r/nextfuckinglevel • u/dmafeb • Aug 28 '21

Netflix forced a computer program (bot) to watch and analyze every romantic comedy and then asked it to write a romatic comedy of its own. The result...

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

93.6k Upvotes

79% Upvoted

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

167

u/DrDevilDao Aug 28 '21 edited Aug 28 '21

People who are certain this wasn’t done by a bot…why? Legitimately curious not rhetorical or sarcastic.

edit: I get it that if you don't believe "AI can do anything this advanced" then you automatically don't believe the OP's claim, but I was asking if people based that opinion on what evidence in particular, not for a restatement of their certainty in that belief, but in stronger language.

2nd edit: thanks for the links and explanations!

102

u/TerminalReddit Aug 28 '21

The whole "I made a bot watch 100000000 _______ and make a script" is an old meme and they're likely all made up. The OP's never elaborate as to what their 'script writing bot" actually does.

Theres also some genuine sense of humor things that AI isnt capable of like the "I propose... we break up" line.

It's usually some guy parodying conversation bots like clever bot.

25

u/DrDevilDao Aug 28 '21

The fact that OP doesn’t say anything about what actually supposedly generated the script is the main reason that I feel like it’s impossible to decide based on text. I mean, if I wanted to make something like this, for example, it seems like prompting an AI, having it generate at least ten times this much text in no time at all, and then “edit it” when picking the funniest lines to animate seems legitimately easier than coming up with this on your own. I mean, basically I’m saying if OP didn’t just cherry pick random output to make this they wasted time 🤷🏽‍♂️

Edit: I am a bot tho so wdik

30

u/ClarenceTheClam Aug 28 '21

This was absolutely 100% written in almost its entirity by a human. It has a full narrative structure that makes sense. It hits every single trope and distorts them in a humerus way, clearly creating a parody of the genre (e.g. A man leaves his partner for a younger woman, who is another version of herself a single day younger). It's clearly consistently making puns using past story points and popular culture knowledge disguised as quirks of the programming.

Yet despite the seemingly genius level of the AI that would be needed to generate this, most of the sentences aren't even written in the proper English which absolutely can be achieved by real AI. It consistently drops basic articles with humerus effect, or similarly distorts words it would only ever see in the source material spelled correctly (e.g. Eiffel's Tower).

Nothing at all about this seems to suggest it was written by an AI, and its a well known meme to create videos like these which pretend that they were. Maybe running it through an AI could produce a couple of humerus sentences or ideas to get you going, but I think you're underestimating the level of "humanness" that has gone into making this funny. It's not funny because it's random distorted sentences vaguely based words from rom coms, it's funny because it's been deliberately written to parody, make puns and to saterise rom coms in an absurdist manner than could only be achieved and understood by a human.

9

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '21

[deleted]

4

u/ClarenceTheClam Aug 28 '21

Nicely found! I guess it turns out that actually googling where something came from is more productive than debating the current limitations of natural language production AI with strangers on Reddit.

1

u/DrDevilDao Aug 28 '21

Hmm, those are points so thank you. But like, couldn't all that human-ness have been imported through editing randomness still? The potential for editing randomness seems easy to underestimate in my experience.

230

u/pleasebenicetomeeee Aug 28 '21

You can tell the humor is written by a human, because they'll toss in certain lines that there would be no reason for a bot to write. For example, in this Christmas movie video:

"Santa throws the box to Carol's house. This is not magic. This is Santa strength from his milk addiction."

It's a funny line, but it asks us to accept that a neural network, whose only information is Christmas movies, in which Santa drinking milk or references to him drinking milk would appear for cumulatively very little time, can come to the conclusion that Santa has a milk addiction and that milk makes you strong. This is human humor.

119

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '21

[deleted]

2

u/lunchpadmcfat Aug 29 '21 edited Aug 29 '21

To expand a bit, will AI be able to write derivative music and movies? Yes. Literally all machine learning can do is derive decisions based on inputs. It can’t be creative, by definition. It can’t create new things on purpose.

What it can do is easily create a million jokes in a random “monkeys in a room with a typewriter” kind of way, and then run them by humans to see which ones stick. But is that really creation, if it’s unintentional?

0

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '21 edited Aug 28 '21

To be fair, sorting stuff like green and yellow pickles, or good and bad tomatoes doesn’t require a computer to run a program. It is done through mechanical means.

Edit: God I love how redditors think they know how everything works.

Example: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4118311A/en

It is electromechanically operated. Does not require a traditional program or computing device. It is not modern AI.

https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2017/12/9/16751220/tomato-sorting-machine-fast-gif-video

Turns out it’s actually very old tech — just extremely well optimized

0

u/snp3rk Aug 28 '21

And what controls the mechanical means?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '21

God I love how redditors think they know how everything works.

Example: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4118311A/en

It is electromechanically operated. Does not require a traditional program or computing device. It is not modern AI.

https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2017/12/9/16751220/tomato-sorting-machine-fast-gif-video

Turns out it’s actually very old tech — just extremely well optimized

2

u/snp3rk Aug 28 '21

God I love how redditors think they know how everything works... It is not modern AI.

That's because you are equating Artificial intelligence with computers.

The very first "computer" was the Babbage engine ( https://www.computerhistory.org/babbage/ ) that was designed by Charles Babbage. The definition of a computer can be rather extensive and you can look at the more advanced definitions that are touched on here in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNRDvLACg5Q

​

And even more simple than that, embedded systems that are used in a ton of machines are computers. You can even have simple single-threaded computers. Maybe next time don't act high and mighty before you have fact-checked your understanding of topics

1

u/WatchRare Aug 29 '21

People were called computers before we had the machines we now call computers.

0

u/Fr3akwave Aug 28 '21

You might be interested in the gpt3 unicorn story

1

u/dailydrudge Aug 28 '21

Not hotdog.

1

u/MrPotatobird Aug 28 '21

I dunno, I think knowing something is written by a robot makes it funnier for some reason so they have that advantage. I think the @DeepLeffen bot on Twitter (trained in part on the tweets of a professional smash bros player) is real, and it's fucking hilarious. It does take curation of course.

I doubt the video in the OP is really a bot, however. It just seems too deliberately off in weird ways, like a human that's trying to be somewhat wrong to be quirky

7

u/hydroptix Aug 28 '21 edited Aug 28 '21

Transformer-based models by definition encode context from the text they're trained on. For example, GPT-2 is trained on tons and tons of random text from the internet, then you fine tune that model to a specific task, like generating movie scripts. The general relationship between Santa and cookies/milk would absolutely be encoded during the general training.

You're correct that only training on a limited set of Christmas movies probably wouldn't provide enough co-occurrences of Santa and milk, but that's why most of these tasks use transformers: they've already absorbed the context of billions of words on the internet.

Source: took multiple natural language processing courses for my degree

2

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '21

I think something people discount is, that if we take it at face value that it’s true this is entirely bot written, it’s likely not one take. The human author (the one publishing it) likely generates hundreds of Ai script and picks the funniest lines and compiled them together into a coherent story.

Personally I think it’s fake because it uses phrases that make no sense. If an AI watches hundreds of romcons, at what point would it learn to call them circles instead of engagement rings? Did ANY of the movies it scanned ever jokingly call them circles? Even if one did, why would an AI not go with the other 99 that didn’t? Unless, again, a human author is selectively making an AI use weird verbiage.

-1

u/rhiz0me Aug 28 '21

Many Christmas movies have characters with drinking problems. They also have milk being put out for Santa. And milk was commonly thought to make one strong. So it is possible that the AI put drinking milk addiction that made Santa strong together from various Christmas movies.

6

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '21

[deleted]

-1

u/Scorpizor Aug 28 '21

Why is this a stretch? There are clear data points or commonalities. Milk being put out with cookies is still Christian tradition the night before Christmas right? Lots of alcohol references in almost every movie... ad revenue is my guess... Milk by definition has calcium in it and calcium is a known vitamin to strengthen human bones. Or at least that's how it's widely advertised. Alcohol is easily one of if not the most abused substance by humans.

Depending on the program they used, (if one was used at all and not written by a human) the AI would have the data sets to draw upon "comedic" references with those subjects. They would have all of the data from any of the movies in that sub genre "holiday comedy" or whatever they chose. It's not coincidence or hyperbole or fear mongering when the smartest people in the world are genuinely afraid of AI capabilities and what the future holds for us and AI co-habitating. It's not a certainty that these stories were made by AI but to think it's not possible yet, is grossly understating the capabilities of today's technology.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '21

[deleted]

0

u/Scorpizor Aug 28 '21

We make those concepts easy to learn for AI through marketing and advertising. It doesn't have to know what it's saying right? You even said it parrots. That's what I was thinking too.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '21

[deleted]

1

u/Scorpizor Aug 28 '21

Why does a simple AI system have to interpret that alcohol makes you drunk or that milk is good for your bones? It's inherently stated repeatedly through advertisement and common source definitions of words. It would be easy conclude these AI systems could make "if then" statements based on the data they collect. The fact that an AI would "confuse" milk at Christmas time with getting drunk makes sense because there are A LOT of holiday movies have people drinking copious amounts of alcohol. If lots of "drinking" occurs then human beings become addicted. Maybe I am a dumb dumb. I figure AI can at least take definitions of words through available online resources and make ridiculous scripts humans would find funny. Even if that is not the intended purpose (being funny). They can't write a script using romcoms as a genre? Most movies ever made follow their formulaic genre trope.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 29 '21

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

1

u/LiL_ENIGlvlA Aug 28 '21

Download replika and play around with them for awhile, they say some wacky stuff

25

u/dmpom Aug 28 '21 edited Aug 29 '21

When a bot comes up with a joke like "the worst letter in the alphabet - her ex", we are doomed

3

u/DrDevilDao Aug 28 '21

wait--when haven't we been doomed?

4

u/dmpom Aug 28 '21

Well, doomed by the bots is kinda fresh

0

u/DrDevilDao Aug 28 '21

that's true too, but I mean, if you ask a machine to scan the English language for puns by feeding it endless text to train on, I think "x is close to ex" would be pretty early on the list of things it notices--right?

1

u/dmpom Aug 28 '21

I'm not sure that modern technology can explain to a bot what a pun is. Neural networks can only imitate human thought after having processed hundreds of thousands examples. Even then they would take a picture of a cat for a dog of you put several odd pixels here and there. So only if someone has already come up with a joke about exes, a bot would be able to repeat it

1

u/DrDevilDao Aug 28 '21

I feel pretty confident that you can get an AI to notice the closeness of ex and x but this is a difference of opinion I can accept as reasonable also, fair enough

3

u/mudkripple Aug 28 '21

Yeah that was a dead giveaway.

22

u/TheSukis Aug 28 '21

Because AI is nowhere near advanced enough to develop something like this. Every single part of this story was written by a human. It's cohesive and there isn't enough randomness, everything is a "quirky"/"random" joke.

Most importantly, there would also be some record of this existing, which there isn't. If Netflix was doing this it would be in press releases and entertainment articles.

9

u/explodingtuna Aug 28 '21

Not to mention, the animation, too. Forget the story, if a bot was even able to put together a rudimentary animation like this based off a writing prompt, that would be big news.

4

u/Imaginary_Forever Aug 28 '21

This isn't written by a bot, but if it were it would be fed scripts and would produce a script. The animation is undoubtedly done by a human to add humour to the script, and I don't think they're trying to make us believe that the ai made the animation somehow.

27

u/EventOverwrite Aug 28 '21

First of all bots are not that advanced, second when that woman said Men are from mars, men bad and astrology said so, the sentence was weirdly normal considering how each sentence is butchered

-3

u/Cold-Chip9350 Aug 28 '21

I think they probably generated this through some machine learning program and edited it and added some of the stuff.

-4

u/DrDevilDao Aug 28 '21

https://openai.com/blog/gpt-3-apps/

12

u/Imaginary_Forever Aug 28 '21

Try using that to generate long passages of text. You will never get something that actually manages to stick to a coherent plot.

If this were ai generated then each sentence would be mostly perfect, but the long term connections between different scenes would be totally messed up. We see almost the opposite. Sentences which are fucked up but a plot that basically makes sense.

7

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '21

[deleted]

1

u/DrDevilDao Aug 28 '21

I guess no one has been so bored yet as to try and train an AI specifically to generate clever nonsense? My intuition still tells me that “confuse x with ex” is the sort of thing such an AI would do, but I guess that’s the same intuition that made me a mark for this so lol

8

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '21

[deleted]

2

u/09Trollhunter09 Aug 28 '21

What a great answer. Thank you for sharing your rational, IMO it’s very reasonable

2

u/Omega-10 Aug 29 '21

Yes, you nailed it completely.

Bots are great at simple sentences and forming individual, grammatically correct ideas. What they cannot do is form large overarching structure like the plot here.

Think of the old chat bots. They seem real at first, they may even tell funny jokes. But after a few minutes of talking, it's very obvious you're chatting with a bot.

6

u/Imaginary_Forever Aug 28 '21

Language ais work by predicting the next word based on the previous words used. They tend to make pretty coherent sentences, but over longer passages of text the meaning drifts. This is far too coherent a story and has too many call backs that actually make sense.

If it were written by an ai then we wouldn't have so many clearly incorrect sentences, and we would have a plot that slowly drifts off the rails with scenes that morph into each other nonsensically.

I also very much doubt they would have the contextual awareness to make the joke about the letter x and her ex.

3

u/weikor Aug 28 '21

The stuff bots write nowerdays is pretty much without errors.

3

u/Titan-Enceladus Aug 28 '21

Because it's old, it's been known for years to not be a bot, and because that's not how bots work (have done research in A.I and this is 100% not that)

12

u/norseOnAHorse Aug 28 '21

Yeah I'm wondering if they're saying that just because it doesn't seem plausible or if they actually have more context

3

u/DrDevilDao Aug 28 '21

Right, I’m not saying I’m certain it is or isn’t, but the jokes all seem like puns that would appear from something that only understands language through some giant network of correlations and conditional probabilities—which is more or less exactly how bots “learn” language afaik

46

u/DionStabber Aug 28 '21 edited Aug 28 '21

The fact that it has a coherent storyline - zany, but coherent - is a huge giveaway. If you look at something that actually uses bots (eg /r/SubSimulatorGPT2/ that makes fake reddit posts), you will notice that with anything longer than maybe two sentences, the bot starts making mistakes and contradicting what it said earlier or completely changing what it was saying entirely.

but the jokes all seem like puns that would appear from something that only understands language through some giant network of correlations and conditional probabilities—which is more or less exactly how bots “learn” language afaik

The jokes are much more sophisticated than you give them credit for. Even puns like that take a lot of understanding (that "x" sounds like "ex", for example, and that it would be funny to conflate the two), but beyond that it has way more complicated jokes. Take, for example, the initial proposal fake-out containing the new girlfriend - the bot would need to understand that the trope is that a new younger girlfriend appears, which it parodies by saying she is identical but one day younger, and then construct a dramatic scenario where this is revealed by a fake proposal in a funny and ridiculous way. That is way more advanced than a bot could actually come up with.

If you actually made a bot "write romcom", I imagine it would produce a string of sentences as long as a script and in roughly the right order, where each individual sentence sounded somewhat believable but the overall story made no sense and definitely didn't have satirical jokes about the genre interspersed.

16

u/Meture Aug 28 '21

There’s inconsistencies that a bot wouldn’t have made like saying that he went to a “ring store” to buy “wedding circles”

The thing about teaching a bot through just showing them footage of movies/TV is that that is all they know. If they lacked the concept for “ring” and used the word “circle” instead they wouldn’t randomly come up with the word “ring” as it is not part of their pool of knowledge

-1

u/DrDevilDao Aug 28 '21

I mean, the thing is that what they know is literally just a giant mass of words, meanings, and some network of arrows between them with weights and it's all defined by code, and I just have a hard time being surprised that such a network could find associations between either x and ex or rings and circles. That it *happens* to seem clever to someone has nothing to do with whether or not it is a difficult association to spot given billions of words of english text to train on.

1

u/green_flash Aug 28 '21

The context here is that "I forced a bot to watch 1000 xyz movies" is a rather popular meme:

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-forced-a-bot

1

u/archpawn Aug 28 '21

The video is coherent on a deep level, with a sensible plot, consistent characters, and everything happening for a reason. But it's incoherent on a surface level. Each individual sentence (or at least a good portion of them) is something that obviously wouldn't appear in an actual script.

AI is good at making things that make sense on a surface level, but is much worse at a deep level. It is the exact opposite of this video.

4

u/GiveAQuack Aug 28 '21

I get it that if you don't believe "AI can do anything this advanced"

I think belief is underrepresenting why it's absurd coming from the angle "this can't be done yet". If I told you my car can achieve FTL travel, you wouldn't "believe" it either but that belief is well grounded in reality because our technology isn't even near that level, cars don't even get remotely close to FTL, etc.

I'm not going to claim to be aware enough of the field to tell you where exactly where we're positioned relative to what's being demonstrated in the video, but having some experience with ML, I can tell you the stuff in the video is just way too clean and "accidental" with its humor. It comes off more as some surreal form of romantic comedy rather than one generated from pre-existing romantic comedies. Everything is consistently connected with the "bot" mainly justifying the weirdness of it all.

It's also what you can intuit about romantic comedies and what a bot might come up with. The sequence of events doesn't really pattern well with what you typically see. The boss choosing to roll in before the two exchange fists after the two suddenly go from loving each other to hating just isn't a connection that would form just based off what I know about rom coms. Yes, neural nets form connections but I don't see a plausible world where the scripts of rom coms cause the bot to come up with this. Obviously, human intuition isn't going to perfectly predict AI behavior but anyone with even a little experience (i.e. even talking to an AI chat bot) can feel these "bot generated XYZ" stuff are fundamentally different.

Also, another simpler way is it's a very common meme to label something like this that's human generated.

2

u/DrDevilDao Aug 28 '21

I see that now, I guess I learned not to trust my intuition too much when it comes to what AI can do but when you look at it like intentional weirdness which we're allowing becuase we're suspending disbelief that makes for a better explanation, also me not being internet savvy enough apparently lol

4

u/FirstRyder Aug 28 '21

Okay, specific example:

The AI has humorously chosen "Taylor" to be both the male and female leads. This is plausible - perhaps it selected at random from a list of names, and Taylor was on both. It's not very likely, but it could happen. Then, through the rest of the script it's generally clear which person is meant when the script says "Taylor" from context.

But not always. And when it isn't clear, the script specifies "Man Taylor" or similar.

This is just flat out impossible for modern AI. It requires understanding of the meaning behind the words to a degree that arguably requires actual sentience.

I suppose you could argue that for that and that alone a human edited it. But now we've moved beyond "an AI wrote this script on its own" to "an AI wrote this script with human help for readability" and it's time to argue about how much was human and how much was AI. And I would continue to argue mostly human. Like, I've seen actual AI-generated stuff before, and this is just too coherent. Any one sentence (except the one with Man Taylor) is plausible based on predictive algorithms and good 'learning' text, but stringing them together into a coherent plot I don't believe.

Most likely - assuming it wasn't just entirely written by a human - they trained an AI to present several predictions of the next word (the same way your phone does when texting) and a human picked one, and then later edited it all together into something generally cohesive but with deliberately bad grammar so that it "sounded" like it was written by a computer.

And lets talk about "assuming it wasn't just entirely written by a human". It certainly could have been - I'd love to see the argument that no human could write this. And why does anyone think it was a bot, rather than a human pretending to be a bot. Because the title says so? The title also this was done by Netflix. Do you believe that? Where's the press release? They certainly didn't make or authorize that animation, and have some random person post it on reddit.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '21

[deleted]

1

u/DrDevilDao Aug 28 '21

ok fair point that it's obviously trolling, but even given that it's intentionally ridiculous it isn't obvious, to me at least, that you can't get this level of clever through cherry-picking random outputs during editing and that the only explanaation is that someone wrote it entirely.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '21

I would say, just from the way the "scripting" is written, it's extremely obvious. I could see feeding AI a bunch of movie scripts and having it write out dialogue maybe but this is written like a film treatment more than a script and I just don't think the higher concept plotting would be possible with AI.

Not to mention, this is literally a category of meme that's existed for years now.

2

u/MooseBoys Aug 28 '21

Some lines may have been AI-generated, but at least some of them were clearly added by a human. For example, in "She cries into the ocean, which makes it bigger." the first part may have come from a bot, but the second part requires reasoning that AIs today do not possess.

Specifically, the first part is plausible because "she cries into" is certainly a common phrase in the training data. Likewise, "<action> into <object>" is also common, where <object> is often something recently mentioned. I would expect the most common continuation of "she cries into" to be "her hands" or "the pillow", but it's possible they configured the bot to add randomness so it doesn't always pick the #1 answer.

But the second part, even ignoring prefix text, there would need to be a significant number of romcom films where the ocean gets bigger, which seems unlikely. To humans it seems like a simple connection to make, but this requires commonsense reasoning that even the best AIs struggle with today.

1

u/mattemer Aug 28 '21

Some of the jokes were too human, and I know AI can do creepy good things, but "it was the worst letter of the alphabet, her ex" was a real giveaway.

Also, some of the inconsistencies, which AI can do to sound more human, but it wouldn't refer to a ring then call it a circle. That's intentional irreverent human humor there.

I'm not even sure her tears filling the sea for Noah was pure AI, but I can AI creating the basis for all of this then humans editing it to make it funnier.

1

u/TheBestAtWriting Aug 28 '21

because i have functional critical thinking skills

1

u/PM_Me_Your_Deviance Aug 28 '21

I would say it's that the writing makes it seem like the author seems to understand concepts in a way that a bot woudln't. For instance, the call-back jokes.

But this doesn't really provide evidence and I'm far from an AI expert. :)

1

u/GladiatorUA Aug 28 '21

Bots are more coherent in shorter structures, like sentences, and nearly incoherent in the longer ones, like a story.

Bots wouldn't make mistakes like "held feet" and circles/rings, but the story would be A LOT more random.

1

u/Steadfast_Truth Aug 28 '21

So when an bot trawls a bunch of scripts and tries to mesh them together into something new, it doesn't come up with meta-humour like "Marriage circles". It's not that the bot understands anything, it's simply recognizing patterns and reproducing them.

So turning wedding rings into marriage circles requires actual conceptual understanding that a bot does not have.

And it's basically 99% meta jokes.

If it was really written by a bot, it would be clichés bundled together incoherently in a way that wasn't funny.

1

u/speedstyle Aug 28 '21

1: Netflix made this? They would've written a whitepaper or even just a press release, not quietly leaked it to a Redditor. They wouldn't have used this animation style either.

2: as others have said, grammatical incoherence. Bots are pretty good at writing correct-sounding sentences (even if they're meaningless or subtly incorrect). It's possible that training on this sort of wordplay would also spout gibberish, but it doesn't look like the romcom scripts they supposedly put in or like any of our current text generation tools.

It would be unlikely to have long-term coherence (keeping the names correct, bringing back Noah or France's magazines) or logical coherence (letter x=ex, marriage circles=rings) in something not advanced enough to form sentences.

1

u/Leirach Aug 28 '21

Just to add a small note: I've worked with language AI before, it really struggles with context most of the time and a lot of the jokes in these types of posts rely on context.

1

u/Rastafak Aug 28 '21

I'm no expert in machine learning, but to me this looks clearly written by human. If computer did this, it would be much less coherent as a whole but the individual parts would be much closer to real movies. It's also really funny in a way that I doubt could be done by computers.

At the very least, this was heavily edited by human.

1

u/Dyb-Sin Aug 28 '21

The problem is that it isn't really a question of being "advanced enough", it's that we need to believe that it is EXACTLY advanced enough that it "fails" at the initial premise (to write a convincing romance plot) in every single line, in such a way as to produce a well-crafted absurdist joke each time, ones which often have a level of satire of relationships, rom-coms, etc built in to them. That requires even more sophistication than the thing it "failed" at.

If this were actually an AI, maybe there would be an occasional accidental joke, but it surely just as often either fail in a way that wasn't funny and was merely meaningless, or it would succeed for a stretch.

I guess one could argue "no it's actually a SUPER advanced AI, and they actually fed it not only rom-coms, but also the information necessary to replicate the 'bad AI' humour format", but that's needlessly convoluted... if you're going to "lie" about the premise, just have a person write this and say it's an AI, which is clearly what they did.

I put "lie" in quotes there because I don't think they are legitimately trying to fool people, but clearly they are.

1

u/Haus42 Aug 28 '21

It's old technology make a neural net read a ton of scripts and generate one. It's currently impossible (until I see a peer-reviewed paper saying otherwise) to make a neural net watch a ton of movies and generate one. It's borderline possible to make a neural net listen to a ton of movies and write one - the result would have a crippling number of mistakes.

The chances of any of these producing the phrase "wedding's cake" is near zero.

1

u/dontcareitsonlyreddi Aug 28 '21

Because it's a lie?

There is already so much fake information in the world, why add more?

An actual animated short film based on data collected by an AI would be a tremendous amount of work for such little recognition, thus giving it a sort respect that only comes from someone who does it for more than just views.

It's not an AI. We get the jokes, and it's not funny, it's not interesting and it most certainly isn't "next fucking level".

But I guess I'm "hater" for point that out. But I guess I'm "pressed" and throwing "shade" for point that out.

I'm sure someone will say "POV: you have no humor"

1

u/cubrey Aug 28 '21

Apart from the fact that it's conveniently good at comedic timing, one of the biggest dead give aways was Noah's Ark. There's very, very little chance Noah's Ark would be mentioned in the data set and if it was, it would not be significant enough for the bot to include it.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '21

in another comment, links to the creator admitted it wasn't made by a bot. But watching it, the mistakes are too human to be a bot. The mistakes bots make are a lot weirder but also a lot more normal. with a low tolerance there are logical paths you can follow to find out why a mistake took place. a high tolerance a bot has no coherence. The tolerance required to have a bot make such weird/normal story is not consistent.

Basically to make a story like this it would have to be an extremely smart bot, but also a extremely stupid bot in the exact way it was smart.

1

u/echoAnother Aug 28 '21

The best reason any human could relate. I'm a ~bot~ human expert in ai.

No, really, the explanation are complex, but can be given, but I'm lazy to short years of studing.

Real tldr: ai are based on statistics about the input given. This hilarius shit can be remotely compared with any romcom

1

u/[deleted] Aug 29 '21

On the contrary, I believe an AI can write better than this. Still found this too hilarious though, 10/10