- cross-posted to:
- movies@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- movies@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
Who is surprised by this?
He was making slop versions of his own movies before AI.
Exactly, the guy has done shit for decades!
Continuing that unbroken streak of bad artistic decisions towards an inevitable Star Wars Special 50th Anniversary Slop Edition reissue.
NGL I would buy a ticket to at least the first movie just to commentate as loudly and obnoxiously as possible until I got kicked out.
Not sure why you’d be kicked out. You’re not disturbing anyone. You’d be the only one in there.
I know you’re joking, but ya know… what kills the joke? Is how wrong you are. There’s gonna probably be plenty of dumbass folks there.
I mean…maybe? I didn’t realize there was a strict code of conduct on Lemmy where our jokes had to adhear to realism. Very sorry for the mishap. I’ll only tell jokes where the punchlines seem they could happen in real life.
So a guy walks into a bar. The bartender says “What’cha havin?” And the guy says “A MENTAL BREAKDOWN!!!” and then proceeds to cry that his wife has left him.
…I just don’t know about this realism humor.
Your joke is hilarious because I’m sad now! I wish I could go back to imagining you being applauded for shredding a movie in a theater, but now I can only laugh at sad humor.
Dude my bad. Didn’t mean to hurt you.
Also I was just launching off your joke. Cause the real joke is how much our society has become brain-dead drones.
deleted by creator
Dear gods, does this mean a second Holiday Special???
With AI gen Carrie Fisher
“If you want AI that tells you when something is fake and where it came from, AI can do that,” he says. “Humans can’t, we’re not that smart.
dead-eyed stare in librarian
How could that even be true since it was humans thay trained ai. What a dumb statement ahh
“thay”
Useful comment
Ai can do plenty of classification tasks better than humans though. It’s not like every entity that trains another is fundamentally smarter.
Software can’t tell truth from lies because software doesn’t even know what those are. It doesn’t know anything. It’s a parrot, a magic trick, a mirror to fool people (people like George Lucus) into thinking there’s another person looking a back at them.
Regardless many ai classifiers outperform humans at classifying. Your comment seems irrelevant to the discussion.
Your comment seems irrelevant to the discussion.
As opposed to your comment moving the goalposts from an AI doing something humans can’t, to them just being better than humans (which is absolutely arguable in most cases)?
I was responding to the claim that ai’s can’t do anything better than the thing that trained them. It’s completely relevant and not a goalpost shift. They can do plenty of things that humans can’t feasibly do, such as protein folding prediction.
The parameters set for classifying that are basically non-existant. So no, they can’t really do any of that. AI-bros will readily claim they can though, because it is like really important to them.
I did not claim they can tell truth from fiction, it’s just irrelevant. Goalpost shift for no reason on their part, they don’t have to be able to do that to classify things or predict protein folding.
Yeah but to say humans can’t do this when humans doing it were what provided it the data is a dumb statement. Humans classified the data so that AI could learn you wouldnt say humans can’t classify data.
Humans can, ai can do it better than humans in many areas though.
That’s a MUCH different statement though, and not at all relevant to a claim that AI is able to do things humans CAN’T do.
Protein folding, then.
In most areas it can’t. It can do a much worse job though, if that is what you are looking for.
So? In many it can do a much better one: protein folding for example
AI detection by AI is not reliable. Lots of false negatives, and comparatively less but still too much reporting false positives to be reliable (and those are especially biased).
It’s unlikely to get better too. If AI was able to reliably detect AI output, why not use that to correct itself to be less AI-like? And where is the seemingly infinite money thrown at in this struggle?
If AI was able to reliably detect AI output, why not use that to correct itself to be less AI-like?
You just described adversarial training, something I’ve been hearing about for at least a few years now.
Flukey dilettante regards stochastic parrot as unfathomable prodigy
Read all about it
This reads like one of those mass-delete gibberish Reddit comments, lol
It’s not every day you get to use a word like dilettante, so I figured I’d make a salad
Thanks for that, Dennis Miller.
Kokaku’s website is blocking my VPN connection. Here’s the text of the article.
George Lucas Goes To The Dark Side, Says AI Is ‘The Future’
By Kenneth Shepard Published July 14, 2026
The Star Wars creator compares not using AI to riding a horse in the face of cars
I would like to think that not every prestigious filmmaker is vulnerable to the AI propaganda, but it feels like we’re getting new stories of someone partnering with or advocating for the use of artificial intelligence as the future of cinematic storytelling every day. The newest addition to the list? Mr. Star Wars himself, George Lucas, and man is his reasoning a bummer.
In an interview with A Rabbit’s Foot, Lucas discussed his career and the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art, opening this fall in L.A., which will be showcasing decades of human-made art and spotlighting, as its website calls it, “stories and people who tell them.” In the lengthy interview, Lucas shares some meaningful insights into filmmaking, discusses his collaborations with people like Indiana Jones director Steven Spielberg, and even offers some pithy observations about the pitfalls of testing films with focus groups and whether or not the average viewer is actually in touch with what they like about movies.
“If they don’t like a character, that’s interesting, and as a filmmaker I want to find out why,” he says. “But when the studios hear that, they take the wrong message. They let the audience actually make the movie. Of course, now they go crazy with that. Now, it’s all about what the fans think. That isn’t how you make the movie. You make a movie by finding someone that knows how to make movies, that has a story to tell and is passionate about it.”
Jarringly, this advocacy for human-led storytelling is followed by claims that AI is “the future,” and Lucas compares not using the new technology to relying on antiquated transportation in the face of cars.
“Artificial intelligence means it’s much easier for us to make movies,” he tells A Rabbit’s Foot. “It’s very much like sitting here saying, ‘Well, I believe the horse and the buggy is really where it’s at. These cars, they break down, they need gas, there’s all kinds of problems with them and pretty soon they’ll be making them into tanks, and then they’ll be killing people. It’s terrible.’ There’s nothing you can do about it. That’s progress, it’s the future.”
Though he acknowledged the risks of using the plagiarism machine when A Rabbit’s Foot questioned him further, he doubled down by highlighting other benefits he believes AI will provide in the future.
“If you want AI that tells you when something is fake and where it came from, AI can do that,” he says. “Humans can’t, we’re not that smart. The whole idea is you’re a human being, you’re responsible for what you say and what you do, and if you’re doing something that’s illegal you should be punished for that. Whatever you do, you should be recognized. It’s just like real life.”
There’s a scene in Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back where Luke Skywalker is training alongside Yoda and learning the ins and outs of being a Jedi, and he asks if the dark side of the Force is stronger than the light side. Yoda replies that it’s not, but that many fall to it because it is “quicker, easier, more seductive.” That movie was released 46 years ago, but it is certainly illustrative of the logic Lucas is using here.
He advocates for the importance of human-made art, but then argues that using technology that is notorious for stealing from humans and whose results generally look like shit compared to work made by hand would make the filmmaking process “easier.” It’s “the future” and there’s “nothing you can do about it”? It’s contradictory to believe both that it’s the human spirit that makes great films and also that a technology that’s being used to remove the human element from the process is the future of making movies. If that makes me naive and means I’m fighting against the inevitable, then I will go down swinging.
Classic George L, I wouldn’t have expected any more from him
Lucas creating star wars doesnt mean he’s any sort of genius.
Its not political but he is an artist and that is why it is shocking Edit: OP first wrote: something along the lines of “why is it now seen as political”
deleted by creator
But writing a critical successful and belovid series of films does
“belovid”
Does it? He certainly worked with a lot of talented artists, and I guess he did think of doing Hero’s Journey but in space.
I’m not denigrating the art, but something about the popularity contest tastemaking rubs me the wrong way.
And all that is subtracted because he made Jar Jar.
deleted by creator
Objectively you can ask a billion people and see what their opinions are on various star wars media. It’s one of the few things a billion people will know and have an opinion about.
But because George Lucas said something positive about AI use for visual effects, suddenly what mustn’t be, can’t be. You people have no problem denying reality and shouting out alternative facts if it suits your agenda.
deleted by creator
Shhh. if you use the word “blow” too much Pete Hegseth will enter the chat and want to take measurements and do inspections make sure the fluffing is up to standards.
#out-of-the-way-ill-blow-it-myself
What about attempting to ChatGPT his own work decades before GPTs were a thing?
…i doubt he wrote the Star Wars Movies with AI…
Durrrr, no duh. I meant the slopification he did to the trilogy for the rerelease.
I thought Frank Herbert created Star Wars
No, Isaac Asimov did
You’ll have to explain this one. I was making fun of the fact that George Lucas plagiarized Dune.
Much of Star Wars was “inspired” by Foundation
Wait for real!? I think I read the first 2 books, I never saw similarities. May need to read them again.
Highly recommend the TV series.
I didn’t know liking AI was political
Everything is political - the toilet paper you buy, the corporations you support, the things you pay attention to and the things you don’t, the media you consume, the books you read, your decision not to read, whether you pay union dues, the parks you visit, the roads you use, the services you rely on, what you decide to ignore.
People who say they are not political just mean they don’t consciously engage with politics. But even the decision to not engage in politics is a political decision.
AI may eventually replace jobs, pollute water, take up energy, and concentrate wealth at the top even more. Whether you support, are against, or ignore AI, all 3 are political decisions.
That sounds like fundamentalism tbh. It’s very much adjacent to the thinking of religious fanatics framing everything in relation to the divine, when most people are just trying to get along with their lives.
But there is a difference: If you buy the toilet paper from the loggers who bribe your local officials, or who lobby to let them ravage national parks, you are supporting the bribery and the lobbying; your money is being used for those purposes, even if you do it unknowingly. If you don’t inform yourself, you cannot make informed decisions. But just because you choose to ignore the political ramifications, it doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Sure, everybody just wants to live their lives, and that’s how lobbyists and crooked politicians get away with it, by appealing to your apathy.
No one with responsibilities has time to worry about where the pulp in their toilet paper came from, I’d be surprised if the factory could even tell you that.
There is no way you are practicing what you preach here. You are telling me you spend all day vetting every product and service you use to be aware of every little injustice involved? Or are you just following whatever someone else told you in a feed and assuming they are correct? That would functionally be religion.
The argument isn’t over whether I behave in a morally responsible way when it comes to the products I consume. The argument is over whether my diligence to check the background of the products I consume is a political decision.
I am not trying to highhorse anybody here. Of course I make uninformed decisions once in an oftentimes. Of course not all my clothes are socially conscious sourced nor my toilet paper is bought from an environmentally friendly forest.
But my lack of information when I make those decisions is political.
I am sorry you are feeling personally attacked, clearly, but not paying attention, changing what you buy, refusing to consume, or consuming products; All of those are political decisions, and that is the argument. No whether you are good or evil, uninformed misinformed, or not informed, moral or immoral. My argument is just that every decision you make has a political ramification whether you like it or not.
So, back to my original point, liking AI is political.
No I don’t feel attacked. I just don’t think it is useful to construe everything as political. Are the actions of animals also political? I think people would say no; but then can we be so sure that everything a human does is political? Something only becomes political when it is done with a political intent, knowingly making a choice because of some secondary association when equivalent alternatives are available.
When everything is framed as political you end up in the same place as dogmatists in all religions, trying to enforce some universal moral framework on every detail of a persons life. Many people will check out from that type of argument. Worse, many will think you and the causes that are import to you are jokes, and you become part of another’s political fodder.
You like what you like, but if you stan corporations enclosing our own culture and renting it back to us, that’s political.
Frank Herbert wasn’t around to tell him how to think about it, I guess.
Where’s a good Butlerian Jihad when you need one?
inshallah, amigo
Just curious, was Herbert involved with Lucas or Star Wars? Was not aware of that
no
common George Lucas L
yeah I’m not surprised, I watched the prequels. This guy was a legend in the 70s, that is like 50 years ago.
He hasn’t done anything great since co-writing Willow 40 years ago. Go to his IMDB, he’s lived out of star wars nostalgia since then, and all of them after the initial trilogy was a downgrade.
I lost every ounce of respect and admiration I had for this man after he sold the franchise to Disney.
You really held out for a while, huh?
Lemmy has some of the best takes in conversations. I love it here.
Well yeah, he’s a billionaire, of course he looks after his own class’s interests.
The guy that essentially added lasers to Japanese movies and somehow became a multi-billionaire is a fan of stealing other’s work with minimal effort and reusing it without permission?
I’m shocked. Shocked I say.
I mean, to be fair to the 70s version of Lucas, that’s basically how all art works. New combinations of old ideas.
deleted by creator
I have always thought ai was like the Jar Jar Binks of computer programs.
Meesah notsah Jamaican racist stereotypesah.
“Goes to the Dark Side”
Someone never saw the rerelease of the original series.
Lucas’ best work was under an editor, whenever he got the full reigns, the product suffered.
His ex-wife was one of the best film editors in history.
The prequels got a breath of respect with how bad the sequel trilogy wound up. J J managed to rehabilitate George.
Its weird that he really was on the forefront once because he did physical effects with interesting camera shots. it felt new and different.
AI is not going to give you that, it will suck. CGI sucks already too.
Oh well not like he is relevant. A new hope was at least interesting, but its been nothing after that anyways.
Not going to get into the AI debate; I will agree that BAD CGI sucks; there’s so much CGI you never even notice and without it the scenes would be horrible. The main reason “CGI sucks” is because of the shift to go with the lowest bidder who’s then forced to work under horrific timelines and unable to actually do good work. CGI itself doesn’t suck, but it absolutely can when done by a low bidder in 1/4 of the time it needs.
Funny he uses Michael bay as an example in that video. Nothing will put me to sleep faster than a Michael bay movies effects.
I get your point though, it’s a tool when used artistically and with skill can be fine.
The only good CGI is one that holds up well after decades, and that’s basically only the CGI in the POTC 2 and 3 movies
Only because he had to. As soon as it was possible he went cg and blue screens.
He used what was available at the time. For the original trilogy, that was practical effects.
The prequel trilogy was a bit more… Dodgy thanks to eagerly embraced CGI that wasn’t fully baked yet.
People famously critiqued the reworked original trilogy due to various dubious creative tweaks. Like waking on Jabba and Jabba just having a funny reaction instead of how you would expect him to react.
Nothing he added was pointful. All of the CGI retouches of the original trilogy were pointless CGI effects for the sake of having pointless CGI effects. At one point in the Mos Eisley sequence a huge pack animal walks through the frame, obscuring almost all of it. Why? Because it was some computer generated shit to throw in!
If he’s embracing AI then he is once again on the forefront. AI has the ability to revolutionise the industry in a way that it needs in order to survive - greatly reduce costs and greatly reduce production times.
Movie studios are quickly moving to the same situation that video game developers are in now thanks to ballooning costs and long development times - a situation where if every single game they release isn’t an absolute smash hit selling 20 million copies at full price, they’re going to go under.
The movie industry is in free fall. AI adoption is one of the only realistic paths forward.
AI has the ability to revolutionise the industry in a way that it needs in order to survive - greatly reduce costs and greatly reduce production times.
Do you know what those words mean?
AI is being used as a force multiplier, and it’s being used as a force multiplier for evil. It’s being used to replace jobs, to put hundreds, thousands, and eventually millions of people out of work. At scale, it takes up more power than entire cities do, and the data centers and power station upgrades that it requires at that scale ends up with companies literally demolishing entire residential areas, forcing people out of their homes.
AI is not worth the trade-offs and the massive sacrifices required for it. It is destroying society.
I do. It has the ability to revolutionise the dying, spiralling out of control movie industry. How? By cutting costs dramatically, and by reducing production time. What would usually take 2000 people for $200mil might now be doable with 50 people and $200k. That’s revolutionary technology.
AI is not “destroying society” 🤣
1,950 people out of work, and an extra $199.8 million for the handful of suits producing doesn’t sound like it would be a net gain for society
So we as a society should pause all advancements in technology so we don’t ever make any current jobs redundant? It’s like saying we don’t want to end homelessness because then we’d put all the people working at businesses that help homeless people out of jobs.
Needs to survive? Are you kidding me? Good stories, good direction. You don’t need 47 million dollars to make a movie.
Can you show me that “the movie industry is in free fall”? I have seen many fantastic movies lately.
I guess you could consider AI to be a form of animation, but I really don’t see them improving anything if they keep churning out the same crap for the big budget movies.
Look at the consolidation of the market due to failing studios. WB aren’t selling because they’re doing well. Disney is releasing extremely expensive flop after extremely expensive flop. Yes, the entire movie industry as we know it is in a fight for survival, has been for years.
AI enables significantly quicker and cheaper iteration and experimentation. You stint have to hire a gigantic CGI studio to get cgi on screen anymore, which enables a much more streamlined movie making process. It also enables much more creativity because there is far less risk. A studio would be much more likely to sign off on a director making a short to pitch for a full movie if it only costs $2k but has cgi/locations/etc matching a $200mil blockbuster.
Failing studios due to their mad rush to build out streaming services, taking on massive debt, and trying to shuffle that debt around. Doesnt help that they don’t pick up movies that are worthwhile and instead try to follow formulas. They want intellectual Property for a long term franchise, park ride, and merch. Consolidation desires IP.
For example on major movies: I saw someone on Nebula say everything that went into making The Barbie Movie was what made it work. But instead of focusing on what THAT was and making a different movie, they immediately start thinking: milk the Barbie movie for a sequel and more merch and a Barbieland.
Point is: they made shitty decisions. I am not sure AI will help because they will still do the above and just pay less people.
At least thats how I see it.
I could see AI being used as a story board, sample scenes, something like that. Beyond that, nah I don’t even want to see it.
The reason that they want franchises to milk is because it’s virtually risk free when one lands, at least for another 2-3 movies/series. They can justify the $200mil cost because it’s guaranteed to make a tidy profit. Without that franchise money, like I said - one bomb and they’re toast.
