The Content Turing Test
Answering the question “Can AI be used to make a real movie?”
“This is only a foretaste of what is to come, and only the shadow of what is going to be.” — Alan Turing (Artificial Intelligence pioneer)
In my last post I made the claim that Artificial Intelligence (AI) has not to date successfully created a feature film worthy of theatrical release (read our blog post How AI Can Benefit Hollywood). In this post I go into further detail and explain how I devised an answer to this question, and how I plan to judge future attempts at AI-Assisted movies (including my own). But what is the definition of Cinema, and when does a video recording become a Film? One way is to apply a Turing Test for media content to an unknowing audience.
This “Content Turing Test” puts a human name on an AI-made film, and examines if people pay to watch it with satisfaction, and would recommend it, and desire to watch more of its work.
Could an AI-written screenplay win the Academy Award for Best Picture in the near future? Many think it’s not only possible, but inevitable. The definition of AI has been on a sliding scale for years when judging if something is “really Artificial Intelligence” or not. People’s conclusions seem to change as AI succeeds at new tasks, like the game Go. This is known as the “AI Effect”, that anything only humans can do requires intelligence, until a computer can do it — at which point it is simply considered software again [1].
Experts half a century ago claimed it would take true AI to be able to play chess, but when such a machine was invented it was no longer considered AI — simply a “chess-playing machine” using unintelligent algorithms and brute force computation. This sliding test continued as software accomplished more tasks typically considered under the domain of humanity like language translation, providing the most efficient driving directions, performing handwriting, image, and facial recognition, and self-driving cars.
Now we see this sliding test applied to software-created artwork from images, to songs, and yes even full-length films. Debates rage online as to whether machines are able to produce true art, and some argue this can only ever be a human skill. Yet in recent years we’ve seen examples of people using AI to make parts of films like scenes and dialog, with ground-breaking efforts such as “Sunspring” and more [2].
A discerning audience, however (and likely even the film-makers themselves) would admit these AI Films to date can’t yet be considered a real movie. I would wager that if screened to a Film School professor, these “films” would receive a failing grade.
While every new movie we see release in theaters and on streaming is clearly unique in of itself, history shows that epic stories tend to follow recognizable patterns and structure. This format has evolved and been nearly perfected over the centuries, and is what we teach aspiring Directors and Screenwriters as they hone their craft. These examples of AI-written screenplays instead tend to ramble insensibly with no clear direction or plot.
At the very least, we can assume they would not be competitive with the latest superhero movies at the box office. There is no conclusive Act and Scene structure. The protagonist follows no discernible Character Arc, exhibiting no Want, Need, “Ghost”, or “Lie”. These aren’t really stories but simply a filmed collection of words read by actors on sets. So when does content cross the line and become a real film?
The Turing Test is a simple way to answer the question: “Is this machine able to think as intelligently as humans?”[3]. Alex Garland’s 2014 blockbuster from A24 Films Ex Machina was based on this concept. A two-sided test hides the fact that the subject may be a machine pretending to be human. The two enter into a conversation. At the end, if the questioner is convinced they were talking to another human, it proves the machine is a true Artificial Intelligence.
I propose extending the idea of covert representation seeing if things pass for normal, but instead of having a conversation trying to prove an ability to think, we present artistic content and see if it passes for a human work. Put another way, we show people a movie without telling them AI made it, and see if it’s a hit.
Authors have used pseudonym “pen names” for generations, including Stephen King, Isaac Asimov, J.K. Rowling, Benjamin Franklin, Mark Twain, and Dr. Seuss. So have actors, comedians, and directors. This could be for a variety of reasons, including privacy and the desire to overcome unconscious biases of gender, race, or religion.
It’s subjective and inconclusive to simply ask an audience “Was that a good movie?” (subject to Agreement Bias [4]). Instead we apply the same standards that Hollywood films are subject to, including:
- Does the audience watch to the end?
- Does the audience recommend to their friends to watch it?
- Do audiences pay to see it without much regret?
- Do audiences pay to see more content from this artist?
- Does the film receive positive reviews from critics?
- Does the film generate profit?
- Does the film win award nominations?
If you tell someone “an AI made this film” there will be bias coming from both sides. Some people may be so impressed a machine could accomplish this feat as to lower their standards for quality (that they would normally apply to human-made films on Netflix for example). Some may even purchase this AI-created content, but I posit today this is still just for the gimmick and not solely quality of work. We can see evidence of people willing to spend small amounts on similar gimmicks, for example purchasing paintings made by elephants and other animals given a paintbrush and canvas [5].
Conversely, many people who are against the very concept of Creative AI, may decide consciously or subconsciously that they hate what they are watching, knowing in advance it was not human-made (especially veterans of the entertainment industry). There are already examples of people pushing back against “allowing” machines to create art, worrying that somehow humans will be exempt from creative activities in the future, worried “evil and powerful Big Tech will replace them” in their industry.
Here’s the fun part: there’s a good chance someone has already done this! There could be a show or movie on a popular streaming service that someone created using AI and put their own name on it. For all we know, it’s one of the biggest hits of the year. Do you think you could tell, if there was?
In the end, for me it doesn’t matter who (or what) makes a film — as long as it’s great. If I could watch a movie I absolutely love each and every night of the week, I would. There’s no upper limit to the amount of new great content created each year. For now we’ll just have to accept irregular masterpieces in the cinema, though I can’t help but imagine…
What unprecedented epic stories could tomorrow’s AI-assisted creatives produce for us all to enjoy?
References
Top picture: BBC PA MEDIA
[1] What counts as artificially intelligent?
[2] Short Films made with AI include:
Sunspring — End Cue Production (Oscar Sharp, Ross Goodwin)
Mr. Puzzles Wants To Be Less Alive — Netflix (Keaton Patti)
[3] The Imitation Game aka “Turing Test”
[4] Acquiescence “Agreement” Bias explained:
[5] Other species evidently can produce and sell artworks:
Copyright © 2022 CYBERFILM.AI CORPORATION
