@JAMES4578 wrote:
Apparently machine learning can measure success in film industry but only as an additional tool by tweaking elements, AI not effective in the creative sense. Whilst formulistic approaches sometimes risktaking achieves dividends and fans may like it when thinking is outside of The Box.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/9/21058094/ai-film-decision-making-warner-bros-signs-cinelytic
It's a fun tool, and it appears to give some insight into possible directions, as well as a nifty quick calculator of decision risk.
But I've got friends in the creative industries who'd agree with this:
"Because machine learning applications are trained on historical data they tend to be conservative, focusing on patterns that led to past successes rather than predicting what will excite future audiences. Scientific studies also suggest algorithms only produce limited predictive gains, often repeating obvious insights (like “Scarlett Johansson is a bankable film star”) that can be discovered without AI."
I can envision a situation where budding actors, directors and writers (and all the other folks who contribute creatively of course!) struggle even more to get a break because studio execs and producers etc. slavishly follow an algorithm; essentially, the AI tool contributing heavily to a positive feedback loop that increasingly restricts opportunity and creativity.
One of the general concerns about AI is the potential bias inherent in the data used by it - and this would be one example of that.
Byron Auguste article in Wired today: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/robots-human-jobs, where he argues that it's up to us to decide and set the conditions of whether robots/AI are here to take our jobs or help us in them (i.e. automation versus augmentation).
