You may want to amend your comment about Ben not knowing what the life of a Shakespearean actor was like, since he played Edward Alleyn in Shakespeare in Love. Alleyn was one of the most famous and well regarded actors of his time, friend of Sir Francis Bacon and QE1 herself was a fan girl. And he was rich, because he married well, produced, owned theatrical distribution, diversified into hospitality, sports and real estate. He did what many current entertainers do to gain power and prestige. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
Thanks PJ for that clarification. I appreciate it. Your account of Edward Alleyn seems to confirm my larger point about the hierarchy of power and the caste system of creative labor, so I suppose I will leave it as written and let the readers see both.
Besides, if Ben Affleck gets his information about life in the Elizabethan era from a Hollywood film that is riddled with anachronisms and romanticized half-truths, then he probably does not have a very accurate understanding.
It's interesting how you pointed out Ben Affleck being simultaneously right and wrong about AI; I'd love to hear your thoughts on what specifically constituted his 'wrong' future predictions, especially considering the current scepticism around tech hype cycles.
HI Rainbow Roxy. Not quite sure how to respond to your comment. I wasn’t responding to any predictions by Ben Affleck, so I don’t think I have much to say about his “future predictions”, right or wrong.
My complaint is that Affleck’s take on AI today (not AI in the future) is misinformed in many ways. That’s bad because he has a lot of influence in the motion picture industry.
If you take another look at my article, you will see several places where I write, “This is where Ben goes wrong.” Those are the specific places where I differ with him. He’s wrong about LLM output, he’s wrong about how AI will be (and currently is) used in the motion picture business, he’s wrong about the rate of adoption, and he’s wrong about the timing and the scope of impact on the motion picture industry.
More importantly, he frames two possible scenarios for generative AI in filmmaking; both are implausible. Above, I provide a dozen examples of various areas where AI can be used and already is being used: apparently Affleck is unaware or uninterested in these use cases. That makes him a poor spokesman for the movie business because he really does not know how the technology is being applied today.
My main concern is that Ben is telegraphing to his peers in the movie and TV industry the message that they can remain complacent, ignore AI, and carry on as they have in the past. This is very bad advice, because AI is improving at such a rapid pace, it is essential for anyone who is involved in the industry to be engaged and learn to master these tools. Otherwise they will certainly be blindsided. The track record of the movie studios is dreadful when it comes to responding to new technology. I fear that they may repeat this with AI if they listen to people like Ben Affleck who blithely dismiss it.
Finally, it seems to me, judging from your comment, that you may be under the impression that “skepticism around tech hype cycles” somehow justifies ignoring the rapid evolution of AI. I don’t know if that is what you intended, but that is what your comment seems to be saying. If this is what you intended, then from my perspective, you may be repeating Affleck’s mistake, using one observation as a justification for ignoring something else.
Two things can be true: it is probably true that the tech companies hype AI too much and make ridiculous and inflated claims. I’ve written extensively about that previously in this newsletter. But it is also true that artificial intelligence is improving very rapidly. It would be a big blunder, in my opinion, to ignore AI for any reason. So, if what you were trying to say is that “skepticism about tech hype cycles” justifies ignoring or dismissing the progress in AI, then I would have to disagree. If that is not what you intended to say, then I apologize for misunderstanding your comment. It’s a little ambiguous.
You may want to amend your comment about Ben not knowing what the life of a Shakespearean actor was like, since he played Edward Alleyn in Shakespeare in Love. Alleyn was one of the most famous and well regarded actors of his time, friend of Sir Francis Bacon and QE1 herself was a fan girl. And he was rich, because he married well, produced, owned theatrical distribution, diversified into hospitality, sports and real estate. He did what many current entertainers do to gain power and prestige. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
Thanks PJ for that clarification. I appreciate it. Your account of Edward Alleyn seems to confirm my larger point about the hierarchy of power and the caste system of creative labor, so I suppose I will leave it as written and let the readers see both.
Besides, if Ben Affleck gets his information about life in the Elizabethan era from a Hollywood film that is riddled with anachronisms and romanticized half-truths, then he probably does not have a very accurate understanding.
It's interesting how you pointed out Ben Affleck being simultaneously right and wrong about AI; I'd love to hear your thoughts on what specifically constituted his 'wrong' future predictions, especially considering the current scepticism around tech hype cycles.
HI Rainbow Roxy. Not quite sure how to respond to your comment. I wasn’t responding to any predictions by Ben Affleck, so I don’t think I have much to say about his “future predictions”, right or wrong.
My complaint is that Affleck’s take on AI today (not AI in the future) is misinformed in many ways. That’s bad because he has a lot of influence in the motion picture industry.
If you take another look at my article, you will see several places where I write, “This is where Ben goes wrong.” Those are the specific places where I differ with him. He’s wrong about LLM output, he’s wrong about how AI will be (and currently is) used in the motion picture business, he’s wrong about the rate of adoption, and he’s wrong about the timing and the scope of impact on the motion picture industry.
More importantly, he frames two possible scenarios for generative AI in filmmaking; both are implausible. Above, I provide a dozen examples of various areas where AI can be used and already is being used: apparently Affleck is unaware or uninterested in these use cases. That makes him a poor spokesman for the movie business because he really does not know how the technology is being applied today.
My main concern is that Ben is telegraphing to his peers in the movie and TV industry the message that they can remain complacent, ignore AI, and carry on as they have in the past. This is very bad advice, because AI is improving at such a rapid pace, it is essential for anyone who is involved in the industry to be engaged and learn to master these tools. Otherwise they will certainly be blindsided. The track record of the movie studios is dreadful when it comes to responding to new technology. I fear that they may repeat this with AI if they listen to people like Ben Affleck who blithely dismiss it.
Finally, it seems to me, judging from your comment, that you may be under the impression that “skepticism around tech hype cycles” somehow justifies ignoring the rapid evolution of AI. I don’t know if that is what you intended, but that is what your comment seems to be saying. If this is what you intended, then from my perspective, you may be repeating Affleck’s mistake, using one observation as a justification for ignoring something else.
Two things can be true: it is probably true that the tech companies hype AI too much and make ridiculous and inflated claims. I’ve written extensively about that previously in this newsletter. But it is also true that artificial intelligence is improving very rapidly. It would be a big blunder, in my opinion, to ignore AI for any reason. So, if what you were trying to say is that “skepticism about tech hype cycles” justifies ignoring or dismissing the progress in AI, then I would have to disagree. If that is not what you intended to say, then I apologize for misunderstanding your comment. It’s a little ambiguous.