Naw, not AI. The people in it merely are selected smiley puddingfaces, the colors are pumped up. I could have filmed it with trivial cameras and lighting. The people appear unnatural just because they're overenthusiastic simps.
AI has the potential to replace them as well. I'm thinking it was already becoming an issue and the writers were concerned it may replace them. I could totally see AI doing the stunts and such
That would be bcz AI is ONLY generated content from existing content. AI aka automated generated images and video will ALWAYS look like some thing from before.
That said --> film studios have had sophisticated CGI for more than a decade plus -- it was fairly standard for most content to look plastic over the last few decades.
I agree, it does look oddly unnatural. Are there programs yet that detect AI manipulation? Or maybe we can learn for sure by researching these actors? Idk.
a) AI (artificial intelligence)...intelligence (Latin intelligo; to understand) implies the consenting viewers, while the shiny happy people shown imply the artificial suggestion by another.
AI aka viewers standing under showers.
b) Gustavo Fring is being shown as a two-faced character (fast food business + narcotics trafficking), hence him dying with only half a face. In reality...fast food implies narcotine aka opium for the masses.
c) TECHNOL'OGY, noun (Greek; art, word or discourse) implies any suggested word within perceivable sound aka anything suggested by another aka anything spoken into existence (fiat-currency).
Latin FIAT - "let it be done" implies ones consent LETTING the suggestions by another be done.
d) Whatever is shown on any any screen is irrelevant...only ones consent to focus ones sight within perceivable nature onto the suggested artifice by others is affecting matter.
SCREEN; verb - "to shield from punishment, protect from inconvenience or danger; to conceal"...being implies revealed (life) within danger (inception towards death); which one ignores when watching any screen.
a) IDE'A, noun - "that which is seen"...whatever others suggest about seen (perceivable) implies idealism.
b) How could one see "no; not; nothing"?
c) HAVE, verb - "to possess"...possession tempts one to ignore being (life) within procession (inception towards death).
Sleight of hand: demonic possession implies holding onto, while ignoring DAI (divider) MON (provider) aka that motion divides into momentum; which provides matter.
d) Notice that one suggesting "you" towards self establishes a division; a conflict...
Sound differentiates. It's oneself choosing to ignore this for things "sounding" alike.
You are being tricked to compare things alike; which distracts you from being different matter inside same motion. Moving differences implies perceivable inspiration, which is what ones senses perceive as input...unless ignored.
SOUND, adjective (Latin sanus) - "entire; unbroken"....oneself implies the broken partial within, which enables self discernment; which one cannot get from others.
False. You two have the same pic but nobody else does as they all have the default one.
BRIDGE (overcome the flow), SELL (sail, a form above the flow)
To SAIL or SELL a BRIDGE, to produce form over flow, loss of self (form) and increase in assets (potential flow)
Tldr: You're the universe.
Naw, not AI. The people in it merely are selected smiley puddingfaces, the colors are pumped up. I could have filmed it with trivial cameras and lighting. The people appear unnatural just because they're overenthusiastic simps.
This!
It may very well have been AI. There's a reason Hollywood was on strike
AI has the potential to replace them as well. I'm thinking it was already becoming an issue and the writers were concerned it may replace them. I could totally see AI doing the stunts and such
It's just a lame ass commercial.
That would be bcz AI is ONLY generated content from existing content. AI aka automated generated images and video will ALWAYS look like some thing from before.
That said --> film studios have had sophisticated CGI for more than a decade plus -- it was fairly standard for most content to look plastic over the last few decades.
Nope, it isn't.
Alright... now lets see the Hatian verson of this.
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=e_3WzxpdUc0 official hd version
I agree, it does look oddly unnatural. Are there programs yet that detect AI manipulation? Or maybe we can learn for sure by researching these actors? Idk.
a) AI (artificial intelligence)...intelligence (Latin intelligo; to understand) implies the consenting viewers, while the shiny happy people shown imply the artificial suggestion by another.
AI aka viewers standing under showers.
b) Gustavo Fring is being shown as a two-faced character (fast food business + narcotics trafficking), hence him dying with only half a face. In reality...fast food implies narcotine aka opium for the masses.
c) TECHNOL'OGY, noun (Greek; art, word or discourse) implies any suggested word within perceivable sound aka anything suggested by another aka anything spoken into existence (fiat-currency).
Latin FIAT - "let it be done" implies ones consent LETTING the suggestions by another be done.
d) Whatever is shown on any any screen is irrelevant...only ones consent to focus ones sight within perceivable nature onto the suggested artifice by others is affecting matter.
SCREEN; verb - "to shield from punishment, protect from inconvenience or danger; to conceal"...being implies revealed (life) within danger (inception towards death); which one ignores when watching any screen.
You have no idea
a) IDE'A, noun - "that which is seen"...whatever others suggest about seen (perceivable) implies idealism.
b) How could one see "no; not; nothing"?
c) HAVE, verb - "to possess"...possession tempts one to ignore being (life) within procession (inception towards death).
Sleight of hand: demonic possession implies holding onto, while ignoring DAI (divider) MON (provider) aka that motion divides into momentum; which provides matter.
d) Notice that one suggesting "you" towards self establishes a division; a conflict...
When someone else though doesn’t you can’t
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/544/683/ac3.png
Correct, that's what you sound like
Sound differentiates. It's oneself choosing to ignore this for things "sounding" alike.
You are being tricked to compare things alike; which distracts you from being different matter inside same motion. Moving differences implies perceivable inspiration, which is what ones senses perceive as input...unless ignored.
SOUND, adjective (Latin sanus) - "entire; unbroken"....oneself implies the broken partial within, which enables self discernment; which one cannot get from others.
How about if no don’t then we