Since Covid returned the 2011 film Contagion To public conscience (and streaming graphics), the question circulated in Hollywood: shouldn’t there be a follow-up to the premonitory thriller of Steven Soderbergh?
The scriptwriter Scott Z. Burns, who wrote this script and others to Soderbergh, has always found the notion somewhat suspicious and said previous efforts to explore it ended up feeling the operator of the pandemic. In its new audible podcast series, What could go wrong?Burns asks an even more provocative question: is the AI itself the following contagion?
As a host, Burns embarks on a process of public development in a way, using generative AI experts to help him assemble a “room of writers” composed entirely of robot pitching ideas. The series mixes interactions with the scribes invented with prospects of real life professionals in the field, as well as industry figures like Soderbergh. Plan B entertainment and the best studios are also producers in the series.
In an interview with Deadline, Burns said that he had come to a point to feel “openly ambivalent” about AI. After the agonizing strikes in 2023 were reduced to a new standard of forms of technology constantly evolving, it came to consider it as a research tool mainly. While some of his colleagues consider him “a crime against nature,” said Burns, he is not sure of that.
“There are times when I have the impression that it is nothing more than looking for with a voice,” he said. “And I think most of the writers I know are using search engines at the moment.” In fact, a writer presented What could go wrong? is Nick Bilton. The first New York Times The technological journalist is not only now a scriptwriter with credits in good faith – he made the jump by leaning expressly in AI, regularly designing a choir of Robots of AI to help him to help out and break stories.
And yet, the question that “haunted” burns and leads to the show is: “What do we lose by using this?”
A “writer” brought to digital life for the podcast ends up playing a central role by highlighting the wider dilemma, even if it does not yet aware. Given the unorthodox name of Lexter, the creation receives the story of being a former film critic and an ultra-cinephile. His Burns assessments, Soderbergh and the whole cannon of the film reflect the fact that it was forcefully fed with the entire Internet. While the series introduces a number of other living and stimulating voices, including one modeled after the UTA agent of Burns, Barbara Dreyfus, is Lexter’s Hal– exchanges with burns that create the most annoying most annoying line of line.
If a bot like Lexter will “simply eliminate the Internet – which is the most popular actor and what is the most successful story – then what types of regurgitative cycles are we going to enter that will become really stuffy for artists?”
Burns continued: “This is the part that scares me, the idea that, you know, the breakup, the Aor of the following year or the following year, or the Sinners. What happens to these works of art? It’s terrifying for me, because I don’t know that the algorithm will give us these things. These are things that require moments of inspiration. And this is where I think that we incubate the greatest risk of getting into trouble, it is when we start to give authority to Greenlight a film to a machine that has only knowledge of the past, not really of the present, or certainly not of the future, that for me is risky. “”
