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

21–30 of 76 posts

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

#21

Post by drumhead »

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.

The plan eventually is to have AI churn out scripts, with a human script editor making whatever re-writes or changes are necessary to improve them.

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

#22

Post by stonogo »

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…

Because that LLM does not exist without tremendous amounts of input created by actual human beings. These oversimplifications always skip this step, and pretend LLMs sprang into being through sheer force of will. They did not. They are built on the output of other people, and using a statistical approach to copyright laundering remains copyright laundering.

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

#23

Post by iamsaitam »

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…

The problem of reducing AI to a tool is that your hammer has no intelligence. There are more complex tools, you might consider your computer a tool, once again it doesn't have intelligence albeit it can achieve very complex tasks. I think that your example of "you have an LLM generate a sequence of angles and velocities with which to shake the brush" is copywritable. In that sense you used it as a tool, as you would use a RNG. But if instead the LLM created the whole outcome, then it shouldn't be copywritable.

PS: I use the term "intelligence" loosely here for the sake of the argument

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

#24

Post by pavlov »

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…

> "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?"

Consider an alternative image generation technique where the same computer is connected to a camera, and that video feed drives the brush strokes. Let's assume it imitates the Pollock style so well that if you place an image of a Pollock painting in front of the camera, the computer will produce what looks like a near-perfect painted replica of the original.

Clearly this technique would have a problem with copyright. Programming a computer to make copies doesn't absolve you of copyright.

In the eyes of the law currently, image diffusion models are seen as something closer to that hypothetical camera input that waves the brush, in the sense that the AI model has been trained directly on the works of specific artists and can recall stylistic aspects of their works on command.

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

#25

Post by [deleted] »

slg wrote: post #4
xnx wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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.

[deleted]

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

#26

Post by willcipriano »

slg wrote: post #10
chii wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the AI does a better job writing said treatments (aka, does the same or more for less cost), why shouldn't it take away the job?

This question is irrelevant in the context of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement. The WGA's motivations are obvious. They are protecting the livelihoods of their members. If a studio thinks AI can genuinely do a better job than human writers, that studio has the right to replace those human writers with AI. The human writers likewise have the right to refuse to work with any studio that does so. The fact t…

No way AI could write another remake of a movie from the 80's.

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

#27

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#28

Post by corobo »

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.

Does anyone have any input on a thought I've been kicking around?

The Artist's Oath:

AO0: I have used no AI

AO1: I have used AI in a research or teacher role

AO2: AI has been used for structural components, but not the art itself

AO3: AI has directly assisted in the creation process

AO4: AI generated this entirely from a prompt specifically engineered by a human

AO5: AI generated this entirely from a basic prompt

Slightly expanded thoughts and a few examples: https://cohan.dev/the-artist-oath/

The thinking is that once established creativity unions could specify at what level of AI they will accept, and for what compensation.

You could also stamp an [AO2] on the box/website as you would the content rating.

At the individual level as an artist you can specify the level you use for a work, and someone commissioning you could specify at what level of AI they'd accept.

The rating would be per-project, however the draft includes the addition of an asterisk [AO2*] indicates "and I've never used AI beyond this point in my art", and a + would indicate "however as soon as we reach sapience I welcome our new AI friends into the universe of creativity" :)

Would love to see what smarter people than I can come up with!

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

#29

Post by cf141q5325 »

slg wrote: post #4
xnx wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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.

> Is AI a tool to make the writers more efficient or is it a tool the studios will use to replace writers.

Increases in efficiencies will still make people redundant. Automation means less people are needed. I dont think even the most optimistic executive thought you could get rid of writers entirely.

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

#30

Post by satvikpendem »

corobo wrote: post #28
xnx wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does anyone have any input on a thought I've been kicking around? The Artist's Oath: AO0: I have used no AI AO1: I have used AI in a research or teacher role AO2: AI has been used for structural components, but not the art itself AO3: AI has directly assisted in the creation process AO4: AI generated this entirely from a prompt specifically engineered by a human AO5: AI generated this entirely from a basic prompt Sli…

But why, though? It's like stamping on the product whether Photoshop or Blender were used, they're all just tools, and customers, for the most part, don't care how something is made as long as the product itself is good.
Post reply on HN