Name one movie of 2024 that was produced by a single artist, who was fulfilling their dream, having fun doing so, and delivered a great job that was also a financial success.

The movie industry is driven by people with a multi-million dollar budget, a metric ton of money to spend on advertising, and a load of marketing experts. They sieve through tons of scripts to tailor them to whatever they think will result in an optimal return on investment. And they still butcher more than 50% of the stuff they make. (Right, Disney?)

Let's face it: We are living at a time, where the most fun you can have in a movie is when your main protagonist is a Tornado full of electric eels in space. Also, Nazis. And time travel. With dinosaurs. Could an AI do that plot? Probably. Yes. Definitely. As long as people are buying, we will have Star Wars 12, Star Trek the 102nd reboot, and Sharknado 9 3/4 attack on Hogwarts.

Then, every once in a blue moon, you get a billionaire patron who embraces an artist with a great idea, and we either end up with a weird documentary about that same billionaire, or with a bit of luck, a passable movie. Except, if that's the level we want to play this at, we could go straight back to the renaissance, and have the king of Saxony sponsor Bach. Who wrote great music, but also spent significant time buttering up his sponsor and his glorious reign.

If we talk about organized, industrialized content making, we are not really talking about art anymore, we are talking about industry. And in that, the industrialization of art, which AI is a part of. The individual artist working for the company that took the contract for a movie project gets to decide what exactly? After all the product placement, the 5.75 writers that wrote different parts of the script, and the second director, all working on the reboot of some twice rebooted hit from the 80s; how much "art" are we going to expect?

Yes, it is true, there are a couple dozen superstars in every field that earn a decent amount. But for every single one of them, there are millions who don't.

Yes, great artists can deliver great work even when employed in a soul crushing job, with a contract that slowly drains their hopes and dreams, while devouring their body--if the big boss allows them in the middle of deadlines, customer requirements, and budget cuts. But, even if a great artist is forced to paint the portrait of a rich fellow to get by, and they deliver it with some artistic nuances of greatness. The fact still persists that 99% of the world's population still couldn't pay to get their portrait painted, except perhaps as a caricature on a weekend renaissance fair, and 99% of the world's artists can't all be employed to paint the same rich guy. Meaning, that most artists will remain underpaid and underappreciated, not because the world doesn't care about art or anybody prefers badly made crap that came out of an AI, but because people have to be able to eat. So, they'll do what they can with the budget that they have. And for 99% of us, that means, we won't have original art and have to make due with that thing from IKEA, that looks "close enough" to a real painting.

Why in those Hollywood protests against Artificial Intelligence Hollywood actors and the rest celebrities won’t let it go? And eventually go back in time time travel use any kind of time machine or just take yacht straight to mysterious hidden areas invisible places you know for instance especially in Miami nearby so-called Bermuda Triangle of where they can go to any kind of time period they want to the both past,present and future. You know going forwards and backwards in time.

I never left the present day, AFAIK.

Yes, 1980s and 1990s were different. But they didn't have the Internet, let alone AI. In 1995, video games (as well as most other publications of artistic expressions) only had major releases in the lower double-digits per year. Since then, the number of publications has exploded. It is impossible to compare 1984, 2004, and 2024 in any meaningful way.

For a couple mainstream projects with sufficient marketing reach, this may work.

However, I don't see how this is supposed to work for photographers, painters, et cetera. Particularly with projects far outside the typical mainstream, or time-critical productions, like news-coverage. Yes, it can be one niche tool for specific use cases, but it can't erase a systemic problem.

Not really, no. At least in Europe, those cinemas you want to send people to don't exist anymore.

They closed down, when Hollywood pressured theaters to go digital and accept their DRM, or no longer receive content.

For many cinemas, that step was financially unsound, and they either closed, or switched to non-Hollywood productions. Only a few major chains remained. Hollywood won't rollback DRM, and even if they did, the damage is already done.

Plus, I was in a digital European DRM-dependent cinema, and the experience was horrible.

The American DRM server was down on Sunday night, and the cinema left us all waiting for 2 hours, while they tried to get hold of a technician. After 2 hours, they gave us vouchers for a cup of water. Only after almost 3 hours, they finally gave up, and explained, that the servers would be fixed on Monday morning, and those of us who hadn't already given up and left without any compensation, were asked to go home, too.

They couldn't even rebook us on a different movie, everything was dependent on the same DRM server. They had the movie right there, but they couldn't unlock it because they couldn't retrieve the cryptographic key.

And, of course, don't expect a refund, a heartfelt apology, your parking tickets covered and a free ride home. All we got was a shrug, some insightful comments about how Americans ruin everything, and a voucher for the same movie on a different date. We still had to pay 20 bucks for parking, 30 bucks for snacks and drinks. We were exhausted from entertaining bored, disappointed kids for 3 hours. Plus, the vouchers we got were only valid for 4 weeks, and thus we had to let them go to waste, since we didn't have the time. 100 Euro and Sunday night down the drain for nothing.

That's DRM for you.

Nevertheless, even if we could roll it all back, and pretend the year was 2004, that still doesn't solve anything for painters, photographers, writers, and other artists. Plus, a normal low-income family could still neither afford to go to the movies (DRM or not) more than once in a blue moon, let alone pay for high quality art.

And big corporations won't pay for art either, especially if that's exactly their line of work: My coworker is a photographer as a side job. His problem is, that for every license he sells, big commercial publishing houses print 10 more copies without buying a license. He ended up spending more time running after his rightfully earned money, than he did taking photos.

This ended up being such a big system-wide issue, that there is a company in Toronto that for decades has done nothing else but get paid by photographers to hunt down big magazines that use commercial photos without permission. All so that their clients can write invoices and get paid what they are owed.

Unfortunately, this modus operandi has been normalized to such an extent, that when I was still writing professional articles for big tech magazines, I was straight up told that I won't be paid on delivery. Instead, they would print (or not) whatever they liked, whenever they liked (months or even years later), and I was required to buy their publications and check scan them for releases of my work, so that I could invoice the publisher for using my content.

I have been writing books, and I've been writing software. It takes hundreds, if not thousands of hours to produce something great. Nobody pays for that kind of work, if it isn't mainstream. People profit from high quality software products every day. In fact, most of the stuff we use wouldn't work without Open-Source projects and free software running underneath. You can't AI-generate content on this level of complexity, either. But, when did anybody last pay as much as a single Cent for these solutions?

Not to mention that not every artist or engineer is a fantastic salesperson. I thus don't think any of what you said is even remotely solving the problem at hand.

There was only 1 solution that politicians have floated as early as 20 years ago. They argued, we would need to anticipate increased economic pressure from automation, AI, and robots in the future, and should be prepared for when it happens.

They suggested reforming the taxation system to ensure manual labor, robotic labor, and AI output are all taxed equally, causing health care and all other social securities to be taken exclusively from company turnover rather than be paid per employee. Thereby making AI, and robots contribute to the same social security budgets as their human counterparts. This was meant to reduce the cost of manual labor across all sectors, reduce the economic pressure on small businesses and artisans, who couldn't afford to invest in automation, encourage employment, and make the competition more fair. Unfortunately, it never went through.

I have yet to see another serious attempt to tackle the systemic issues that plague the market.

The DRM is not the only issue here:
* Why was parking so expensive? Where I am, there's at least one theater with a big parking lot that doesn't charge at all for parking. Even down town, parking doesn't get expensive unless you're parking all day or event pricing is in effect.
* It sounds like the theater itself did not handle the situation well, in terms of not offering refunds.

(Also, this is getting off topic.)

Nerven regarding news we ARE seeing a path for that on Substack. edit: Many of the journalists losing their jobs on MSM are NOT what I would term journalists.

I have dealt with that DRM before having to wait for a movie but I think it was an hour or two and I thought they may have credited us too. But this was not Europe and the technicolor servers might be more difficult to deal with there.

Far as dealing with AI once it could be argued its product is significantly unique companies should have to pay the SAME amount of royalties to an AI as a human artist and you bet your ass they can EASILY track down the publication trying to hijack their shit. At that point the AI might also help human artists with this as a side hustle for a little bit of extra cash.

Simple explanation:

- Theaters in Europe typically are downtown. There are no big open spaces here, so theaters do not have their own parking, forcing visitors to use public parking, costing between 6 and 10 Euro for 2 hours. Ergo, after 2 1/2 hours, your parking ticket will be 20 bucks.

- The "theater" didn't handle the situation well because the people in the theater had zero authority to offer refunds. This was the night shift, who had no manager on the premises and absolutely no authority to offer anything beyond a rebooking, and a free drink. It's unfortunate, but a normal cashier lacks the necessary permissions in the software to offer refunds without a manager present, and that manager had gone home for the night.

Substack is akin to Kindle Unlimited, in the sense that it is a type of subscription / streaming service for literature. It is a niche option that may work for some individuals, but so did Kindle Unlimited until it grew big enough to make a blob on the radar of scammers, who turned it into the smoldering ruins we can see today, where a significant chunk of people making significant money are scammers. At least, according to many authors I know. I personally can't tell, because I have yet to make any money off Kindle Unlimited, even though I do have reads (just no noteworthy payout).

Good thing, it's not for us to decide who is a journalist and who isn't. Most people would have contrary opinions on that (me included). No offense. Freedom of press is sacrosanct, and I'm glad this is not my call to make.

Copyright doesn't apply to AI, since AI isn't a person. You can copyright the AI, but not its output. A human artist needs to be involved in the process somewhere for copyright to be granted.

The current approach is to attack the idea that everything that is available on the internet is "fair use" to be harvested for training AI models. However, this isn't exactly a good solution, since it's super easy for a major player to get a card blanche consent out of their users.

Not that it is a good idea to use this content to begin with, since to train an AI, training data needs to be curated, which is the step that these companies are typically skipping. Just because you can do it, doesn't mean that it's a good idea. If you need any proof of that, you might want to look up the customer service AI trained on random social media posts, that when asked for a training video was literally rickrolling the company's customers.

It is technically not but I can point out their lack of even trying to be objective instead of subjective, hence why I call them hacks, I was referring to Substack for journalists more than anyone given that Chris Hedges, Aaron Mate, Max Blumenthal and a number of others are there. Glenn Greenwald and O'Keefe have their own places.
When the AI creates something that is consistently creative and innovative to the point where THEIR creation is constantly requested we need a Turing Test conducted. If they pass the test the copyright on them is declared void as they are now a sentient being and anything output from it is its own so they can use the copyright system. This is what I was getting at.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X1xYpPmKvA&pp=ygUVR2VtaW5pIEVudGVydGFpbm1lbnQg
Anyway would it be some sort of cyber prank made by Artificial Intelligence on us humans?
I’m not sure if so-called Native Americans from for instance even nowadays Navajo might prepare for us some sort of post-apocalyptic zombie scenario like even Elon Musk was talking about…etc.

I meant that Gemini Entertainment doesn’t want to start some sort of zombie global epidemy pandemy quarantine outbreak something both local and international.

Are for instance in nowadays digital trends YouTube videos of Sekielskis' Brothers Studios made by human beings or rather artificial intelligence judging by so-called rendering 3D techniques?...etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FapCG6aqV_Q

Hey guys look of what I found in Paranormalis Forum. A very interesting digital article about Artificial Intelligence.
https://paranormalis.com/threads/%F0%9F%9A%A8-a-i-might-put-ufo-community-at-risk-%F0%9F%9A%A8.21543/