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

111–120 of 155 posts

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#111

Post by rincebrain »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #85
BadCookie wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It comes down to who is liable for the edge cases, I suspect. Adobe will compensate the end user if they get sued for using a Firefly-generated image (probably up to some limit). Getting sued occasionally is a cost of doing business in some industries. It’s about risk mitigation rather than risk elimination.

Feels like "paying extra for the extended warranty" vibes. What it covers isn't much (do you expect someone to come after you in small claims court and if they do, was that your main concern?) meanwhile the big claim you're actually worried about is what it doesn't cover. And if you really wanted insurance then why not get it from an actual insurance company?

Because almost everything is risk mitigation or reduction, not elimination.

In particular, in the US, the legal apparatus has been gamified to the point that the expectation becomes people will sue if their expected value out of it is positive even if the case is insane on its merits, because it's much more likely someone with enough risk and cost will settle as the cheaper option.

And in that world, there is nothing that completely eliminates the risk of being sued in bad faith - but the more things you put in your mitigation basket, the narrower the error bars are on the risk even if the 99.999th percentile is still the same.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#112

Post by rsynnott »

cortesoft wrote: post #51
captainkrtek wrote: post #38

This reads like a reasonable policy. More broadly speaking re: AI content: Sure, boomers scrolling facebook will continue to enjoy their AI slop baby and animal videos, but I think the fact that the term "AI slop" has become so commonplace reflects a bias (generally) against AI-generated content. Each time I scroll LinkedIn and I see some obviously AI produced images, with garbled text, etc. it immediately turns me o…

> but I think the fact that the term "AI slop" has become so commonplace reflects a bias (generally) against AI-generated content. Is that just because we are at the very beginning stages of the technology, though? It is just going to keep getting better, will the bias against AI generated content remain? I know people like to talk as if AI will always have the quality issues it has now, but I wouldn't count on that.

I'm not convinced that AI image generation _is_ getting better at this point. If anything, it seems to be getting somewhat weirder-looking.

Like, I gather that prompt adherence has improved somewhat, but the actual output still looks _very_ off.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#113

Post by rsynnott »

eric-burel wrote: post #4

I am thinking of building an association of AI consumers so we can organize to praise or boycott whatever we collectevily find acceptable or not. I'll spend some time reading this in details later on, but whatever it states or imply, positive or negative, it's not for businesses to set the rules as if they owned the place. Consumer associations are powerful and can't be fired when striking, since the customer is alwa…

> it's not for businesses to set the rules as if they owned the place.

... Of course it is. As the distributor, Netflix obviously has a fairly broad ability to control what it distributes.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#114

Post by natia_kurdadze »

wow this is actually really solid from netflix like it doesn’t just hype up ai but sets real boundaries too i like how they focus on consent and data safety instead of just “use ai for everything” feels like they actually understand the risks around creative work and performers kinda refreshing to see a big studio taking the responsible route

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#116

Post by port11 »

jMyles wrote: post #105
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.

This would remove the incentive to generate content, no? Copyright duration could be much shorter, but I think artists, writers, etc. would prefer the continuing protection of their work. (And I'm pro-copyright reform.)

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#117

Post by jmuguy »

avtar wrote: post #73
retrochameleon wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've been trying to find time here and there to get the tumbleweeds out of my gaming pc just so I can try that game. Reviews and streams for it remind me a bit of the Dark Zone experience when the first Division game came out.

Good news is it can run pretty well even on a potato, they've worked really hard on UE5 for the game.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#118

Post by atrus »

port11 wrote: post #116
jMyles wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * 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.

This would remove the incentive to generate content, no? Copyright duration could be much shorter, but I think artists, writers, etc. would prefer the continuing protection of their work. (And I'm pro-copyright reform.)

It's true, before copyright existed, no one made any art at all, and they certainly weren't paid for it. Thanks to copyright, the large majority of artists have been well and fairly compensated for their work.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#119

Post by jMyles »

port11 wrote: post #116
jMyles wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * 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.

This would remove the incentive to generate content, no? Copyright duration could be much shorter, but I think artists, writers, etc. would prefer the continuing protection of their work. (And I'm pro-copyright reform.)

I'm a full-time professional musician, and I don't know anybody (at least in bluegrass) who thinks that the system of IP is designed to protect us, or is in fact serving us in economic terms. It seems much more geared to protect spotify and apple than it does the musicians.

Last year, I cut Drowsy Maggie with David Grier (something about which I boast every chance I get :-) ), and part of our journey was listening to aging, nearly-forgotten versions to find melodic and harmonic ideas to harvest and revive. For this, we of course made heavy use of archive.org's Great 78 project - and at the very same time, the RIAA (who is supposed to represent us?!) was waging aggressive lawfare against the Great 78 project, to try to take it down.

It was just the height of absurdity.

Consider that since at least 2020, every grammy winner in both the bluegrass and americana categories (and almost no nominee) has been released DRM-free. And that many of the up-and-coming bluegrass and jam bands are now releasing all of their shows, directly off the board, licensed with creative commons-compatible licenses.

https://pickipedia.xyz/wiki/DRM-free

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#120

Post by AlienRobot »

jMyles wrote: post #105
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.

What prevents me from stealing your work and selling it? Including the source code you wrote?
Post reply on HN