The latest Spider-man movie was shot on the streets of Glasgow this summer, and they went the distance to shoot spider-man swinging down the street practical, having built a massive truck-mounted boom that supports Tom Holland so he can physically swing back and forth like Spider-man did in the old cartoon:
Not everything needs a software based solution. When it comes to nudity I believe that the best way to prevent the spread of nudity is to stop it at the source, right there at the genitals, with physical coverings. This way the nudity is blocked before it has the opportunity to become a victim of mass-dissemination.
They're suing OpenAI for serenading a murder-suicide. Altman's anguished model is so large and over leveraged -so negligence alleged- that even the financiers are flexing on Zero Hedge.
So pop some corn and pick a side. Would you say a psycho can -or would you say a psycho can't- blame his bonafides on an artificial sycophant?
Yesterday I was having the same issues as the top commenter except I was having trouble getting Google to label various mountain peaks I had zoomed in on.
It would be nice if they'd fix the missing labels on roads, even at the highest zoom with no clutter. Likewise, highway speed limits that were changed over a year ago.
The thing is, if you want AI output to be heavily directed, which is probably the case here, I can imagine that thousands of random takes had to be made to make the damn thing follow the director's imagination.
If you don't care too much about the output you can make these very quickly, yeah.
Don't get it either. LGTM. Sure, it's no high budget (pre-AI) Coca Cola Christmas Ad, but it's not disturbing or particularly bad. Feels like people are just jumping on the "AI ads bad" bandwagon.
> If AI frees up VFX artists so they can work on movies rather than commercials, I'm all for that.
There are way more people who want to be movie VFX artists then positions. Artists do commercials, because it pays that is where jobs are. They would gladly do cool movies.
> There are way more people who want to be movie VFX artists then positions.
Not good ones. Good VFX studios are actually a major blocker in movie production, because there aren't enough of them. And their only limit is the number of qualified artists available.
Really not. If the movie studios were willing to pay for that, there would be more studios.
We are talking about very competitive field where employers call all the shots. You know how you recognize lack of workers in an area? By high salaries, low competitiveness and very good working conditions.
> If AI frees up VFX artists so they can work on movies rather than commercials, I'm all for that.
This isn’t how it works. Excel didn’t free up bookkeepers to become CFOs. Digital photography didn’t free up photo lab technicians to become cinematographers.
The person who in 1970 would have been an accountant at Ford Motor Company with a pension and a mortgage is now, displaced by Excel, working at two burger joints to make ends meet, with no realistic path to anything better. The VFX artists will follow in the exact same footsteps. The shareholders will keep the difference, as they have time and again.
There's demand for VFX artists like there's demand for video game developers; so many people want to do it that it drives wages down and there's demand for even cheaper labor. Nobody dreams of making TV commercials, movies are what people want to make.
Yes there are so many people that want to do it. Unfortunately, they're mostly junior-level. There continues to be a real shortage of senior-level VFX talent.
Okay, so the junior VFX guys who could only get jobs making commercials should, now that there is less demand for them to make commercials, go make movies instead? Make it make sense.
Why are you assuming it's the junior VFX guys making commercials? Commercials have big budgets too.
It's the same studios. They do work both for Hollywood and ad agencies.
But if ad agencies decide they're happier with lower-quality AI for 5% of the price (whereas they weren't if junior artists were still 50% of the price), while movie producers are not, then yes. They can make movies instead.
Okay, so the senior VFX artist who has the experience to get a job in the movie industry if he wants it, instead gets a job in the commercial industry because the pay is better or maybe he just prefers it, now has to work in the movie industry contrary to his preferences.
No matter which way you slice it, you're not doing anybody a favor by eliminating their job. People generally already work the best job they can manage to and by eliminating that job you're making them pick another job they otherwise wouldn't have picked, or worse and more often, leaving them without a job because they were already working in the best job they were qualified for.
The whole "now that these jobs have been eliminated, the former workers are free to find a new job!" thing is bullshit cope. Always has been. They were already free to chose another job, and chose the one you think you're 'freeing' them from. You're not giving them choice, you're taking it from them.
There's a reason nearly all of the old guard VFX studios were driven to bankruptcy over the last decade and it doesn't have anything to do with massive demand for talent.
I haven't watched it but I'm sure they also either said or implied McDonalds is worthwhile on some level so we can pump the brakes on taking them at their word.
That’s… not many at all, really. You could do it in a year with ninety deliveries per day per location (well, 92).
Assuming a dozen robots per location, that's less than eight deliveries per day per robot (and even that might be beyond their upper bound, actually, given their speed and range).
But then they didn't do it all in one year. So… it doesn't feel like a stretch.
Given how many will be recurring customers with recurring journey routes, it feels barely enough to encounter all the possible unique problems.
There was a brief period of time in which rifles were available and game was easy to find. 20 million bison were hunted to the brink of extinction within a couple decades.
It's the opinion of Netflix execs, who have expressed envy over how much money HBO is still making off of decades old IP. Not a lot of Netflix content has legs like that, but I suppose that's about to change with the WB acquisition.
> how much money HBO is still making off of decades old IP
I'd say Disney is the uncontested king of making money off old work. If HBO was that good they wouldn't have been scooped up so easily.
Netflix execs may be envious of the enduring cultural cachet of shows like The Sopranos or The Wire. That's completely different from making real money.
I'm not sure Netflix execs spend much time worrying about cultural cachet like that. They care about popularity and virality but I think they'd be 100% contented to make 100 reality shows like the one I affectionately dubbed "Sluts Island" that each make them $10 million than make one Sopranos-type show that makes them $500 million and 57 Emmys.
When there are more obstacles and hazards on the road drivers tend to slow down and pay attention. Pedestrian deaths in my city peaked in 2025, but they didn't happen in the walkable central areas of the city where pedestrians are common, they happened out in the 'burbs where the roads are wide and pedestrians are few.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cjGukBHofM
It was rare for anyone to go to such extremes to get a great shot in the days before digital effects!
reply