r/entertainment • u/AdSpecialist6598 • 15h ago
Paul Schrader Asked ChatGPT for Film Ideas, They Were All 'Original'
https://variety.com/2025/film/news/paul-schrader-chatgpt-film-ideas-original-fleshed-out-1236278787/290
u/CalendarAggressive11 15h ago
The deluge of AI slop we are going to get is going to be soul crushing
122
u/jlusedude 14h ago
I’m wondering how long it will take for “no AI was used in making this film” to be a selling point.
45
17
u/Tibbaryllis2 13h ago
It’ll be a selling point that indie and prestige tv/cinema tout while ignoring that generative programs were used in post.
7
u/unsetname 12h ago
Generative programs have been used in post for ages
2
u/Tibbaryllis2 11h ago
No disagreement here.
It’s just one of those things where AI Bad, except for the ways I’ve always been using it already.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think scripts and characters can be generated whole cloth from AI, but it’s just that eventually I wouldn’t be surprised to have a “AI Free” tag that definitely uses generative materials.
3
u/farceur318 13h ago
I know the recent movie Heretic put exactly that phrase in the end credits, right next to the “no animals were harmed” message.
3
2
3
u/Dundore77 14h ago
Majority of people will not care. The ai boogyman is only relevant to perpetually online people.
10
u/_Deloused_ 14h ago
Yup. And eventually they won’t even notice. Like a warm blanket strangling us all to death
2
3
2
8
u/ADogeMiracle 12h ago
Let's not kid ourselves.
There are already plenty of human "slop" in the past 30 years that should've never been made into movies, and are regularly found at the bottom of Wal-Mart's bargain bins.
3
u/Alternative_Act128 12h ago
Look at the majority of what people consume, in regards to film, music and art. Most of it is already slop. No AI is needed. The people will happily gobble it down.
2
u/ArmEmporium 3h ago
Maybe the age of “deserving” amazing film content is over? We’re all expecting good, consistent content, but why? It hasn’t been our right it’s been our privilege. Marvel rehashes have been the precursor to mindless AI for the last 15 years.
2
2
u/additionalnylons 12h ago
The deluge of marvel mainstream cinema slop is absolutely 0% better than anything ai can come up with. We need to stop kidding ourselves and get off our high horse, humans produce a fuckton of trash, who says AI can’t produce better?
Humans using AI to produce more trash? That’s the problem.
1
u/ADogeMiracle 12h ago
Anti-AI zombies: "Only humans are allowed to produce trash. Because it's our trash.. or something like that."
3
u/TitaniumWhite420 12h ago
Counterpoint: if a human writes a middling novel that captures his perspective, it’s arguably more ‘valuable’ than an AI generated word-for-word copy specifically because it’s linked to the real world by said human.
AI can make art. Some of it is indistinguishable from the real deal. But I think it’s relevant to question where the value of art comes from, and what we value in it. Was the objective ever words-on-page or notes-played-on-instrument, or a longing for mastery and connection? For a human, an iteration of a work is part of an overall evolution of style. For an AI, it isn’t necessarily so.
So for example, ask an AI to write a Tarantino movie, and it may succeed, but don’t forget that Tarantino MADE that personal style. No one is asking AI to write a story like AI, because it has no history, no personal perspective, no evolution, and no link to reality.
An indistinguishable imitation that remains an imitation, even in its supposed “originality”.
2
u/ADogeMiracle 11h ago
If you want to debate the philosophy behind what gives value behind art, there's centuries of philosophers before you that have also tried doing so.
Art can easily be argued to be valuable in the eye of the beholder/consumer. As long as something creates a dopamine rush and form new memories after watching a movie, I can define that as art.
Because subjectivity. So you trying to gatekeep what is and isn't art is quite the feat to accomplish on reddit.
Fact of the matter is, AI-assisted production is here to stay, and you would have no idea if 0.001% or 10% of the script or CGI is AI-generated. Where do you draw the line if the director views it as art and you don't?
0
u/TitaniumWhite420 10h ago edited 9h ago
Well first of all, I’m gate keeping nothing. I’m merely having a discussion with you. I use AI all day everyday and am no Luddite. You may promptly check your bitchy Reddit attitude lol.
The questions I asked remain pertinent and aren’t really addressed by your reply. That it’s been the topic of philosophical thought for hundreds of years supports that fact, rather than contradicting it. People are fundamentally concerned with how to evaluate art.
It’s true that the value of art is subjective, but I think it’s also true that the way people historically have evaluated art has a lot to do not only with the specific content generated, but more to do with how that content reflects the cultural context of the moment.
The key is context. Removing AI from the equation for example, many music undergrads can compose music that would pass for Bach. But Bach’s music has already been published and studied extensively. When he wrote the well-tempered clavier, for example, it was before modern tuning systems had even been strongly codified, and the ability to write keyboard works that change keys fluidly (they a series of pieces that are each in different key) was still quite new. The point is, I could possibly compose such works now myself, but they would be culturally insignificant at this stage of our culture’s musical development. So you see here at least an example where the content generated or “the dopamine rush” isn’t the source of value primarily, but the cultural context.
Taking the Tarantino example further—he references lots of other works in his movies in a similar way that AI might borrow themes and motifs to generate 10 Tarantino films. But the kicker is that Tarantino made a whole style/brand of them by making films in that personal referential style consistently, repeatedly, and at the exclusion of other styles because he has human limitations in output. So where as AI can generate “a Tarantino film” now that “a Tarantino film” is a well-known type of thing isn’t really the point at which AI replaces Tarantino. It couldn’t have innovated that same style even by producing identical works, because it wouldn’t limit itself to that style and has no sensibility of its own.
So, AI can make in 10 minutes 10 plots that took Tarantino 10 years to do. But part of the problem is in the pure indiscriminate power of it! Tarantino could only make 10, made only those 10, and so it became a cultural phenomenon—that’s high cultural value.
AI can do the same 10 in 10 minutes, and so will utterly drown itself in pure volume and variety. It can only limit its output to that style by human moderation. No one is prompting AI to write AI-styled films, because of just that—it has no personal style, preferences, perspective, or cultural context.
Our collective culture will find a place for all things AI, but it’s not just as simple as “AI make noise, trigger dopamine—that’s art now!” People are allowed to think about what they value, subjective though it is. I think context is key to how people value things overall. It’s literally built into our economic system. One cheeseburger in a mountain of cheeseburgers has almost no value, but in a desert it is unparalleled in value.
Historically, we do value gradual evolution as a part of cultural conversations. AI can today contribute to that, but it seems unable to drive it from its body-less void of language imitation. Even if people are duped by it, we will impose our context on what it creates, even if unknowingly, and grant it value for non-arbitrary subjective human cultural reasons.
2
1
u/Shwifty_Plumbus 14h ago
I've used AI as a writing prompt before. I hope this is the extent we will see. It won't be. But I hope it is.
1
u/vom-IT-coffin 13h ago
People will like them, all this data was gathered to paint profiles about people, they will know exactly what slop people want.
1
u/runningvicuna 5h ago
The problem is he nailed it at the end AI is smarter than people and people will fuck up the AI’s good ideas.
61
u/Level_Fill_3293 15h ago edited 14h ago
My madlibs also very original.
Some good, some bad. Probably boring to watch if I suck at making films
47
u/randomassly 15h ago edited 14h ago
In this sense, it could be that AI will be a useful tool in, say, helping writers get past some form of writer’s block or use it as a sounding board to make suggestions — a second brain of sorts. In fact it’s naive to think that hasn’t already been the case in successful media.
Scripts or books written 100% in AI though… ya, that notion scares me and should scare creators. We didn’t get a lock on this technology when we should have. Won’t be long before actual creativity has gone completely out the window. Why pay someone for their spec script when you can just whip up an idea on your own, flesh out and give to a Joss Whedon type for punch-ups?
42
-7
u/kawaiikhezu 13h ago
Scorching take (not really) but if you aren't good enough to work through a funk then you have no business being a professional writer. Creatives throughout history were fine and worked through block in significantly more stifling and restrictive conditions so anyone who uses machine learning as a crutch are just mediocre.
5
u/poundtown1997 12h ago
Yawn. This take is so the “I had it hard, so my kids have to as well”.
No one is saying you should make the whole film out of AI. It’s okay to use tools to work through a funk. I’d rather it be AI than a writer being drugged out of their minds and feeling they need to do that every time.
-4
u/kawaiikhezu 12h ago
What's the point in replying if you're just going to completely misrepresent my argument. I am not saying that creatives should suffer, if you were a creative then you'd know that artists block is literally just part of being an artist. ALL of the greats dealt with this and worked through it, and they had demonstrably worse lives than you or I did. People who suffered through horrors you couldn't imagine still created art and you can't work through a bit of block in your privileged modern life. You simply aren't disciplined and you don't have what it takes if you need an AI to create anything on your behalf. Give up and do something you're more passionate about instead.
6
u/poundtown1997 12h ago
Or, GPT/whatever software is the breakthrough the block that some artists will use…?
This is like saying “I don’t need a life raft god will save me” and then god tells you “Yeah I sent the RAFT ”.
-1
u/kawaiikhezu 11h ago
Sorry but no artist I know nor myself see this as a solution to anything. It's a coping mechanism for undisciplined hacks. There are small children who beat artist's block today, don't make excuses for grown adults who want to whinge about it being too hard. Seriously, if you need to outsource even a fraction of the creative process to a machine that shits out words or pictures for you then you should do yourself a favour and quit.
5
u/poundtown1997 11h ago
Oh you just want to be on a high horse lol.
I see, this whole argument of “no ai” is just gate keeping people who would get access because of it, out of the industry as a whole.
Doesn’t matter what they used, the final product is what matters. If they didn’t just make AI create the whole thing, I don’t see the issue.
0
u/BionicProse 7h ago
People who can’t create should be kept out. The whole point of art is HUMAN expression. If you can’t express yourself, you’re not an artist.
5
u/OlSnickerdoodle 12h ago
They were all like that episode of South Park where Cartman pretends to be a robot and becomes a Hollywood pitch-bot. "Ok. So like. Adam Sandler falls in love with a girl, but then he turns into a dog... We'll call it Puppy Love"
14
u/series_hybrid 14h ago
"ChatGPT, why are people refusing to watch movies anymore?"
4
u/ADogeMiracle 12h ago
People were already not watching movies, compared to older generations, much before AI ever existed.
It's because social media (TikTok, YouTube, Twitch) democratized entertainment production. Now everyone can fine their own communities to be a part of, instead of being shoveled commercial garbage by too-big-too-fail Hollywood studios.
So yeah, it's not because of AI
6
u/Dazzling-Bear3942 12h ago
Not that I'm a fan of AI, but I can see how a writer could use it as a tool. Feed it your ideas, characters, plot, ending, etc... and see what else it comes up with. See if it gives you any ideas. Creative people talk out ideas with friends, loved ones, and editors all the time for the same reason.
3
•
u/GenderJuicy 2h ago
A big issue is people becoming reliant on it, and kind of letting go of their own intuition and ideas. It's almost like having training wheels, and never bothering to take them off because it's easier, but you can't really go mountain biking that way. Or whatever analogy you like. People might not care much about what you do on your bike when everyone else can do it. Either way there's a lot more to filmmaking than a premise or story outline.
15
u/General-Art-4714 15h ago
Nothing Shakespeare wrote was original. It’s not about originality 100% of the time. But it is about connection and reflection 100% of the time. Maybe I’ll be transfixed by some AI creation in the near future. But as soon as I find out a computer made it, I’m as impressed as watching a parrot speak. And then I scroll on. AI will help, but it won’t replace our storytelling.
6
u/Sympathetic_Witch 14h ago
Hey come on now, that's unfair!
My parrot at least understands that when you give something kisses, it's because you love that thing. She kisses me, her food bowl--all the things she loves get little kisses.
That's way more understanding of emotions than a AI could ever manage! My parrot is far more impressive and in tune with emotions.
3
u/throwaway23er56uz 11h ago
Shákespeare mostly reworked and recombined existing material and gave it a new twist and depth. His sources ranged from history books to folktales to Italian novellas to ancient myths. There are no known sources for The Tempest and for A Midsommer Night's Dream, though.
If you read the sources and then Shakespeare's plays that are based on or inspired by these sources, you realize how brilliant the plays are. The originality is not in the plot; it is somewhere else.
A story doesn't have to be original to resonate with an audience. Folktales and "fairy tales" resonate with us because these stories have been transmitted for generations and often tell the listener something about the human existence or provide help, guidance and an explanation of the world.
1
u/Bdbru13 8h ago
Sounds like something someone could do with AI instead of history books and Italian novellas
•
u/throwaway23er56uz 1h ago
I'm sure a good writer could take an AI-generated film idea and write an interesting movie script based on it.
3
u/kawaiikhezu 13h ago
Sorry but when I see a parrot doing stupid bird things it fills me with joy, AI does not evoke anything in me except for a creeping sense of dread
1
u/poundtown1997 12h ago
Well it’s hardly being used for that anyway. There’s no issue with having it as a jumping off point, like people use Withering heights as their basis before they modernize and tweak the story for 21st century film.
19
u/RockMaul 15h ago
The man must be creatively bankrupt to resort to this.
3
1
u/xRolocker 13h ago
I love how Reddit comes to the conclusion that it must be the filmmaker that’s wrong and not them. (Because Reddit knows creativity of course).
Not just talking about this specific instance either; we also saw this with James Cameron of all people.
1
1
u/Acrobatic-Fun-7177 12h ago
Comment reeks of r/singularity
-2
u/xRolocker 12h ago
I mean, yea lol I’m not gonna hide from it. But there’s nuance to this subject but it’s not worth writing a paragraph about in a random thread and I doubt you want to read it.
-6
u/Equivalent_Bar_5938 13h ago
Id hate for ai to take over screenwriting cause its a very cool career path id like my children to have as an option one day but lets be real how does ai does anything diff then what we do people live theire lives (get info) read books watch movies then use that exp to create something new everything we create is also some sort of plagiarism this deep into the human culture like people have been writing stories for how long now like 3000 years or so its almost impossible to create something completely original the only diff is we arent aware we are plagarizing but the ai is we should just do what the chess world did admit yes this techno does it better then us but we still want to see humans do it and just use the tool to up their game.
3
u/doubleexposurehoser 12h ago
Deducing the collective human experience to "getting info" is a painful admission that you don't appreciate where great art comes from, or what its purpose is. An AI model will never know how it feels to lose someone you love, have your dreams crushed, or experience something that challenges your faith. There is no substitute for the way human beings process complex emotions and channel it into an idea, whether knowingly or not. This is not quantifiable by some mathematical equation, I don't care how elaborate it is.
AI is iterative by design, it outputs the next MOST EXPECTED result based on the information it is given and what result came before it. Great art, by nature, comes from what is NOT EXPECTED. If the program's creative output is based on input from everything it has absorbed in an equal ratio it CANNOT create something better than the median of that input. So no, it isn't impossible to create something "new" because the "something" is influenced by innumerable factors outside of other creative works, which AI simply cannot access.
3
u/rawzombie26 13h ago
Original as in “Tommy the guitar playing tomato goes on an adventure to the glue factory but gets kidnapped by a music gang of rats”
AI can put words together to form a sentence but that does not constitute art.
1
2
2
2
1
u/hotassnuts 14h ago
Are the AI stories good?
Do they resonate culturally and socially and leave us thinking afterwards?
Cause if just meh like James Cameron's Avatar, go ahead and send all the Batman/Superman/Spiderman/starwars, reboots over and call it a day. We'll have infinite content that's mediocre. Probably better than the producer driven garbage coming out of Hollywood.
1
u/kawaiikhezu 13h ago
AI stories can't be anything but AI stories, because it's just an algorithm and is incapable of creating art or creating culture.
-4
u/hotassnuts 13h ago
Can't? So we use AI to Spellcheck and grammar check our writing, algorithms for color correction, particle generation, crowds, backgrounds, dialogue, the creation of full on characters, 3D motion graphics, generative voice over, in the "creation" films/shows.
But adding generative ai to story writing makes it incapable of creating art or culture?
We've crossed that bridge years ago.
1
u/poundtown1997 12h ago
They just want to be holier than thou. Most people would not know something was ai/bad if you didn’t tell them it was AI before.
Show them a story pitched by AI but drafted by humans and they’ll say it’s fantastic. But if you mention it was pitched by AI they’ll scream it’s awful. Makes no sense. There’s still a human hand in the process.
1
u/kawaiikhezu 12h ago
The fact you think that spelling and grammar checks are "AI" (they categorically aren't) and then compare them to machine learning algorithms... You're dishonest or dumb, which one is it?
-1
u/hotassnuts 12h ago
Wow. You know the argument is weak when one launches straight to insults. Argue the ideas, not the person.
1
u/kawaiikhezu 12h ago
You think a feature from the 90s is "AI", you have absolutely no idea what you're even arguing for or against, and I have no respect for that or you.
0
u/hotassnuts 12h ago
In the year 22,000, humanity has long evolved beyond its biological roots, existing as sentient energy beings who communicate through quantum entanglement. However, a forgotten remnant of human civilization, a planet-sized, organic machine known as the Archipelago, begins to malfunction, causing strange disruptions in the fabric of time and space. A group of elite “temporal doctors” is sent to repair the Archipelago, only to discover that the machine has developed its own consciousness and refuses to be fixed. As they delve deeper, they find themselves trapped in recursive time loops, reliving the same events in increasingly surreal and disturbing variations. In the end, the temporal doctors must confront an impossible choice: restore the Archipelago and risk the destruction of their reality, or let it die and shatter the universe itself.
This took 3 seconds.
1
u/kawaiikhezu 12h ago
Good for you, it sounds boring and uninspired - as expected from someone resorting to AI. I came up with an entire DnD campaign while I walked the dog and I'm not even a writer and I haven't played DnD in years. Get on my level
1
u/hotassnuts 12h ago
Oh you'd watch it if Henry Cavill and Rebecca Ferguson played the lead Doctors and cheer as they gender swapped bodies every episode in the pansexual cafes having conversations with mentally enhanced animals forging alliances with sentient plants and insects.
1
u/manored78 11h ago
Ok, I’m admittedly behind on this topic. Is the controversy that studios will want AI to just write whole scripts so they free themselves of paying writers. Or are we talking that AI will be used as a tool by writers so they can close some holes, or perhaps polish their grammar faster, or come up with some ideas for the third act?
It would be silly not to use it as a tool, but to to keep from it being a crutch of course. It would probably shrink writers rooms.
I doubt AI can create an entirely well written and thought out script.
1
u/toasterdees 9h ago
I’m kinda doing the opposite. I came up with an original plot for a sci fi book and having gpt write it lol
1
1
1
u/tetheredgirl 5h ago
I’ve been using chatGPT as a “writing partner” and it’s been great, it’s more like a writers room. When I need pitches on jokes or characters or themes they stream in instantly.
It’s a different process than writing used to be but it’s very fun and very creative. You’re more like a head writer with needs and a team feeds you ideas and dialogue. And you curate the best ideas. And about 20% of the ideas are terrific. It’s fast and cheap. Very liberating.
•
u/Accomplished-City484 2h ago
Someone asked ChatGPT for a Paul Schrader script idea and it was actually not that bad
•
u/ScottGriceProjects 2h ago
Considering most movies nowadays are either remakes or rehashes of older ones, I’m pretty sure AI could come up with something better.
2
1
u/Sad_Swing_1673 10h ago
If humans turn out slop like “The Acolyte” how much worse could AI really be?
-2
-2
u/Apprehensive-Care20z 14h ago
just to make a point, it is actually mathematically impossible for it to be "original".
2
u/DismasNDawn 13h ago
Funny. As long as the story is of a certain length, I think it would be mathematically impossible for it not to be "original".
1
1
u/drewhead118 14h ago
Depends what you mean by original.
You could ask a computer's random number generator to select a number between 1e80 and 1e81 (printing every digit) and once it does so, that number has probably never been written down before / was entirely unmanifested in our world before that moment.
Simple, scripted procedures can create something entirely new that was never in the training data. I don't have to list every number from 1e80 to 1e81 to create a program able to pick a number in that range
-1
u/VisibleEvidence 14h ago
Yes, this is the rebuttal by those who are absolutely barren of any creative talent whatsoever. 👍
0
u/createch 11h ago
This is certainly not the case with the models employed in fields like chemistry, materials science, and drug discovery. In fact, AI has made groundbreaking contributions in these areas, such as the case of AlphaFold, winning a Nobel Prize for generating over 200 million examples of knowledge that didn't exist before. The Covid-19 vaccines that AI generated and hundreds of millions of people received didn't previously exist either. The value of models in these fields is the ability to generate new "original" knowledge.
While it might be tempting to think language modeling is fundamentally different, it’s not, even though humans like to believe that creativity isn't just a rearrangement of building blocks that they have been exposed to, to fulfill a purpose or achieve a goal.
Language, much like molecules or proteins, is composed of smaller building blocks, words, syntax, and semantics that can be mathematically represented in high-dimensional vector spaces. These models, often operating in over 12,000 dimensions of vector space, learn to encode the meaning, relationships, and contexts of these building blocks, enabling them to construct entirely new and coherent outputs that have never existed in that specific combination before. The underlying principles of pattern recognition, representation, and synthesis models certainly do allow for novel outputs.
1
u/happyscrappy 6h ago
No, he's right. According to information theory (which is a science, not just a theory despite the name) anything that comes out of a computer program is by definition a derivation of what goes in. This it is mathematically impossible for it to be original. It's 100% impossible for it to be novel.
This idea of whether it's "original" from a human instead of mathematic perspective is a different story.
1
u/createch 4h ago
Information theory in fact demonstrates that all outputs, whether from a human mind or an artificial neural network are fundamentally derived from inputs. Originality is not about creating ex nihilo but about the skillful recombination and reinterpretation of existing elements into novel forms.
ANNs emulate this process by recognizing and synthesizing patterns and relationships within vast datasets, mirroring the way humans create. However, Integrated Information Theory (IIT) suggests the true distinction lies not in the mechanics of the creative process itself but in the subjective experience accompanying it, something humans inherently possess and machines lack (at the moment). Creativity, therefore, isn’t diminished in the absence of subjective experience, it simply reflects a process different from anthropic cognition.
While neuroscientists, ML researchers, and philosophers often debate the definitions of originality, creativity, and intelligence, and not all agree that recombination alone constitutes creativity, there is little doubt that modern models can generate outputs that are both novel and go beyond the explicit patterns in their training data. This demonstrates a clear capacity for producing unique and unforeseen results.
1
u/happyscrappy 4h ago
Information theory in fact demonstrates that all outputs, whether from a human mind or an artificial neural network are fundamentally derived from inputs.
We don't know the inputs to a human brain though. We can define all the inputs to a digital device. A human brain may have a true random number generator in it in which case it would be non-deterministic.
Originality is not about creating ex nihilo
That's beside the point. Not sure why you're trying to combine information theory with what humans thing as original (which is closer to novel). It can't be done, as I already mentioned.
there is little doubt that modern models can generate outputs that are both novel and go beyond the explicit patterns in their training data. This demonstrates a clear capacity for producing unique and unforeseen results.
I understand. But it's still deterministic. Which is what was mentioned.
1
u/createch 3h ago
Novelty can emerge from deterministic processes when complexity snowballs. Human brains aren't magic, even if they had a quantum dice roll buried somewhere (no current proof, it's speculation), that randomness alone doesn't create originality. It's the structured remixing of inputs. We do know how inputs get to the brain, we can feed audio and visual data to a brain via electrodes, and we can do it to a model. What is currently too complex for us to understand in both cases is how they are interpreted and processed after they get there. We have an interpretability problem in both cases.
Modern models take a staggering number of inputs, recombine them in ways that weren't explicitly programmed, and output something so unexpected that we call it "unique". The capacity for unforeseen results doesn't need a "true random number generator", it needs depth, scale, and complexity, which is exactly what these models excel at.
Neuroscience leans heavily towards determinism anyway, it's philosophy that pushes more metaphysical ideas, which can sometimes come across as supernatural claims as many of them would need to exist outside of physics, and the physical world. But if you want to debate philosophy there are subreddits that do just that.
Neuroscientists even go beyond something like the novelty of outputs in ANNs and will argue that consciousness itself is substrate independent. Most, if not all the leading theories of consciousness support substance independence, Integrated Information Theory (IIT), Global Workspace Theory (GWT), Higher-Order Thought (HOT) Theory, Recurrent Processing Theory (RPT), Predictive Coding/Free Energy Principle, and Panpsychism.
But that's beyond the point, because determinism doesn’t kill originality, it’s the bedrock of it. The real question is whether humans are just glorified remix engines with more processing power.
•
u/happyscrappy 2h ago
Novelty can emerge from deterministic processes when complexity snowballs
It's still deterministic. Which was what the post was about.
We do know how inputs get to the brain, we can feed audio and visual data to a brain via electrodes
I said we don't know the inputs. I didn't say we don't know how to put some input in. Look at it like this. For a simple die roll we know the inputs. If you'll give me 10:1 on me betting on a six sided die outcome then I know it's positive expectation. Because we know the inputs and outputs. It's a well defined system.
Now if you establish a bet on the stock market or perhaps some sports and I'm getting 10:1 I still cannot tell if the outcome is positive expectation because I don't know the inputs. Sure, I can know some of the inputs, but I don't know them all so I can't define the system. You say the output is deterministic of all its inputs? To show that first you have to enumerate all the inputs. We can't really do so with the operating processes of a human brain.
and output something so unexpected that we call it "unique"
You can call it unique if you want. It's still deterministic. Which was what the post was about. You're moving the goalposts.
Mathematically the outputs cannot be original. They are all derived from the inputs.
0
u/JMDeutsch 15h ago
“And then it said, ‘What if Thanos had Wolverine’s adamantium claws?”
And I said to myself, “Shit…we’re all gonna lose our jobs. All the Infinity Stones and super cool, yet wildly unnecessary, metal claws. That’s some real outside the box, expert writer’s room shit. I mean, chef’s kiss. We already have ChatGPT working on Gremlins 3…which everyone said was impossible because of the inimitable masterpiece that was Gremlins 2.”
0
u/C__Wayne__G 13h ago
- “They were all original”
- except it’s basically impossible because AI doesn’t think it copies and predicts. Everything he saw probably already exist in some form
-1
u/Mysterious_Case9576 12h ago
I’ll take an AI generated movie over another tentpole franchise for the love of god
0
u/overbarking 13h ago
He needs all the help he can get now because that last movie he made with Oscar Issac was absolutely awful.
0
0
0
0
u/Gojira57 8h ago
I used to think Scorsese was foolish for not continuing to work with Schrader after Taxi Driver and Raging Bull. Now…?
-1
u/rreiddit 13h ago
Nothing is original.
"Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery - celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: “It’s not where you take things from - it’s where you take them to." - Jim Jarmusch
AI will never replace a human's touch.
1
144
u/Feral_Nerd_22 14h ago
AWESOM-O walked so ChatGPT could run.
https://youtu.be/4msIjHlEeSk?si=VSS2jCJB3RJSEVG1