You misunderstand, either on purpose or because you can't read. Photoshop, and genAI can be used while authoring, yes. To get the look one wishes, as part of the creative process. DLSS is runtime working ON THE RESULTS of their work. It's like working first, making your artistic decision, and then passing it over to the AI to make its own judgement and interpretation. Just no.
Some may want to bend the laws of physics. Others will be steadfastly against it.
And *all* would like their work to appear as *they* intended. It's not hard to grasp. Point me to one artist (who is not a burnt out husk) that would say "sure I don't care about the skin texture I labored to hard to make fucking pores and wrinkles for, just turn DLSS so you can see it better, as NVIDIA knows best". Give it a rest.
So one cannot have an understanding what's going on in a particular industry? I've worked with and talk to people in both games and film industry. My statement is derived from an understanding of artists and of pipelines. Film and game studios - they all enable artists to do their work. For example, Pixar's RenderMan, includes "non-physical" controls, which "are designed to help artists make art-directed imagery by ignoring certain laws of physics we usually simulate." (from the docs). First time I saw this in a paper. So, yeah, "artists", and you also seem to have no clue.
I was talking about the games industry. You know, the place that would use DLSS for their product. Well let's see if it gets adopted I suppose. And by whom.
Bullshit. When optimization algorithms compress the hell out of geometry, textures, etc, the aim is to
Artists are all about control. If the "inner workings of it still aren't clear on a technical level" this means that you can't predict its behavior. If you can't predict its behavior, how can you use it in any dynamic environment with certainty that it will work well as you intend? He should try to peddle it for improving workflows of VFX artists, I'm sure it will be very popular there too.
Sounds accurate though. Ex-money. Used to be your money.
Here's a relevant number btw: 20,000 this year compared to 30,000 last year: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/...
Yeah let's not normalize that. If you upscale by 2x and you don't keep any of the original pixels, you're making shit up, you're not upscaling. Changing the shading "while you're at it" is not cool and spits in the face of art direction.
The cherry picked some super bad examples for the non-DLSS views. It's ludicrously gamed. This was published 19 years ago (it's a technique from Gpu Gems 3) and it was real-time then. I'm sure I can find a better/more recent method but I hope you get the point.
It is the inflection, the pacing, etc., none of which AI is very good at (or at least it wasn't good at it the last time I checked)
Exactly, for now. With enough data, it will change. If we're about to be enriching and improving models, they should at least be FOSS.
I would like to see these credited as "[Living Actor] in the voice of [Dead Actor]"
Interesting, and it will be interesting to see how this will be handled.
because it ignores the existence of free will, and the existence of people actually having moral boundaries that they won't cross
If people are poor enough, moral boundaries shift. I would dare say that a lot of people also use that as an excuse, e.g. "well, I got to make a living somehow" says someone who works on making apps more addictive by using well-known dark patterns. Plenty of those. And given our ever-repeating cycle of engaging in wars that affect supply chains, the post-covid economy hit and the latest threat to jobs from AI (although you might consider that as disguised staff reduction because of other factors)
It is never necessary or useful to prevent reasonable behavior because of slippery slope arguments under the premise that someone coming to accept those reasonable behaviors could come to accept some unreasonable behaviors that are somehow related.
Forced prevention does not work. Awareness raising is good though, and somebody has to educate the kids (who will be adults) that are malleable targets with devices/software that prey on them.
Negligibly reducing opportunities, at best
Sure, but it's the attitude that matters. Pretense of honoring, but in reality exploiting the recognition of the actor's voice with something cheap.
A bigger concern is whether that voice cloning technology then leads to a few famous actors and actresses selling their voices and destroying the market for actual voice acting
It's a logical consequence and we'll see a lot more of it, the more this happens and becomes normalised. While some famous actors are approaching mortality limits, the vultures will be out with promises of immortality.
And this all assumes that the AI approach eliminates the need for a voice actor.
"Perfect is the enemy of good", and it's far costlier than good enough. Real voice acting will become a more boutique thing. Especially when another path to a famous and appealing voice is https://www.npr.org/2024/05/20/1252495087/openai-pulls-ai-voice-that-was-compared-to-scarlett-johansson-in-the-movie-train some AI with a voice that is close enough. Of course there's nothing legally criminal about that, but with enough training data even this will become obsolete.
much ado about nothing, IMO. The real problem is the step after this one and/or the step after that.
Yes, for this particular case, this is something small. But I'm sure you're aware of the First they came poem.
You can honor the memory of a fallen member of the cast by hiring some other actor (and give them an opportunity), like the original one was, and the money goes to the arts. But no, let's use AI, where the money goes to big tech and some family who had nothing to do with anything besides being blood related, while at the same time reducing opportunities for all future actors.
We're no longer children watching cartoons
Watch a few Studio Ghibli films and then come back and say that with a straight face. The medium may surprise you if you explore it with an open mind.
Awesome, thank you!
Ya'll hear about the geometer who went to the beach to catch some rays and became a tangent ?
