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

31–40 of 76 posts

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

#31

Post by cf141q5325 »

bugglebeetle wrote: post #13
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…

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.

You still prompt AI.

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

#32

Post by corobo »

satvikpendem wrote: post #30
corobo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because people don't have strong opinions on photoshop and blender, basically. I got nothing better for you there.

For the record I agree with you that current gen AI is just another tool to be used. I even use photoshop and digital art as my example when this comes up too :)

A lot of folks don't see it that way though, hence they are striking. Just want to bring about clarity as to what people want in a way everyone can have an easier reference point :)

E: also in fairness they do stamp the products they use in the realm of TV and movies. It's in the credits usually towards the end where you see all the Dolby, Arri, THX, etc logos. I'm almost certain I've seen the Blender logo in a a non-buck-bunny film somewhere at least.

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

#33

Post by krapp »

willcipriano wrote: post #26
slg wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The list of things AI could never do, that it has already done, is getting rather long for a statement like that to read as anything but naive.

Eventually, given enough investment, yes it could.

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

#34

Post by cf141q5325 »

stonogo wrote: post #22
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…

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.

That is betting LLMs wont get enough non copyrighted training material to be useful. Especially for text thats likely not the case. Pretty sure its a moot point anyway as you have no way to proof what was in the training set and what wasnt.

I very much expect parallel construction if push comes to shove.

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

#35

Post by Karellen »

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…

> An LLM's output is not random, it's based on previously look-at data

Just because the set of tokens that are considered to be output next have weighted probabilities, does not mean the one selected isn't "random".

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

#36

Post by Timon3 »

Karellen wrote: post #35
Jean-Papoulos wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> An LLM's output is not random, it's based on previously look-at data Just because the set of tokens that are considered to be output next have weighted probabilities, does not mean the one selected isn't "random".

How is the selected token "random" if it's chosen based on weighted probabilities, especially if you use a temperature of 0?

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

#37

Post by johnnyworker »

satvikpendem wrote: post #30
corobo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> customers, for the most part, don't care how something is made as long as the product itself is good

Most people may also not care about the ingredients in their food, but that doesn't take away the right of others to know what's in their food. If you think it would make no difference, what's the harm? Not even giving people a choice while claiming to know what they want seems fishy to me.

And art isn't just product. It's human communication, it means different things to different people, and "who made it and why" is part of that. You don't have a right to my attention and respect just by producing (or stealing) the same output as someone I care about. The stuff that can be quantified is not the stuff that matters.

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

#38

Post by codingdave »

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…

This is interesting in that my gut reaction as an artist is that it completely misses the mark on how artists work, create, and choose from all available media and tools. Yet when I tried to write a comment saying so, I kept think about how yes - we do label works on gallery walls with what media was used. We do sometimes create works deliberately using new tools, and sometimes put arbitrary constraints around ourselves.

So while I doubt this is going to become a standard in how artists present their work, and certainly won't be accepted as any kind of "Artist's Oath", there is some merit in helping communicate the choices made during the creative process.

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

#39

Post by whywhywhywhy »

drumhead wrote: post #20

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.

The idea of trying to create anything of value with a room of 20 trying to stick their oars in baffles me. Not to mention being forced to add dead weight to a team to get the number up if you already have a core talented team delivering.

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

#40

Post by corobo »

codingdave wrote: post #38
corobo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is interesting in that my gut reaction as an artist is that it completely misses the mark on how artists work, create, and choose from all available media and tools. Yet when I tried to write a comment saying so, I kept think about how yes - we do label works on gallery walls with what media was used. We do sometimes create works deliberately using new tools, and sometimes put arbitrary constraints around oursel…

I'm absolutely fine with my bit being thrown out if it inspires the real one! I'm not tied to the first draft :)

Chances are I've come at it from a far too technical standpoint for sure, it's not too far off looking like Geek Code haha

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek_Code

Post reply on HN