As Actors Strike for AI Protections, Netflix Lists $900k AI Job • Hacker News Board

Re: As Actors Strike for AI Protections, Netflix Lists $900k AI Job

#161

Post by sb8244 » Thu, Jul 27, 2023, 3:56 AM UTC

OJFord wrote: post #124

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"recognizability" has nothing to do with why actors are striking. If I'm a background actor, of course I want to get paid to be in multiple movies instead of just getting paid once to serve as AI training data. Plus, many famous actors started out in bit background parts, and there is a valid fear this is "pulling up the ladder". Brad Pitt's first movie role was as an uncredited waiter in the 1987 film No Man's Land,…

But my point is why is that the alternative? Why am I training my AI on anonymous jobbing actors whom I have to pay per use, instead of any old anonymous generative face? There are already film trailer-esque videos of 'people' generated by Midjourney or similar, and then some other image->video processor, on YouTube.

Maybe they'd strike for that to not happen.

Actors will be involved in 99.9% of productions, and people will always be involved. Are they in union with those actors?

Re: As Actors Strike for AI Protections, Netflix Lists $900k AI Job

#162

Post by wiseowise » Thu, Jul 27, 2023, 6:22 AM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #146

wiseowise wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a) Disagreeing with Luddites isn't psychopathy b) Article is complete bogus, nobody is talking about replacing actors with AI

> Article is complete bogus, nobody is talking about replacing actors with AI That is just 100% wrong. It is literally a major point of contention in the demands of SAG and big reason they went on strike.

https://jobs.netflix.com/jobs/285059234

Re: As Actors Strike for AI Protections, Netflix Lists $900k AI Job

#163

Post by OJFord » Thu, Jul 27, 2023, 9:18 AM UTC

sb8244 wrote: post #161

OJFord wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But my point is why is that the alternative? Why am I training my AI on anonymous jobbing actors whom I have to pay per use, instead of any old anonymous generative face? There are already film trailer-esque videos of 'people' generated by Midjourney or similar, and then some other image->video processor, on YouTube.

Maybe they'd strike for that to not happen. Actors will be involved in 99.9% of productions, and people will always be involved. Are they in union with those actors?

They should strike to be paid twice when stunt or likeness (for 'clone' type scenes) doubles are in use too.

I don't think it's at all obvious a significant number of the rest would care never mind want to strike on their behalf. We're not even talking just about properly famous 'made it' actors, we're talking about anyone with a speaking part, or just more of an obvious or interactive role... It'd be like software engineers (from nobody in particular like me, to big recognisable names) striking over office cleaners' fear they're being replaced with Roombas.

Re: As Actors Strike for AI Protections, Netflix Lists $900k AI Job

#164

Post by flir » Thu, Jul 27, 2023, 10:55 AM UTC

mucle6 wrote: post #105

ajkjk wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> other people making large sums of money shouldn't make you upset. Why not? It clearly shows that there is a screw loose. Or put differently: it reminds us of the fundamental truth that in society, people without power get as little as is available to keep them alive and sometimes less, and people with power (in this case, the power of a good negotiating position) get as much as is available to pay them. The world d…

:s/power/ability to create value/ Anyone who can create returns greater than their cost of capital creates value. A screw isn't loose. If you can figure out how to add value to the world, then you get endless riches. > "People without power get as little as is available to keep them alive" Consider using less hyperbole in your worldview. Today has the highest living standards of any time.

> Today has the highest living standards of any time.

Doesn't matter. Humans assess their position relative to other humans, not on an absolute scale. Homo economicus does not exist. If you don't include psychology, your model of the world is very incomplete.

Re: As Actors Strike for AI Protections, Netflix Lists $900k AI Job

#165

Post by flir » Thu, Jul 27, 2023, 11:01 AM UTC

lbotos wrote: post #71

tmpz22 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kylian Mbappe was recently offered $776 MILLION in salary for a 1-year deal as the highest paid soccer (football) player [1]. Jaylen Brown will be making $304 MILLION over 5 years for the Boston Celtics as the highest paid NBA player. Wealth inequality from predominantly ads-based (tv-deals) business models is a cancer to our society. [1]: https://frontofficesports.com/saudi-arabia-reportedly-offers...

> Wealth inequality from predominantly ads-based (tv-deals) business models is a cancer to our society. How do you solve this? People want to pay attention, advertisers want a piece. They have $enough_profit_to_pay_for_ads, so they do.

In the same way you pump oil out of the sump where it accumulates, and back into the engine where it can enable useful work, you tax money out of rich, economically active people where it accumulates and inject it back into poor people, where it enables useful work. The poor will spend it, and it will accumulate with the rich again soon enough, but it enables economic activity along the way.

Re: As Actors Strike for AI Protections, Netflix Lists $900k AI Job

#166

Post by roflyear » Thu, Jul 27, 2023, 4:56 PM UTC

OO000oo wrote: post #129

roflyear wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand these responses. Are you trying to push the window to make people feel like it is unacceptable to be critical of a company's actions? What if I am a shareholder (I am, through ETFs) of Netflix and I disagree with this? Shouldn't I be allowed to discuss and criticize the action?

> Are you trying to push the window to make people feel like it is unacceptable to be critical of a company's actions? I'm trying to encourage thinking a bit more about the circumstances at hand. Hot air criticism is useless an so is economistic (or, Luddite) bargaining. The issue is at the root of how our society is organized. In short, new technology should benefit all of society equally because all new technology…

We know that isn't how things work.

Re: As Actors Strike for AI Protections, Netflix Lists $900k AI Job

#167

Post by Dig1t » Fri, Jul 28, 2023, 3:31 PM UTC

ajkjk wrote: post #141

mucle6 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

:s/power/ability to create value/ Anyone who can create returns greater than their cost of capital creates value. A screw isn't loose. If you can figure out how to add value to the world, then you get endless riches. > "People without power get as little as is available to keep them alive" Consider using less hyperbole in your worldview. Today has the highest living standards of any time.

? That wasn't hyperbole. The average living standards are high and the low end isn't, as it has always been. The proportions of people in the low end vs middle are different than they have been, because the economy has advanced, but it's the same story. It doesn't change the fact that wealth inequality doesn't need to be this unequal. You are choosing that system, over another which is less unequal, when you defend i…

It’s okay to have inequality as long as the floor is sufficiently high.

We literally have an obesity problem among America’s poorest people. Which speaks to having a decently high standard compared to the past, where being poor literally meant you starved to death. Similarly, hospitals will never turn you away in this country. Meaning you can show up at the emergency room and have life saving surgery and the worst case is you’ll get a bill in the mail, instead of dying in the streets (there are countries where this still happens).

I’m not saying it’s perfect, I think the biggest problem has to do with mentally ill and drug addicted homeless, who don’t have the mental capacity to take care of themselves. But I do agree with GP that the conversation has more nuance.

Re: As Actors Strike for AI Protections, Netflix Lists $900k AI Job

#168

Post by ajkjk » Sat, Jul 29, 2023, 11:47 PM UTC

Dig1t wrote: post #167

ajkjk wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

? That wasn't hyperbole. The average living standards are high and the low end isn't, as it has always been. The proportions of people in the low end vs middle are different than they have been, because the economy has advanced, but it's the same story. It doesn't change the fact that wealth inequality doesn't need to be this unequal. You are choosing that system, over another which is less unequal, when you defend i…

It’s okay to have inequality as long as the floor is sufficiently high. We literally have an obesity problem among America’s poorest people. Which speaks to having a decently high standard compared to the past, where being poor literally meant you starved to death. Similarly, hospitals will never turn you away in this country. Meaning you can show up at the emergency room and have life saving surgery and the worst ca…

I'll agree immediately that poverty is less-bad than it once was; food prices in particular are lower compared to labor than they have ever been in history and so people can basically survive with no income. Housing then becomes the actual limiting factor.

For the purposes of criticizing power structures that allow structural inequality I don't... care? The floor is not sufficiently high right now, because tremendous swathes of people are in true poverty, aka existence that denies them dignity and self-determination, because living in this world is so expensive that they can't escape the trap of poverty. So yes, I feel totally fine saying that soccer players or whomever make way too much money, and I'd be the first to agree that the inequality is fine when it is. But we're not even close.