I mean, that is already happening. Almost all modern TV's do some signal processing before outputting the pixels, and the image looks slightly different on each model.
But it'd definitely be cool to have some latent representation of a video that then gets rendered on tv - you could apply latent style sheets to the content, like what actors you want to play the roles, or turn everything into a steam-punk anime on the fly. The more abstract the representation, the more interesting alterations you could apply
neither does AI. They don't operate in pixel space, but in latent space, which is the same as a mental model and the neural networks that do this even have a lot in common with how our visual cortex works. The conversion to pixel only happens in the last step when the concept has been generated as mental model (latent representation). They're doing the same thing human designers do, just orders of magnitude faster.
This is purely a PR move.
They don't ban AI content because of fears of legal challenges, but because they see their entire business model fall to pieces. Why would anyone license images from them when they instead can generate any image for free?
They only ban AI images in order to make PR with "fears of legal challenges" in the hope that the message that AI generated content could be a legal risk will stick in the heads of people.
But it'd definitely be cool to have some latent representation of a video that then gets rendered on tv - you could apply latent style sheets to the content, like what actors you want to play the roles, or turn everything into a steam-punk anime on the fly. The more abstract the representation, the more interesting alterations you could apply