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

131–140 of 155 posts

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#131

Post by zer00eyz »

captainkrtek wrote: post #129
zer00eyz wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> the lowest effort possible

By that rational, Autocad is bad because it doesn't require the same skill as Draftsmen.

Effort, labor, is not a reflection of creativity or skill.

I have a decent sense of design, I can tell you if something looks off, but I say to designers all the time "I cant do what you do, take what I say with a grain of salt". I have rubber ducked non technical people and gotten questions that steered me in better directions...

AI Doesn't make me a good designer, AI doesn't make me a better coder.

Who is going to do a better job framing a house. Someone with 20 years of experience with a hammer and a hand saw or someone who has never built a house with a nail gun and a circular saw.

The AI has no taste, no talent, it simply does what it's told. The crappy content is a result of it producing what it has been asked to produce.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#132

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

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.

Values aren't required for something to be good or bad. Outcomes are. A giant meteor strike causing a global firestorm & brief ice age causing mass death is bad, but giant meteors have no values.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#133

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #127
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 n…

Sweat of the Brow is irrelevant. Only humans (or collections of humans) can create a work that gets covered by copyright. Non-human animals cannot create copyrighted works, even intelligent ones. Humans can apply sufficient creative transformations to non-copyrighted works to create copyrighted works.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#134

Post by Wowfunhappy »

SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #133
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 n…

Sweat of the Brow is irrelevant. Only humans (or collections of humans) can create a work that gets covered by copyright. Non-human animals cannot create copyrighted works, even intelligent ones. Humans can apply sufficient creative transformations to non-copyrighted works to create copyrighted works.

A human did create the work. A human turned on the computer and pressed the button.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#135

Post by captainkrtek »

rsynnott wrote: post #112
cortesoft wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I think still images have improved remarkably, though some things still look off for people (they look too-flawless). Whereas video suffers from the strange fluidity and unnatural motion of things.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#136

Post by rsynnott »

captainkrtek wrote: post #135
rsynnott wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think still images have improved remarkably, though some things still look off for people (they look too-flawless). Whereas video suffers from the strange fluidity and unnatural motion of things.

> though some things still look off for people (they look too-flawless)

I think _maybe_ there's an uncanny valley problem (and it may vary person to person). I found Stable Diffusion 1.5's output quite _bad_, say, but not as, I dunno, objectionable and wrong-looking as current models.

Video has always been a complete mess, remains a complete mess, I don't see any real path towards it not being a complete mess. It is, in fairness, a _much_ harder problem.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#137

Post by eric-burel »

echelon wrote: post #8
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. This is for studios and companies that are producing content for Netflix. If you want to sell to Netflix, you have to play by Netflix's rules. Netflix has all kinds of rules and guidelines, including which camera bodies and lenses are allowed [1]. [1] https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/360...

If you want to sell anything as an SME almost anywhere in the world, you have to play by Google's obscure SEO rules. It doesn't make it right. I feel the same vibe with this kind of rules. Are thise guidelines negotiated with unions or federation that includes the content producers, actors, authors? If yes, is decision power equally balanced? Who writes the rules?

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#138

Post by eric-burel »

rsynnott wrote: post #113
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.

When you take the highway you are expected to respect a few rules but the highway builder is not supposed to tell you how to dress in your car. Theses platforms are the closest that can be to public spaces and they are managed as totally autonomous blackbox, I don't like that.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#139

Post by jMyles »

AlienRobot wrote: post #122
jMyles wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 purpos…

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

There are a lot of challenges facing a band, including the frustrations of CDBaby and Distrokid. If you told me my music would just magically appear on Spotify without my having to lift a finger (and without having to implicitly endorse them by putting it there), that'd be a huge relief.

> it completely ignores the massive scale of abuse for profit purpose that would occur if copyright didn't exist.

"abuse"? If you can somehow make money by playing music that I've made, nothing will make me prouder. And whatever you're doing that's generating that profit, it will almost certainly increase the likelihood that I can plan a series of shows around it, which will in turn generate income for me. Who exactly is losing here? Where is the "abuse"?

> 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.

I'm already sold, you don't have to keep making it sound sweeter and sweeter.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#140

Post by jMyles »

AlienRobot wrote: post #120
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.

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

Well, what prevents you from doing that right now? The threat that I'll call the cops on you? Is that really how we want the internet to work? It's sure as hell not how I want my music to be perceived - I can't fathom wanting the state to intervene because some kid listened to something I made without permission.

You are welcome to "steal" anything I've ever made if it pleases you. And encourage your friends to steal it from you. If this process keeps repeating, look me up and let's book a show in your area, and we'll play our music _and_ demo our source code _and_ get you all dancin' and trippin' and having a merry old time.

Post reply on HN