Because there has to be demand for it. There are hundreds of tasks that could be automated right now, and people still choose to do them by hand. Just because something is technically replaceable doesn’t mean it will be replaced and editing is a deeply personal part of the process for almost every director. It will change, but for serious work, it will never be a sure shot job handled entirely by AI. Sure, for low effort marketing videos you’d outsource to Fiverr, it’ll happen sooner or later but that’s not what we’re talking about here.

▲

bel8 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> ...but for serious work, it will never be a sure shot job handled entirely by AI.

Maybe not entirely handed by AI but when AI starts doing it better than most and in a fraction of the time, for a fraction of the cost, why do you think it wont be at least partly delegated to AI?

the "never" is what gets me here.

▲

victorbjorklund 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Autopilots have been able to fly planes better than humans at almost zero cost for years yet no one has replaced pilots.

▲

bel8 an hour ago | parent [-]

fair but that's also a matter of time, in my opinion.

1) software doesn't commit suicide like some pilots did.

2) software has superhuman reflexes, processing power and are not affected by emotion.

3) software also will eliminate a whole class of failure modes that caused many crashes in the past like: "I won't seek nearest and safer airport because that will be expensive in fuel costs"

4) software is already landing planes and saving lives in the process: https://youtu.be/XawXSLRCM3o

5) Most part of a comercial flight is already controlled by software anyway. Pilots mostly take off/land and input coordinates and altitudes.

6) push for fully automous aircraft during modern war is going to speed up development and test of the tech.

I think it's a matter of time here too.

▲

tredre3 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> I won't seek nearest and safer airport because that will be expensive in fuel costs

If, and that's a big if, a pilot did choose a less safe airport because of monetary cost to his airline, it would be because those are the guidelines of the airline. And those guidelines would obviously be in the software too.

	▲	spijdar 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		There's a fuzzy gray line here. Whether formalized or not, the way I see it, pilots will de facto be penalized for making decisions that cost an airline a ton of money, especially if it turns out to not have been an actual emergency. I have no idea what legislation is in place regarding this topic and protecting pilots. But even with really good protections, there's no way that it won't affect your social standing with the higher ups if you divert and cost the company exorbitantly. So pilots do have to make judgment calls about how much they're willing to risk their lives and the lives of their passengers versus a perceived risk, and worse, this judgment call exists in a weird fuzzy area where they're "allowed" to make the safe bet, but in practice, they will be punished for it. Software doesn't (generally) have this luxury. It decides whether to land or continue flying based on some defined set of conditions. It can still decide to risk the lives of the passengers. But that decision has to be approved by the airline, and can't live as an informal "you will lose brownie points with management" sword over the necks of the flight crew. Unless we start to incorporate LLMs and probabilistic models into autopilots... but no-one would ever do that, right? ....

▲

cluckindan an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Nothing about modern airplanes prevents pilots from doing a Malaysian 370.

▲

trentor 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because there is no demand for it to be fully handled by AI. Nobody is denying that parts will be handled by AI but that’s also you moving the goal post.

▲

HDThoreaun 2 hours ago | parent [-]

What makes you say that? You think people like paying professionals to edit their videos? Surely some do, but everyone?

	▲	bel8 an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		you're right. ads are already infested with AI videos which means it works for some and those are no longer paying the price of fully manual editing.
	▲	trentor an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Maybe read again.

▲

ToucanLoucan 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> the "never" is what gets me here.

The process is the point for any passionate creative. And yes, for every passionate creative you have a burned out creative who's trying to make ends meet who will use more AI centric tools because both that creative and the people paying them likely do not care how things look when they're completed, only that they're completed, on-time, and under budget.

However, again, an actual creative wouldn't. Imagine you and I are climbing a mountain: I'm climbing the mountain because I love climbing mountains. Climbing mountains is what I live for. I work full time and hard as hell so I can afford trips to climb mountains. You, on the other hand, have a terminal illness and you know that at the top of this mountain is a plant you can eat that will cure you with no side effects. So we're both doing this thing, but for WILDLY different reasons.

If as we're climbing a helicopter flies up and hovers behind us and the pilot says "hey I'll take you to the top of the mountain if you want!" we're going to have very different responses: you don't care about climbing mountains, and even if you do, you're not on this particular climb to enjoy it; you're here because you need this plant to cure your illness. You'd be crazy to not jump in that helicopter and get what you need to live. However, I'd be equally crazy to do the exact same thing, because climbing the mountain is why I'm here, I live for climbing mountains, and I want to climb this one.

This is what AI people do not get about creatives and why we talk past each other. AI people think creative people make things to have finished works, and that's certainly a part of it, and basically a requirement if you'd like to monetize your creativity. But like, I work in software as my day job and I'm bloody good at it, but I use AI to generate code sometimes because the process of developing software doesn't do nearly the same thing for me as creating art. I love making art, and I'd do it even if it made me no money. And I know that, because I've been doing it my whole life and it's never made me money. I feel depressed if I go too long between making works of art. I get ideas building up inside me and they itch and scratch at my being until I sit down and spend several hours turning said idea into something I can see, but like, if I just put a prompt into an AI image generator, I feel absolutely nothing doing that.

All of that to say: I genuinely do not believe AI will completely replace all of this, for no other reason than only a fraction (sizable though it may be) of creatives will ever want it, let alone use it. The quality of it and arguing about if it can "match" a human creative isn't the point, the humanity is the point. I don't want to look at AI generated art, and so I won't, and I especially do not want to replace my creative output with that of Midjourney. Ever. I don't care how good or cheap it is which is why those arguments just bounce off of me. I'm here to climb a mountain and you're offering me a staircase.

▲

jstummbillig 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

For anything that can create better margins, and that is not outlawed, there will be demand.