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

121–130 of 155 posts

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#121

Post by DebtDeflation »

stego-tech wrote: post #9

This actually looks pretty good. The key takeaway I got was that they know their business is dependent upon Intellectual Property rights, and that Generative AI in final outputs or productive work undermines the foundation of their future success vis a vis discounting or dismissing IP Law and Rights. That’s likely to be the middle ground going forward for the smarter creative companies, and I’m personally all for it.…

> Generative AI in final outputs or productive work undermines the foundation of their future success vis a vis discounting or dismissing IP Law and Rights

It goes beyond just IP law compliance. Creativity is their core competency and competitive differentiator. If you replace that with AI slop, then your product becomes almost indistinguishable from that of everyone else producing AI slop.

IMO, they're striking exactly the right balance - use AI as a creative aid and productivity booster not something to make the critical aspects of the final product.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#122

Post by AlienRobot »

jMyles wrote: post #119
port11 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't understand this opinion.

The only leverage you have to stop Spotify from taking your music and publishing it without your permission is your copyright of the music.

In fact, every time I see a complaint about copyright it's always "we tried to do something at small scale for some noble purpose and couldn't because of pesky copyright laws," and it completely ignores the massive scale of abuse for profit purpose that would occur if copyright didn't exist.

Think of how AI scraped everyone's books without permission using the flimsy excuse that it's transformative work, except they wouldn't even need that excuse or the transformation. Amazon could just take everyone's books and sell it on Kindle, then kick out all authors because they only need to buy 1 book to resell it as if they were the owner of the book.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#123

Post by muststopmyths »

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.

It is a lot like the Division's DZ. Less toxicity out of the gate, but we'll see how that goes as time passes. They should've taken the "rogue" mechanic from that game.

Arc Raiders is a ton of fun though. Also recommend Helldivers 2 if you just want a PvE shooter. It tends to be buggy as hell but the core game experience is hilariously fun.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#124

Post by port11 »

atrus wrote: post #118
port11 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Okay, you're right. I mean, there was patronage for a long time, and then a good era of proper copyright protections. The modern system really does need a reform, I agree. But I don't think we should wholesale put everything in the public domain. I mean, AI scrapers already think that's the case, but…

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#126

Post by buellerbueller »

captainkrtek wrote: post #45
zer00eyz wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with AI slop isnt the AI part. It's that not every one has the talent to produce something of quality. If you give a professional passionate chef, the same ingredients for a full meal, as your average home cook the results will NOT be the same by a far stretch. Much of "AI slop" is to content what Macdonald's is to food. Its technically edible but not high quality

That’s an interesting way to put it, which asks the bigger question of (perhaps?): Do we want a society where everyone can masquerade as an “artist”, flooding society with low-quality content using AI trained on the work product of actual artists? The people doing as such do not have the talent they desire, nor did they do anything to upskill themselves. Its a short cut to an illusion of competency.

>Do we want a society where everyone can masquerade as an “artist”, flooding society with low-quality content using AI trained on the work product of actual artists?

The internet was sold to us with the promise that everyone could publish, and wasn't that great? So many voices, we will hear wonderful new things!

What happened? Enshittification. The rise of the antivax community. Empowerment of far right white nationalists across what had been the most (lower-case "l") liberal governments in the world. Signal being drowned amdist the noise of a bot-driven ad-hellscape internet.

No. We do not want a society where everyone can masquerade as an artist.

Unless, that is, we hate art.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#127

Post by Wowfunhappy »

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.

Some people keep saying this but it seems obviously wrong to me.

At least in the United States, “sweat of the brow” has zero bearing on whether a work is subject to copyright[1]. You can spend years carefully compiling an accurate collection of addresses phone numbers, but anyone else can republish that information, because facts are not a creative work.

But the output of an AI system is clearly not factual! By extension, it doesn’t matter how little work you put in—if the work is creative in nature, it is still subject to copyright.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow#United_State...

(IANAL, yadda yadda.)

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#128

Post by jpadkins »

asdff wrote: post #72
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

I hate how parkour infested the fps genre. There's this whole meta now that I don't care about at all yet one has to learn if you don't want to go 3 and 12 and its in most games now.

parkour has been in fps since quake 2 with CTF and grappling hook.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#129

Post by captainkrtek »

zer00eyz wrote: post #69
captainkrtek wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s an interesting way to put it, which asks the bigger question of (perhaps?): Do we want a society where everyone can masquerade as an “artist”, flooding society with low-quality content using AI trained on the work product of actual artists? The people doing as such do not have the talent they desire, nor did they do anything to upskill themselves. Its a short cut to an illusion of competency.

> Do we want a society where everyone can masquerade as an “artist”, flooding society with low-quality content using AI trained on the work product of actual artists? Change the statement to: Do we want a society where everyone can masquerade as an “photographer”, flooding society with low-quality photos using cell phones, never having to learn to develop film, or use focus, or understand lenses... Do we want a socie…

I think in all of those other examples you provide, a person still had to do something.

- take a photo of a subject

- paint something

- pick up a guitar

Whereas asking the computer in the lowest effort possible to do said thing for you “draw me this”, “make a song that sounds like this”, requires zero effort/skill and results in no improvement of your own ability.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#130

Post by captainkrtek »

buellerbueller wrote: post #126
captainkrtek wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s an interesting way to put it, which asks the bigger question of (perhaps?): Do we want a society where everyone can masquerade as an “artist”, flooding society with low-quality content using AI trained on the work product of actual artists? The people doing as such do not have the talent they desire, nor did they do anything to upskill themselves. Its a short cut to an illusion of competency.

>Do we want a society where everyone can masquerade as an “artist”, flooding society with low-quality content using AI trained on the work product of actual artists? The internet was sold to us with the promise that everyone could publish, and wasn't that great? So many voices, we will hear wonderful new things! What happened? Enshittification. The rise of the antivax community. Empowerment of far right white nationa…

Agreed. The double-edged sword of "giving everyone a voice" online means we also gave platforms to hate speech, low quality content, dangerous misinformation, the extreme optimization of extracting attention/money from people (ads, algos), etc.

I'm not for censorship, it's more just a reflection on human nature. I'm fairly pessimistic on AI "hopes" given what we've turned the internet into.

Post reply on HN