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

Tyler Perry Puts $800M Studio Expansion on Hold After Seeing OpenAI's Sora

hollywoodreporter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 196 posts

Re: Tyler Perry Puts $800M Studio Expansion on Hold After Seeing OpenAI's Sora

#171

Post by johnnyanmac »

kmlx wrote: post #135
Delumine wrote: post #108

He's a hypocrite, he says he's scared of the impact of the industry. But he IS the industry. He's gonna be putting set designers, sound stagers, et al out of work if he opts to use AI. AI is just going to make the rich... richer. We do need some protections in place.

> We do need some protections in place. i find impossible to believe that people that are currently working in the music/film industries will not take advantage of these new technologies (see designers that went from pen and paper to software). i think a decent analogy is music. software has completely taken over music production. but musicians are still making great music, analogue or otherwise. these new technologi…

And given the

- the behavior of big tech in the last 10-15 years minimum - The arguably decrease of quality of movies as is from corporate ignoring artists who already had to protest just to prevent themselves from being degraded from writers to AI prompt editors. - history of artists in film since... forever

I'm honestly very pessimistic. In theory, this means less artists in a VFX studio can charge the same amount (which as is, is way too little. Remember that multiple award winning movies had their VFX studio shutter months after the award), and each artist gets paid a proper living wage, now that there are less hands to re-distribute the money too. In reality, this may shut down what remnants of VFX there are, reduce in house artist, and the remaining artist make even less despite now being as productive as 10-50 artists from the decade prior.

A lot of optimism for such tech would need to come from trust, and every company involved have spent decades eroding that trust and then digging further underground.

>i think a decent analogy is music. software has completely taken over music production. but musicians are still making great music, analogue or otherwise.

music is a decent analogy. No one makes money making music anymore. You're an entrpreneur peddling merchandise as an emotional response from music that people listen to on Spotify that pays pennies (or less, if you sign on a record company). Modern music is the classic "being paid in exposure" trope in action.

Re: Tyler Perry Puts $800M Studio Expansion on Hold After Seeing OpenAI's Sora

#172

Post by johnnyanmac »

Timber-6539 wrote: post #168
tivert wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AI is not good enough to take over most jobs. The hype is overblown and lacking in evidence. And I'm guessing once the evidence is strong enough to convince you, it will be too late to do anything about it.

We'll cross that bridge if we get there.

Yeah, last time that happened, Meta became a trillion dollar company before some parts of the world got some semblance of privacy back. The bridge is currently burning and much of the world still doesn't notice its being burnt alive.

I'm not gonna trust the pyromaniacs with the next bridge if I can help it.

Re: Tyler Perry Puts $800M Studio Expansion on Hold After Seeing OpenAI's Sora

#173

Post by johnnyanmac »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #134
dkarras wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Second, if you’ve done much with generative imagery you know the raw experience is difficult to control to a specific visual outcome. Fine tuning, in painting, image to image, control nets, all these things help. But it’s easy to make something stunning, but difficult to make your vision come out from the machine. It’s a tool, like any other. It’ll require rethinking what’s better to do with generative ai and what’s…

My hope is frankly this nudges us into a post scarcity world where turning the crank to eat isn’t so damn meaningful. A WPA / CCC style program might be useful, tapping people to enrich the world rather than press buttons for food pellets. But these are fantasies and unmoored in the present. We will see.

Given the current state of the world, I don't see this ending in an optimistic lens. At least not in the US.

Re: Tyler Perry Puts $800M Studio Expansion on Hold After Seeing OpenAI's Sora

#174

Post by johnnyanmac »

gcanyon wrote: post #101

Anyone saying: - it’s only short videos - it’s not fully consistent - it is hard to direct to get what you want …is looking at where it is now, and failing to consider where it will be in literally a year or two. Five years from now parents will be mashing up Winnie the Pooh and Avatar, starring their children, in immersive 3D, for the Apple Vision Pro 4 or the Quest 7. Tyler Perry is making a wise choice.

>Five years from now parents will be mashing up Winnie the Pooh and Avatar, starring their children, in immersive 3D, for the Apple Vision Pro 4 or the Quest 7.

five years MAYBE expert creators will be able to do this in a satisfactory way after a lot of polish in editing out the edges and hundreds to thousands of prompts. And even then we're talking more about 5-10 minute short, not a feature length film.

five years for a parent with no technical/artistic expertise, sure. some will make some 10 second shorts on par with a current college freshman's early film project. minus understandings of the fundamentals of film, of course.

Re: Tyler Perry Puts $800M Studio Expansion on Hold After Seeing OpenAI's Sora

#175

Post by johnnyanmac »

edmundsauto wrote: post #77
endisneigh wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know teenagers were not using the content to create their own music? Funny how BigCorp gets benefit of the doubt. By the way, despite the name, OpenAI and teens are both doing it for their own gratification.

Some people were making really cool remixes! It’s not all or nothing, but if you can’t see the difference between making a tool for others to use, and copyright violations, I don’t see value in continuing the discussion.

>if you can’t see the difference between making a tool for others to use, and copyright violations, I don’t see value in continuing the discussion.

If a tool I used is suspected of containing copyright violations, it'd get sued. This happens even in software as Google v. Oracle has shown (among dozens of other cases. Maybe hundreds by now).

And lo and behold, OpenAI is getting sued on suspicion of copyright violation. "tools for other to use" isn't a defense against copyright violation, and never has been.

Re: Tyler Perry Puts $800M Studio Expansion on Hold After Seeing OpenAI's Sora

#176

Post by johnnyanmac »

edmundsauto wrote: post #162
ricc wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I try not to guess what motivates complex animals such as humans when in an abstract discussion like “what motivates teenagers”. Do you have any inside knowledge of what motivates them or are you guessing because you have correlated things you don’t like with a certain demographic?

Not trying to be inflammatory, but it's not really about teenagers, or about OpenAI's intentions. We can look at what they are doing. One group is downloading things other people made, sometimes transforming them - but we certainly haven't seen an explosion of remixes at the scale of OpenAI creations. The other group, OpenAI, makes tools that ingest copyrighted material and enable people to make a huge number of more…

>but we certainly haven't seen an explosion of remixes at the scale of OpenAI creations.

yeah we have. It's just that there was no Twitter/Facebook/Instagram/Tiktok/Vine/Youtube/Reddit and 20 other sites with more people on them today than there were on the internet 20 years prior. But if you browsed the Livejournals and other relics of the early 00's these aren't hard to find at a proportional mass. This drove a lot of MySpace to the point where the post-Tom era chose to try and pivot into the music service angle over a Facebook competitor. And a lot of that was possible thanks to being able to easily access rips of CD's.

Ironically enough, the main thing holding back music from being as profitable as photos was the music industry itself. They were so aggressive in shaping copyright and hoarding everything into Vevo that they lost billions as new media shaped itself. Squandering talent instead of grabbing that talent for themselves to profit from, trying to remain the trend setter instead of expand or leaning into emergent genres, surrendering that waning control to a subscription service (which consistently remains unprofitable) instead of themselves establishing a platform to profit from (from in-house talent and indies alike). So many missteps and it ends in artists no longer being able to make money from the music themselves.

>The other group, OpenAI, makes tools that ingest copyrighted material and enable people to make a huge number of more complex transformations than the original "remix" culture, where the inputs are usually quite visible.

under what metric? It's weird to talk about "remix culture" and argue that AI can transform it futher... at which point it's no longer a remix and arguably an original song. Which people already do.

Some artists are fine focusing on remixing, but remixing for others is a step towards building the talent to make their own music, and hopefully the remixes establish a brand others want to follow.

>It's fine, it's just not as cool or as widespread as GenAI.

I don't think any people starting their careers in tech in the 90's-early '10's would be here if "cool" was a preliminary for their happiness.

Re: Tyler Perry Puts $800M Studio Expansion on Hold After Seeing OpenAI's Sora

#177

Post by johnnyanmac »

jncfhnb wrote: post #60
edmundsauto wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a shallow take. Teenagers are copying bits for their own gratification. OpenAI built a fascinating tool that enables other people to create things by transforming bits. Put another way, one group enables people to make things. The other does not.

Open AI is building things for their own gratification. Open companies are building things for others to create things.

>Open companies

sure do wish we had those.

Re: Tyler Perry Puts $800M Studio Expansion on Hold After Seeing OpenAI's Sora

#178

Post by johnnyanmac »

ghshephard wrote: post #42
endisneigh wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Useful generative AI is only possible by the same collection of copyrighted material previously deemed illegal. I imagine a model trained solely on material explicitly marked for AI use would be significantly worse.

On the flip side - almost (say, 99.99%) of Human Engineers, Artists, Technicians, Scientists, etc... have mental models trained on copyrighted material. Nobody (to my knowledge) has ever said that you can't train on copyrighted material - what you aren't allowed to do is copy or directly plagiarize. Something that all the generative systems are going to great pains to remove from their system where possible. Are they…

>Are they doing a perfect job - nope. But they'll get better

I lost all optimism with tech hoping "they'll get better" quite a while ago. No, it's time to regulate them before they burn the bridge this time.

Re: Tyler Perry Puts $800M Studio Expansion on Hold After Seeing OpenAI's Sora

#179

Post by johnnyanmac »

jonathankoren wrote: post #52
teachinghacker wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It uses a lot of copyrighted content without permission.

What permission would be needed? It's READING it. Are there problems when it reproduces it verbatim? Absolutely, but that's not what the copyright maximalists are talking about. They're saying it's a violation of their right of reproduction when someone simply reads their work. I remember when people were upset that someone would (gasp!) link to their site without permission. Especially if it was a "deep link". Expan…

>What permission would be needed? It's READING it.

and then storing it in a database, as shown by the ability to nearly replicate images with enough prompting before they band-aided a fix over it (which does not remove it from their database). It's clearly not just "reading". You can argue the same for a human mind, but it's a lot easier to peer into a mind of code for now (and honestly, by the time we can accurately read brainwaves LLM's won't even be in the top 10 of ethical concerns anyway).

All that aside, web scraping has been legally contentious for over a decade. This mass scraping for commercial LLM usage is honestly making a horrible argument for that already dubious factor.

>Expanding copyright in this novel way obviously is going to lead to a whole slew of problems, least among which is going to be ensuring regulatory capture by the largest of the largest simply because only they will have the money to license reading.

It's probably for the best, since at that point at least the owners of the data are getting paid (though there's other grey areas to iron out. Especially with User-generated content being sold as if the site "owns it", while being legally exempt from being sued for hosting it). the opposite effect just means the corporations win indirectly instead of directly, with less money flowing around. A company that can outspend the competition can also out spend on hardware to process faster, scrape more, and polish he final effects. There's no endgame here where the corporation loses and the indies win, short of some absolutely radical policy changes.

Re: Tyler Perry Puts $800M Studio Expansion on Hold After Seeing OpenAI's Sora

#180

Post by johnnyanmac »

brigadier132 wrote: post #72
pengaru wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> LLMs don't regurgitate like you think they do. "Copilot has been found to regurgitate long sections of licensed code without providing credit — prompting this lawsuit that accuses the companies of violating copyright law on a massive scale." https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/8/23446821/microsoft-openai...

Like I said, they don't regurgitate the way you think they do. Doesn't mean it can't regurgitate data if it's overfit to the training data.

>they don't regurgitate the way you think they do.

Copyright is about the outcome, not the destination. Short of edge cases where two contemporary inventors in different parts of the world funnel upon the same novel idea at the same-ish time, the method doesn't change how we interpret infringement.

So the fact that it's capable of doing it is enough to bring about legal suspicion.

Post reply on HN