The Show Has Been Cancelled

[Andra]

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

And we also spent the last 30 years pushing our products to Chinese manufacturers, which in turn allowed them to create a manufacturing industry that was able to pump out products at a higher quantity at a cheaper rate then almost anywhere else in the world, and a lot of that wasn't just because of cheap labor, but because of the amount of automation that exists at every level of the manufacturing process that just doesn't exist in American Manufacturing today.

Yet, despite all of that, People still crave to buy products that are hand made. Why? Because of the quality and craftsmanship. You might even say. People like to get something that's curated, not something that's automated junk.

 

Hell, even Star Trek talks about this type of thing with their "Replicators" in a post scarcity world.

 

You say that, but who programs the AI? 

Who censors what the AI can believe, or think? Or what type of content it can host or produce? Or replicate and tell people? What thoughts is the AI allowed to have before that AI is removed and replace with a different AI that has thoughts that are more palatable to the masses?

 

Right now, certain "free speech" absolutists are... absolutely against free speech. They are spear heading movements across the country to "ban books". Books that would be "Barred" from even being fed to these "AI" because that is not "Free Thought" for those AI to accept.

 

Right now, Co-Pilot, ChatGPT, Sora, and other commercial generators, have a variety of safeguards in place to prevent things like "nudity". Nudity is "bad" mmmkay. Even implied nudity is bad. It's naughty. 

Violence is even bad. 

Why? Well, we can't have people go and make Deepfakes of real people. That's extremely bad.

We also can't have people making Violent imagery with real people. 

We also can't have people making disturbing art. That's bad.

Also, furry stuff is bad. So all that NSFW stuff on that one website is just, absolutely can't exist in those AI spaces.

 

Want to make a Movie like Event Horizon? 

Can't do it. Body Horror, and pretty much every horror Genre is out of the question. 

 

So how the hell, can you do any type of "Wheel of Time" movie.

When you can't do.

Body Horror

Nudity.

or

Violence?

All these things are supposed to be "off limits" for AI Generators.. Right? 

Or are they just "off limits" for certain people? If you catch my drift. 😉 

Only those who pay the big bucks can make art for a movie, and have access to do that kind of stuff. 

Images and art, that for it to even work it also needs to be... trained on to make said art.

 

Want it to make a Trolloc? Well... You have to show it what a human-animal hybrid looks like. You gotta show it a bunch of realistic horror furry art. lolz

And yet AI-generated porn, even hard fetish porn, already exits.

The limits are not inherent to AI.  They are artificially applied by the entities that want people to pay them for offering AI solutions.  There is no reason to believe that AI wouldn't be able to produce this kind of material if the entities using it don't artificially apply those limits.

[SinisterDeath]

1 minute ago, Andra said:

And yet AI-generated porn, even hard fetish porn, already exits.

The limits are not inherent to AI.  They are artificially applied by the entities that want people to pay them for offering AI solutions.  There is no reason to believe that AI wouldn't be able to produce this kind of material if the entities using it don't artificially apply those limits.

Yes that stuff exists (Standard Diffusion Models).

 

The newer stuff, Sora, ChatGPT's 4o, Dall•E, Midjoruney, Ideogram, etc, have all clearly put their own limitations on that.

 

They have had their own legal reasons for avoiding it, even before AI regulation was on the table. They want to avoid getting attached to lawsuits regarding revenge porn, CP, and anything regarding domestic terrorism or being sued for something to do with how their stuff being used for misinformation, could physically harm someone... Like their LLMs and AI photos being used to create books that are being publishes on Amazon, that include information about what types of Mushrooms are safe to eat.

 

Here's a note; the AI books and their Diagrams are VERY WRONG on this.

 

But hey, now we supposedly can't make laws regulating AI for the foreseeable future, so it's all good.. right?

[KakitaOCU]

35 minutes ago, Andra said:

There is no reason to believe that AI wouldn't be able to produce this kind of material if the entities using it don't artificially apply those limits.

Yeah, my point wasn't about can AI do it, my point was, those artificial limits exist and will continue to exist in one form or another.

DALL E might become more and more advanced and awesome, but if it's owners won't let you use the word braid in any form, how do we make Nynaeve?

[Blackbyrd]

On 5/25/2025 at 7:02 AM, divica said:

are you being sarcastic? because in the first 2 books rand does so many things in the finals that they cut or gave to other people that you can't even compare. just looking at the first season, rand's grand gesture was to not wanting to live in a fantasy world with his perfect version of egg (even in the end they made rand all about egg). compare that to the first book...

Maybe I am being sarcastic to you-it's unclear. You see I neither propagate extreme rhetoric nor do I merely dabble in critique. Critique by the way is not supposed to be a necessarily negative thing. I would advise - if such is your course- that you should you pursue making critique about a character being strong VS weak then you should probably make the move to reading to reading romantasy where it is prolific. The good news is that Prime's newest offering will be 4th Wing-and I have to believe every strong character will be strong and every weak character weak. 

 

Personally I prefer nuance and some thoughtfulness.... Then again I never like to be edgy in my opines.

 

Sidenote: I'm much more than a passable chess player and in chess circles its not uncommon to believe that a human teamed with an computer is better than the  computer alone- i mean really- some computer VS computer match matched play quite uhhhhhhh artifical 

Edited May 29 by Blackbyrd

[king of nowhere]

8 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

Yes that stuff exists (Standard Diffusion Models).

 

The newer stuff, Sora, ChatGPT's 4o, Dall•E, Midjoruney, Ideogram, etc, have all clearly put their own limitations on that.

 

They have had their own legal reasons for avoiding it, even before AI regulation was on the table. They want to avoid getting attached to lawsuits regarding revenge porn, CP, and anything regarding domestic terrorism or being sued for something to do with how their stuff being used for misinformation, could physically harm someone... Like their LLMs and AI photos being used to create books that are being publishes on Amazon, that include information about what types of Mushrooms are safe to eat.

 

Here's a note; the AI books and their Diagrams are VERY WRONG on this.

 

But hey, now we supposedly can't make laws regulating AI for the foreseeable future, so it's all good.. right?

Laws change. Laws can be circumvented.

Maybe those laws will hold. But when we will have the actual technology to make high quality movies super cheap, the movie majors will push for being allowed, since it will cut their costs. The public will ask they be allowed, if it means cheaper subscriptions for them.

Surely there will be pirated copies of ai engines on the dark web, without limitations. What is now state of the art, in 20 years will be obsolete abandonware available for free.

 

Regardless. I certainly cannot predict the future, and while assuming that the AI will keep improving and outstrip humans, what will exactly be done with it is anyone's bet.

I'm just saying that reaching a point, in our lifetimes, where we can copy-paste the whole wot into an ai and it will produce a movie adaptation has decent odds of happening.

And that i don't think it's likely that other movie studios will want to risk big money on another adaptation attemp, i think more likely the best odds of getting an adaptation is an AI generated one

[LTL]

What those pointing out the current limitations of AI seem to be failing to realise, is that the restrictions are in place because the AI is still quite dumb. If you let a current LLM loose, it starts telling people to kill themselves or praising Hitler etc because it just trains on everything it sees and spits it back out with no regard for truth or consequence. When you have an AI smart enough to make judgements and not be easily be fooled by a human trying to get it to do something it shouldn't, it will require far less hard coded restrictions. When this will happen is uncertain, but assuming technology continues to progress, it will happen eventually. It won't be an immediate "here's our new version, all restrictions gone now", but over time AI will get good enough that film studios will be able to use it to make movies and shows far more cheaply than they now do. As it improves further, it will become safer to allow the general public to use it with fewer and fewer restrictions. 

 

The ideas along the lines of "but it isn't allowed to do nudity" "it isn't allowed to use the word ugly" "it won't create a picture of a braid" are equivalent to "but it needs to use an opening book made by humans so it doesn't make stupid moves early in the game" for early chess computers. These are simply restrictions necessary because of the underlying weakness of the system at this point in time. They aren't features of AI that will remain the same forever.

[SinisterDeath]

2 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

Laws change. Laws can be circumvented.

You misunderstand.

 

Corporations are risk adverse.

They will do everything in their power to avoid getting sued.

Those laws on CP? Those likely aren't going away anytime soon. So those AI will have safeguards in place to prevent something even close to that accidentally happening. (That's when you get into the rule of unintended consequences)

 

On the "Revenge Porn" and other type laws, you also have people who use it to create Deep Fakes of Politicians, Celebrities, to "endorse" products or other things. 

The person who created said endorsement could get sued, and when they are subpoenaed, it's likely the lawyers will discover the software they've used, and that could lead to another lawsuit.

 

So it's not about "these laws exist" it's about "avoiding getting sued".

 

But also, there's a whole thing recently about how all state laws dealing with AI are null and void for 10 years... so it's all good... right?

2 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

Surely there will be pirated copies of ai engines on the dark web, without limitations. What is now state of the art, in 20 years will be obsolete abandonware available for free.

 Now you're likely dealing with corporate espionage. 

 

2 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

I'm just saying that reaching a point, in our lifetimes, where we can copy-paste the whole wot into an ai and it will produce a movie adaptation has decent odds of happening.

I'm just saying that given what I've seen with AI. If that ever happens.

1) That'll be copyright & trademark infringement for any tom dick and harry that does it on their own.

2) Any "studio" that attempts to do it, even if it's all "curated" AI, it'll never be "everyone's" perfect vision of the series. The character's won't "look" the same in "your head" as they do in someone else's. That's just a fact. They won't "sound" the same in your head, as they do in someone else's. That's just reality.

 

Then you hit into the "Adaptation" problem. There are a huge gaps in dialogue in the book that don't work like a screen play on TV. There aren't "exit stage left" descriptions in the book. It's going to have to make up a lot of "dialogue" to fill the silence.

And man... you know what? If Tom Generates the movie, and Dick generates the movie, and Harry Generates the movie... They're all going to be different movies!

[Elder_Haman]

I can’t believe people are even entertaining the idea that AI could do a competent job of creating a WoT movie/series. 
 

The resulting product would be entirely soulless. Interest level: 0.0

[SinisterDeath]

1 hour ago, LTL said:

What those pointing out the current limitations of AI seem to be failing to realise, is that the restrictions are in place because the AI is still quite dumb. If you let a current LLM loose, it starts telling people to kill themselves or praising Hitler etc because it just trains on everything it sees and spits it back out with no regard for truth or consequence. When you have an AI smart enough to make judgements and not be easily be fooled by a human trying to get it to do something it shouldn't, it will require far less hard coded restrictions. When this will happen is uncertain, but assuming technology continues to progress, it will happen eventually. It won't be an immediate "here's our new version, all restrictions gone now", but over time AI will get good enough that film studios will be able to use it to make movies and shows far more cheaply than they now do. As it improves further, it will become safer to allow the general public to use it with fewer and fewer restrictions. 

 

The ideas along the lines of "but it isn't allowed to do nudity" "it isn't allowed to use the word ugly" "it won't create a picture of a braid" are equivalent to "but it needs to use an opening book made by humans so it doesn't make stupid moves early in the game" for early chess computers. These are simply restrictions necessary because of the underlying weakness of the system at this point in time. They aren't features of AI that will remain the same forever.

You say that, as if the "3 laws of robotics" isn't a well established principle in Sci-fi for a reason. 

 

LLMS are only as good as the data they're trained on, right? You can either feed it specifically curated content, or you can program it to self censor itself.

Do you recall when Deepseek came out, and what happened when you asked it certain political questions about China?

 

As long as corporations fear that they can get sued for what the harm their products can do, they're going to place restrictions on it. 

Let that sink in.

[Kaleb]

15 hours ago, divica said:

I think this shows more how absurd it was to hire rafe than anything else.

I honestly would like to know more about this assumption. My impression from everything I've seen about the show is that Rafe pitched the show and Sony/Amazon agreed to it, with iWOT/REE signing off. I can't recall hearing anything about the studios wanting to make the show and then choosing Rafe as the showrunner. Simplistically, the WOT TV show was driven by Rafe, and there would not be a show if he hadn't worked to make it happen, because nobody else was trying to do it. Is that inaccurate?

[Maximillion]

16 hours ago, Guire said:

https://x.com/rafejudkins/status/1144966494087987200

 

I did see this and it's why i know that Rafe Judkins fully intended to inject politics and ideology into the show.  It was very deliberate and his comment here - even if he could say it was in jest - shows just what a fool he is.

[king of nowhere]

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

2) Any "studio" that attempts to do it, even if it's all "curated" AI, it'll never be "everyone's" perfect vision of the series. The character's won't "look" the same in "your head" as they do in someone else's. That's just a fact. They won't "sound" the same in your head, as they do in someone else's. That's just reality.

 

Then you hit into the "Adaptation" problem. There are a huge gaps in dialogue in the book that don't work like a screen play on TV. There aren't "exit stage left" descriptions in the book. It's going to have to make up a lot of "dialogue" to fill the silence.

And man... you know what? If Tom Generates the movie, and Dick generates the movie, and Harry Generates the movie... They're all going to be different movies!

oh, I entirely agree on that part.

while i believe that AI will be able to also do the adaptation part, doing a movie adaptation of a book, unlike chess which is governed by mathematical rules, isn't an exact science. so it doesn't matter how well it is done, some people won't like it anyway.

 

on the plus side, there won't be any issue with actors leaving the production, covid restrictions, location budget, or time constraints.

1 hour ago, Elder_Haman said:

I can’t believe people are even entertaining the idea that AI could do a competent job of creating a WoT movie/series. 
 

The resulting product would be entirely soulless. Interest level: 0.0

I repeat the pattern:

40 years ago, no chess program could defeat a competent human. many people claimed it was completely impossible and would never have happened. in 1986 for the first time a machine defeated a human world champion in a mind game (bridge), and the human champion was so mad, he wanted to renounce his title; because it was common knowledge that computers could not rival humans.

30 years ago, a chess program running on a supercomputer could challenge on equal footing the world champion

20 years ago, a commercial program running on a personal computer was a lot stronger than any world champion, but still humans had some tricks that the AI could not replicate

now, there is absolutely nothing a human can do on a chessboard that an AI cannot do a lot better.

 

when it comes to art, now we are at the stage where the AI just learned to do it, but can't defeat a competent human.

when chess was at this stage, it only took 10 years before the human world champion was defeated the first time. it only took 20 years before anyone could buy for 20 bucks a program that was much stronger than a human world champion, and run it on a regular laptop.

 

but, you can't believe that ai could improve enough to rival a human, or even that anyone could believe it would improve enough. 

what makes you think you are not as shortsighted as those who 40 years ago claimed it was impossible for a machine to beat a human at chess?

[Elder_Haman]

23 minutes ago, Maximillion said:

even if he could say it was in jest

It was obviously in jest. And a reaction to people endlessly complaining. 

[king of nowhere]

17 hours ago, Guire said:

https://x.com/rafejudkins/status/1144966494087987200

frankly, this was clearly a response to anti-woke comments worried about characters being turned gay, and it can pass as that.

 

for all the complaints about woke policies hamfisting forced diversity and "strong female role models" in cringe-inducing ways - i've complained about that myself - the anti-woke crowd complaining of "oh, that character had light skin, they picked an actor with a shade of tan, this is another hamfisted inclusion" or "two men are hugging each other, this show is too gay, i will petition for it to be banned" is just as bad, and probably even worse.

it deserves the same kind of contempt that was rightly showered over whoever thought that snowwhite should be an accomplished political leader and housewives makes for the best front line shock troops.

 

frankly, i remember the plethora of comments on egwene being too dark-skinned, many of them dripping in thinly-veiled racism, and I'd also be tempted to make rand a transsexual just to flip them off 🤣

[Maximillion]

1 hour ago, Elder_Haman said:

I can’t believe people are even entertaining the idea that AI could do a competent job of creating a WoT movie/series. 
 

The resulting product would be entirely soulless. Interest level: 0.0

 

You are thinking in terms of now.

The latest tech certainly could not do it.

Veo-3 is probably the cutting edge and it's nowhere near ready, BUT it is light years ahead of where AI video creation was just a year ago.

In a decade, creating a full AI movie from prompts will be common place. 

Film making workflows are already being designed - and the first ones are coming out - that integrate the various AI models for scene generation.

 

In a decade you won't even be able to tell the difference between an animation created by AI or non AI methods.  Heck, you'll hardly be able to tell the difference between movies with real actors and generated ones.

 

[Elder_Haman]

7 minutes ago, king of nowhere said:

you can't believe that ai could improve enough to rival a human

An AI does not have a soul. It does not understand love or fear or awe because t has never experienced those things. 
 

So, no. I do not believe that anything created by an AI can have that spark of soul. 

[Maximillion]

8 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

It was obviously in jest. And a reaction to people endlessly complaining. 

 

Pretty stupid joke on his part then and clearly designed to troll - which is not the kind of character you want in charge of an adaption of the WoT story.

[Elder_Haman]

Just now, Maximillion said:

Pretty stupid joke on his part then and clearly designed to troll - which is not the kind of character you want in charge of an adaption of the WoT story.

Yes. Because I’m sure you’ve never told a stupid joke or said something rash in a moment of frustration. 
 

 

[Elder_Haman]

5 minutes ago, Maximillion said:

Heck, you'll hardly be able to tell the difference between movies with real actors and generated ones.

I don’t believe this. The uncanny valley is a thing. 

[Guire]

6 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

It was obviously in jest. And a reaction to people endlessly complaining. 

If you are selling a product you can't engage in drama.  If you want to change people's perception ignore the haters and make an excellent story.  It can't be excellent just because it contains representation and your political ideals.  It has to have value to the people you want to change and then you gain their empathy.  If you are preaching to the choir then make your own story that organically incorporates the ideals you want to showcase.  Action fantasy has been a masculine dominated genre of entertainment my entire life in all media.  Don't bait and switch your audience then gaslight them with jokes.

[Guire]

5 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

Yes. Because I’m sure you’ve never told a stupid joke or said something rash in a moment of frustration. 
 

 

I have and in the medical field it is a offense that can get you fired and have long term career implications.  See how long most people last at their jobs for make politically charged jokes.  It's also just arrogance.  No one makes Rafe have to defend online trolling shit.  Make a good show and let your work speak for itself.

[Elder_Haman]

5 minutes ago, Guire said:

it is a offense that can get you fired

Do you find that to be a good thing?

[SinisterDeath]

26 minutes ago, king of nowhere said:

when it comes to art, now we are at the stage where the AI just learned to do it, but can't defeat a competent human.

when chess was at this stage, it only took 10 years before the human world champion was defeated the first time. it only took 20 years before anyone could buy for 20 bucks a program that was much stronger than a human world champion, and run it on a regular laptop.

Let me put it this way.

 

Photoshop has a tool to remove objects from the background.

That tool, is actually AI in disguise.

In the 3d world, there's AI Tools in disguise to help streamline processes.

In the programming world, there's AI tools in disguise. 

 

A lot of "processes" we take for granted, like all of those "AR Filters" people use and abuse on TikTok or Instagram reels? That's all AI.

 

Yet, when it comes to something like "movies", I don't believe we're going to take a "backseat" and just let "AI" do the work for us. You still need and want people to curate that art, or you get a hot pile of garbage.

 

I also have a massive distrust for these corporations that are pining over AI, literally stealing Art, and other copyrighted Material by the boat load and getting away with it. Meanwhile, what's the penalty if Metallica catches you on Limewire?

[Guire]

16 minutes ago, king of nowhere said:

frankly, this was clearly a response to anti-woke comments worried about characters being turned gay, and it can pass as that.

 

for all the complaints about woke policies hamfisting forced diversity and "strong female role models" in cringe-inducing ways - i've complained about that myself - the anti-woke crowd complaining of "oh, that character had light skin, they picked an actor with a shade of tan, this is another hamfisted inclusion" or "two men are hugging each other, this show is too gay, i will petition for it to be banned" is just as bad, and probably even worse.

it deserves the same kind of contempt that was rightly showered over whoever thought that snowwhite should be an accomplished political leader and housewives makes for the best front line shock troops.

 

frankly, i remember the plethora of comments on egwene being too dark-skinned, many of them dripping in thinly-veiled racism, and I'd also be tempted to make rand a transsexual just to flip them off 🤣

My complaint with races of cast was always make it consistent to isolated populations in a shriking world.  Making all of EF light skinned black people with English accents would have 100 percent worked for me and kept almost all of same cast.  But the insistence on cosmopolitanism because anything else was goofy and made world building harder.  Appearance is a great short hand in visual medium to give cultural cues.  This adaptation made everything hard for ideological reasons.  Many people like me were labeled every ist possible.  which is fine because I am by many peoples definition.

[SinisterDeath]

1 minute ago, Guire said:

Appearance is a great short hand in visual medium to give cultural cues.

You know what's also a great cultural cue? 

Clothes. 😛 

Something RJ talked about ad nauseum.