Why is AI different?

Because it happens in a computer and many people think that makes something easy, like CGI or computer hacking in movies. It's intangible magic and belief is the product sold to investors.

If IMAX gave away free 70mm film and cameras, we'd all be wading through IMAX off-key grade school concerts. Sometimes gatekeeping is a good thing.

The problem the Arts has with AI is not that AI is good, it's that people don't have the literacy to tell the difference between good Art and bad Art and the best anyone can do in a void of taste is measure it in dollars. How can you place a premium on heartfelt meaning and expression when the facsimile is so much cheaper? If this is about saving money, just don't make or consume anything that maximizes savings. So why did the prompter create this film? To prove his AI mastery? To get contracts for his company? As a logical extension into a different medium for his AI practice? To make a political statement? Or to express something that he's been trying to find a way to express his whole life? Will the next thing he makes not involve computers? With an influx of money from this project would he then make a film "the old fashioned way"? I don't think this is any more about expression than playing Arctic Monkeys covers.

I would like to see proof of this. Why is it assumed that first to market is all that survives? If this were true there'd be no Apple Computer. Don't let those who want your money bully you into giving it to them.

I predict that companies that have become too dependent on AI workflows will be the ones going out of business when token or request costs rise to fill the gaps left by dwindling investment. At some point ROI will be expected.

One may not see the morally blind pursuit of profit as a crime, but in many cases the outcomes can look the same.

Right now it doesn't feel like a civilized discourse is being had about this. Each side is just looking past each other and spouting unheard points back and forth. I feel like we need to have a clear view of how capable the technology is. As impressive as it is, I find even the best models are more like a chop saw with a really fancy set of guides and jigs than a robot general contractor + architect + engineer. Too many AI companies are demoing one-shotting huge features that aren't reproducible (like a video game company demoing an unreleased game) The non-technical folks that see the demo then buy it and use it as a cover for layoffs.

This isn't a problem with the technology. The problem isn't the gun, it's the criminal. This is a perfect time to address this while it's laid bare by the technology and the state it's in versus what's advertised. The conversation keeps going back to the technology to draw the attention away from the societal problems we have around subservience and money as they are set by our profit optimization motives.

Saying to get on the train or be run over is just posturing that you're willing to be subservient and let the engineer run people over as long as the conductor lets you on the train.

There are details here including quotations from an unnamed doctor. If feel you can't trust the media credentials of the Independent, you could contact them for the identity of the unnamed doctor (who they are likely protecting based on the nature of the conflict) and ask them directly.