"No true Scotsman..."
The AI Future of Trek
- Thread starter ernie90125
- Start date
I am struggling to see that as a good thing. It's like the comics that used stills from TOS to create additional stories. It sounds like a good idea but lands flatter than a flat cat attacking a Tribble.
How soon will we see a 100% completely AI generated , official Star Trek production?
By official I mean CBS Paramount or whoever holds the copyright
also, I am pretty sure it will be TOS with Kirk and Spock
probably some image rights will have to be negotiated too
But I think it's inevitable
By official I mean CBS Paramount or whoever holds the copyright
also, I am pretty sure it will be TOS with Kirk and Spock
probably some image rights will have to be negotiated too
But I think it's inevitable
Nope.
I’d rather watch a blank wall than AI generated anything.
Maybe it’s inevitable… whatever. I had no interest in it.
Even the things in the OP… leave them alone. Let them be what they are. They are interesting little fragments of the franchises history outside of the main show/movies. Let them be that.
Maybe it’s inevitable… whatever. I had no interest in it.
Even the things in the OP… leave them alone. Let them be what they are. They are interesting little fragments of the franchises history outside of the main show/movies. Let them be that.
Honestly? The day Star Trek becomes facilitated by AI is the day Star Trek dies.
It got some TNG stuff wrong, such as Data being the one kidnapped by the Cardassians in "Chain of Command". Sure, you can tell it in a response the actual fact and it'll probably save the change - which is possibly how I was given the erroneous information in the first place.
Someone else posted a AI-generated script and that's when things become more useful: While it had read like a rehash of TMP+FC with the usual shtick about a big bad comin' to invade, all one need do is to take the plot outline and add character dialogue and voila, which expedites otherwise having to sit in a chair and think out the same base-level script to then plop characters in.
Lastly, thanks to social media, someone asked had asked how many R's there were in "strawberries" and for over a week, the response was "2" and promptly told the multiwebbythingy about it all. Eventually someone told it "there are three" and now you'll get the answer "there are three R's". I should have responded "there are four lights" for a cheap thrill.
Computer synthesized audio, or whatever the current marketing moniker is regarding that technology, can already simulate voices to a sufficient extent:
In can virtually be done right now, no pun intended, especially in animated form (e.g. "Prodigy" style CGI). Granted, it's yet another Borg* story, and it's not like there aren't other species and critters to build upon as Trek has taken successful characters and brought them back to expand their lore with and all and more often went into cool directions with them, even the Pakleds! But, why can't the big bug thingies from "Schisms" be related to the neon dayglo beetle-like crawfishies from "Conspiracy"? It's small universe syndrome, but not as teensy as the Borg have become...
* Even if season 3 did it better by going back to basics briskly, holy alliteration Batboi!
Last edited:
I'm not a super big fan of AI. But if you really think about it ... isn't it really an extension of human creativity and ability? It's programed by humans, supported by humans . When chatbot is asked a question, its using the knowledge humans programed into it and basing it's external research on human reference material.
It's one big plagiarism machine. AI only works by stealing from the source material it's given.
That isn't creative. It's copying.
Perhaps. But don't humans behave similarly? And I don't necessarily mean to say that in a malicious way btw. If you read the memoirs of many of the DS9 creators for example, you will find many many anecdotes of them borrowing or "copying " premises of movies, books and other fiction for the storylines they came up with for DS9. I think you will find that true for other Trek shows and the Entertainment industry in general. Star Trek itself you can argue is a "rip off" of "Forbidden Planet".
I belive it is said there are only a few basic story narratives in all of literature , and after that it's essentially variants of a theme. Same can be said for all of music having a few core foundational notes ,and then it's all in the combination of notes.
Here's some irony - a human can easily be guilty of blatantly plagiarizing something, but you can probably run it by an AI to make it look less obvious and add more unique elements to it...or in other words AI is simply doing what some "industry smart" humans already do when they create something using a standard , repeatable "Hollywood formula " but still beng different enough to capture the imagination of others and therefore not be called plagiarism.
Last edited:
Humans at least can bring their own experiences, unique to them, and learn from their plagiarism. AI can't.
Bill Watterson, the creator of Calvin and Hobbes, discussed his first experience with being called out for plagiarism in school and resolved to avoid doing so in the future. He drew from his personal experience, stories and inspiration around him.
That's the difference to an AI polling through and regurgitating elements.
Bill Watterson, the creator of Calvin and Hobbes, discussed his first experience with being called out for plagiarism in school and resolved to avoid doing so in the future. He drew from his personal experience, stories and inspiration around him.
That's the difference to an AI polling through and regurgitating elements.
I'd agree if there wasn't so much stuff right now that is human-made but equally "inspired" by other works. The Boys is one of the biggest shows, and it could be easily replicated by telling an AI to take a superhero and make them evil. Star Wars is one of the biggest franchises ever and it's just a mash-up of old sci-fi serials, World War II movies, and samurai movies.
There's a difference though. Lucas could take the fact that he didn't get the rights to Flash Gordon and work with different people and create something new based on what he liked from his childhood. It's not a replication, but something different based upon personal values, emotions and experiences.
If one thinks it is just a replication mash up then I guess AI sounds very appealing. But, it ignores the human element of the fact that we have emotions, experiences, and opinions around things that drive us to make the art we do.
It shows a rather dim view of the artistic process to just say its replication with no recognition of the human.
Curious, if hypothetically you find out after the fact , a movie or TV show you like and feel is high quality was AI generated, would you change your view on it out of principle ? Any difference if it was AI generated and then "tweeaked" by a human?
For me personally, I really don't care if something is AI or a human. But that's just me. Just like I don't care if a singer writes his lyrics or if got it written but someone else. Especially if the singer fed his life experiences to an AI. I rather have that then a business partner writting it for him and it * not* based on the the singer's personal experiences. But end of day, My judgment will always be the content and whether it resonates with me. Not the delivery system used.
Last edited:
As with most art I would want to know more, the process the refinement, etc. I would not reject it out of hand but my skepticism would go up just because AI can draw from copyrighted works and not give reference. Yes, humans can too but I can correct a human.
Similar threads
