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

141–150 of 168 posts

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

#141

Post by ajkjk »

mucle6 wrote: post #105
ajkjk wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> other people making large sums of money shouldn't make you upset. Why not? It clearly shows that there is a screw loose. Or put differently: it reminds us of the fundamental truth that in society, people without power get as little as is available to keep them alive and sometimes less, and people with power (in this case, the power of a good negotiating position) get as much as is available to pay them. The world d…

:s/power/ability to create value/ Anyone who can create returns greater than their cost of capital creates value. A screw isn't loose. If you can figure out how to add value to the world, then you get endless riches. > "People without power get as little as is available to keep them alive" Consider using less hyperbole in your worldview. Today has the highest living standards of any time.

? That wasn't hyperbole. The average living standards are high and the low end isn't, as it has always been. The proportions of people in the low end vs middle are different than they have been, because the economy has advanced, but it's the same story.

It doesn't change the fact that wealth inequality doesn't need to be this unequal. You are choosing that system, over another which is less unequal, when you defend it. I can't imagine why! It's the same system, but better, with happier people, and the only difference is the rules of the game--which we get to choose.

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

#142

Post by ajkjk »

wiseowise wrote: post #100
ajkjk wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> other people making large sums of money shouldn't make you upset. Why not? It clearly shows that there is a screw loose. Or put differently: it reminds us of the fundamental truth that in society, people without power get as little as is available to keep them alive and sometimes less, and people with power (in this case, the power of a good negotiating position) get as much as is available to pay them. The world d…

> Why not? Because it's not productive. Yell and shake your fist at cloud all you want, it's not going to change.

Well yeah not with that attitude.

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

#143

Post by epups »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #104
epups wrote: post #76

Tom Hanks can generate millions so he gets millions, and Netflix thinks AI can generate millions too, so it's not hard to understand why they would pay a lot for that. I sympathise with the strike, but I think it's misguided to think they can win against AI. If AI ever gets good enough to replace writers or actors, then someone will make a ton of money doing that. Maybe in Hollywood this will be blocked by unions, bu…

> Maybe in Hollywood this will be blocked by unions, but someone somewhere will not have these restrictions. Maybe, but I think SAG more than anyone else knows this, which is why their union rules are so strict. "Global Rule 1" is their rule that states that, if you are a SAG member, you are not allowed to work anywhere in the world without a SAG-approved contract. Similarly, if you are not a SAG member but work duri…

> Filmmaking is still mostly a relationship business, and even with AI actors and writers it's hard to see that changing

I'm not sure about that. The power that Hollywood once had to create and promote stars is fading. This is why we see them endlessly trying to milk sequels and franchises, and why very old movie stars like Tom Cruise and Harrison Ford are still hot.

If people still want to watch Tom Cruise in an action movie in 20 years, they will have to rely on AI. Whether it will be Hollywood providing that experience or not remains to be seen.

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

#144

Post by falcolas »

thebradbain wrote: post #108
pipes wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should all actors earn the same amount of money? Even if certain actors make the studio millions while others don't?

The unions guarantee a minimum price floor for actors, and healthcare if you work full time. No maximums. Unfortunately the entire reason for the strike is studios will rarely, unless you are very top talent, deviate from the minimums. They would often try to go even lower, if they could. Hence the strike is to raise the minimums. There’s 160,000 members of SAG. There’s maybe only 50 household-name celebrities acting…

86% of SAG actors make less than $23k. Even the leads on popular streaming TV shows work another full time job to be able to afford to live because the pay and residuals for streaming shows are measured in pennies per episode.

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

#145

Post by 128bytes »

namarie wrote: post #140
128bytes wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh you've misunderstood, I'm not a socialist. I do not support writers and creatives who profit from intellectual 'property', they are themselves a part of the problem. I reject the notion that workers are free from blame for their participation in the system. A good first step to solving much of society's problems, including this is to nuke the financial sector from orbit, companies like Netflix and Universal will t…

So, just to be clear, your "good first step to solving much of society's problems" is... ending most forms of entertainment?

Not the form of entertainment itself, but the majority of the industry thereof.

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

#146

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

wiseowise wrote: post #111
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% agree. So many of the responses here are of the "why can't they just eat cake?" variety. Actors are striking because (a) they want to still have a viable career and (b) studios still need actors, and AI still needs humans for training. Do I think any of these commenters would be OK if the script was flipped and instead the deal was "We will pay you a thousand dollars to train this AI programmer for a week so we…

a) Disagreeing with Luddites isn't psychopathy b) Article is complete bogus, nobody is talking about replacing actors with AI

> Article is complete bogus, nobody is talking about replacing actors with AI

That is just 100% wrong. It is literally a major point of contention in the demands of SAG and big reason they went on strike.

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

#147

Post by namarie »

128bytes wrote: post #145
namarie wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, just to be clear, your "good first step to solving much of society's problems" is... ending most forms of entertainment?

Not the form of entertainment itself, but the majority of the industry thereof.

Which by consequence would be extremely destructive to most forms of entertainment at least in the short and medium term.

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

#148

Post by anigbrowl »

gedy wrote: post #77
anigbrowl wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you think that because you don't know any professional actors. It's hard work but it used to be possible to make a living as a working actor without necessarily being famous. That looks increasingly difficult. There's a lot of skill required to do the job well and those skills aren't just transferable to other work contexts.

I am replying to: > Am I the only one who genuinely doesn't "get" the AI component of the actor strike? and that blaming "AI" for not being able to make a living as a working actor is kind of a red herring.

I know, and it's already been clearly stated in the thread that the objection is background actors being paid for a day, scanned, and the AI-generated figure being used for the equivalent of many days' work.

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

#149

Post by Turing_Machine »

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.

I believe courts in the United States have consistently held that performers, public figures, etc. own the right to their likenesses while they are alive, but not afterward.

For example, you can use George Washington's picture in a logo without paying any money to the Washington estate.

Wikipedia cites a California case from 2008 which held that Marilyn Monroe's likeness is no longer protected.

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

#150

Post by [deleted] »

bilekas wrote: post #81
tmpz22 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

While there is inequality in the world financially it's a bit off topic. Mbape or any footballer for that matter isn't being replaced by the close to free option by clubs. The actors union even offered a legitimate compromise where their likeness could be used once royalties are paid. This is completely fair and mature approach. Netflix and co get to pump out more content faster and cheaper while the portraits of act…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN