The difference is you didn’t have to worry about cars and phones stealing someone else’s work or spouting nazi rhetoric

Because it is an adaptation, and thus under no obligation to follow the labyrinthine, messy, and barely coherent “continuity” of the original comics.

I know Pratt gets a lot of shit for being the worst Chris, but I love him as Quill and think Gunn has made the probably 2 of the best MCU movies. I think the Quill/Gamora relationship in this one has potential to be icky, but I trust Gunn.

The thing is, AI doesn’t draw hands. It draws parts of parts of parts of datasets. There’s no top-down decision making that says “this is a hand, let’s draw one”. It’s merging content together from multiple sources of data in a non-trivial way. It’s mapping text you enter to tagged data and applying mathematical…

I was starting to wonder if that “Bruce Willis sold his image rights to an AI company” thing had actually been real. How many cameos in schlock action “movies” does he still have in the can?

Willis has aphasia and allegedly wasn’t entirely aware of where he was or what he was supposed to be doing in a lot of his recent movies. He’d basically been reduced to the human equivalent of a cardboard cutout. After the story broke last year, he announced his retirement from acting, though he still had a few more…

As an artist, I can relate to having trouble drawing fingers. They’re weird.

I think this very much oversimplifies how learning happens — both in humans and in neural nets, for that matter.

Has there ever been any enthusiasm for a Flash movie, at all? Or Miller in the role?

You’re oversimplifying what it is to be human.

Of course it copies. AI has no intellect, no conscience, no self-awareness and no capacity to imagine anything actually novel. It can only produce output similar to what it has previously consumed.

Trying to anthropomorphize this technology is just a vain attempt to obfuscate the plagerism its users are engaged in. AI is a tool and there’s a human operator behind it. The operator is scraping content and importing it into the tool without the original artists consent. I eff around with AI art for my own personal…

It’s alright? It looks a lot like a nostalgia-fast for stuff I’m not really that nostalgic for: Man of Steel (no thank you), Flashpoint (which is quickly becoming “the only Flash story DC knows they’ve published”), and 89 Batman (nothing against that one, those are nice films, but they are very much of their time).…

It’s because out of of 7 films with the word “Superman” in the title, the only villains we ever got from the comics is Lex Luthor and Zod. Rinse, repeat. Even the version of “Doomsday” is actually tied to both Zod and Lex, unlike the comics.

I love Michael Shannon, but if there’s one goddamn thing I’m looking forward to the most in Gunn’s DCU, it’s never seeing Zod ever the fuck again.

To be technical, that’s not “AI voice,” that’s a computer voice that reads text and creates audio by pulling from a library of syllables. Versions of that tech have been around since the 90s (see Stephen Hawking’s voice box).

It’s not “doing” art in any style. It’s just hashing out images and styles that have been fed into it. There is no sensibility involved. It’s not “inspired” by anything. It’s not thinking about the choices it’s making, because there is no choosing involved. If you think there’s any sort of deliberation going on,…

As long as corporations control the narratives that benefit them, not any time soon.

At what point does it become obvious that “AI” is neither sentient nor intelligent, but just a plagiarism engine scraping content off the walls of the Internet? 

Trevorrow is far worse than Abrams. Abrams has some talents. He’s got an incredible sense of casting and he can direct the hell out of an individual scene. The problem is that he seems to focus all his energy on wringing every ounce of intensity and excitement and emotion out of whatever scene he’s currently working…