Over the past month, we’ve seen a rapid cadence of notable AI-related announcements and releases from both Google and OpenAI, and it’s been making the AI community’s head spin. It has also poured fuel on the fire of the OpenAI-Google rivalry, an accelerating game of one-upmanship taking place unusually close to the Christmas holiday.
“How are people surviving with the firehose of AI updates that are coming out,” wrote one user on X last Friday, which is still a hotbed of AI-related conversation. “in the last <24 hours we got gemini flash 2.0 and chatGPT with screenshare, deep research, pika 2, sora, chatGPT projects, anthropic clio, wtf it never ends."
Rumors travel quickly in the AI world, and people in the AI industry had been expecting OpenAI to ship some major products in December. Once OpenAI announced “12 days of OpenAI” earlier this month, Google jumped into gear and seemingly decided to try to one-up its rival on several counts. So far, the strategy appears to be working, but it’s coming at the cost of the rest of the world being able to absorb the implications of the new releases.
“12 Days of OpenAI has turned into like 50 new @GoogleAI releases,” wrote another X user on Monday. “This past week, OpenAI & Google have been releasing at the speed of a new born startup,” wrote a third X user on Tuesday. “Even their own users can’t keep up. Crazy time we’re living in.”
“Somebody told Google that they could just do things,” wrote a16z partner and AI influencer Justine Moore on X, referring to a common motivational meme telling people they “can just do stuff.”
The Google AI rush
OpenAI’s “12 Days of OpenAI” campaign has included releases of their full o1 model, an upgrade from o1-preview, alongside o1-pro for advanced “reasoning” tasks. The company also publicly launched Sora for video generation, added Projects functionality to ChatGPT, introduced Advanced Voice features with video streaming capabilities, and more.
Nonsensical jabberwocky movements created by OpenAI’s Sora are typical for current AI-generated video, and here’s why.
A still image from an AI-generated video of an ever-morphing synthetic gymnast. Credit: OpenAI / Deedy
On Wednesday, a video from OpenAI’s newly launched Sora AI video generator wentviral on social media, featuring a gymnast who sprouts extra limbs and briefly loses her head during what appears to be an Olympic-style floor routine.
As it turns out, the nonsensical synthesis errors in the video—what we like to call “jabberwockies”—hint at technical details about how AI video generators work and how they might get better in the future.
But before we dig into the details, let’s take a look at the video.
An AI-generated video of an impossible gymnast, created with OpenAI Sora.
In the video, we see a view of what looks like a floor gymnastics routine. The subject of the video flips and flails as new legs and arms rapidly and fluidly emerge and morph out of her twirling and transforming body. At one point, about 9 seconds in, she loses her head, and it reattaches to her body spontaneously.
“As cool as the new Sora is, gymnastics is still very much the Turing test for AI video,” wrote venture capitalist Deedy Das when he originally shared the video on X. The video inspired plenty of reaction jokes, such as this reply to a similar post on Bluesky: “hi, gymnastics expert here! this is not funny, gymnasts only do this when they’re in extreme distress.”
We reached out to Das, and he confirmed that he generated the video using Sora. He also provided the prompt, which was very long and split into four parts, generated by Anthropic’s Claude, using complex instructions like “The gymnast initiates from the back right corner, taking position with her right foot pointed behind in B-plus stance.”
“I’ve known for the last 6 months having played with text to video models that they struggle with complex physics movements like gymnastics,” Das told us in a conversation. “I had to try it [in Sora] because the character consistency seemed improved. Overall, it was an improvement because previously… the gymnast would just teleport away or change their outfit mid flip, but overall it still looks downright horrifying. We hoped AI video would learn physics by default, but that hasn’t happened yet!”
So what went wrong?
When examining how the video fails, you must first consider how Sora “knows” how to create anything that resembles a gymnastics routine. During the training phase, when the Sora model was created, OpenAI fed example videos of gymnastics routines (among many other types of videos) into a specialized neural network that associates the progression of images with text-based descriptions of them.
That type of training is a distinct phase that happens once before the model’s release. Later, when the finished model is running and you give a video-synthesis model like Sora a written prompt, it draws upon statistical associations between words and images to produce a predictive output. It’s continuously making next-frame predictions based on the last frame of the video. But Sora has another trick for attempting to preserve coherency over time. “By giving the model foresight of many frames at a time,” reads OpenAI’s Sora System Card, we’ve solved a challenging problem of making sure a subject stays the same even when it goes out of view temporarily.”
A still image from a moment where the AI-generated gymnast loses her head. It soon reattaches to her body. Credit: OpenAI / Deedy
Maybe not quite solved yet. In this case, rapidly moving limbs prove a particular challenge when attempting to predict the next frame properly. The result is an incoherent amalgam of gymnastics footage that shows the same gymnast performing running flips and spins, but Sora doesn’t know the correct order in which to assemble them because it’s pulling on statistical averages of wildly different body movements in its relatively limited training data of gymnastics videos, which also likely did not include limb-level precision in its descriptive metadata.
Sora doesn’t know anything about physics or how the human body should work, either. It’s drawing upon statistical associations between pixels in the videos in its training dataset to predict the next frame, with a little bit of look-ahead to keep things more consistent.
This problem is not unique to Sora. All AI video generators can produce wildly nonsensical results when your prompts reach too far past their training data, as we saw earlier this year when testing Runway’s Gen-3. In fact, we ran some gymnast prompts through the latest open source AI video model that may rival Sora in some ways, Hunyuan Video, and it produced similar twirling, morphing results, seen below. And we used a much simpler prompt than Das did with Sora.
An example from open source Chinese AI model Hunyuan Video with the prompt, “A young woman doing a complex floor gymnastics routine at the olympics, featuring running and flips.”
AI models based on transformer technology are fundamentally imitative in nature. They’re great at transforming one type of data into another type or morphing one style into another. What they’re not great at (yet) is producing coherent generations that are truly original. So if you happen to provide a prompt that closely matches a training video, you might get a good result. Otherwise, you may get madness.
As we wrote about image-synthesis model Stable Diffusion 3’s body horror generations earlier this year, “Basically, any time a user prompt homes in on a concept that isn’t represented well in the AI model’s training dataset, the image-synthesis model will confabulate its best interpretation of what the user is asking for. And sometimes that can be completely terrifying.”
For the engineers who make these models, success in AI video generation quickly becomes a question of how many examples (and how much training) you need before the model can generalize enough to produce convincing and coherent results. It’s also a question of metadata quality—how accurately the videos are labeled. In this case, OpenAI used an AI vision model to describe its training videos, which helped improve quality, but apparently not enough—yet.
We’re looking at an AI jabberwocky in action
In a way, the type of generation failure in the gymnast video is a form of confabulation (or hallucination, as some call it), but it’s even worse because it’s not coherent. So instead of calling it a confabulation, which is a plausible-sounding fabrication, we’re going to lean on a new term, “jabberwocky,” which Dictionary.com defines as “a playful imitation of language consisting of invented, meaningless words; nonsense; gibberish,” taken from Lewis Carroll’s nonsense poem of the same name. Imitation and nonsense, you say? Check and check.
We’ve covered jabberwockies in AI video before with people mocking Chinese video-synthesis models, a monstrously weird AI beer commercial, and even Will Smith eating spaghetti. They’re a form of misconfabulation where an AI model completely fails to produce a plausible output. This will not be the last time we see them, either.
How could AI video models get better and avoid jabberwockies?
In our coverage of Gen-3 Alpha, we called the threshold where you get a level of useful generalization in an AI model the “illusion of understanding,” where training data and training time reach a critical mass that produces good enough results to generalize across enough novel prompts.
One of the key reasons language models like OpenAI’s GPT-4 impressed users was that they finally reached a size where they had absorbed enough information to give the appearance of genuinely understanding the world. With video synthesis, achieving this same apparent level of “understanding” will require not just massive amounts of well-labeled training data but also the computational power to process it effectively.
AI boosters hope that these current models represent one of the key steps on the way to something like truly general intelligence (often called AGI) in text, or in AI video, what OpenAI and Runway researchers call “world simulators” or “world models” that somehow encode enough physics rules about the world to produce any realistic result.
Judging by the morphing alien shoggoth gymnast, that may still be a ways off. Still, it’s early days in AI video generation, and judging by how quickly AI image-synthesis models like Midjourney progressed from crude abstract shapes into coherent imagery, it’s likely video synthesis will have a similar trajectory over time. Until then, enjoy the AI-generated jabberwocky madness.
Benj Edwards is Ars Technica’s Senior AI Reporter and founder of the site’s dedicated AI beat in 2022. He’s also a tech historian with almost two decades of experience. In his free time, he writes and records music, collects vintage computers, and enjoys nature. He lives in Raleigh, NC.
A music video by Canadian art collective Vallée Duhamel made with Sora-generated video. “[We] just shoot stuff and then use Sora to combine it with a more interesting, more surreal vision.”
During a livestream on Monday—during Day 3 of OpenAI’s “12 days of OpenAi”—Sora’s developers showcased a new “Explore” interface that allows people to browse through videos generated by others to get prompting ideas. OpenAI says that anyone can enjoy viewing the “Explore” feed for free, but generating videos requires a subscription.
They also showed off a new feature called “Storyboard” that allows users to direct a video with multiple actions in a frame-by-frame manner.
Safety measures and limitations
In addition to the release, OpenAI also publish Sora’s System Card for the first time. It includes technical details about how the model works and safety testing the company undertook prior to this release.
“Whereas LLMs have text tokens, Sora has visual patches,” OpenAI writes, describing the new training chunks as “an effective representation for models of visual data… At a high level, we turn videos into patches by first compressing videos into a lower-dimensional latent space, and subsequently decomposing the representation into spacetime patches.”
Sora also makes use of a “recaptioning technique”—similar to that seen in the company’s DALL-E 3 image generation, to “generate highly descriptive captions for the visual training data.” That, in turn, lets Sora “follow the user’s text instructions in the generated video more faithfully,” OpenAI writes.
Sora-generated video provided by OpenAI, from the prompt: “Loop: a golden retriever puppy wearing a superhero outfit complete with a mask and cape stands perched on the top of the empire state building in winter, overlooking the nyc it protects at night. the back of the pup is visible to the camera; his attention faced to nyc”
OpenAI implemented several safety measures in the release. The platform embeds C2PA metadata in all generated videos for identification and origin verification. Videos display visible watermarks by default, and OpenAI developed an internal search tool to verify Sora-generated content.
The company acknowledged technical limitations in the current release. “This early version of Sora will make mistakes, it’s not perfect,” said one developer during the livestream launch. The model reportedly struggles with physics simulations and complex actions over extended durations.
In the past, we’ve seen that these types of limitations are based on what example videos were used to train AI models. This current generation of AI video-synthesis models has difficulty generating truly new things, since the underlying architecture excels at transforming existing concepts into new presentations, but so far typically fails at true originality. Still, it’s early in AI video generation, and the technology is improving all the time.
Last week, actor and director Ben Affleck shared his views on AI’s role in filmmaking during the 2024 CNBC Delivering Alpha investor summit, arguing that AI models will transform visual effects but won’t replace creative filmmaking anytime soon. A video clip of Affleck’s opinion began circulating widely on social media not long after.
“Didn’t expect Ben Affleck to have the most articulate and realistic explanation where video models and Hollywood is going,” wrote one X user.
In the clip, Affleck spoke of current AI models’ abilities as imitators and conceptual translators—mimics that are typically better at translating one style into another instead of originating deeply creative material.
“AI can write excellent imitative verse, but it cannot write Shakespeare,” Affleck told CNBC’s David Faber. “The function of having two, three, or four actors in a room and the taste to discern and construct that entirely eludes AI’s capability.”
Affleck sees AI models as “craftsmen” rather than artists (although some might find the term “craftsman” in his analogy somewhat imprecise). He explained that while AI can learn through imitation—like a craftsman studying furniture-making techniques—it lacks the creative judgment that defines artistry. “Craftsman is knowing how to work. Art is knowing when to stop,” he said.
“It’s not going to replace human beings making films,” Affleck stated. Instead, he sees AI taking over “the more laborious, less creative and more costly aspects of filmmaking,” which could lower barriers to entry and make it easier for emerging filmmakers to create movies like Good Will Hunting.
Films will become dramatically cheaper to make
While it may seem on its surface like Affleck was attacking generative AI capabilities in the tech industry, he also did not deny the impact it may have on filmmaking. For example, he predicted that AI would reduce costs and speed up production schedules, potentially allowing shows like HBO’s House of the Dragon to release two seasons in the same period as it takes to make one.
On Friday, TriStar Pictures released Here, a $50 million Robert Zemeckis-directed film that used real time generative AI face transformation techniques to portray actors Tom Hanks and Robin Wright across a 60-year span, marking one of Hollywood’s first full-length features built around AI-powered visual effects.
The film adapts a 2014 graphic novel set primarily in a New Jersey living room across multiple time periods. Rather than cast different actors for various ages, the production used AI to modify Hanks’ and Wright’s appearances throughout.
The de-aging technology comes from Metaphysic, a visual effects company that creates real time face swapping and aging effects. During filming, the crew watched two monitors simultaneously: one showing the actors’ actual appearances and another displaying them at whatever age the scene required.
Here – Official Trailer (HD)
Metaphysic developed the facial modification system by training custom machine-learning models on frames of Hanks’ and Wright’s previous films. This included a large dataset of facial movements, skin textures, and appearances under varied lighting conditions and camera angles. The resulting models can generate instant face transformations without the months of manual post-production work traditional CGI requires.
Unlike previous aging effects that relied on frame-by-frame manipulation, Metaphysic’s approach generates transformations instantly by analyzing facial landmarks and mapping them to trained age variations.
“You couldn’t have made this movie three years ago,” Zemeckis told The New York Times in a detailed feature about the film. Traditional visual effects for this level of face modification would reportedly require hundreds of artists and a substantially larger budget closer to standard Marvel movie costs.
This isn’t the first film that has used AI techniques to de-age actors. ILM’s approach to de-aging Harrison Ford in 2023’s Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny used a proprietary system called Flux with infrared cameras to capture facial data during filming, then old images of Ford to de-age him in post-production. By contrast, Metaphysic’s AI models process transformations without additional hardware and show results during filming.
On Monday, Adobe announced Firefly Video Model, a new AI-powered text-to-video generation tool that can create novel videos from written prompts. It joins similar offerings from OpenAI, Runway, Google, and Meta in an increasingly crowded field. Unlike the competition, Adobe claims that Firefly Video Model is trained exclusively on licensed content, potentially sidestepping ethical and copyright issues that have plagued other generative AI tools.
Because of its licensed training data roots, Adobe calls Firefly Video Model “the first publicly available video model designed to be commercially safe.” However, the San Jose, California-based software firm hasn’t announced a general release date, and during a beta test period, it’s only granting access to people on a waiting list.
An example video of Adobe’s Firefly Video Model, provided by Adobe.
In the works since at least April 2023, the new model builds off of techniques Adobe developed for its Firefly image synthesis models. Like its text-to-image generator, which the company later integrated into Photoshop, Adobe hopes to aim Firefly Video Model at media professionals, such as video creators and editors. The company claims its model can produce footage that blends seamlessly with traditionally created video content.
“Robotic humanoid animals with vaudeville costumes roam the streets collecting protection money in tokens”
“A basketball player in a haunted passenger train car with a basketball court, and he is playing against a team of ghosts”
“A herd of one million cats running on a hillside, aerial view”
“Video game footage of a dynamic 1990s third-person 3D platform game starring an anthropomorphic shark boy”
“A muscular barbarian breaking a CRT television set with a weapon, cinematic, 8K, studio lighting”
Limitations of video synthesis models
Overall, the Minimax video-01 results seen above feel fairly similar to Gen-3’s outputs, with some differences, like the lack of a celebrity filter on Will Smith (who sadly did not actually eat the spaghetti in our tests), and the more realistic cat hands and licking motion. Some results were far worse, like the one million cats and the Ars Technica reader.
On Friday, Meta announced a preview of Movie Gen, a new suite of AI models designed to create and manipulate video, audio, and images, including creating a realistic video from a single photo of a person. The company claims the models outperform other video-synthesis models when evaluated by humans, pushing us closer to a future where anyone can synthesize a full video of any subject on demand.
The company does not yet have plans of when or how it will release these capabilities to the public, but Meta says Movie Gen is a tool that may allow people to “enhance their inherent creativity” rather than replace human artists and animators. The company envisions future applications such as easily creating and editing “day in the life” videos for social media platforms or generating personalized animated birthday greetings.
Movie Gen builds on Meta’s previous work in video synthesis, following 2022’s Make-A-Scene video generator and the Emu image-synthesis model. Using text prompts for guidance, this latest system can generate custom videos with sounds for the first time, edit and insert changes into existing videos, and transform images of people into realistic personalized videos.
An AI-generated video of a baby hippo swimming around, created with Meta Movie Gen.
Meta isn’t the only game in town when it comes to AI video synthesis. Google showed off a new model called “Veo” in May, and Meta says that in human preference tests, its Movie Gen outputs beat OpenAI’s Sora, Runway Gen-3, and Chinese video model Kling.
Movie Gen’s video-generation model can create 1080p high-definition videos up to 16 seconds long at 16 frames per second from text descriptions or an image input. Meta claims the model can handle complex concepts like object motion, subject-object interactions, and camera movements.
AI-generated video from Meta Movie Gen with the prompt: “A ghost in a white bedsheet faces a mirror. The ghost’s reflection can be seen in the mirror. The ghost is in a dusty attic, filled with old beams, cloth-covered furniture. The attic is reflected in the mirror. The light is cool and natural. The ghost dances in front of the mirror.”
Even so, as we’ve seen with previous AI video generators, Movie Gen’s ability to generate coherent scenes on a particular topic is likely dependent on the concepts found in the example videos that Meta used to train its video-synthesis model. It’s worth keeping in mind that cherry-picked results from video generators often differ dramatically from typical results and getting a coherent result may require lots of trial and error.
On Tuesday, Stability AI announced that renowned filmmaker James Cameron—of Terminator and Skynet fame—has joined its board of directors. Stability is best known for its pioneering but highly controversial Stable Diffusion series of AI image-synthesis models, first launched in 2022, which can generate images based on text descriptions.
“I’ve spent my career seeking out emerging technologies that push the very boundaries of what’s possible, all in the service of telling incredible stories,” said Cameron in a statement. “I was at the forefront of CGI over three decades ago, and I’ve stayed on the cutting edge since. Now, the intersection of generative AI and CGI image creation is the next wave.”
Cameron is perhaps best known as the director behind blockbusters like Avatar, Titanic, and Aliens, but in AI circles, he may be most relevant for the co-creation of the character Skynet, a fictional AI system that triggers nuclear Armageddon and dominates humanity in the Terminator media franchise. Similar fears of AI taking over the world have since jumped into reality and recently sparked attempts to regulate existential risk from AI systems through measures like SB-1047 in California.
In a 2023 interview with CTV news, Cameron referenced The Terminator‘s release year when asked about AI’s dangers: “I warned you guys in 1984, and you didn’t listen,” he said. “I think the weaponization of AI is the biggest danger. I think that we will get into the equivalent of a nuclear arms race with AI, and if we don’t build it, the other guys are for sure going to build it, and so then it’ll escalate.”
Hollywood goes AI
Of course, Stability AI isn’t building weapons controlled by AI. Instead, Cameron’s interest in cutting-edge filmmaking techniques apparently drew him to the company.
“James Cameron lives in the future and waits for the rest of us to catch up,” said Stability CEO Prem Akkaraju. “Stability AI’s mission is to transform visual media for the next century by giving creators a full stack AI pipeline to bring their ideas to life. We have an unmatched advantage to achieve this goal with a technological and creative visionary like James at the highest levels of our company. This is not only a monumental statement for Stability AI, but the AI industry overall.”
Cameron joins other recent additions to Stability AI’s board, including Sean Parker, former president of Facebook, who serves as executive chairman. Parker called Cameron’s appointment “the start of a new chapter” for the company.
Despite significant protest from actors’ unions last year, elements of Hollywood are seemingly beginning to embrace generative AI over time. Last Wednesday, we covered a deal between Lionsgate and AI video-generation company Runway that will see the creation of a custom AI model for film production use. In March, the Financial Times reported that OpenAI was actively showing off its Sora video synthesis model to studio executives.
Unstable times for Stability AI
Cameron’s appointment to the Stability AI board comes during a tumultuous period for the company. Stability AI has faced a series of challenges this past year, including an ongoing class-action copyright lawsuit, a troubled Stable Diffusion 3 model launch, significant leadership and staff changes, and ongoing financial concerns.
In March, founder and CEO Emad Mostaque resigned, followed by a round of layoffs. This came on the heels of the departure of three key engineers—Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, and Dominik Lorenz, who have since founded Black Forest Labs and released a new open-weights image-synthesis model called Flux, which has begun to take over the r/StableDiffusion community on Reddit.
Despite the issues, Stability AI claims its models are widely used, with Stable Diffusion reportedly surpassing 150 million downloads. The company states that thousands of businesses use its models in their creative workflows.
While Stable Diffusion has indeed spawned a large community of open-weights-AI image enthusiasts online, it has also been a lightning rod for controversy among some artists because Stability originally trained its models on hundreds of millions of images scraped from the Internet without seeking licenses or permission to use them.
Apparently that association is not a concern for Cameron, according to his statement: “The convergence of these two totally different engines of creation [CGI and generative AI] will unlock new ways for artists to tell stories in ways we could have never imagined. Stability AI is poised to lead this transformation.”
Given the flood of photorealistic AI-generated images washing over social media networks like X and Facebook these days, we’re seemingly entering a new age of media skepticism: the era of what I’m calling “deep doubt.” While questioning the authenticity of digital content stretches back decades—and analog media long before that—easy access to tools that generate convincing fake content has led to a new wave of liars using AI-generated scenes to deny real documentary evidence. Along the way, people’s existing skepticism toward online content from strangers may be reaching new heights.
Deep doubt is skepticism of real media that stems from the existence of generative AI. This manifests as broad public skepticism toward the veracity of media artifacts, which in turn leads to a notable consequence: People can now more credibly claim that real events did not happen and suggest that documentary evidence was fabricated using AI tools.
The concept behind “deep doubt” isn’t new, but its real-world impact is becoming increasingly apparent. Since the term “deepfake” first surfaced in 2017, we’ve seen a rapid evolution in AI-generated media capabilities. This has led to recent examples of deep doubt in action, such as conspiracy theorists claiming that President Joe Biden has been replaced by an AI-powered hologram and former President Donald Trump’s baseless accusation in August that Vice President Kamala Harris used AI to fake crowd sizes at her rallies. And on Friday, Trump cried “AI” again at a photo of him with E. Jean Carroll, a writer who successfully sued him for sexual assault, that contradicts his claim of never having met her.
Legal scholars Danielle K. Citron and Robert Chesney foresaw this trend years ago, coining the term “liar’s dividend” in 2019 to describe the consequence of deep doubt: deepfakes being weaponized by liars to discredit authentic evidence. But whereas deep doubt was once a hypothetical academic concept, it is now our reality.
The rise of deepfakes, the persistence of doubt
Doubt has been a political weapon since ancient times. This modern AI-fueled manifestation is just the latest evolution of a tactic where the seeds of uncertainty are sown to manipulate public opinion, undermine opponents, and hide the truth. AI is the newest refuge of liars.
Over the past decade, the rise of deep-learning technology has made it increasingly easy for people to craft false or modified pictures, audio, text, or video that appear to be non-synthesized organic media. Deepfakes were named after a Reddit user going by the name “deepfakes,” who shared AI-faked pornography on the service, swapping out the face of a performer with the face of someone else who wasn’t part of the original recording.
In the 20th century, one could argue that a certain part of our trust in media produced by others was a result of how expensive and time-consuming it was, and the skill it required, to produce documentary images and films. Even texts required a great deal of time and skill. As the deep doubt phenomenon grows, it will erode this 20th-century media sensibility. But it will also affect our political discourse, legal systems, and even our shared understanding of historical events that rely on that media to function—we rely on others to get information about the world. From photorealistic images to pitch-perfect voice clones, our perception of what we consider “truth” in media will need recalibration.
In April, a panel of federal judges highlighted the potential for AI-generated deepfakes to not only introduce fake evidence but also cast doubt on genuine evidence in court trials. The concern emerged during a meeting of the US Judicial Conference’s Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, where the judges discussed the challenges of authenticating digital evidence in an era of increasingly sophisticated AI technology. Ultimately, the judges decided to postpone making any AI-related rule changes, but their meeting shows that the subject is already being considered by American judges.
On Wednesday, AI video synthesis firm Runway and entertainment company Lionsgate announced a partnership to create a new AI model trained on Lionsgate’s vast film and TV library. The deal will feed Runway legally clear training data and will also reportedly provide Lionsgate with tools to enhance content creation while potentially reducing production costs.
Lionsgate, known for franchises like John Wick and The Hunger Games, sees AI as a way to boost efficiency in content production. Michael Burns, Lionsgate’s vice chair, stated in a press release that AI could help develop “cutting edge, capital efficient content creation opportunities.” He added that some filmmakers have shown enthusiasm about potential applications in pre- and post-production processes.
Runway plans to develop a custom AI model using Lionsgate’s proprietary content portfolio. The model will be exclusive to Lionsgate Studios, allowing filmmakers, directors, and creative staff to augment their work. While specifics remain unclear, the partnership marks the first major collaboration between Runway and a Hollywood studio.
“We’re committed to giving artists, creators and studios the best and most powerful tools to augment their workflows and enable new ways of bringing their stories to life,” said Runway co-founder and CEO Cristóbal Valenzuela in a press release. “The history of art is the history of technology and these new models are part of our continuous efforts to build transformative mediums for artistic and creative expression; the best stories are yet to be told.”
The quest for legal training data
Generative AI models are master imitators, and video synthesis models like Runway’s latest Gen-3 Alpha are no exception. The companies that create them must amass a great deal of existing video (and still image) samples to analyze, allowing the resulting AI models to re-synthesize that information into new video generations, guided by text descriptions called prompts. And wherever that training data is lacking, it can result in unusual generations, as we saw in our hands-on evaluation of Gen-3 Alpha in July.
However, in the past, AI companies have gotten into legal trouble for scraping vast quantities of media without permission. In fact, Runway is currently the defendant in a class-action lawsuit that alleges copyright infringement for using video data obtained without permission to train its video synthesis models. While companies like OpenAI have claimed this scraping process is “fair use,” US courts have not yet definitively ruled on the practice. With other potential legal challenges ahead, it makes sense from Runway’s perspective to reach out and sign deals for training data that is completely in the clear.
Even if the training data becomes fully legal and licensed, different elements of the entertainment industry view generative AI on a spectrum that seems to range between fascination and horror. The technology’s ability to rapidly create images and video based on prompts may attract studios looking to streamline production. However, it raises polarizing concerns among unions about job security, actors and musicians about likeness misuse and ethics, and studios about legal implications.
So far, news of the deal has not been received kindly among vocal AI critics found on social media. On X, filmmaker and AI critic Joe Russo wrote, “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a grosser string of words than: ‘to develop cutting-edge, capital-efficient content creation opportunities.'”
Film concept artist Reid Southen shared a similar negative take on X: “I wonder how the directors and actors of their films feel about having their work fed into the AI to make a proprietary model. As an artist on The Hunger Games? I’m pissed. This is the first step in trying to replace artists and filmmakers.”
It’s a fear that we will likely hear more about in the future as AI video synthesis technology grows more capable—and potentially becomes adopted as a standard filmmaking tool. As studios explore AI applications despite legal uncertainties and labor concerns, partnerships like the Lionsgate-Runway deal may shape the future of content creation in Hollywood.
Enlarge/ Still from a Chinese social media video featuring two people imitating imperfect AI-generated video outputs.
It’s no secret that despite significant investment from companies like OpenAI and Runway, AI-generated videos still struggle to achieve convincing realism at times. Some of the most amusing fails end up on social media, which has led to a new response trend on Chinese social media platforms TikTok and Bilibili where users create videos that mock the imperfections of AI-generated content. The trend has since spread to X (formerly Twitter) in the US, where users have been sharing the humorous parodies.
In particular, the videos seem to parody image synthesis videos where subjects seamlessly morph into other people or objects in unexpected and physically impossible ways. Chinese social media replicate these unusual visual non-sequiturs without special effects by positioning their bodies in unusual ways as new and unexpected objects appear on-camera from out of frame.
This exaggerated mimicry has struck a chord with viewers on X, who find the parodies entertaining. User @theGioM shared one video, seen above. “This is high-level performance arts,” wrote one X user. “art is imitating life imitating ai, almost shedded a tear.” Another commented, “I feel like it still needs a motorcycle the turns into a speedboat and takes off into the sky. Other than that, excellent work.”
An example Chinese social media video featuring two people imitating imperfect AI-generated video outputs.
While these parodies poke fun at current limitations, tech companies are actively attempting to overcome them with more training data (examples analyzed by AI models that teach them how to create videos) and computational training time. OpenAI unveiled Sora in February, capable of creating realistic scenes if they closely match examples found in training data. Runway’s Gen-3 Alpha suffers a similar fate: It can create brief clips of convincing video within a narrow set of constraints. This means that generated videos of situations outside the dataset often end up hilariously weird.
An AI-generated video that features impossibly-morphing people and animals. Social media users are imitating this style.
It’s worth noting that actor Will Smith beat Chinese social media users to this trend in February by poking fun at a horrific 2023 viral AI-generated video that attempted to depict him eating spaghetti. That may also bring back memories of other amusing video synthesis failures, such as May 2023’s AI-generated beer commercial, created using Runway’s earlier Gen-2 model.
An example Chinese social media video featuring two people imitating imperfect AI-generated video outputs.
While imitating imperfect AI videos may seem strange to some, people regularly make money pretending to be NPCs (non-player characters—a term for computer-controlled video game characters) on TikTok.
For anyone alive during the 1980s, witnessing this fast-changing and often bizarre new media world can cause some cognitive whiplash, but the world is a weird place full of wonders beyond the imagination. “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy,” as Hamlet once famously said. “Including people pretending to be video game characters and flawed video synthesis outputs.”
