I think the other side of it for me is a completely different approach to those visuals. Star Wars, as you note, is a fantastical universe that was set far away from our current reality, deliberately so. There was no connection to Earth in any particular way. It was set up as an archetypal story. To misquote Yoda "You only find what you take with you." Star Trek is completely different. It was directly connected to humanity of present day. And the technology and abilities to express that technology would be updated constantly. TMP is the most glaring example, but there are efforts to expand upon what technology was present. What this often does is go against the idea that Star Trek is a unified whole in a way that it really was never intended to be. Star Wars does its best to be that bigger whole, but it was never connected to present humanity the same way.
if anything those monitors looked too primitive to me. The ergonomics were terrible and by 2001 there was a better looking computer on my father’s desk already.
On topic: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/mar/05/how-started-tom-cruise-deepfake-tiktok-videos Pretty fascinating (and frightening) how realistic the videos are.
No. A viewer may be fascinated by how much more this imitation looks and sounds like a deceased person than that imitation, but not one iota of what motivated that person or whatever gifts they had as performers or personalities is reborn or added to by these processes. They are exercises in mimicry, and mimicry alone. At this moment the most promising and popular use of the tech, as with most entertainment technologies when they are brand-new, still seems to be in pornography.
I’m not sure on how this could be used in pornography...Sure, you could replace the actors’ faces with those of famous people, but you’d need their condense for that to be legal and I can’t see many of them agreeing.
It's already been used without permission. It's a huge legal and tech battle that I was reading about in a tech magazine regarding privacy. It was interesting because current pornography actresses were also upset because it both ruins their work and is done without permission, something that is huge in their work. So, consent or not, legal or not, it is happening.
I know. But there isn’t going to be the same kind of investments that were given to say VHS to something that it’s illegal.
Well, it's pretty hard to make money even in the legal areas of the porn industry at the moment (just see all the troubles are mindgeek and their affiliates facing at the moment, with credit card circuits not wanting to deal with them), in illegal ones will be even harder. What I can imagine in the future (say ten years) is a boom of applications that let the end user replace anybody's face with anybody's…At that point of course it will be used for pornography (but will also have other applications…It will be kinda like Gnutella or the holodeck: everybody pretends they don't know what the real main use of those technologies are), but it's kinda of the eventual obvious result, not something they can actively invest on at the moment.
To something that a power user can use from their PC? Sure. To something that any user can use it from their phone? I doubt it.
I made it because a lot of people have been moving away from computers in the last few years, doing most of their online activities on smartphones and tablet. Personally I still use a computer for a lot of stuff, but for web navigation I find my iPhone a much better choice unless I need to do some serious research (or download stuff), most people I know barely use a computer anymore. This of course is leading to social networks such as twitch and Instagram, whose desktop experience seems like an afterthought, and also brought a lot of interesting augmented reality apps that would fall in the same category of what we were discussing...and that most people just use, without marveling at how advanced the technology that powers them is also, speaking about porn (but actually thinking of any streaming site), the main medium there has been the smartphone for a few years now...Understandably, as its there, near your bed, you no longer need to bring a laptop or, heaven forbid, physically move where your desktop is.
It's a fair point. Just one I had not considered because I don't use my phone for most online web navigation.
I seriously doubt if people are moving away from home computers. There is only so much a Smartphone is able to do. Texting and posting images on Instagram really doesn't sound like it would be the end of the home computer.
You might doubt it, but the figures are that computer sales have been dropping fast since around 2010, that is more or less exactly since tablet and smartphones became convenient. until 2020, when a lot of people found themselves working for home and couldn’t rely on the office computers, anyway. I never talked about he end of the home computer, in any case, I’m just pointing out how it is no longer the main device employed by the majority for many use cases and how this will likely happen more and more. By the way...I’m posting this from a 2016 iPhone. Ten years ago I wouldn’t have found posting on a forum with my 2008 iPhone convenient at all, now I rarely do it from my computer...Why go sitting at my desk for something like this?
I don't find phones convienient so I will prefer laptop or possibly tablet. Touch screens and I don't always get along. I'm not saying the trend isn't going that way; honestly, 10 years ago I didn't have a smart phone. Now, I have child clients with their own smart phone. It's annoying but that's technology. For me, personally, I just find mobile that convinient aside from portability. But, I've been accused of being a luddite so what do I know?