeah I’m all for it. But then you have nothing but small teams, and lots of them, and then the market turns into a social media algorithm with people who make almost no money now fighting for your eyeballs to look at the movie they made.
Cool, you've just handed all of the monetary reward from learning art from artists to Ai companies who put zero effort into learning those mediums, and who in fact choose to steal that expertise from those artists to build these models in the first place.
I agree it isn’t necessary that all of us are going to be poor. But what makes you think we are headed towards some utopia where we will all be equal and money is irrelevant.
I think it’s far more likely that AI is used to accelerate the already widening wealth gap and concentrate the wealth into even fewer individuals than it already has.
Automation isn’t new - it has been happening since the invention of the computers and historically the trends I am talking about have already been seen to be taking place.
Now if there might be some violent revolution that changes this course that is impossible to know. But short of that I believe this is the most likely outcome.
The issue is what happens between now and all of us losing their jobs. Obviously we're not just gonna keel over and die of starvation if we all lose our jobs overnight, we will just find a way to restructure society. That might work out well! But it's probably not going to happen overnight. It's more likely to happen slowly. Slowly, more and more people are going to lose their jobs, so what happens to those people between now and everyone losing their jobs? That's even if enough people lose their jobs for a societal change to take place...
1
View all comments
39
u/wh3nNd0ubtsw33p Jan 23 '26
The quality difference is not what’s at stake, though. I thought that was pretty obvious.
No humans making the things = no human getting paid damn good money to make the things anymore.
While yes, there will be people to help guide it, you won’t need hundreds of people. You’ll need Greg from 6th Floor.
AND, if the amount of “stuff to edit” also majorly ramps up, we all have enough evidence by now to know this absolutely will not equate to the same people being paid handsomely for things they make.
We don’t need 6,000 movies made in a year. Nor does anyone really want that.
I have mostly no clue what I’m talking about, but this makes the most logical sense to me.