Polygon posted a story about the new movie, Morgan, about an AI. Apparently IBM's Watson cut the trailer (or, more accurately, picked the moments to use in the trailer, it seems).

I'd like to know more about the specifics of that process, but the story (and video) don't really discuss many details.

With our fandom of Bungie and Bungie's love of incorporation AI into their SciFi stories... :)

Specifically the bit about, can an AI create?

After that, the system chose the best 10 moments for a trailer to include. Because the machine couldn't edit the film directly, the team brought in an in-house filmmaker to stitch it together.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ibm-watson-morgan-movie-trailer-2016-8

A human still cut the thing. Essentially the program pulled 'selects'.

If it can cut a better Life is Strange trailer than I can, with absolutely no human intervention, then we can talk.

Because it sure as hell sounds like a high-budget Ex Machina

After that, the system chose the best 10 moments for a trailer to include. Because the machine couldn't edit the film directly, the team brought in an in-house filmmaker to stitch it together.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ibm-watson-morgan-movie-trailer-2016-8

A human still cut the thing. Essentially the program pulled 'selects'.

If it can cut a better Life is Strange trailer than I can, with absolutely no human intervention, then we can talk.

The Turing-Miller Test?

Because it sure as hell sounds like a high-budget Ex Machina

It sounds like a crap version of Ex Machina. Or maybe it's just a shitty trailer :-p

Or is that only in games?

- No text -

Yeah, I mentioned that.

or, more accurately, picked the moments to use in the trailer, it seems

Specifically the bit about, can an AI create?

What do you mean by create? Every algorithm generates an output that didn't exist before.

Or is that only in games?

Pretty much.

But imagine having 500k vs having 15 million to make Star Wars a New Hope and you get the picture. For any given story, there's always going to be some amount of money under which you won't be able to do it convincingly. So you either get more money, or you rewrite the story so as to lower that number.

That's why it's unhelpful to point out super cheap movies that were very good, and then point to expensive duds and act like that invalidates the point. For every Trans4mers, there's also tons of crap indie films that didn't have enough money to do what they wanted and ended up suffering.

Because it sure as hell sounds like a high-budget Ex Machina

It sounds like a crap version of Ex Machina. Or maybe it's just a shitty trailer :-p

I thought Ex Machina was a crap version of good Kubrick film.

Because it sure as hell sounds like a high-budget Ex Machina

It sounds like a crap version of Ex Machina. Or maybe it's just a shitty trailer :-p

I thought Ex Machina was a crap version of good Kubrick film.

And which Kubrick film would that be? I don't recall any ever tackling the same subject matter.

Because it sure as hell sounds like a high-budget Ex Machina

It sounds like a crap version of Ex Machina. Or maybe it's just a shitty trailer :-p

I thought Ex Machina was a crap version of good Kubrick film.

And which Kubrick film would that be? I don't recall any ever tackling the same subject matter.

Um, all of them?

Yeah, I mentioned that.

or, more accurately, picked the moments to use in the trailer, it seems

The implication seems to be that the program determined where, when, and what to cut to, which is false. So to say it 'edited' the trailer is completely wrong. There is more to editing than picking moments. Much more. That's why editing makes or breaks movies. Many great movies such as Jaws, Close Encounters, and Star Wars started out with terrible first cuts. Same footage, but in theaters you saw a better film.

It's magic.

Or is that only in games?

Pretty much.

But imagine having 500k vs having 15 million to make Star Wars a New Hope and you get the picture. For any given story, there's always going to be some amount of money under which you won't be able to do it convincingly. So you either get more money, or you rewrite the story so as to lower that number.

Tbh I would have settled for a 50K A New Hope, but I get your point.

That's why it's unhelpful to point out super cheap movies that were very good, and then point to expensive duds and act like that invalidates the point. For every Trans4mers, there's also tons of crap indie films that didn't have enough money to do what they wanted and ended up suffering.

Presumably not all of those failures are monry-related. In the same way that Trans4mers was hot garbage regardless of funding, so too could a cheaply made movie be bad because of its writing, direction or whatever rather than its cost. If a big movie's failure doesn't invalidate the point then nor does its success.

I thought Ex Machina was a crap version of good Kubrick film.

And which Kubrick film would that be? I don't recall any ever tackling the same subject matter.

Um, all of them?

Edit: I thought you were literally talking about the plot. My brain am derp.

Because it sure as hell sounds like a high-budget Ex Machina

It sounds like a crap version of Ex Machina. Or maybe it's just a shitty trailer :-p

I thought Ex Machina was a crap version of good Kubrick film.

And which Kubrick film would that be? I don't recall any ever tackling the same subject matter.

Um, all of them?

I'm having trouble following you. Remember, Ex-Machina is not about robots and AI. It is about how men view women, and how even decent men inevitably see women as the 'other'. Eyes Wide Shut sure wasn't about that.

Presumably not all of those failures are monry-related. In the same way that Trans4mers was hot garbage regardless of funding, so too could a cheaply made movie be bad because of its writing, direction or whatever rather than its cost. If a big movie's failure doesn't invalidate the point then nor does its success.

It does when success is predicated upon suspension of disbelief, and your world is fantastical.

Because it sure as hell sounds like a high-budget Ex Machina

It sounds like a crap version of Ex Machina. Or maybe it's just a shitty trailer :-p

I thought Ex Machina was a crap version of good Kubrick film.

And which Kubrick film would that be? I don't recall any ever tackling the same subject matter.

Um, all of them?

I'm having trouble following you. Remember, Ex-Machina is not about robots and AI. It is about how men view women, and how even decent men inevitably see women as the 'other'. Eyes Wide Shut sure wasn't about that.

I don't understand someone who knows film like you ostensibly do making an argument that someone's work can't be heavily influenced by a director unless they choose precisely the same subject matter that director chose.

Presumably not all of those failures are monry-related. In the same way that Trans4mers was hot garbage regardless of funding, so too could a cheaply made movie be bad because of its writing, direction or whatever rather than its cost. If a big movie's failure doesn't invalidate the point then nor does its success.

It does when success is predicated upon suspension of disbelief, and your world is fantastical.

I think poodles are silly.

Oh, sorry, from your reply I thought we were playing the non-sequitar game.

(I understand what you're saying, but it has little relevance to my point)

Because it sure as hell sounds like a high-budget Ex Machina

It sounds like a crap version of Ex Machina. Or maybe it's just a shitty trailer :-p

I thought Ex Machina was a crap version of good Kubrick film.

And which Kubrick film would that be? I don't recall any ever tackling the same subject matter.

Um, all of them?

I'm having trouble following you. Remember, Ex-Machina is not about robots and AI. It is about how men view women, and how even decent men inevitably see women as the 'other'. Eyes Wide Shut sure wasn't about that.

I don't understand someone who knows film like you ostensibly do making an argument that someone's work can't be heavily influenced by a director unless they choose precisely the same subject matter that director chose.

Influenced in what way? I didn't think of Kubrick at all the first time I saw Ex Machina. If Alex Garland said he was influenced by Kubrick then that is great. Even if you are talking purely about style here, I am not sure I'd agree.

Because it sure as hell sounds like a high-budget Ex Machina

It sounds like a crap version of Ex Machina. Or maybe it's just a shitty trailer :-p

I thought Ex Machina was a crap version of good Kubrick film.

And which Kubrick film would that be? I don't recall any ever tackling the same subject matter.

Um, all of them?

I'm having trouble following you. Remember, Ex-Machina is not about robots and AI. It is about how men view women, and how even decent men inevitably see women as the 'other'. Eyes Wide Shut sure wasn't about that.

I don't understand someone who knows film like you ostensibly do making an argument that someone's work can't be heavily influenced by a director unless they choose precisely the same subject matter that director chose.

Influenced in what way? I didn't think of Kubrick at all the first time I saw Ex Machina. If Alex Garland said he was influenced by Kubrick then that is great. Even if you are talking purely about style here, I am not sure I'd agree.

I'm not talking purely about style, but that's a big part. There's also a misanthropic cynicism and what I saw as a reaching for some kind of Kubrickian profundity that came across as adolescent pretentiousness by the end, by which time the movie had transformed into a pretty standard scifi action movie (not that I don't like many of those!). I should not have called it crap--I was echoing your language, but I was disappointed. I don't think it lived up to the hype it received.

I liked MOON better, but I always say that when we start talking about current sci fi movies.

I'm not talking purely about style, but that's a big part. There's also a misanthropic cynicism and what I saw as a reaching for some kind of Kubrickian profundity that came across as adolescent pretentiousness by the end, by which time the movie had transformed into pretty standard scifi action movie (not that I don't like many of those!). I should not have called it crap--I was echoing your language, but I was disappointed. I don't think it lived up to the hype it received.

I liked MOON better, but I always say that when we start talking about current sci fi movies.

Different strokes man. I thought Moon sucked ass, and Ex Machina was brilliant. I really think you are reading Ex Machina wrong if that's what you believe. I also definitely thought Moon 'borrowed' a little too much from Kubrick.

I didn't even know it existed when I casually stumbled upon it on cable TV here. Caught it at about the second interview. Immediately stopped watching and scheduled for a full view.

This is interesting to me because I saw a trailer for morgan in the movie theater and I thought it was about genetic engineering.

No mention of AI at all. I'd have noticed, because those kinds of stories I am very much interested in, and they don't get told (well) often.

Last night, I watched this video from the Original Post regarding IBM's Watson, in a PR stunt, crunching numbers to help determine what might make for a good movie trailer.
Glad someone else saw it today, was intrigued by it, and posted it.

3 nights ago I caught a tweet from Marty regarding Beep (gamessound documentary).

After digging in to the project a bit, I learned that the soundtrack in Beep is procedurally generated:

"The "Beep" soundtrack is likely the first feature length procedural music film score in history and most of the songs are entirely produced using the open source visual scripting language Pure Data. Each song uses mathematics to both create the sounds of all the instruments as well as improvise on my musical patterns to generate a different performance each time the song is played."

I finally watched Marty's Beep interview. I know it was posted a long while back (3 Mo.), but I failed to watch it when it released. It was delightful to watch.
When watching the other day, I even wrote down a note to myself for follow up Q: later. Didn't think the follow up would be so soon, in 3 days time. The opportunity has presented itself?
Something at around 27:00 tickled my grey matter.

It was in regards to Mix in games:

"Basically you have like an artificial intelligence mixer inside the box that actually is making audio decisions on the fly, and if you can make the rules complex and compelling enough for the Artificial Intelligent(A.I.) mixer you can do some really beautiful things"

Preface: What if an AI that executes procedurally generated music/mix (or movie editing) were to become "self-aware" or become rampant. What if it were to begin breaking the rules and making its own decisions and generating its own "unique" content

Q: In your opinion, if an A.I. were to become able to "generate its own 'original' content", would/could A.I. generated content be considered Art/Music?

A:

This whole thing might be a huge headache :)

I didn't even know it existed when I casually stumbled upon it on cable TV here. Caught it at about the second interview. Immediately stopped watching and scheduled for a full view.

I'm trying to remember, but I'm having a hard time doing so.

I do recall seeing trailers for it, but I'm the type to actively seek out new movie trailers, so I can't recall if I saw them on television or just online or before a movie I saw in theaters or something. I don't think it received a huge marketing push by any means--it's not the typical blockbuster movie type that usually gets television commercials everywhere.

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/music_box/2010/05/ill_be_bach.html

By hype I don't mean marketing. I mean what I heard from friends, acquaintances, and some established film critics. The friend I saw it with liked it much more than I did.

Q: In your opinion, if an A.I. were to become able to "generate its own 'original' content", would/could A.I. generated content be considered Art/Music?

A:

This whole thing might be a huge headache :)

Yes, absolutely.

Next question? ;)

EDIT: Quick, slightly joking answer now because I'm thinking about a more serious response.