51–60 of 76 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
On the other hand, the writers have been on strike longer. In any case, this strike was an absolutely necessary step for both groups. SAG members accepted an insulting, shambolic contract last time around when the studios whined that streaming was "new media" and some kind of uncertain market... when in fact it was well-established and clearly not "new media" but rather the new normal.
The media conglomerates have been riding the gravy train on the backs of actors since then, and their behavior upon being called to account has revealed how despicable their management can be. Universal even vandalized publicly-owned trees to deny picketers a pittance of shade: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/universal-...
A three-year deal doesn't seem long enough, though. These unions' position seems unlikely to get stronger over time.
At any rate, most of these people don't make enough to afford health insurance, let alone write or act as their sole job. It's disappointing to see people disparaging "rich actors" when that's statistically almost none of them.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because even with weighted probabilities, they're still probabilities . If you have "the cat sat on the", and the next possible tokens are "mat" with a probability of 90%, "floor" with a probability of 9%, and "dog" at 1%, how are you going to pick "mat" 90% of the time without consulting a (P)RNG?
They are only probabilities if you treat them as such. If you always just pick the highest probability option (temperature = 0), it's not random in any way - then it's just a confidence value. You can use randomness, but it's in no way inherent to the process.
Huh. That feels like a recipe for either outputting parts of the training data verbatim, or getting stuck in an output loop.
Although I earlier gave an example with 90/9/1 weights where the obvious choice is significantly higher than the others, I'd have thought that in a different scenario where you have, say, 51/49 or 34/33/32 options to choose from, always picking the one with only a fractionally higher confidence than the reasonable alternatives could lead to a "sameyness" in the outputs. Isn't there any value in having variance in the generated responses?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> why shouldn't it take away the job? Because in context of the current generation of "AI" , i.e the ChatGPT cohort, all that it's doing is "given a very large number of examples of this text, generate one more that fits the prompt". It's nothing without the training data. And the training data is the output of people's jobs. If you called it "distributed plagiarism" would that make the problem with the idea that AI…
> It's nothing without the training data. And the training data is the output of people's jobs. so do you not claim that a student learning off textbooks or teachers are also doing "distributed plagiarism"? > but it might replace the need to _pay them_ for the contribution assuming the training data is paid for via a one time fee, or was using material that was publicly available to be learnt off, the contribution is…
Make the AI pay taxes, sleep 10 hours a night, and start off with thousands of dollars in student debt, then we'll talk.
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.
You might want to talk to writers first before making this assumption. Of the writers I know, there are two varieties: 1) AI is used essentially to generate grift/chaff, like marketing material for your actual work, or self publish dumb get rich quick books 2) AI is utterly repulsive to the creative process as it cuts out the actual passion-building part, which is brainstorming and drafting— editing is usually the sh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are only probabilities if you treat them as such. If you always just pick the highest probability option (temperature = 0), it's not random in any way - then it's just a confidence value. You can use randomness, but it's in no way inherent to the process.
> If you always just pick the highest probability option (temperature = 0), it's not random in any way Huh. That feels like a recipe for either outputting parts of the training data verbatim, or getting stuck in an output loop. Although I earlier gave an example with 90/9/1 weights where the obvious choice is significantly higher than the others, I'd have thought that in a different scenario where you have, say, 51/4…
Sure, which is why the technique is used. But that doesn't mean "random" is a useful descriptor. I, as a human, try to add variance to my responses as well - does that mean my mind is "random"?
That's why my point is that there is no inherent randomness in the process. We use a bit of randomness to make it subjectively better, but it's fundamentally not random.