Since my last name is Getson, I often get "Jetson" at restaurants. As the CEO of a tech company focused on innovative technologies, it somehow feels fitting.
Despite only airing for one season (from 1962-1963), The Jetsons remains a cultural phenomenon. It supposedly takes place in 2062, but in the story, the family's patriarch (George Jetson) was born on July 31, 2022. Not too long ago.
Obviously, this is a whimsical representation of the future - spurred on by fears of the Soviet Union and the space race. But it captured the imagination of multiple generations of kids. Flying cars, talking dogs, robot maids, and food printing ... what's not to love?
I don't intend to dissect the show about what they got right or wrong, but I do want to briefly examine what they imagined based on where we are today.
For example, while flying cars aren't ubiquitous yet (like in the Jetsons), we already have driverless cars. It's likely that by 2062, driverless cars will be pervasive, even if flying cars aren't. But, frankly, who knows? That is still possible.
Meanwhile, both George and Jane work very few hours a week due to the increase in technology. While that's a future we can still envision, despite massive technological improvements, we've chosen to increase productivity (instead of working less and keeping output at 1960 levels). Even with the expected growth of AI, I still believe that humans will choose to pursue purposeful work.
The Jetsons also underemphasize the wireless nature of today's world. George still has to go into the office, and while they have video phones, it's still a piece of hardware connected to a wall, instead of mobile and wireless. 2062 is far enough away that holographic displays are still a very real possibility.
Likewise, while we don't yet have complex robot maids (like Rosie), we already have Roombas... and both AI and Robotics are improving exponentially.
Meanwhile, we are in the process of creating cheap and sustainable food printing and drone delivery services ... which makes the Jetsons look oddly prescient.
And, remember, there are still 40 years for us to continue to make progress. So, while I think it's doubtful cities will look like the spaceports portrayed in the cartoon ... I suspect that you'll be impressed by how much further we are along than even the Jetsons imagined.
Not only is the rate of innovation increasing, but so is the rate at which that rate increases. It's exponential.
We live in exciting times!
Bruce Willis Deepfake: The Smart Decision?
Bruce Willis is a legend of cinema, and he made many of my favorite movies of the 80s and 90s. He stayed relevant and exciting up until very recently.
Then, last year, he started releasing a slew of disappointing "straight-to-DVD" style movies that had him receiving his own award show category in the Razzies (an award show for the worst performances of the year). In 2021, they created the category "worst performance by Bruce Willis in a 2021 movie."
Vulture did an interesting interview with the founders of the Razzies where Bruce Willis comes up.
Then, it came out that Bruce Willis was diagnosed with Aphasia and was losing his ability to speak.
Suddenly, these pieces take on new meaning. They're Bruce getting as much work in as he can before he loses his voice permanently. He's trying to do what he knows how to do to make sure his wife and children are taken care of after he can no longer act.
It doesn't make the movies suddenly "great" but it was enough to get the Razzies to rescind their award.
I don't believe these last films of his dampen his well-earned legacy.
Last year, his digital twin showed up in a Russian telecom ad.
Recently, he's been in the news again for having sold his likeness to a deepfake company. It was reported on the company's website and by The Telegraph, but there are now claims to the contrary as well.
While the jury is still out on if his rights have been sold, I think it's likely you'll see more Bruce Willis deepfake content.
The question becomes, is it the right decision?
If his estate still has final approval - and there is quality control - then what's the harm?
Does the potential ubiquity, or the idea that we can always have another Bruce Willis movie, reduce the value of his movies?
Does allowing deepfakes in cinema (on TV or in film) take away roles from actors who might become stars?
We've already seen actors use deepfakes to reprise a role they did when they were younger - like Luke Skywalker or Leia from Star Wars. It's a different idea to build a new series around an actor who isn't actually acting in it.
These questions pair well with the discussion around AI-generated art and whether it should be considered art.
What do you think?
Posted at 08:49 PM in Business, Current Affairs, Film, Gadgets, Ideas, Just for Fun, Market Commentary, Movies, Science, Television | Permalink | Comments (0)
Reblog (0)