 We're seeing the rise of AI art and just last week or maybe the week before, there was a short film that was created on Sora, which is Open AI's filmmaking AI by the Shy Kids. And it's called Airhead. We're gonna play just a little bit of that short film to see what it is capable of at this point. And then I'd like to get your thoughts on the emergence of AI art. Let's roll Airhead in. Well, they say everyone has something unique about them, something that sets them apart. It's just in my case, you know, it's quite obvious what that thing is. I am literally filled with hot air. Yeah, living like this has its challenges. Windy days, for one, are particularly troublesome. Or there was a one time my girlfriend insisted I go to the cactus store to get my uncle's area wedding present. Oh. What do I love most about my predicament? With the perspective it gives me, you know, I get to see the world differently. I float above the mundane and the ordinary. I see things a different way from everyone else. Yeah, and I feel like it's because of that perspective I'm reminded every day that life is fragile. We're all just a pin prick away from deflation. It's cute and also really spectacular the way that you can just shoot not only the VFX of the balloon head, but also all these different locations floating over orcas and glaciers. Man, you just immediately see what that's gonna do to Hollywood. What do you think that the major, what's gonna happen to art under AI? Do you have any kind of big theories on that? That's a big question. I mean, there's a lot going on, right? So, you know, again, looking to historical models of technological change, like there's kind of a question of like, is this the synthesizer, right? So initially kind of pushed back against this very artificial became key to democratizing music. It turns out not everyone's great at producing music just because we have synthesizer access, right? When I talk to people in Hollywood, I often say, look, you really are the very most talented people. It's a brutal system. And the idea that we're gonna replace all of it, that we're gonna produce better than human kind of quality stuff in the very near future doesn't feel like, we already have democratized a lot of access to the sort of tools. I think that there is reason to be worried about some kind of disruption, but I also think that for a lot of people, this will be an additive tool. Though again, I'll come back to the same point I'm gonna keep making over and over again, which is the fate question depends on those two questions, right? How good and how fast? Because if it's a relatively slow adjustment and we don't reach AGI, then we've got this really cool filmmaking tool. I mean, I made, you know, thousands of photos on mid-journey. I find it really joyful to do that kind of thing. But it's not going to, but I still hire artists to do artwork because it's not quite good enough to be at that high level yet. If it starts to be better than humans at all of those places, then we start to really have more issues. Yeah, I mean, there's a lot of fear in Hollywood about this. This was the animating issue of the strike that just resolved earlier this year. We had Brian Cranston give a speech specifically about this, which I'm gonna play in a second. And I have to say that I thought it was kind of landish when I first saw it, but after having created my own digital clone, I can kind of see like where this might be headed and why it's giving him anxiety. We've got a message for Mr. Eiger. Bob Eiger, that's the opening. I know, sir, that you look through things through a different lens. We don't expect you to understand who we are, but we ask you to hear us and beyond that, to listen to us. When we tell you, we will not be having our jobs taken away and giving to robots. We will not have you take away our right to work and earn a decent living. And lastly, and most importantly, we will not allow you to take away our dignity. So, Brian Cran, yeah, go ahead, Liz. I like that Brian Cranston talks about the right to earn a decent living. And it's like his net worth is what? Like $30 million, right? He's trying to use this sort of populist type rhetoric. And it's at least not totally doing it for me, not to become unlibertarian about it. But there's a little bit of this funny, like the disdain dripping from his voice as he says, just robots. It's a little bit hammed up to me. Yeah, and it's, in his defense, he's partially also talking about, he's talking about, you know, a lot of, much of the concern- I know there are many other people who will be affected by this, you know. Background actors, people like that will be the first to be replaced by the AIs. But, you know, it is an open question, like what happens with your right to your image? I mean, it's now a question I'm thinking about a lot more now that I've cloned myself and I know there's a lot of footage out there that an unrestricted AI could make use of. You know, is there a right, do you have a right to your image and is there even any way to enforce that? I mean, and not just that, but also, you know, artists have a genuine point, which is this is trained on their work without permission or compensation. And if I can say, you know, I'm breaking bad, but in space and get a really, like what do I owe anybody as part of the property rights associated with that, right? So I think we're confronting a lot of stark issues kind of all at once. And I think that there's like, so when we talk about art writ large, right, there's what are your property rights in terms of, are people allowed to train on your data? Is that the same thing as watching and learning something? What if people create exact derivative works in that kind of way from what they're doing before? I mean, you know, that's a foundation stone of how we do innovation and how people get credit for things that they do. And like you said, I mean, the HGN of you like is pretty good, right? And like, and that's by the way, like a small team of venture, like that's not open AIs might turn on to this. Yeah, that's a crude version. Yeah. Yeah, like, so I mean, it's not unreasonable to suspect that next year at some point we can generate a pretty good podcast you that would be able to do, you know, to automate this process, right? And it's certainly a podcast host me who's like, here's Ethan's book answer questions. That doesn't feel far off. You know, it won't be Brian Cranston, right? Like, I think he's not in danger in the short term because also top performance human acting is going to feel different than AI acting in the near future. But this kind of thing, I don't know. So I think that's the thing that continues to give me hope. And Zach and I were talking about this extensively yesterday, but this question of, well, you know, you bring up the concept of the uncanny valley and there's an interesting thing that always comes to mind, which is won't we be able to continue to detect to some degree, not only the quality of Brian Cranston acting himself versus a dupe, but also won't there be a certain choosiness that some of these talk actors employ where they'll still decide that for the most important creative work that they really highly value and that they're really stimulated by, they'll still seek doing it actually themselves versus, I mean, we always see this crop of crap ensemble cast movies where it's like, you know, Scarlett Johansson in that dumb movie, he's just not that into you. Okay, guess what? That's not her best performance ever. And so who really gives a shit if there's a synthetic AI version of Scar Joe that's the one actually doing that, right? Like, won't there be a little bit of actors deciding to double down to refocus on the actual artistry of it and still choosing to opt into that? And then the mediocrity will just continue to be kind of mediocre, if not slightly worse or is that a misunderstanding of how it'll work? I mean, I think that's possible, right? I mean, there's a lot more creators and TikTok people are watching. There is a democratization that happens. I think that people are legitimately worried about their job and should be. And, you know, but then, you know, you could say, look, technical change, say la vie. I think the deeper issue, the sharper one is one about intellectual kind of property rights in some extent too, which is like, okay, it's one thing for Scar Joe to say, yeah, you can license digital me for X dollars. It's another thing for, you know, for Marvel to say we can do infinite things with like, you know, we license you out and you know, and it's good enough that you no longer need to act anymore and you didn't pay for the rights in advance to do this. It wasn't a contract or a relationship. It was, you know, it's because our ownership rights might allow it or not. In the same way, you know, the visual is the place where the AI stuff is at the most troubling from a plagiarism and copyright standpoint, right? From the text generators, it's very hard to extract out someone's actual text from it. From the image generators, it's really easy to get a screen, you know, to get a picture of Mario or to get a, you know, to get a screenshot from a famous movie because of how these systems are trained. And I think that that's a legitimate question to worry about. Hey, thanks for watching that clip from our show, Just Asking Questions. You can watch another clip here or the full episode here and please subscribe to Reason's YouTube channel and the Just Asking Questions podcast feed for notifications when we post new episodes every Thursday.