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

Using Generative AI in Content Production

partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 155 posts

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#101

Post by swiftcoder »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #79
asdff wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought they were on biyearly swapping with treyarch? Cod4 in some ways was the beginning of the end for a lot that we took for granted in gaming up to that point. I remember when it released and a couple of us went to my friends house to play it. Boy were we in for a shock when there was no coop multiplayer like halo 3.

If MW didn't have co-op multiplayer on console than that's another example of the Mandela effect.

It had split-screen local multiplayer, but you couldn't play online in that configuration

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#102

Post by amelius »

Aloisius wrote: post #53
babyshake wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This scenario only plays out if it is known what was or wasn't made with GenAI.

It would become known during discovery.

How can you find out if an AI created something versus a human with a pixel editor?

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#103

Post by exasperaited »

danielbln wrote: post #91
exasperaited wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disruptive does not mean good, or useful, or important, or valuable. There is no reason to jump onto a thing early just because it is disruptive: Netflix exists in a different creative world than the tech industry, and its audiences are even more hostile to the idea that AI is being used to steal from the things and people they admire than the audiences of typical tech industry disruptions. People who care about art…

Nobody values slop, and not everything is slop, AI or otherwise. Also, stealing is not the same as copyright infringement, unless you subscribe to the RIAA definition of the word.

AI has no intent or creativity, so it can be neither right nor wrong, neither good nor bad.

So just as there's no procedural difference between an AI getting something right and an AI "hallucinating", if the word "slop" describes anything AI generates, it describes all of it.

Either everything generative AI creates is slop or nothing is. So everything is.

Also I know stealing is not the same thing as copyright infringement. I'm talking about stealing livelihoods as much as stealing art.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#104

Post by orbital-decay »

deepsquirrelnet wrote: post #57

One of the issues with using LLMs in content generation is that instruction tuning causes mode collapse. For example, if you ask an LLM to generate a random number between 1 and 10, it might pick something like 7 80% of the time. Base models do not exhibit the same behavior. “Creative Output” has an entirely different meaning when you start to think about them in the way they actually work.

Creativity is a really ill-defined term, but generally it has a lot more to do with abstract thinking and understanding subtlety and nuance than with mode collapse. Mode collapse affects variation, which is probably a part of of creativity for some definitions of it, but they aren't the same at all.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#105

Post by jMyles »

Luker88 wrote: post #92

I see a big one missing: * fully-generated content is public domain and copyright can not be applied to it. Make sure any AI content gets substantially changed by humans, so that the result can be copyrighted. More importantly: don't brag and shut up about which parts are fully AI generated. Otherwise: public domain.

> * fully-generated content is public domain and copyright can not be applied to it.

Simpler yet - and inevitable, on sufficiently long time scales - is to dispense entirely with the notion of intellectual property and treat _all_ content this way.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#106

Post by alickz »

retrochameleon wrote: post #60
p1necone wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Call of Duty series makes me so sad. I remember when cod 4 came out it felt like a genuinely groundbreaking and innovative thing and I was so pumped to see what IW did next. And then Activision took all of that talent that was genuinely exploring new ground in game development and stuck them in the yearly rerelease of the same damn game mill until everyone got burnt out and left.

For the record, Arc Raiders (just released) makes me feel like I'm back playing MW2 in the golden days. Just in the sense of playing an awesome game and riding the wave of popularity with everyone else.

Arc Raiders, and their previous game The Finals, uses AI in some capacity for Voice Acting - though they do still hire VA and make it explicit in their contract offer

>Some of the voice lines were created using generative artificial intelligence tools, using an original sample of voice lines from voice actors hired specifically with an AI-use contractual clause, similar to the studio's production process in The Finals.

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

Great game though, I'm really enjoying it too

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#107

Post by alickz »

AmbroseBierce wrote: post #63
p1necone wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They stole all the parkour stuff from Titanfall, which was made by the original IW founders when they left and founded Respawn ;) (I use "stole" in a non derogatory way here - 90% of good game design is cribbing together stuff that worked elsewhere in a slightly new form)

Totally, Titanfall 2 is one of my favorite games ever, but by the time I discovered the multiplayer was pretty much dead, no players and no recent updates.

Good single player campaign too, if anyone is interested

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#108

Post by alickz »

exasperaited wrote: post #103
danielbln wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody values slop, and not everything is slop, AI or otherwise. Also, stealing is not the same as copyright infringement, unless you subscribe to the RIAA definition of the word.

AI has no intent or creativity, so it can be neither right nor wrong, neither good nor bad. So just as there's no procedural difference between an AI getting something right and an AI "hallucinating", if the word "slop" describes anything AI generates, it describes all of it. Either everything generative AI creates is slop or nothing is. So everything is. Also I know stealing is not the same thing as copyright infrin…

>AI has no intent or creativity, so it can be neither right nor wrong, neither good nor bad.

AI is just a wrapper around a tool - it doesn't need intention or creativity because those come from the user in the form of prompts (which are by definition intentional)

It's just a Natural Language Interface for calling CLI tools mostly, just like how GUIs are just graphical interfaces for calling CLI tools, but no one thinks a GUI has no intentionality or creativity even when using stochastic/probabilistic tools

Anything a user can do with an AI they could also do with a GUI, it would just take longer and more practice

>Either everything generative AI creates is slop or nothing is. So everything is.

But then how do you know something is slop before you know if it's made with GenAI? Does all art exist as Schrodinger's Slop until you can prove GenAI was used? (if that's even possible)

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#109

Post by alickz »

lubujackson wrote: post #83
grugagag wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For every person who gets to make creative decision, there are hundreds upon hundreds of people whose sole purpose is slavish adherence to those decisions. Yes but at least those decisions come from some or one person not just an algorirhm

As an engineer and artist, I think a better comparison is painting -> photography. It took quite a while for photography to be considered an art, since it removed so much of the creative control from the artist. But it replaced them with new and different skills, particularly the value of curation. Some skills, like framing, values, balance, etc. become even more important differentiators. Yes, it is much different.…

>Some skills, like framing, values, balance, etc. become even more important differentiators.

I agree. I think many artists in the future will be closer to directors/cinematographers/editors than performers

Many of the skills artists have today will still be necessary and transferable, but what will separate the good artists from the bad artists will be their ability to communicate their ideas to agents / other humans

Same with software developers I suspect - communication will be the most important skill of all, and the rockstar loner devs who don't work well in teams will slowly phase out

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#110

Post by iamacyborg »

p1necone wrote: post #62
AmbroseBierce wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not me, the mix of parkour with multiplayer shooting with beautiful highly detailed maps it's something I like a lot, nothing even compares in that regard, I know the game is a shameless skin store but I do appreciate the former, although I also hate how small a lot of maps are, glances at Nuketown

They stole all the parkour stuff from Titanfall, which was made by the original IW founders when they left and founded Respawn ;) (I use "stole" in a non derogatory way here - 90% of good game design is cribbing together stuff that worked elsewhere in a slightly new form)

> They stole all the parkour stuff from Titanfall

Which in turn was likely quite inspired by Starsiege: Tribes

Post reply on HN