Hollywood Writers Strike is Over - and about AI

Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest4 said:
From an interview in today's Hollywood Reporter:

"When it comes to AI regulations, can you explain whether or not writers’ scripts can be used to train the technology?


"Keyser: Sure. Well, first of all, I would say there are two different kinds of AI protections that we negotiated here. First of all, we negotiated all kinds of protections for writers’ workflow going forward, in the way that AI can intersect with that, where we protected writers’ rights and their credits and their compensation and their separated rights, the ways in which AI is not literary material under the terms of the MBA. So that’s hugely important. Then we had to deal with the question of what happens when companies want to use our material to train AI. What we said there is this: First of all, the companies have, they claim, some ongoing copyright rights in using our material, and we claim certain contractual rights that limit that or would compensate us for that. What we’ve said is we are going to retain all of those rights, given the fact that no one yet knows what the world is going to look like or what that use might be, and that will be figured out in time in the instances in which the companies actually do want to use our material to train. In other words, instead of trying to negotiate beforehand a world we don’t understand, we retained every single right we have to negotiate for writers, and writers retain every single right they have both under the law and the MBA to protect themselves in circumstances of the companies using our material to train."
Click to expand...
So the result; large media companies would be forced to limit the use of AI to keep the bunch of pampered "writers" from dealing with their own incompetence. While the smaller companies would massively use AI to make movies better (because machine is better than the average screenwriter) and CHEAPER. The result would be kinda obvious; big media corporations would start to shrink, surrendering larger and larger niches to the smaller ones. Essentially like fanfiction killed the pulp literature; it was simpler and (due to sheer mass) produced enough works of significantly better quality.
 
edwest4 said:
You don't rob people like that. You just don't.
Click to expand...
*Me?* No, I don't. People and corporations (and governments) who end up making billions of dollars and changing the world forever? Yeah. *They* do.

As to Metaverse: depends on whether you mean the singular Facebook flop or the wider, more successful general idea. "Second Life" seems to be going strong, as does "Warcraft," "Minecraft," "Fortnight" and a bunch of others. "Evercrack" lasted a good long time, might still be going, dunno.
 
To elaborate on DNFTT, don't wrestle with a pig. You're forced to assume undignified postures, you get covered in mud, and in the end, you're left with the feeling that the pig enjoyed it.
 
Last edited:
Some unexpected results; it seems that the writer's strike eventually led them to the much worse situation that existed before:

https://deadline.com/2023/09/tv-business-changes-writers-strike-impact-1235553886/amp/

Basically their actiond caused market collapse; many series got cancelled, and the budgets for new ones got reduced 2-3 times. So essentially there would be less job for writers, and they would got paid less.

Oh, and studios would be forced to rely on AI even more, to compensate for lessened budgets. :)
 
Dilandu said:
Basically their actiond caused market collapse; many series got cancelled, and the budgets for new ones got reduced 2-3 times. So essentially there would be less job for writers, and they would got paid less.

Oh, and studios would be forced to rely on AI even more, to compensate for lessened budgets. :)
Click to expand...
Gosh. Who, I say *who,* could have possibly foreseen that possibility.
 
Making video game/CGI characters ugly is a choice. It's a *weird* choice; humans almost universally prefer to see and pretend to be and look up to attractive people. But for some reason, vaguely to distinctly unattractive characters are on the rise.

Fortunately, AI is here to save the day. Right now this is something done after the fact, but I can certainly see a day when there are mods to video games and movies that adjust character appearance on the fly, regardless of the "authorial intent." This would include not just CGI characters, but actual actors.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1709645783379988574
View: https://twitter.com/ymt3d/status/1709645783379988574
 
Orionblamblam said:
To each their own. The point is that modern tech has opened the floor to *anybody* to produce "content." Most of it is indeed garbage.... but when you have an *ocean* of garbage with innumerable little islands of entertainment, people are going to have more options.
Click to expand...
It's getting even easier. I read an article called "New technique based on 18th century mathematics shows simple AI models don't need deep learning" (phys.org).

Looks like the base 60 count helped the Babylonians come up with a better exploration of the Pythagorean theorem.

Now what I want is not just better tailored content--but better toy creation to have something better that TOMY's Enterprise.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Making video game/CGI characters ugly is a choice. It's a *weird* choice; humans almost universally prefer to see and pretend to be and look up to attractive people. But for some reason, vaguely to distinctly unattractive characters are on the rise.

Fortunately, AI is here to save the day. Right now this is something done after the fact, but I can certainly see a day when there are mods to video games and movies that adjust character appearance on the fly, regardless of the "authorial intent." This would include not just CGI characters, but actual actors.
Click to expand...
The 'unattractive' characters turned into more 'attractive' characters tend to look like items that all came from the same mannequin factory. To see what that does to realism, look at the old Michel Vaillant comic byJean Graton, where all male characters were lantern-jawed clones whose only distinguishing feature was their hairdo.

There is, of course, no accounting for taste.
 
Arjen said:
The 'unattractive' characters turned into more 'attractive' characters tend to look like items that all came from the same mannequin factory.
Click to expand...
Sure. It's a limitation of the system. But the system will improve over time. Intentionally making characters unattractive? That's a choice that may or may not change.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Looks like something human "artists" have been doing, and getting sued for, for years.
Click to expand...

You may be thinking of "sound sampling," a primitive version of the above. The "scraping" means NOTHING you, or anyone, posts on the internet is yours. It can be scraped into a machine and money can be made, without your permission. What a *not* great idea.
 
edwest4 said:
You may be thinking of "sound sampling," a primitive version of the above.
Click to expand...
Yup. Humans were doing that ~30 or so years ago. They got successfully sued for it, so ever since humans have never done music ever again. Because lawsuits stop everything forever.


edwest4 said:
The "scraping" means NOTHING you, or anyone, posts on the internet is yours. It can be scraped into a machine and money can be made, without your permission. What a *not* great idea.
Click to expand...
Yeah, kinda like the patent system. Actually *showing* people how your invention works? Now anyone can do it, money can be made without your permission.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Yup. Humans were doing that ~30 or so years ago. They got successfully sued for it, so ever since humans have never done music ever again. Because lawsuits stop everything forever.



Yeah, kinda like the patent system. Actually *showing* people how your invention works? Now anyone can do it, money can be made without your permission.
Click to expand...

30 or so years ago? And how old are you? That means what's going on now, today, is somehow OK? Yeah, the AI can be stopped forever. A few court rulings ought to do it. No more blank VHS tapes or CD-ROMs, just pull it off the internet. No more personal rights or copyrights. Like I said, a few court rulings and poof, no more AI for books or art or music.

Meanwhile, people can stretch some wire on a board, get an old whiskey jug, a scrub board and a few pots and pans and make music.
 
Last edited:
edwest4 said:
30 or so years ago? And how old are you?
Click to expand...
Old enough to remember the utter cringe that was Vanilla Ice. Not just his "music," but him getting sued for sampling. And remembering that, somehow, just because there were lawsuits, the whole [process just kept cruising along, making changes where necessary. Just as AI will.

edwest4 said:
That means what's going on now, today, is somehow OK? Yeah, the AI can be stopped forever.
Click to expand...
Can't stop the signal, Mal.

edwest4 said:
Meanwhile, people can stretch some wire on a board, get an old whiskey jug, a scrub board and a few pots and pans and make music.
Click to expand...
Sure, cuz that's how Taylor Swift and Kanye West became bajillionaires.
 
Things to do today:

Find young band/musician and exploit them.

You apparently know little about copyright law. I live it. The company I work for has been involved in litigation. It's time consuming and costs a lot of money. People either don't know or don't think about it. But, at OpenAI, they began hiring lawyers, followed by more lawyers. Legal fees eat away at the bottom line. Can't build that massive house in the south of France before the attorneys do.
 
edwest4 said:
You apparently know little about copyright law. I live it.
Click to expand...
That's nice for you. So as you say, it's in your interest to keep the world of AI as litigious as possible, because that's good for you.

A point to keep in mind when considering your objectivity in such matters.
 
Preserving and defending one's rights is a fundamental tenet in any free, open and just society. I've never been involved in a lawsuit and hopefully never will (and as a resident alien in the USA, I never have to serve jury duty :)), but being able to take your grievances to a court without fear of retribution to me is, along with voting and other basic civic mechanisms, a hallmark of a functioning democracy.
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
Preserving and defending one's rights is a fundamental tenet in any free, open and just society. I've never been involved in a lawsuit and hopefully never will (and as a resident alien in the USA, I never have to serve jury duty :)), but being able to take your grievances to a court without fear of retribution to me is, along with voting and other basic civic mechanisms, a hallmark of a functioning democracy.
Click to expand...
Sure. But the claim is being made that lawsuits now over something that is clearly a legal gray area will forever and for all time somehow stop the adoption of AI. Current lawsuits will, at best, only slow it.
 
Orionblamblam said:
That's nice for you. So as you say, it's in your interest to keep the world of AI as litigious as possible, because that's good for you.

A point to keep in mind when considering your objectivity in such matters.
Click to expand...

You are so funny. You missed it when I wrote that I would have had no problem with this had they done all of the work themselves; i.e. not scraped/stole it off the internet?
 
edwest4 said:
You are so funny. You missed it when I wrote that I would have had no problem with this had they done all of the work themselves; i.e. not scraped/stole it off the internet?
Click to expand...
You've yet to explain in a rational manner why it's wrong for an AI to learn in this fashion but not a human.
 
martinbayer said:
Preserving and defending one's rights is a fundamental tenet in any free, open and just society. I've never been involved in a lawsuit and hopefully never will (and as a resident alien in the USA, I never have to serve jury duty :)), but being able to take your grievances to a court without fear of retribution to me is, along with voting and other basic civic mechanisms, a hallmark of a functioning democracy.
Click to expand...

My employer was asked to serve as an expert witness at a trial involving copyright. He was compensated for this. I am not an attorney but I have been told how things actually work as opposed to the unfounded speculation I see on the internet most of the time.

Example (with sarcasm): "Uh, we is entitled to everything for free. You got that? F-A-R-E-E. You know what I'm sayin'? It's even in da Copyright law. You know? Fair Use? Fair Use means free. An' AI is like Fair Use cuz I want it to be. So, leave the lawyers out of it. I want AL by any means necessary an' you can't stop me."
 
Orionblamblam said:
You've yet to explain in a rational manner why it's wrong for an AI to learn in this fashion but not a human.
Click to expand...

A) AI is not human.
B) It cannot learn like a human.
C) It does not have a human brain.
D) It does not have human intelligence.
E) What you fail to see is this: OpenAI could have completed the PROGRAM - the COMPUTER Program - using unique material it developed in-house or PAID for. Instead, it Scraped/Stole material off the internet without permission and without compensation.

THAT is the essence of the class action lawsuit.
 
edwest4 said:
A) AI is not human.
B) It cannot learn like a human.
C) It does not have a human brain.
D) It does not have human intelligence.
Click to expand...
None of which is relevant to how AI will eventually supplement and then replace human writers.

edwest4 said:
E) What you fail to see is this: OpenAI could have completed the PROGRAM - the COMPUTER Program - using unique material it developed in-house or PAID for. Instead, it Scraped/Stole material off the internet without permission and without compensation.
Click to expand...
You mean like how people read stuff online and incorporate what they've learned into what they do. how many Hollywood writers have read books and then stolen some ideas? Dreadful. Human writers should be banned from reading anything they have no paid specific licensees for.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Sure. But the claim is being made that lawsuits now over something that is clearly a legal gray area will forever and for all time somehow stop the adoption of AI. Current lawsuits will, at best, only slow it.
Click to expand...
One thing I've learned through the public tribulations of the O. J. Simpson murder trial, the Liebeck v. McDonald's lawsuit, the Menendez brothers spectacle, the Terri Schiavo case, and any number of other more or less entertaining court battles, especially here in SoCal, is that US legal proceedings are unpredictable (as they should be, given a jury system), which to me is a feature rather than a bug, so I am loath to predict any outcome, and the only reason I won't break out popcorn while following any AI related legal proceedings is that I detest the stuff (popcorn, not AI), although admittedly a little less than any peanut based product, let alone raisins. But, old man rant off.
 
Last edited:
Orionblamblam said:
None of which is relevant to how AI will eventually supplement and then replace human writers.


You mean like how people read stuff online and incorporate what they've learned into what they do. how many Hollywood writers have read books and then stolen some ideas? Dreadful. Human writers should be banned from reading anything they have no paid specific licensees for.
Click to expand...

The expected dodging the question. You appear to have "science fiction" on the brain as opposed to reality. I've presented the facts but you are still pushing for the fake "a computer program is smart like a human being." Come off it !!!

The AI program is ONLY a program. It has no life. No self identity. It is designed - by human beings - to provide an output. An output they can sell. But you refuse to see it. You keep >believing< that a COMPUTER program has wants or needs or other common human desires. It has NONE. It is just a means to an end. TO MAKE A LOT OF MONEY, and for who? Human beings. It's certainly not in business for itself. It's not performing this function so that it can get PAID - like human beings.
 
martinbayer said:
US legal proceedings are unpredictable (as they should be, given a jury system)
Click to expand...
Wait till you (and the jury) find out about "jury nullification." At some point someone will present a valid case for replacing human jurors with AIs; there is much to recommend the idea, but the likelihood of jury nullification in an AI system seems minimal at best.
 
edwest4 said:
The AI program is ONLY a program. It has no life. No self identity.
Click to expand...

So... pretty much like a Hollywood writer. But unlike a Hollywood writer, AI programs are becoming more complex... and doing so at something of a geometric rate.

The rest of your rantings left unresponded to as the irrelevant non sequiturs they are.
 
Once again, there is in my view a lot of confusion between the categories of intelligence, identity, creativity, and consciousness/self awareness. Computers/AI can (out)perform exceedingly well in structured environments that are dominated by a more or less complex set of defined rigid rules, such as chess - no life or self identity required. Through adaptive analytical algorithms, AI may also well be able to detect/derive such rules on its own and perhaps some day even produce the Unified Field Theory, based on massive scale data analysis. Notice though that this would be a *discovery* strictly based on the empirical scientific method that is rooted in observation and deduction, which are systematic activities, rather than a creation. Creativity is much harder to come by. But "true" creativity is in my view a rare beast even for humans. A lot of what is colloquially considered art is really just taking inspiration from what already exists and rearranging, transposing, or combining it, whether it be literary, performing, or visual arts, and in those areas of combinatory output AI should unsurprisingly eventually do at least as well as, if not superior to, human artists. But humans will (hopefully) always have the edge in developing a new unique form, style, or work of art, based on true original inspiration like a "Eureka!" moment. Computers essentially function in an informational box, even though that box may well be many orders of magnitude bigger than any box a human could keep in their mind, but humans can think and create *outside* the box.
 
Last edited:
Orionblamblam said:
Wait till you (and the jury) find out about "jury nullification." At some point someone will present a valid case for replacing human jurors with AIs; there is much to recommend the idea, but the likelihood of jury nullification in an AI system seems minimal at best.
Click to expand...
Frankly, I am not a fan of the jury system. Let's start with the idea of a "jury of peers". I'm a Caucasian German born male aerospace engineer in my early Sixties. Going back to the Framers and the legal argument of "original intent", taking into account that they (mostly or all - too lazy to look up all of their CVs) were male land owners and slave holders, I'm willing to guess that non-whites and women were not included in that category. So why should I as a university educated white expat have to put up with a jury that includes anyone not fitting into that category???
 
martinbayer said:
Frankly, I am not a fan of the jury system. Let's start with the idea of a "jury of peers". ... I'm willing to guess that non-whites and women were not included in that category.
Click to expand...
Yeah... *long* ago. Times change.


martinbayer said:
So why should I as a university educated white expat have to put up with a jury that includes anyone not fitting into that category???
Click to expand...
Your "peers" in the US include everyone. We don't have a caste system or a class system or racial hierarchies (he says, knowing that the latter is not strictly true). Your peers include everyone from morons to geniuses, poor to super-rich.
 
martinbayer said:
But "true" creativity is in my view a rare beast even for humans. A lot of what is colloquially considered art is really just taking inspiration from what already exists and rearranging, transposing, or combining it, whether it be literary, performing, or visual arts, and in those areas of combinatory output AI should unsurprisingly eventually do at least as well as, if not superior to, human artists. But humans will (hopefully) always have the edge in developing a new unique form, style, or work of art, based on true original inspiration like a "Eureka!" moment.
Click to expand...
There's no reason to assume that will be the case. Humans do art like nothing else on the planet... but our brains are not fundamentally different orders of things than chimp brains or squirrel brains. Just a matter of complexity. There's no reason to assume that a sufficiently advanced and complex computer either will or won;t become "self aware," "conscious" or "truly creative." Not computer is as yet that complex, though we're getting close. In a generation human-brain complex computers should exist. A generation beyond that, computers vastly more complex than humans should exist. Mathematically, it should not be long before computers are as far beyond humans as humans are beyond termites. What hubris exists to say that human levels of creativity will remain the sole province of humans?

Besides: what was the last truly *new* form of art? Painting, sculpture, storytelling, music, dance all go back to *deep* prehistory. Movies? TV? Technological adaptations of plays, which doubtless go back to sitting around a campfire and relating that one time Throg fought a cave bear.
 
News from the Future

"AI is boring."

Here's Bob. Bob has a kitchen and laundry robot. He can't afford anything more complex. Over to you, Bob.

"Yeah, well, it looks human. Ya know, it ain't human. I mean it cooks three squares, cleans up and goes dormant. Then it grabs the stuff in the laundry basket and takes care uh dat. Then it tells me I'm runnin' outta detergent and that stuff it puts in the dryer, and goes dormant.

"I'm glad I gotta dog."
 
Orionblamblam said:
There's no reason to assume that will be the case. Humans do art like nothing else on the planet... but our brains are not fundamentally different orders of things than chimp brains or squirrel brains. Just a matter of complexity. There's no reason to assume that a sufficiently advanced and complex computer either will or won;t become "self aware," "conscious" or "truly creative." Not computer is as yet that complex, though we're getting close. In a generation human-brain complex computers should exist. A generation beyond that, computers vastly more complex than humans should exist. Mathematically, it should not be long before computers are as far beyond humans as humans are beyond termites. What hubris exists to say that human levels of creativity will remain the sole province of humans?

Besides: what was the last truly *new* form of art? Painting, sculpture, storytelling, music, dance all go back to *deep* prehistory. Movies? TV? Technological adaptations of plays, which doubtless go back to sitting around a campfire and relating that one time Throg fought a cave bear.
Click to expand...

Incredible. Absolutely incredible. Your comments I mean. I was having a discussion today with a co-worker about hard(ware) science fiction. We're working on some near future concepts at my job. We spend a lot of time thinking things up. You have a real problem with human creativity. A big problem with it. Your scenario is just Skynet... and more Skynet.

Humans make machines to serve humans.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Yeah... *long* ago. Times change.



Your "peers" in the US include everyone. We don't have a caste system or a class system or racial hierarchies (he says, knowing that the latter is not strictly true). Your peers include everyone from morons to geniuses, poor to super-rich.
Click to expand...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peer: one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/peer#google_vignette: a person who is the same age or has the same social position or the same abilities as other people in a group
 
Also, just like I proposed for voting, I'd strongly recommend to make IQ tests for prospective jurors mandatory to exclude anyone below 100.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom