Some thought Hollywood might use AI to replace human workers. It seems the opposite is happening, individuals using AI are about to replace much of Hollywood's output. (futurology.today)

submitted 3 days ago by Lugh@futurology.today to c/futurology@futurology.today

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

As there are only so many people and hours in the day, the market for human attention is finite. Hollywood is spending more money to make TV and movies, but its market share is declining. People, especially younger people, are far more likely to watch videos on the internet made by small creators. Needless to say, the small content creators' costs are vastly cheaper. AI is rapidly making them cheaper still.

And it's not just that small creators using AI-generation will displace Hollywood's existing efforts; they are likely to create new artforms that will displace the old screen/broadcast formats of TV shows & movies too. AI-gen artforms, as yet uninvented, may be real-time rendered, personalized for individuals, hyper-niche, etc, etc

This is all part of a surprising trend with AI, its tendency towards decentralization. Some dommerist nightmares see all powerful corporations in the future, but as with open-source AI & robotics equalling the Big Tech efforts, the trend seems more for AI's power to be dispersed.

top 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 23 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

This tendency towards decentralization you're seeing is an illusion. Open-source doesn't change the fact that you need compute and the compute isn't decentralized. It's highly centralized in extremely expensive (both in terms of resources and energy) server farms. Even if content is decentralizing out of Hollywood it's still physically centralized.

Also, this tendency towards content decentralization will not last. Right now the whole AI industry operates at a loss because they don't expect profits, so small creators can use these tools because they're artificially cheap. Every company wants to capture market share in the short term so they can profit at a later point. Eventually they're going to want to profit and costs for content creators will skyrocket... and they'll just stop using it. Then the whole thing will crash.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 days ago

I mean, you could theoretically use decentralised computers for training. Even that aside, though, they only have to train these things once and then it just works on anything; the bell will not be unrung like that.

[-] pdxfed@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

~~then the whole thing will crash~~ them only the super rich mega corps will be able to produce such content and we'll have lost entire generation(s) of people learning how to make art, photograph, film, etc. as they "had AI to do it growing up."

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

A generation is 20 years. This bubble is not lasting that long.

Also by 2045 climate change will be actively destroying civilization so 🤷‍♀️

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 days ago

I mean, it already is causing some problems, looking at the dominant story right now, which for future people is LA burning.

Coincidentally, that's also the year the agreement to not settle Antarctica expires.

[-] pdxfed@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

I know how long a generation is.

The hype train of AI will have passed to a degree, but photography, painting, cinema and many other visual and performing arts will be impacted for generations and permanently reduced by a degree not yet known.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

That's alarmist. Painting? Really?

Also, kind of ignoring the climate elephant in the room. People entertaining each other in the ruins of civilization won't be using AI much.

[-] AbsolutelyNotAVelociraptor@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago

I reaaaaaaaaaaally want and hope you are right. We can't get rid of all this AI crap soon enough.

[-] aiccount@monyet.cc 3 points 3 days ago

You're gunna have a very bad time until you quit hoping that ai goes away. Ai is a constantly developing field that is currently in a massive surge. It's more likely that the internet goes away than it is that ai goes away.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

As with the 90s dot.com bust, there will be a handful of winners and a shitload of losers. Lemmy acts like they're so much smarter, "These idiots will lose!"

As you said, AI is not going to go away, only the losers will crash. The winners will profit handsomely.

[-] aiccount@monyet.cc 1 points 3 days ago

We nearly all won with dot.com, everyones lives got better. Sure, some people won harder than others, but this was the case with steel, automobiles, agriculture and everything else. We simply can't all be the ones who do the best at using a new technology to profit off of.

[-] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

AI is in its infancy, and I'm pretty sure a lot of AI services are sold below cost right now. This situation could change drastically if the monetization model changes. On that note, AFAIK YouTube, which hosts much of the content that small creators produce, still isn't profitable.

[-] Grimy@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

In 2023, YouTube's advertising revenue totaled $31.7 billion, a 2% increase from the $31.1 billion reported in 2022. From Q4 2023 to Q3 2024, YouTube's combined revenue from advertising and subscriptions exceeded $50 billion. (from wiki)

Pretty sure youtube is doing fine.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Revenue means nada. Show me profits. Oh, and YouTube lost billions and billions taking over the online video space, for a decade+.

[-] Grimy@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Bro, we are talking about 50 thousand million here. Do you seriously think yourube comes even close to that in terms of running cost? The employees salaries and server costs would have to be more then it's revenue for it to be running at a lost.

They don't publish their running costs so we can't know but it's silly to think it's more then 50 billion.

this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2025

30 points (100.0% liked)

Futurology

1886 readers

34 users here now

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

voidx@futurology.today

Lugh@futurology.today

Espiritdescali@futurology.today

AwesomeLowlander@futurology.today