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.
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.
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.
Then hollywood is the wrong place to look. AI can make it even worse, but hollywood has been mostly devoid of expressing artistic vision long before AI came around.
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.
Yeah. It’ll be nice if all the drivel in Hollywood were automated.
If you think you’re so good at what you do, then you can be what the AI learns from to improve.
Everyone else? Well, tough tamales. This is what progress looks like and blue collar workers have been feeling it ever since the industrial revolution.
You realize that most actors and writers are barely or not at all paid enough to live. This idea of the rich and famous actor is an edge case that you’re letting become your whole idea of them because they’re exactly that. Famous. But even you have to realize that there are countless others that will be and currently are being affected by the things their striking against. For too many years already writers have been shafted by production companies by hiring them as short term contractors to avoid paying them a fair wage or give them an option for royalties. And when literally everyone in the industry is doing that, then they have no choice if they want to get paid at all.
And being mad because some high profile rich fuckers are participating is insane. Their participation shows just how important it is. They’ll be fine. They have millions and they’re still out there on the picket line anyway because the things the industry does and wants to make worse is bad for humans. That’s what collective action is about and it’s beautiful.
That’s not what progress looks like, but you do you, fam. We’ll be over here on our new federated sites watching stuff made by actual human beings while Hollywood starves to death as everyone else stops watching that garbage.
Or we will campaign the federal government to ban the tech outright and your lazy shill ass will have to actually do something useful to make a living.
We’ll be over here on our new federated sites watching stuff made by actual human beings
slowly puts away stable diffusion community subscriptions
I, too, got mad at the creation of the personal computer and lobbied congress to ban them because they aren’t as real as my subjective interpretation of reality, work, and honesty.
They just have to get a real job too, like everyone else.
Would you mind expanding on what a “real” vs “fake” job is? I disagree with the premise entirely but i am not taking you with a loaded question, i am honestly curious about what that means to you (and by extension what other people who use that term might mean)
There’s no such thing as a job necessary for the survival of the human race. The only thing jobs protect is the economic system, which doesn’t care about the human race.
That is one way to view it. However due to everyone, in including blue collar workers, having their lively hoods threatened by AI we need to ask the question if were okay, as a society, for there to be more jobs eliminated than created. Are we okay with the current ways and (some would say the illusion of) the free market controlling everything? Are we okay with letting people suffer needlessly? Would you be okay with looking into the eyes of someone you know and saying “too bad that’s the free market baby!” Because it’s starting with the arts but it’s not stopping there. It’s only a matter of time before it will not need many warm bodies to do things. The knowledge works are next on the list and it won’t be long after that where manual labors will be impacted. This is all WAY before we even hit AGI.
I’m not saying that AI taking jobs is a bad thing. I think it is an amazing thing but we need to start embracing it as an opportunity for things to be more Star Trek and less dystopian hellscape. That means changing this mindset that a lot of us have and start asking ourselves how do we want the world to look in 100 or even 500 years from now.
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.
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.
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 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 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 understand your desire to support the SAG-AFTRA strikes, but I think you’re wrong to say that you’ll refuse to consume any AI-generated content.
First of all, it’s not clear that AI-generated content will be of lower quality than human-generated content. In fact, there are already AI-generated images and videos that are indistinguishable from human-made ones. As AI technology continues to develop, it’s likely that AI-generated content will become even more sophisticated.
Second, even if AI-generated content is of lower quality, it’s still possible that it will be enjoyable to some people. There are many people who enjoy watching low-budget movies or reading self-published books. Just because something is not created by a professional does not mean that it cannot be entertaining.
Finally, boycotting AI-generated content will not actually help the SAG-AFTRA strikes. The strikes are about ensuring that actors and writers are fairly compensated for their work. Boycotting AI-generated content will not affect the studios’ bottom line, so it will not put any pressure on them to reach a fair agreement with the unions.
I think a better way to support the SAG-AFTRA strikes is to donate to the unions or to spread awareness about the issue. You can also write to your elected officials and urge them to support legislation that protects the rights of actors and writers.
I hope you’ll reconsider your position on AI-generated content. It’s possible that this technology could have a positive impact on the entertainment industry, and it’s important to keep an open mind about its potential.
It’s funny to me because all these people are saying exactly what everyone used to say about mobile phones, about the internet, about computers… I know so many people who railed against the internet saying they’d never use it and that computers only make things more difficult - now they’re all yelling on Facebook about how the evil corporations they work for aren’t letting them work from home lol
AI will keep getting better and the way people use it will continue to evolve, there will be truly great things made by obsessive outsiders which speak to people in ways nothing has… Just like with every minor technical or social Innovation in art. Many of the giants of the old era will vanish and many new greats will grow and start to stagnate into conformity…
I’m excited for the future and all the interesting things it brings, we can’t just stop creativity and progress because some affluent performers want guarantees of stability which just don’t exist in reality
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.
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.
Lol, ok.
I can’t wait for you to like something then change your mind when you find out it’s made by AI.
Lol.
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.
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.
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.
Then hollywood is the wrong place to look. AI can make it even worse, but hollywood has been mostly devoid of expressing artistic vision long before AI came around.
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.
Yeah. It’ll be nice if all the drivel in Hollywood were automated.
If you think you’re so good at what you do, then you can be what the AI learns from to improve.
Everyone else? Well, tough tamales. This is what progress looks like and blue collar workers have been feeling it ever since the industrial revolution.
You’re just not going to give up this crusade are you? Going to start comparing salaries of line workers to starving kids in Africa again?
What crusade?
These people don’t need more money, plain and simple.
You realize that most actors and writers are barely or not at all paid enough to live. This idea of the rich and famous actor is an edge case that you’re letting become your whole idea of them because they’re exactly that. Famous. But even you have to realize that there are countless others that will be and currently are being affected by the things their striking against. For too many years already writers have been shafted by production companies by hiring them as short term contractors to avoid paying them a fair wage or give them an option for royalties. And when literally everyone in the industry is doing that, then they have no choice if they want to get paid at all.
And being mad because some high profile rich fuckers are participating is insane. Their participation shows just how important it is. They’ll be fine. They have millions and they’re still out there on the picket line anyway because the things the industry does and wants to make worse is bad for humans. That’s what collective action is about and it’s beautiful.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
That’s not what progress looks like, but you do you, fam. We’ll be over here on our new federated sites watching stuff made by actual human beings while Hollywood starves to death as everyone else stops watching that garbage.
Or we will campaign the federal government to ban the tech outright and your lazy shill ass will have to actually do something useful to make a living.
Removed by mod
slowly puts away stable diffusion community subscriptions
I, too, got mad at the creation of the personal computer and lobbied congress to ban them because they aren’t as real as my subjective interpretation of reality, work, and honesty.
honestly we need legislation that protects artists who use their art as a means to live
No we don’t. They can do something else.
It’s called the free market, baby.
Blue collar workers have been finding new ways to make money ever since the industrial revolution. Don’t be a Luddite.
If these people still want to make art, nobody is stopping them. They just have to get a real job too, like everyone else.
It’s okay. I think they can survive and still lead a higher quality of life than the vast majority of people on the planet.
Would you mind expanding on what a “real” vs “fake” job is? I disagree with the premise entirely but i am not taking you with a loaded question, i am honestly curious about what that means to you (and by extension what other people who use that term might mean)
Jobs that are necessary for the survival of our species.
Jobs that people don’t do for fun. They do it because it needs to get done.
People will still act even if they don’t get paid for it. Will they, deliver food just for the fun of it? No, I didn’t think so.
So like, North Korea. Just a bunch of farmers and the military. I’d rather live in a world with joy and innovation.
There’s no such thing as a job necessary for the survival of the human race. The only thing jobs protect is the economic system, which doesn’t care about the human race.
Lol EVERYTHING we do is necessary for our survival, because of the fact that it’s humans doing it.
Removed by mod
I wonder what this comment said.
That is one way to view it. However due to everyone, in including blue collar workers, having their lively hoods threatened by AI we need to ask the question if were okay, as a society, for there to be more jobs eliminated than created. Are we okay with the current ways and (some would say the illusion of) the free market controlling everything? Are we okay with letting people suffer needlessly? Would you be okay with looking into the eyes of someone you know and saying “too bad that’s the free market baby!” Because it’s starting with the arts but it’s not stopping there. It’s only a matter of time before it will not need many warm bodies to do things. The knowledge works are next on the list and it won’t be long after that where manual labors will be impacted. This is all WAY before we even hit AGI.
I’m not saying that AI taking jobs is a bad thing. I think it is an amazing thing but we need to start embracing it as an opportunity for things to be more Star Trek and less dystopian hellscape. That means changing this mindset that a lot of us have and start asking ourselves how do we want the world to look in 100 or even 500 years from now.
HTH
The free market kind of sucks at making art and I think it’s okay and good for the government to subsidize it.
You sound like a copypasta genertor
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 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.
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 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 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.
I understand your desire to support the SAG-AFTRA strikes, but I think you’re wrong to say that you’ll refuse to consume any AI-generated content.
First of all, it’s not clear that AI-generated content will be of lower quality than human-generated content. In fact, there are already AI-generated images and videos that are indistinguishable from human-made ones. As AI technology continues to develop, it’s likely that AI-generated content will become even more sophisticated.
Second, even if AI-generated content is of lower quality, it’s still possible that it will be enjoyable to some people. There are many people who enjoy watching low-budget movies or reading self-published books. Just because something is not created by a professional does not mean that it cannot be entertaining.
Finally, boycotting AI-generated content will not actually help the SAG-AFTRA strikes. The strikes are about ensuring that actors and writers are fairly compensated for their work. Boycotting AI-generated content will not affect the studios’ bottom line, so it will not put any pressure on them to reach a fair agreement with the unions.
I think a better way to support the SAG-AFTRA strikes is to donate to the unions or to spread awareness about the issue. You can also write to your elected officials and urge them to support legislation that protects the rights of actors and writers.
I hope you’ll reconsider your position on AI-generated content. It’s possible that this technology could have a positive impact on the entertainment industry, and it’s important to keep an open mind about its potential.
It’ll be funny when we start watching stuff and can’t tell what is AI and what isn’t.
I fully expect people like you to like something and then hate it after you find out it was made by AI.
Lol.
It’s funny to me because all these people are saying exactly what everyone used to say about mobile phones, about the internet, about computers… I know so many people who railed against the internet saying they’d never use it and that computers only make things more difficult - now they’re all yelling on Facebook about how the evil corporations they work for aren’t letting them work from home lol
AI will keep getting better and the way people use it will continue to evolve, there will be truly great things made by obsessive outsiders which speak to people in ways nothing has… Just like with every minor technical or social Innovation in art. Many of the giants of the old era will vanish and many new greats will grow and start to stagnate into conformity…
I’m excited for the future and all the interesting things it brings, we can’t just stop creativity and progress because some affluent performers want guarantees of stability which just don’t exist in reality