Could AI Help Create New Prodigy Episodes in the Future?

[Maurice]

I tend to agree with @Mudd on this topic. Part of the problem is that fanfilm makers aren't necessarily qualified to judge what makes a script "good" and often ask for changes or just rewrite things to make things happen in the story that they want, often heedless of if it's helping the story or not. I heard some horror stories from Carlos Pedraza and the late Dave Galanter.

And, writers being/have been "pro" doesn't guarantee a good script, especially when there's no one at the top of the production who understands good screenwriting or cares. I used to friendly argue with Greg Schnitzer (RIP) about this.

Which relates to the teamwork aspect of making TV and movies. Whenever I go through the Roddenberry papers and look at the memos and notes on scripts I'm reminded how much the Bird contributed to making the stories work. I was just reading his memo to Coon on "Arena" and his suggestions were mostly implemented and made that script better. Justman, Fontana and Coon all had good ideas, but page for page in feedback, the Bird really shaped the show. He really understood what made it work, which is ironic because couldn't seem to see those same flaws in his own work.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Yeah, the original statement had been about the writers. I thought it was indicated to draw a distinction between them and the work actually delivered.

No doubt, it's more than likely that even on their best days, most fan film writers couldn't deliver pro-level work. However, my point was that, in at least a couple of cases, that's demonstrably not the case.

It's beneficial to anyone aspiring to make a film to appreciate as many of the variables as possible that could help make it a good film. @Maurice, I'm glad you mentioned, as I read it, that the product of even talented individuals can be significantly improved upon in a positive collaborative environment.

 

[nightwind1]

NO. AI is theft.

 

[nightwind1]

Keep AI the fuck away from Star Trek.

Keep AI the fuck away from EVERYTHING.

 

[Ragitsu]

Keep AI the fuck away from EVERYTHING.

I find the Borg argument used in favor of "AI" (not true artificial intelligence) to be particularly unacceptable.

"Resistance is futile."

 

[JamesRye]

Keep AI the fuck away from EVERYTHING.

It's too late.

Pick any tent pole movie from the last few years. It's used AI. None of the big studios are singing about it to the public, in the same way that they won't boast about the extensive use of CGI in films that are supposedly filled with real stunts - like the Mission Impossible movies.

ILM, Digital Domain - both are using AI for facial animation and de-aging, as well as crowd sims, physics and environmental effects and everyone is using it for concept art and pre-vis in the industry. It's baked into the software now, you can use it to rapidly make assets, textures and upscale footage. Even Blender, which is freeware that I use has AI baked into it. Any 3D animation, heck even 2D now has AI doing the tweening between keyframes. TV shows are using it for voice synthesis and it's integrated even into planning software.

 

[trekfan_1]

If a.i helps stop a life threatening crime against a loved one, I think many here would be changing their tune. Im not talking about A.i identifing criminals, replicating a Robocop and hunting them down. Im talking about using a.i as human assisted tool / providing a wider potential net against crime. As a tool. If you would still be against that, then it speaks to a phobia or other bias against a.i in general.

A.i is flawed. Not saying we should trust it 100 percent. A.i can be used to commit a crime. But so can matches. At the end of the day, its humans that are using the a.i that are committing crime. Not the technology itself

Is there stats out there that indicate a clear increase of overall crime due to A.I?

It can and will improve over time. Star Trek is fiction but the character of Data literally personifies the ultimate potential of a.i. Are some saying the concept of a.i is ok with fiction but should be avoided at all costs in the real world?

 

[DonIago]

Currently I suspect the vast majority of uses of AI involve widescale copyright infringement, so in that sense, yes, AI has increased the occurrences of crime.

There's also the environmental impacts, which may be legal but should certainly be concerning.

 

[Turtletrekker]

I agree that the concerns are legitimate and need to be addressed, but I will come clean and say that AI has helped me through tech issues with my computer with far more ease than any IT tech ever has over the phone. It's helped me navigate plumbing issues and simple repair jobs, saving me money.

I would never trust it for complex calculations and it always seems to be about 6 months behind on current events, but the tech has some applications that I have found useful. I do agree that perhaps the tech isn't quite there yet and they did the wide rollout perhaps a little prematurely, but it's a Pandora's box that has been opened and it will be very difficult to shut it.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

If a.i helps stop a life threatening crime against a loved one, I think many here would be changing their tune. Im not talking about A.i identifing criminals, replicating a Robocop and hunting them down. Im talking about using a.i as human assisted tool / providing a wider potential net against crime. As a tool. If you would still be against that, then it speaks to a phobia or other bias against a.i in general.

Personally I'd prefer keeping something famous for hallucinating false information way away from police work.

Star Trek is fiction but the character of Data literally personifies the ultimate potential of a.i. Are some saying the concept of a.i is ok with fiction but should be avoided at all costs in the real world?

Even Picard thought Data making another android was a concern. AI right now is very different from that level of intelligence, and if we ever get that close then we're going to need a whole lot more laws because companies would basically be creating new people. I believe Picard had things to say on that subject as well.

 

[Ragitsu]

I have proudly never used pattern-producing software. It is frightening how many have surrendered their brains to what is essentially a mass beta-testing experiment.

 

[Ragitsu]

If behaving as a doss c makes you feel better, by all means...chuckle away.

 

[trekfan_1]

Personally I'd prefer keeping something famous for hallucinating false information way away from police work.

Again if you read my post I said A.I can be "a" tool. 1 of the tools for police work. Human policing will still be there. Human witnesses can also "hallucinate" or mis remember details.

False or dead end leads happen in policing a.i or otherwise. To simply not use a.i because it "may" hallucinate seems closed minded. If it hallucinates or leads to the wrong conclusion, a human can chose to discount it. Heck some police forces even hire psychic consultants. Im going to guess a.i driven tools are probably more productive. Like the cited article I provided that credits a.i for helping identify art fraud.

 

[Firebird]

If a.i helps stop a life threatening crime against a loved one, I think many here would be changing their tune.

Doubtful, because we're a long way off from it ever being developed for an actual force for good.

AI has no business being anywhere near creative fields. Full stop.

 

[trekfan_1]

Doubtful, because we're a long way off from it ever being developed for an actual force for good.

AI has no business being anywhere near creative fields. Full stop.

Its seems many seem to misunderstand what im saying. Is a computer a " actual force for good"? . Its technology used by humans. A technology that has gotten better over time. The actual force for good is the people using the technology. Not the technology itself.

A.i is a technology that is evolving and getting better. Im not saying police should put all thier eggs in the same basket with *just* using it for *all* their detective work .

Im saying theres nothing wrong with using it as a human guided tool. Like the citation i made where a.i was used to catch art fraud . You can still have a human double check its findings or flags. Allot of people are commenting based on their own personal use of ChatbotGBT . There's other forms of a.i. And more importantly, a measured way to incorporate it to beneficial endeavors.

 

[Firebird]

The actual force for good is the people using the technology. Not the technology itself.

Therein lies the problem - the users.

 

[trekfan_1]

Therein lies the problem - the users.

Therein lies the problem - the users.

Well then, a bad or flawed ‘user’ can make mistakes no matter what technology they use. Part of being a police detective is filtering between good information and bad information when evidence leads you in the right direction or astray. If you’re bad at that, maybe you’re in the wrong line of work. You don’t need idiot-proof technology for crime fighters because, I would like to think, they don’t hire idiots in the police force. At the end of the day, AI is just a tool.

There's a humorous saying/ acronym in the software /IT world :

PICNIC

P roblem
I n
C hair
N ot
I n
C omputer

That I think that can apply to many situations. Including when using a.i and blindly following it when its wrong and/or feeding it insufficient information/parameters

 

[Markonian]

If behaving as a doss c makes you feel better, by all means...chuckle away.

No insults at anyone in this forum, please. Consider this an informal warning.