160,000 actors have walked off the job, completely shutting down Hollywood.The actors union, SAG-AFTRA, is striking side by side with the writers union, WGA....
If it is high quality, why do you care how it was produced?
But it’s not the high quality content that’s threatened by AI, it’s the mediocre gargabe. It’s the endless stream of poor quality TV shows and movies which are produced not as art, but as a means of steady predictibile income for the companies involved. That’s the industry aspect of the business. This side of the business consumes most of the talent in the industry. They all know it’s not good and they all hope they will get the funding to actually work on the things they know will be high quality. I think AI will allow them to do that.
Further more, this strike is not just about AI. I think this aspect is the one media outlets care most about and gets reported on more. The entertainment industry has suffered a major shift with streaming platforms and the movement of money from production studios to streaming platforms has left the employees behind. They’re getting less money from streaming platforms but still do the same work. That’s what the strike is about. The industry didn’t care for them when it changed.
To answer your question about quality: it matters because it’s not real. The act of producing something of quality is what makes us better people. It ties into motivation to be better. Computers automating repetition doesn’t hinder that (as much, it does affect learning curves). The notion that computers be used for an output that would normally require creativity is just throwing away the essense of creation, the end product is not the only thing that benefits us. There’s no objective to why it was created, an AI writing something that evokes emotion is a party trick. All it really does is promote consumption and demoralize innovation, and ironically it hides behind innovation as the end-goal of the project. It’s just dead. One of the most beautiful things within creating something of value is the very process of creating it, having the passion and desire to do so, and the will to bring it into existence. AI is a cursed attempt at trying to replicate this process, and by lifting that kind of burden from a human inhuman.
I agree with you when it comes to AI in its current form - I wouldn’t even call it a party trick, just dumb luck. Machine learning through repetition will use existing ideas and tropes.
However you can provide the model with unique ideas, new tropes, characters, environments, and settings. The model in its current form could generate something nearly usable (script wise) and still be a valid piece of art with some cleaning up. Just because you save time doesn’t make an idea less “good”
In the future we could have near sentient AI that generates actual pieces of art far faster and better than a person can.
i refuse to believe AI can replace totally of the human part in the industry. Yeah some of the weak actors will be pushed out as they are not doing the job good enough, but it’s inevitable that one day technology is advanced that AI can actually replace human workforce. Like car manufacturing industry that have massive machines to assemble car parts, but also there are things only human can do. We don’t need crappy scriptwriters writing rubbish soap opera that my 10 year old daughter can write because they are no more generic than a AI churn out script. It’s like hiring a typewriter operator in 2023. Or rubbish actors that are like reading their script out with minimal effort and skills. It does not make sense.
There’s this people called stenographers who are paid quite well, they can write hundreds of words per minute and essentially transcribe a conversation in real time. They are hired by courts to create records of the sessions, by journalists, parliaments and to transcribe subtitles for audiovisual media. They use this cool typewriter like machine called a stenotype that was invented in 1880. The thing is, they tried to replace them with speech recognition computers. They discovered they needed a human to sanitize input for the computer, essentially a person who can speak really fast and really mechanically, repeating what others said in the room, or what was said in the movie or whatever, into an oxygen-mask-like sound proof microphone. So, they still had to pay someone to be there. Many places decided they could just pay the stenographer and receive higher quality products despite the slightly higher costs. Then YouTube tried to use machine learning to auto-create closed captions. Before that they used a community contribution approach that depended on volunteers to take some time to transcribe the subs. That change to automation was such a fiasco that some big YouTube channels now advertise that they pay an actual company with humans to do the closed captions for their videos in the name of proper quality accessibility. Because automated closed caption tends to do interesting stuff and it’s even worse when they try to throw auto-translation into the mix.
The point is, people tend to not understand technology and how it relates to humans, specially techbros and techies who have the most skewed biases towards tech and little sociological understanding. Nothing can be accurately predicted in that realm, and most relations that result from the appearance of new technology are usually paradoxical to common sense.
There’s no objective to why it was created, an AI writing something that evokes emotion is a party trick.
Then it’s not valuable. The question still stands: if something is truly valuable, does it matter how it was created? You are not answering this question, you are simply pointing out why AI in your opinion cannot produce art. My question is a bit “tongue in cheek”, of course. It cannot be truly answered without a specific example of creation. I’m asking it to prove a point: we’re dismissing something we don’t understand.
All it really does is promote consumption and demoralize innovation
I’d argue that this is what Hollywood already does. And as you rightly argued through your comment, it brings little artistic or creative value.
To me, it’s the same feeling as the teachers that wouldn’t accept papers written on a computer (after an age where we know how to write) because “it’s less honest”.
I’m not good at drawing. I would love to try to make a game. Anti-AI luddites are happy that I will never produce something because I am incabable of doing something that an AI could easily accomplish.
I’m looking for an interaction with the artists. I do not care what an AI produces… and I don’t care what a marketing team or boardroom of producers produces. I’m looking for an artist’s vision.
How exactly are you interacting with them while sitting on your couch looking at a screen?
This is an appeal to purity argument. You’ve invented some higher standard (that doesn’t really even make sense) with the purpose of excluding the thing you don’t like.
The audience responds en masse by tuning in, paying up, being changed, perpetuating the ideas back into the culture through the filter of their own personality, chatting about the thing, praising or criticizing the artist.
This is an appeal to purity argument. You’ve invented some higher standard
Nope. It has absolutely nothing to do with “purity.” It has to do with humans doing the ancient human thing of making art. Dancing, singing, telling stories. You’re bringing in the abstraction of purity.
Hollywood (in its crudest aspect) is already an AI algorithm for churning out trash. That’s why I tune out already. Because it is not humans telling each other stories. It is pure corporate manipulation. More AI in the hands of producer-goons just means more corporate manipulation and less humans telling each other stories.
AI in the hands of an artist is a tool for exploring and creating. AI in the hands of corporate goons is the total opposite.
That it’s an entirely subjective experience and to presume that someone’s enjoyment of it means that a human had to be involved in It’s creation is such a ridiculous response.
Have you ever seen the paintings that one chimpanzee made? They’re actually pretty nice in composition. Am I allowed to like the way they look even if no human made them?
So long as it’s not a glorified machine learning program designed to commit mass fraud and copyright infringement, then yes. Until then, go cry harder.
No you won’t, you’ll still be sitting in front of your computer having gotten nowhere in life because you expected AI to solve all your problems for you and you couldn’t see it’s just another corporate grift. Like any sucker.
If it is high quality, why do you care how it was produced?
To me, this is comparable to fiction vs. non-fiction.
Personally, I do already find fiction less engaging, because there’s nothing romantic about these stories. With which I’m not referring to a love story, I mean that there’s no sense of wonder of what lead to these events. It happened that way, because a writer wrote it that way.
And yet, the one thing still tying fiction to reality is the writer. You can still wonder what life experiences they’ve made to tell this story and how they’re telling it.
Our current narrow AIs don’t make life experiences, so you lose even that strand of meaning.
But why? I feel like people are twisting their arguments against AI. Or they are being twisted against.
Why does an actor care where there lines come from? We live in a world where The Room was written and released, but AI content is going to be the end of media? People aren’t that special. Our thoights aren’t that special. We don’t have souls. We’re just thinking machines, and nothing we create is more unique than something that we created creates.
Because this is about enshitification of life for studio exec profits. It’s not really about where a machine can or should be a part of creative works, but HOW they are being used.
Nearly very industry in which LLMs are being used in the latest hype wave, it’s not being used to improve anything but concentration of wealth in the hands of a dwindling number of individuals by worsening product quality and real ability of any of humanity, outside of those of hereditary wealth, to be get by.
I hope there is some kind of “label” that comes out of this like the Surgeon General’s cigarette warning. “This movie is 87% AI generated” so I won’t have to bother thinking about whether to skip it. Fuck lazy & greedy movie makers. They’d giveup their immortal soul for $3.50
I do too hope the strikes are successful. That said, you’ve likely already been consuming generative technology for some time now. Disney alone has nearly a decade of research into it already. Advanced VFX applications use all sorts of generative tech too. When I was working in LA we referenced public data all the time. I know it’s gotten a huge spotlight on it given private AI capitalizing/evangelizing it all but the very real threat of digital scabs taking people’s jobs is what needs the biggest spotlight right now. I do think the tables will turn if nothing good can come out of Hollywood and those artists begin weaponizing that same tech against the execs. I see what studios are doing as no different than impersonation & identity theft by using this tech to limit working hours to skirt union protections.
There’s a philosophical argument to be made for sure, and I’d probably even agree with you. But the reality is that the technology is here, and it’ll be used in pursuit of the almighty buck.
I’m fine with AI content. It’s going to make making media so much easier for people who aren’t inherently artistic but have a vision they want to show.
There are already teams of humans ready to do all that stuff. AI adds nothing there. The non-artistic person with a vision can already collaborate with skilled artists.
But more importantly, we are not worried about artists using AI as a tool. We are worried about corporate goons using AI to fire all creative staff and generate manipulative trash.
The first company that debuts an entirely AI film will be a game changer, since it’s training set will be all the greats/popular films from Godfather, Taxi Driver, Jurassic Park, Star Wars, Inglorious Bastards, and Parasite.
Then everyone will want to get in on the game and we’ll see a huge number of AI films. To be noticable and unique, a certain amount of hallucinating will be allowed. After a couple more years, you’ll see model collapse as the film AIs are now using other AI output as their training input.
AI systems need a steady “diet” of human created material to continue to create material that is relevant and interesting to humans.
Robert Evans has a great episode on “behind the bastards” about AI and children’s books. The majority of Kindle published children’s books and coloring books are AI generated. There are Kindle books on how to make hundreds of AI children’s books a month using AI tools, including how to write the prompt for the AI input.
Okay so instead of me just working on a fun product for free in my own time, I have to pay someone a fair wage as if this is a commercial product I’m producing?
There’s several people in this thread arguing we should outright ban the use, instead of coming up with ways to protect artists without artificially limiting AI.
I have to pay someone a fair wage as if this is a commercial product I’m producing?
There’s several people in this thread arguing we should outright ban the use,
I didn’t see anyone ITT making that argument, and anyway this whole debate is specifically and explicitly about hollywood goons using AI to churn out trash without paying the talent. It’s not about some broke artist using AI to bring his vision to life. As I already said. It’s beyond straw man to treat that as the position that’s being criticized
Yeah, we need human writers! I don’t think AI can turn great books into shitty movies as well as actual writers. AI scripts sound like a real gain, IMO.
Well, for one, I think like this. And given the upvote, at least one other person does as well. And six others disagree. Which is fine with me, by the way, people can disagree and be civilized about it.
As for “obvious shills and trolls” - just because I like the technology and dislike current writers, I’m a troll? With thinking like this you should perhaps go live in a totalitarian state, cause that’s how they roll - “you’re either with us or you’re bad”.
Why do you expect AI to write better scripts than “current writers”? Do you believe than humans are incapable of good writing, and we need AI to finally make the first good art to ever exist?
Not first good art, no, there are many great movies. It’s usually when people who are famous enough to do whatever are the directors (Tarantino, Nolan). But the usual crap? All the unimaginative movies and TV shows? Botching good books by not understanding the source material at all? That’s most of the writers and that’s who I think should be replaced by AI. We were doing a presentation on capabilities of AI recently and one sentence my colleague came up with sums it up: AI is not some super smart thing, it’s like millions of average people who can think really fast.
There are many issues besides AI stuff that are causing this strike.
Yes, with the quick emergence of AI in all industries, we do need strong workers rights agreements and laws to address it, but AI isn’t really the primary issue.
People pick positions in these arguments that are too stringent and not realistic. There will be places where AI is useful in this industry. The union just needs to make sure AI isn’t abused in order to completely replace certain types of laborers.
I don’t care how fast AI can pump out “high quality content” because I refuse to consume any of it. I really hope the strikes are successful.
honestly we need legislation that protects artists who use their art as a means to live
If it is high quality, why do you care how it was produced?
But it’s not the high quality content that’s threatened by AI, it’s the mediocre gargabe. It’s the endless stream of poor quality TV shows and movies which are produced not as art, but as a means of steady predictibile income for the companies involved. That’s the industry aspect of the business. This side of the business consumes most of the talent in the industry. They all know it’s not good and they all hope they will get the funding to actually work on the things they know will be high quality. I think AI will allow them to do that.
Further more, this strike is not just about AI. I think this aspect is the one media outlets care most about and gets reported on more. The entertainment industry has suffered a major shift with streaming platforms and the movement of money from production studios to streaming platforms has left the employees behind. They’re getting less money from streaming platforms but still do the same work. That’s what the strike is about. The industry didn’t care for them when it changed.
To answer your question about quality: it matters because it’s not real. The act of producing something of quality is what makes us better people. It ties into motivation to be better. Computers automating repetition doesn’t hinder that (as much, it does affect learning curves). The notion that computers be used for an output that would normally require creativity is just throwing away the essense of creation, the end product is not the only thing that benefits us. There’s no objective to why it was created, an AI writing something that evokes emotion is a party trick. All it really does is promote consumption and demoralize innovation, and ironically it hides behind innovation as the end-goal of the project. It’s just dead. One of the most beautiful things within creating something of value is the very process of creating it, having the passion and desire to do so, and the will to bring it into existence. AI is a cursed attempt at trying to replicate this process, and by lifting that kind of burden from a human inhuman.
I agree with you when it comes to AI in its current form - I wouldn’t even call it a party trick, just dumb luck. Machine learning through repetition will use existing ideas and tropes.
However you can provide the model with unique ideas, new tropes, characters, environments, and settings. The model in its current form could generate something nearly usable (script wise) and still be a valid piece of art with some cleaning up. Just because you save time doesn’t make an idea less “good”
In the future we could have near sentient AI that generates actual pieces of art far faster and better than a person can.
i refuse to believe AI can replace totally of the human part in the industry. Yeah some of the weak actors will be pushed out as they are not doing the job good enough, but it’s inevitable that one day technology is advanced that AI can actually replace human workforce. Like car manufacturing industry that have massive machines to assemble car parts, but also there are things only human can do. We don’t need crappy scriptwriters writing rubbish soap opera that my 10 year old daughter can write because they are no more generic than a AI churn out script. It’s like hiring a typewriter operator in 2023. Or rubbish actors that are like reading their script out with minimal effort and skills. It does not make sense.
There’s this people called stenographers who are paid quite well, they can write hundreds of words per minute and essentially transcribe a conversation in real time. They are hired by courts to create records of the sessions, by journalists, parliaments and to transcribe subtitles for audiovisual media. They use this cool typewriter like machine called a stenotype that was invented in 1880. The thing is, they tried to replace them with speech recognition computers. They discovered they needed a human to sanitize input for the computer, essentially a person who can speak really fast and really mechanically, repeating what others said in the room, or what was said in the movie or whatever, into an oxygen-mask-like sound proof microphone. So, they still had to pay someone to be there. Many places decided they could just pay the stenographer and receive higher quality products despite the slightly higher costs. Then YouTube tried to use machine learning to auto-create closed captions. Before that they used a community contribution approach that depended on volunteers to take some time to transcribe the subs. That change to automation was such a fiasco that some big YouTube channels now advertise that they pay an actual company with humans to do the closed captions for their videos in the name of proper quality accessibility. Because automated closed caption tends to do interesting stuff and it’s even worse when they try to throw auto-translation into the mix.
The point is, people tend to not understand technology and how it relates to humans, specially techbros and techies who have the most skewed biases towards tech and little sociological understanding. Nothing can be accurately predicted in that realm, and most relations that result from the appearance of new technology are usually paradoxical to common sense.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=1C7leljxnG4
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Then it’s not valuable. The question still stands: if something is truly valuable, does it matter how it was created? You are not answering this question, you are simply pointing out why AI in your opinion cannot produce art. My question is a bit “tongue in cheek”, of course. It cannot be truly answered without a specific example of creation. I’m asking it to prove a point: we’re dismissing something we don’t understand.
I’d argue that this is what Hollywood already does. And as you rightly argued through your comment, it brings little artistic or creative value.
To me, it’s the same feeling as the teachers that wouldn’t accept papers written on a computer (after an age where we know how to write) because “it’s less honest”.
I’m not good at drawing. I would love to try to make a game. Anti-AI luddites are happy that I will never produce something because I am incabable of doing something that an AI could easily accomplish.
I’m looking for an interaction with the artists. I do not care what an AI produces… and I don’t care what a marketing team or boardroom of producers produces. I’m looking for an artist’s vision.
How exactly are you interacting with them while sitting on your couch looking at a screen?
This is an appeal to purity argument. You’ve invented some higher standard (that doesn’t really even make sense) with the purpose of excluding the thing you don’t like.
The audience responds en masse by tuning in, paying up, being changed, perpetuating the ideas back into the culture through the filter of their own personality, chatting about the thing, praising or criticizing the artist.
Nope. It has absolutely nothing to do with “purity.” It has to do with humans doing the ancient human thing of making art. Dancing, singing, telling stories. You’re bringing in the abstraction of purity.
Hollywood (in its crudest aspect) is already an AI algorithm for churning out trash. That’s why I tune out already. Because it is not humans telling each other stories. It is pure corporate manipulation. More AI in the hands of producer-goons just means more corporate manipulation and less humans telling each other stories.
AI in the hands of an artist is a tool for exploring and creating. AI in the hands of corporate goons is the total opposite.
Do you understand how art works at all?
That it’s an entirely subjective experience and to presume that someone’s enjoyment of it means that a human had to be involved in It’s creation is such a ridiculous response.
Have you ever seen the paintings that one chimpanzee made? They’re actually pretty nice in composition. Am I allowed to like the way they look even if no human made them?
So long as it’s not a glorified machine learning program designed to commit mass fraud and copyright infringement, then yes. Until then, go cry harder.
I’m going to think back to people like you in 15 years and smile at how naive you were.
No you won’t, you’ll still be sitting in front of your computer having gotten nowhere in life because you expected AI to solve all your problems for you and you couldn’t see it’s just another corporate grift. Like any sucker.
not wanting to see things you don’t like. In art.
To me, this is comparable to fiction vs. non-fiction.
Personally, I do already find fiction less engaging, because there’s nothing romantic about these stories. With which I’m not referring to a love story, I mean that there’s no sense of wonder of what lead to these events. It happened that way, because a writer wrote it that way.
And yet, the one thing still tying fiction to reality is the writer. You can still wonder what life experiences they’ve made to tell this story and how they’re telling it.
Our current narrow AIs don’t make life experiences, so you lose even that strand of meaning.
I saw a great strike sign- “I refuse to memorize lines written by a machine.”
But why? I feel like people are twisting their arguments against AI. Or they are being twisted against.
Why does an actor care where there lines come from? We live in a world where The Room was written and released, but AI content is going to be the end of media? People aren’t that special. Our thoights aren’t that special. We don’t have souls. We’re just thinking machines, and nothing we create is more unique than something that we created creates.
Because this is about enshitification of life for studio exec profits. It’s not really about where a machine can or should be a part of creative works, but HOW they are being used.
Nearly very industry in which LLMs are being used in the latest hype wave, it’s not being used to improve anything but concentration of wealth in the hands of a dwindling number of individuals by worsening product quality and real ability of any of humanity, outside of those of hereditary wealth, to be get by.
I hope there is some kind of “label” that comes out of this like the Surgeon General’s cigarette warning. “This movie is 87% AI generated” so I won’t have to bother thinking about whether to skip it. Fuck lazy & greedy movie makers. They’d giveup their immortal soul for $3.50
I do too hope the strikes are successful. That said, you’ve likely already been consuming generative technology for some time now. Disney alone has nearly a decade of research into it already. Advanced VFX applications use all sorts of generative tech too. When I was working in LA we referenced public data all the time. I know it’s gotten a huge spotlight on it given private AI capitalizing/evangelizing it all but the very real threat of digital scabs taking people’s jobs is what needs the biggest spotlight right now. I do think the tables will turn if nothing good can come out of Hollywood and those artists begin weaponizing that same tech against the execs. I see what studios are doing as no different than impersonation & identity theft by using this tech to limit working hours to skirt union protections.
I guarantee you already have and didn’t notice.
There’s a philosophical argument to be made for sure, and I’d probably even agree with you. But the reality is that the technology is here, and it’ll be used in pursuit of the almighty buck.
That’s what makes it especially insidious. We want entertainment made by people, for people, not by AIs for corporations and their pockets.
I’m fine with AI content. It’s going to make making media so much easier for people who aren’t inherently artistic but have a vision they want to show.
There are already teams of humans ready to do all that stuff. AI adds nothing there. The non-artistic person with a vision can already collaborate with skilled artists.
But more importantly, we are not worried about artists using AI as a tool. We are worried about corporate goons using AI to fire all creative staff and generate manipulative trash.
The first company that debuts an entirely AI film will be a game changer, since it’s training set will be all the greats/popular films from Godfather, Taxi Driver, Jurassic Park, Star Wars, Inglorious Bastards, and Parasite.
Then everyone will want to get in on the game and we’ll see a huge number of AI films. To be noticable and unique, a certain amount of hallucinating will be allowed. After a couple more years, you’ll see model collapse as the film AIs are now using other AI output as their training input.
AI systems need a steady “diet” of human created material to continue to create material that is relevant and interesting to humans.
Robert Evans has a great episode on “behind the bastards” about AI and children’s books. The majority of Kindle published children’s books and coloring books are AI generated. There are Kindle books on how to make hundreds of AI children’s books a month using AI tools, including how to write the prompt for the AI input.
Okay so instead of me just working on a fun product for free in my own time, I have to pay someone a fair wage as if this is a commercial product I’m producing?
There’s several people in this thread arguing we should outright ban the use, instead of coming up with ways to protect artists without artificially limiting AI.
I didn’t see anyone ITT making that argument, and anyway this whole debate is specifically and explicitly about hollywood goons using AI to churn out trash without paying the talent. It’s not about some broke artist using AI to bring his vision to life. As I already said. It’s beyond straw man to treat that as the position that’s being criticized
Stop being lazy and learn how to make your own shit. You aren’t entitled to other people’s skills.
He says on a computer instead of hiring a postal worker to deliver his message.
In my own words instead of having ChatGPT do your thinking for you, the way you do
Yeah, we need human writers! I don’t think AI can turn great books into shitty movies as well as actual writers. AI scripts sound like a real gain, IMO.
Questions for everybody else:
Who actually thinks like this?
Why are big Lemmy instances allowing obvious shills to concern troll and forum slide on their servers?
Well, for one, I think like this. And given the upvote, at least one other person does as well. And six others disagree. Which is fine with me, by the way, people can disagree and be civilized about it.
As for “obvious shills and trolls” - just because I like the technology and dislike current writers, I’m a troll? With thinking like this you should perhaps go live in a totalitarian state, cause that’s how they roll - “you’re either with us or you’re bad”.
Can you pretty please let me have my opinion?
Why do you expect AI to write better scripts than “current writers”? Do you believe than humans are incapable of good writing, and we need AI to finally make the first good art to ever exist?
Not first good art, no, there are many great movies. It’s usually when people who are famous enough to do whatever are the directors (Tarantino, Nolan). But the usual crap? All the unimaginative movies and TV shows? Botching good books by not understanding the source material at all? That’s most of the writers and that’s who I think should be replaced by AI. We were doing a presentation on capabilities of AI recently and one sentence my colleague came up with sums it up: AI is not some super smart thing, it’s like millions of average people who can think really fast.
Again, why would you expect AI to write better stories than humans?
If hollywood churns out trash it’s because producers want trash. The AI will just help them churn out trash cheaper.
So how will AI fix this?
Then I have no reason to take you seriously. Goodbye.
Stop acting like a spoiled kid, please.
I would prefer AI content.
There are many issues besides AI stuff that are causing this strike.
Yes, with the quick emergence of AI in all industries, we do need strong workers rights agreements and laws to address it, but AI isn’t really the primary issue.
People pick positions in these arguments that are too stringent and not realistic. There will be places where AI is useful in this industry. The union just needs to make sure AI isn’t abused in order to completely replace certain types of laborers.
Well, then they’ll make movies without union.