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

WGA and the studios reach tentative deal to end writers' strike

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 76 posts

Re: WGA and the studios reach tentative deal to end writers' strike

#11

Post by colordrops »

slg wrote: post #2

Specifically for this community, it will be interesting to see what the agreements were regarding AI. That was a major issue in negotiations for both sides. I think the decisions here could go a long way in setting a precedent for how that technology will continue to be developed and how it will be used in the future. For example, if the writers get what they wanted, it means Hollywood has little motivation to put it…

I don't understand how AI work is not copywritable. It's like saying that paintings that use a brush are not copywritable. I know it sounds like a stretch - hear me out. AI is a tool, just like a brush is a tool. As long as there is a human required to guide it, it's still the product of a particular human. Tools can get more complex. E.g. prints. Then you've got non-AI computer generated art, which is uncontroversially copywritable. Why is generative AI fundamentally different?

Let's take one style of painting, say Jackson Pollack. You wave your brush around over the canvas. It's copywritable.

Now you create a frame that holds the brush that randomly shakes it using a shop motor over the canvas. Still copywritable.

Next, you plug it into a computer and have the computer use a RNG to determine how to shake it. Still copywritable.

Lastly, you have an LLM generate a sequence of angles and velocities with which to shake the brush. No longer copywritable? Why?

Re: WGA and the studios reach tentative deal to end writers' strike

#12

Post by RockRobotRock »

colordrops wrote: post #11
slg wrote: post #2

Specifically for this community, it will be interesting to see what the agreements were regarding AI. That was a major issue in negotiations for both sides. I think the decisions here could go a long way in setting a precedent for how that technology will continue to be developed and how it will be used in the future. For example, if the writers get what they wanted, it means Hollywood has little motivation to put it…

I don't understand how AI work is not copywritable. It's like saying that paintings that use a brush are not copywritable. I know it sounds like a stretch - hear me out. AI is a tool, just like a brush is a tool. As long as there is a human required to guide it, it's still the product of a particular human. Tools can get more complex. E.g. prints. Then you've got non-AI computer generated art, which is uncontroversia…

You might be too ahead of your time in this thinking, but I see the logic there.

Re: WGA and the studios reach tentative deal to end writers' strike

#13

Post by bugglebeetle »

colordrops wrote: post #11
slg wrote: post #2

Specifically for this community, it will be interesting to see what the agreements were regarding AI. That was a major issue in negotiations for both sides. I think the decisions here could go a long way in setting a precedent for how that technology will continue to be developed and how it will be used in the future. For example, if the writers get what they wanted, it means Hollywood has little motivation to put it…

I don't understand how AI work is not copywritable. It's like saying that paintings that use a brush are not copywritable. I know it sounds like a stretch - hear me out. AI is a tool, just like a brush is a tool. As long as there is a human required to guide it, it's still the product of a particular human. Tools can get more complex. E.g. prints. Then you've got non-AI computer generated art, which is uncontroversia…

Copyright is a special protection under law to incentivize people to produce creative works. Machines don’t need this incentive and thus don’t need the protection. It’s fairly straightforward.

Re: WGA and the studios reach tentative deal to end writers' strike

#14

Post by xboxnolifes »

colordrops wrote: post #11
slg wrote: post #2

Specifically for this community, it will be interesting to see what the agreements were regarding AI. That was a major issue in negotiations for both sides. I think the decisions here could go a long way in setting a precedent for how that technology will continue to be developed and how it will be used in the future. For example, if the writers get what they wanted, it means Hollywood has little motivation to put it…

I don't understand how AI work is not copywritable. It's like saying that paintings that use a brush are not copywritable. I know it sounds like a stretch - hear me out. AI is a tool, just like a brush is a tool. As long as there is a human required to guide it, it's still the product of a particular human. Tools can get more complex. E.g. prints. Then you've got non-AI computer generated art, which is uncontroversia…

It was my understanding that the debate was never about whether AI work is copyrightable. The debate is whether the work can be attributed to the AI. In your example, it would be like attributing a work to the brush, rather than to the artist.

Re: WGA and the studios reach tentative deal to end writers' strike

#15

Post by Jean-Papoulos »

colordrops wrote: post #11
slg wrote: post #2

Specifically for this community, it will be interesting to see what the agreements were regarding AI. That was a major issue in negotiations for both sides. I think the decisions here could go a long way in setting a precedent for how that technology will continue to be developed and how it will be used in the future. For example, if the writers get what they wanted, it means Hollywood has little motivation to put it…

I don't understand how AI work is not copywritable. It's like saying that paintings that use a brush are not copywritable. I know it sounds like a stretch - hear me out. AI is a tool, just like a brush is a tool. As long as there is a human required to guide it, it's still the product of a particular human. Tools can get more complex. E.g. prints. Then you've got non-AI computer generated art, which is uncontroversia…

This is the difference between the law and the spirit of the law. Copyright is there to incentivize creation and innovation, and the large-scale use of AI might reasonably go against this incentive. The law doesn't exist in a vacuum where is it the word of god and We Have To Obey It. It has a purpose, and we can choose to adapt it to better suit our needs.

A note : RNG means it's random. An LLM's output is not random, it's based on previously look-at data (which is the same way humans function, if we're being honest).

Re: WGA and the studios reach tentative deal to end writers' strike

#16

Post by DarkNova6 »

xnx wrote: post #3
slg wrote: post #2

Specifically for this community, it will be interesting to see what the agreements were regarding AI. That was a major issue in negotiations for both sides. I think the decisions here could go a long way in setting a precedent for how that technology will continue to be developed and how it will be used in the future. For example, if the writers get what they wanted, it means Hollywood has little motivation to put it…

I haven't followed this close enough to know, but I assume that writers will use AI heavily. It's a great tool for brainstorming and creating drafts.

They already do. But not in terms of actual writing, but as a research method on unfamiliar topics.

Re: WGA and the studios reach tentative deal to end writers' strike

#17

Post by DarkNova6 »

junofan wrote: post #5
slg wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I assume that writers will use AI heavily Yeah, from a high level that is the question. Will the writers use AI or will the studios? Is AI a tool to make the writers more efficient or is it a tool the studios will use to replace writers. The writers generally have no problem with the former, but they wanted protection from the latter.

Studios don’t want to replace writers. They just want to pay writers less by crediting AI if used. The writers want full credit so they receive full revenue.

Disney has already announced to invest a billion into AI.

Re: WGA and the studios reach tentative deal to end writers' strike

#18

Post by slg »

Jean-Papoulos wrote: post #15
colordrops wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how AI work is not copywritable. It's like saying that paintings that use a brush are not copywritable. I know it sounds like a stretch - hear me out. AI is a tool, just like a brush is a tool. As long as there is a human required to guide it, it's still the product of a particular human. Tools can get more complex. E.g. prints. Then you've got non-AI computer generated art, which is uncontroversia…

This is the difference between the law and the spirit of the law. Copyright is there to incentivize creation and innovation, and the large-scale use of AI might reasonably go against this incentive. The law doesn't exist in a vacuum where is it the word of god and We Have To Obey It. It has a purpose, and we can choose to adapt it to better suit our needs. A note : RNG means it's random. An LLM's output is not random…

>The law doesn't exist in a vacuum where is it the word of god and We Have To Obey It. It has a purpose, and we can choose to adapt it to better suit our needs.

And this is why this agreement is so important for the future of AI even though it is really only governs movies and TV. Hollywood is a major political force. We all know the story about how Disney has repeatedly pushed for extensions on the life of copyrights. This deal will likely give us good indication into how active and in what areas Hollywood will participate in shaping the law around AI.

Re: WGA and the studios reach tentative deal to end writers' strike

#19

Post by bugglebeetle »

DarkNova6 wrote: post #17
junofan wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Studios don’t want to replace writers. They just want to pay writers less by crediting AI if used. The writers want full credit so they receive full revenue.

Disney has already announced to invest a billion into AI.

…in their continued pursuit of driving their stock price down as far as it will go.

If there was ever a company that needs to take that money invest it back into the kind of artists and work that made them such a powerhouse in the first place, it’s Disney. But, instead, they’ll pay out this money to some execs friend with a BS AI startup to procedurally generate another shitty Marvel or Star Wars thing.

Re: WGA and the studios reach tentative deal to end writers' strike

#20

Post by drumhead »

The issue that held up the deal was the 20 person writers room minimum requirement. It's sounded like a negotiating position than a realistic demand, but other than that all the other demands they held were met.

As for AI, it's not particularly useful yet so the studios were prepared to concede on that issue, but this deal expires in three years time and by then they may not be so willing to compromise on it.

Post reply on HN