> Go ahead and show me an image where you can move the camera, move the lights and keep it temporally stable.

Again, I'm not a future seer, and I also never said that this technology exists right now. In fact, I explicitly said that it will take "a few years" until we get to that stage.

Edit: actually, because you asked, I found something just for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzTgDvcSRXU

They show it being used for normal photos as well as for AI generated images, seems to work fine. It's not yet at the level of realtime movement of the camera and lights, but something like this also exists: https://v.redd.it/kewv3epujbra1.

You said:

> being directed to a detail level that people can't notice while watching a movie in real time.

I said that people do notice, maybe not most, but yes, some people do notice. If you would like to make a different claim, then do so. It's not about some YouTuber, it's the fact that at least some people do notice bad CGI, while you said "people can't notice" it.

> People do care, it is extremely difficult and you have no idea what you are talking about.

I think you're arguing my point for me, I never said it wasn't difficult. My point was that most people can't tell good CGI from bad, some can, but most people will watch the movie anyway and thus the movies rack up billions of dollars. Not sure what point you're making, that people do care about hundreds of millions of dollars of CGI? I mean sure, like I said, some do care but unlike those who actually work in the field, most don't.

I can similarly write the most beautiful software for a CRUD app, using all the best practices, but similarly users will not care about that, beyond some ancillary benefits like fast loading times.

> kids would be able to at least write the scripts to blockbusters in their bedrooms so show me that first.

People write scripts for fun, yes. I'm not sure what there is to show you, look on fanfic sites or /r/readmyscript or /r/writingprompts. Even further, we already have LLMs today so in the future I doubt that people will be writing scripts from scratch without the use of AI entirely.

> Based on what? These 2D techniques that were just invented? The fact that people can paint colors and a badly photo shopped looking image comes out?

Based on this sentence, I can tell you haven't used the state of the art recently, even if you say you used something like ComfyUI with inpainting.

> I have no doubt that people will continue to refine what they are working on, but the claim was "kids will make hollywood blockbusters in their bedrooms". What do you think the actual visual effects people will do with these techniques?

Did I claim that visual effects people will not continue to make even better blockbusters? It raises the floor up, it does not diminish the ceiling. I think you're arguing something I never even said.

> You can actually go back 25 years and see techniques for extracting a foreground from a background called natural image matting. You could look at that and say "in the future no one will need green screens, no one will need outlines, compositing will be automatic" but a quarter of a century later, it is still being worked on and is just another tool.

Things like Ultimatte with Unreal Engine's virtual sets do just that actually. But even if they didn't, I could say the same thing about any technology, to be honest. Also, I never claimed that AI is not "just another tool."

All in all, it seems like you're arguing against things I never claimed. Where did I say that kids would be automatically making blockbusters in their bedrooms with no input from them whatsoever? My point, again, is that people will be making current blockbuster level content in their houses, that they will use AI tools (yes, tools, since you think I'm arguing that AI is not a tool) to do so, and that they will still need to put in human effort to do so. It does not say anything about future blockbusters with the same tools used by professionals, which will undoubtedly be better.