How long until decent AI movies are possible?i.e. When will we be able to go...>Computer, generate me a fantasy action movie featuring John Cena, Sofia Loren and Fred Astaire... and it will just create one for you for, say, $5?Would you watch an AI movie, anon?>Thread vibe:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmLR3k6R1gE
It's Sophia, not Sofia.Also, your post highlights why "decent AI movies" are not possible ever. The end result hinges on the user's prompt and 90% of the time the user is a brainlet whose creativity peaks at "fantasy action movie featuring John Cena". Maybe some midwits will be able to stretch as far as "Batman vs. Spiderman on Mustafar directed by Chad Stahelski" but that's about it. You'll get tired of playing around within the limits of your average brain and want to get stimulated by creatives who have higher IQ than you. And boom, you're back in the movie theater, watching art made by others.
>>214965888Fair enough, my example prompt was pretty trite.But the main thrust of my question was, basically, how long until we're watching AI movies (either made by ourselves or someone/something else)?Would you watch an AI movie, anon?
>>214965991>how long until we're watching AI movies (either made by ourselves or someone/something else)?Feature films? A few years. It takes a shit ton of resources to generate those small clips that you see circulating right now and the service providers are running it at a massive loss. Imagine how much it would cost to generate enough material for a full 90 minute feature film considering that you will have to generate many dogshit clips to get one clip that is good enough. Then you run into copyright issues both with generating and distributing.>Would you watch an AI movie, anon?No.
I hate Indians and Redditors
>>214965888Wow I must be getting so old I didn't even realize that Hunger Games came out before Alien.
>>214965888>stimulated by creatives who have higher IQ than you.Yes and AI has a higher IQ than all the (You)s on earth which is why OP wants to go to AI instead of hollywood.
>>214966315Hello sars! Do not redeem high AIQ do not redeem sars! Bob and vagene redeem for me.
>>214966266I don't understand what this is trying to say. It's not the breakdown of chatGPT users by country, because the total is over 100%. It's not % of country population using it, because barely 45% of India even have access to computers. So I don't understand what it's trying to say.>USA: 23%23% of what?You posted this like it's a smoking gun for something, so explain it to me.
>>214966463NTA but it clearly says % of consumers.
>>214966556Oh, gotcha>23% of consumers are USA>22% of consumers are UK>22% of consumers are AUS>19% of consumers are JAP>18% of users are GERwhew, I'm glad all 104% of users are first worlders.
>>214966580No, the % of consumers in that specific country, you fucking retard. Are toddlers customers, for example? You fucking idiot, neck yourself.
>>214966597Consumers of what, you hyper-aggressive retard? I'm pointing out that it is unspecified. Consumers of the internet? Consumers of 4chan? Consumers of chatGPT (which is the immediate go-to for charts like this, but not this one).It also says "in select markets," and I also would like to know what that means. I have two friends with jobs that require chatGPT usage - one for use in HR reports, the other in code checking for IT. Is it 23% of the USA IT market? It's a picture that says nothing without the rest of its own context. Without knowing the market its polling, it is saying nothing. And knowing the market it's polling, what the hell does it say? "USA uses chatGPT over half of what India does in that specific market"? Riveting. How does that apply to 4chan, hobbyists, or whatever the hell you or that poster was complaining about in that post.
>>214966659Consumers are consumers. Jesus fucking Christ. Learn economic terms before discussing economics, you dumb fuck.
>>214967351So you don't know what they're talking about, making wildly wrong assumptions, and trying to talk down from that position. Gotcha. You were better off not replying.
>>214967371>no uConsumers are individuals who spend money to consume products or services. 45% of consumers in India use ChatGPT.You should have gone to school abroad instead of the US if you can't understand that very fucking simple thing.
>>214966659>It also says "in select markets," and I also would like to know what that meansSelect markets are the markets shown in the graphic instead of every market in the world. There are almost 200 countries in the world. Do you see 200 countries in the graphic? No? Yeah, because they only showed a SELECTION of them instead of ALL of them.You are one dense retard, holy fucking shit.
>>214966580Good morning sir!
>>214967441>Consumers are individuals who spend money to consume products or services. >45% of consumers in India use ChatGPT.Anon, 45% of people who consume products in India is a _significantly_ higher number than 300 million, which is the total active users given in that same image. Try using your brain for a minute, instead of making an example of yourself when crying about bad schools.
>>214967523>weekly activeSame reason a Youtuber with millions of subs has videos with far less views. Indians are so filthy and stupid.
>>214967441Money can be exchanged for goods and services.
>>214967614Are you really so dumb as to think that sourceless pic somehow has an accurate overview of the entire Indian nation and knows for a fact how many of their people, by a specific status, are and aren't using chatGPT? Nationally? If it's tallied by unique IPs, no need to compensate for VPNs or dynamic IP. If it's tallied by a survey, no need to consider who was surveyed and if or how it applies to the rest of the nation. And of course, your actual kneejerk reaction to impossible numbers is "Well, they must have only used it a bit" instead of reconsidering the sourceless image or an absolutely retarded take on what it's trying (and failing) to convey?Only 55% of Indians even have access to some form of internet (that's 900 million people). And you see a baseless pic and think "Yep, just about all of them used chatGPT, because they're consumers." I was already preturbed by such a useless iamge, but your defence of it is mindboggling.Here's an actual image I found in 5 seconds of searching, with a source to it and a method that doesn't take profound retardation to make sense. It's a survey of 1,000 people. Naturally, it's filled with survey bias, like who was reached out to, limited to respondents for an English survey, and so on, but it's an actual study, with a who and how and a when, attempting to understand the numbers, AND it says what I assume you were hoping to convey, which is that "lots of Indians use chatGPT."https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-often-people-use-chatgpt-across-21-countries/But my man, for all that you're trying to complain about, you represent worse than everyone you've insulted today.
>>214967745>"lots of Indians use chatGPT."More accurately, "Indians use chatGPT a lot."
>>214967745Twain TSMC would waste silicon space in Nvidia GPUs for AI chatGPT.
>>214967523>>214967745>t. sub-80 IQ pajeet using ChatGPT to write his idiotic ramblings into semi-coherent posts
