61–70 of 76 posts
What's not mentioned here is the resentment this may foster among SAG members, who supported the writers and will not appreciate being undermined by their capitulation before actors reach an agreement. 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 stud…
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 exact proposal on minimum staffing by the WGA in May was: “1 writer per episode up to 6 episodes, then 1 additional writer required for each 2 episodes after 6 up to a max. of 12 writers.”
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.
WGA’s initial proposal in May was: “1 writer per episode up to 6 episodes, then 1 additional writer required for each 2 episodes after 6 up to a max. of 12 writers”
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.
What's not mentioned here is the resentment this may foster among SAG members, who supported the writers and will not appreciate being undermined by their capitulation before actors reach an agreement. 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 stud…
If the deal really is as good as the WGA is claiming, it also bodes well for the actors since their demands were largely aligned, and one union being able to achieve concessions gives others leverage on same/similar issues.
What's not mentioned here is the resentment this may foster among SAG members, who supported the writers and will not appreciate being undermined by their capitulation before actors reach an agreement. 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 stud…
I think a more likely scenario is this will force studios back to the table with SAG-AFTRA to get the industry moving again as quickly as possible. If the deal really is as good as the WGA is claiming, it also bodes well for the actors since their demands were largely aligned, and one union being able to achieve concessions gives others leverage on same/similar issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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'm torn on the AI/copyright issue. On the one hand, for actors, having your image and likeness digitally reproduced in perpetuity without compensation goes against the very profession of acting.
On the other hand, the act of writing is a more interesting gray area to me. There's a different between physical property and intellectual property. If a machine can learn better than a human and put out compelling content, I'm conflicted as to how restricting that helps us progress as a society (just like I'm conflicted as to how allowing it helps us progress as a society).
So many gray areas. I'm just glad a tentative agreement has been struck, and hopefully it's equitable and forward-looking for all sides.
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.
You still prompt AI.
I place take-out orders as well. Doesn’t make me a chef.
Most takeout today is also warmed up according to strict recipe. "Sandwich artists" arent chefs either. And even the initial recipe is designed for mass reproducibility and supply chain feasibility over taste. You still get food but a lot fewer people employed as actual chefs doing chef stuff.
edit: Removed unsensible comparison