Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

As Actors Strike for AI Protections, Netflix Lists $900k AI Job

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 168 posts

Re: As Actors Strike for AI Protections, Netflix Lists $900k AI Job

#51

Post by andsoitis »

tw04 wrote: post #36
mercurialsolo wrote: post #9

If you can create a likeness of Tom Hanks which doesn't need to be Tom Hanks exactly, who owns the copyright - the digital creator or Tom Hanks. Actors protesting AI protections remind me of factory workers protesting against automation setting in.

>Actors protesting AI protections remind me of factory workers protesting against automation setting in. And in hindsight: rightly so. Automation and outsourcing gutted the middle class in the US to the benefit of a handful of folks that didn't need anymore money. What's the end-game of automating every human job away if the spoils of that automation aren't shared widely?

> Automation and outsourcing gutted the middle class in the US

What statistics can we look at that shows that the middle class is smaller and less well off than before (“gutted”)?

Re: As Actors Strike for AI Protections, Netflix Lists $900k AI Job

#53

Post by sokoloff »

roflyear wrote: post #8
OO000oo wrote: post #6

I don't see what the problem is. This is perfectly legal. Private companies can do whatever they want with their own money.

I don't understand these responses. Are you trying to push the window to make people feel like it is unacceptable to be critical of a company's actions? What if I am a shareholder (I am, through ETFs) of Netflix and I disagree with this? Shouldn't I be allowed to discuss and criticize the action?

Even if you’re not a shareholder, you’re welcome to discuss and criticize the action with anyone who will listen.

Re: As Actors Strike for AI Protections, Netflix Lists $900k AI Job

#54

Post by anigbrowl »

creeble wrote: post #47
sb8244 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine that your likeness as an extra is sold for $250, used in future films via AI deep fake, and you never get paid again. That's my understanding of why they're striking.

I don’t think they need your likeness for an extra. They can just create an army of AI extras and use them without paying for anyone’s likeness. That’s my understanding of the strike anyway.

AI extras are not that great, or studios/production companies wouldn't be trying to get full scans of background actors.

Re: As Actors Strike for AI Protections, Netflix Lists $900k AI Job

#55

Post by [deleted] »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #18
Imnimo wrote: post #5

>So $900k/yr per soldier in their godless AI army when that amount of earnings could qualify thirty-five actors and their families for SAG-AFTRA health insurance is just ghoulish, How many actors could Adam Sandler's $250M Netflix deal pay for?

How long is a piece of string?

[deleted]

Re: As Actors Strike for AI Protections, Netflix Lists $900k AI Job

#56

Post by justinhj »

This is unlikely to be a direct initiative to create AI movies, seems more likely as a leading tech company they need to hire the best AI people. Artificial actors, AI script writers and producers will exist only as outlying novelties. Our entertainment is part of our culture, and we will not let go of real actors whose lives we follow, real writers like jk rowling, tolkien and grr martin who created the worlds that became billion dollar franchises. AI will more likely expand as a production tool as well as its current role as “the algorithm” that decides what we may me like.

Re: As Actors Strike for AI Protections, Netflix Lists $900k AI Job

#58

Post by tmpz22 »

thepasswordis wrote: post #41
covercash wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a deal with him and his production company, Happy Madison. He’s not personally pocketing $250 million, and a portion of that will go toward paying actors, crew, and other staff. If any of the internet anecdotes are to be believed, he takes care of his employees.

How much money should Adam Sandler make?

Kylian Mbappe was recently offered $776 MILLION in salary for a 1-year deal as the highest paid soccer (football) player [1].

Jaylen Brown will be making $304 MILLION over 5 years for the Boston Celtics as the highest paid NBA player.

Wealth inequality from predominantly ads-based (tv-deals) business models is a cancer to our society.

[1]: https://frontofficesports.com/saudi-arabia-reportedly-offers...

Re: As Actors Strike for AI Protections, Netflix Lists $900k AI Job

#59

Post by bertil »

mercurialsolo wrote: post #9

If you can create a likeness of Tom Hanks which doesn't need to be Tom Hanks exactly, who owns the copyright - the digital creator or Tom Hanks. Actors protesting AI protections remind me of factory workers protesting against automation setting in.

You hire Tom Hanks because he’s a genuinely warm and considerate person, and that allows him to embody people like Mr. Rogers with sincerity.

I’m not sure you will be able to do the same with just computers: there have been many efforts to create digital characters, but always with a talented actor to voice and incarnate them: Smaug by Benedict Cumberbatch and too many to list by Andy Serkis. I can’t think that it’s an accident people pick talented actors to do so—and I doubt AI will be able to reproduce that talent well soon.

Crowd simulation (what a lot of the actual debate with SAG is about)? Definitely.

Re: As Actors Strike for AI Protections, Netflix Lists $900k AI Job

#60

Post by MisterBastahrd »

seydor wrote: post #15
mercurialsolo wrote: post #9

If you can create a likeness of Tom Hanks which doesn't need to be Tom Hanks exactly, who owns the copyright - the digital creator or Tom Hanks. Actors protesting AI protections remind me of factory workers protesting against automation setting in.

Why limit yourself to Tom Hanks when the AI can soon create better expression, with quirks and all. The recognizability advantage will fade away as new audiences come along, as long as the quality is very good.

But it can't, which is why star actors will continue to be star actors. It will take far more money and effort effort to get an AI actor right than just shooting multiple takes of an actual human being to begin with.

These strikes are not for the stars.

They're for the rank and file actors who make up the vast majority of the union. The ones who might appear in straight-to-video shows or maybe be a short-term character who doesn't even have a name. I know a guy who is an actor out in LA. He works at a Universal Studios theme park for his day job, but he's also appeared in the opening scene in 1923.... a character who was shot by one of the leads but who didn't even have a name. He was also a character in the Pam and Tommy Lee show, played a part in a short-lived live action Scooby Doo show (along with his wife), etc.

People like that aren't rolling in the dough. They're not getting a ton of residual checks. And the power of unions say that people like that get a voice too. Besides, automation of this sort rarely makes lives better for anyone than at the top.

Adding AI to this equation does not make the media cheaper for me. It just means fewer paychecks get cut for actors, and the money ends up getting deposited into the accounts of the executives who "saved the company money." Sorry, but I'd rather just not use AI if that's the case.

Post reply on HN