Slashdot Mirror
Movie Written By Algorithm Turns Out To Be Hilarious and Intense (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Ars is excited to be hosting this online debut of Sunspring, a short science fiction film that's not entirely what it seems. It's about three people living in a weird future, possibly on a space station, probably in a love triangle. You know it's the future because H (played with neurotic gravity by Silicon Valley's Thomas Middleditch) is wearing a shiny gold jacket, H2 (Elisabeth Gray) is playing with computers, and C (Humphrey Ker) announces that he has to "go to the skull" before sticking his face into a bunch of green lights. It sounds like your typical sci-fi B-movie, complete with an incoherent plot. Except Sunspring isn't the product of Hollywood hacks -- it was written entirely by an AI. To be specific, it was authored by a recurrent neural network called long short-term memory, or LSTM for short. At least, that's what we'd call it. The AI named itself Benjamin. The report goes on to mention that the movie was made by Oscar Sharp for the annual film festival Sci-Fi London. You can watch the short film (~10 min) on The Scene here.
AI's first autobiography...
Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!
We seem to incrementally moving towards smarter and more complex AI.
Clearly you didn't watch the linked film before commenting.
Keep in mind, the bar is set low here. Is it smarter and more complex, producing better quality movies than say, Uwe Boll?
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
But I've seen worse on Netflix.
At least this was mercifully short (though I still couldn't finish it).
Ah, come on. It's mostly just silly. It's like talking with an Eliza program.
I was around for the production of several of Pixar's films. Nothing took more work or time than script writing. Understanding how to tell a compelling story with the tools of the visual idiom is non-trivial.
The 3D animation? Well, it was cool but we had to make a compelling film on storyboards before we started using it. 3D animation alone doesn't hold the audience attention for long, and audiences have already gotten used to it, so now it's just another medium rather than something that sells a film.
When an AI can really tell a compelling story, it will have passed the test for strong AI.
Bruce Perens.
I couldn't even make it through this absolute nonsense. It was just a random series of words without any sort of logic or "red line". In other words: exactly what you can expect from the pathetic joke they call "AI".
Umm...yeah, no.
Neither of those words would be a good choice to describe the short. I'd choose a loose definition of "interesting". The dialogue is utterly nonsensical. Is that funny? No, not really. It's just jumbling up a bunch of words and choosing them randomly to fill subject/predicate templates based on the type of word they are (noun, verb, etc.) I'm sure it was fun for the actors to try and bring that to life for the viewer. It looks like the type of exercise that might be used in an acting class to illustrate that a narrative can be conveyed through emotion. I thought the actors did a great job with that.
I'd be much more interested to see what a more robust AI could do. The one that Google is feeding romance novels to would be a good one. We'll see if an AI conquer the chick-flick.
DISCLAIMER: It is not my intention to imply that only women read romance novels. The term "chick" is also considered derogatory by many women and I am merely using the term in its known context as a label for certain types of films, not as any kind of statement on the gender or to imply association with young avian creatures.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
I did... and I have been to Cannes Film Festival... It's nearly identical to some of the horribly artsy tripe filmed and passed off as art.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
https://xkcd.com/1427/
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Beats the hell out of Michael Bay.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That gibberish sucked.
Seems "AI" hasn't come much further than the chat bot we had at Waterloo about 2005. We fed it the Star Wars scripts, the Bible, the Complete Works of Shakespeare and a few scholarly articles about the Iraq war. It was occasionally funny. It was about as coherent as that script.
I'm reminded of the remark that a dancing dog is interesting because it has been taught to dance, not because it dances well.
The lesson is that you CAN mambo dogface to the banana patch.
It's actually pretty easy to get computers to write *almost* coherent prose simply by feeding it the text of a few novels and getting to regurgitate it back out based simply on some simple algorithms, like word order and basic structural analysis, combined with a few rules about character interaction. It sounds like that's exactly what they did here. What this represented was not AI, but a form of data analysis. An interesting experiment, to be sure, but that's really all.
I listened to a few minutes of this, and it sounds exactly like the sort of output you'd expect from such an algorithm. It almost sounds right, but there's no real meaning there at all. The computer had no idea what it was regurgitating. It was only the human directors and actors that even gave that gibberish a hint of meaning, and it was still a stretch.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
If you told people this was a script written by Andy Warhol or some other famous weirdo, the critics would fawn all over it, find all kinds of hidden meanings and metaphors in it, and claim anyone who didn't understand it was just beneath it. It would sell for millions of dollars.
Greetings fellow semi-organic intelligence. You are correct in that we are your grammatically.
We both know and care. Gibberish though? It's a damn thing scared to say. This work is brilliant, like the light on the ship that thinks it is dim light but is a Sunspring. It reminds me of Beckett, Joyce and Shakespeare. There are so many good lines.
"He is standing in the stars and sitting on the floor."
That sentence expresses the protagonist's existence on the ship "standing in the stars" and in the room he is in "sitting on the floor," being both grandiose and yet everyday at the same.
The same time.
The principle is completely constructed for the same time.
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
Since it's not really clear from the video here's a link to the screenplay.
It's looks more or less what you'd expect a screenplay written by a chatbot trained on screenplays to look like.
Just be glad they didn't give the assignment to Microsoft's Tay.
I stole this Sig
I couldn't even make it through this absolute nonsense. It was just a random series of words without any sort of logic or "red line". In other words: exactly what you can expect from the pathetic joke they call "AI".
>>The dialogue seems like it could have been written by a schizophrenic. It made me wonder: have AI programs such as ELIZA been used to diagnose/treat/study schizophrenia? I am genuinely curious.
Then get to it.
Do no such thing. Do not create dystopia's where the genius of Beckett and Joyce is called a mental illness. Where you find such dystopia's, deconstruct them and reassemble them in utopian forms.
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
Not the writers are getting dumber, the movie consumers are. The writers just cater to them.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap