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

41–50 of 155 posts

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#41

Post by zer00eyz »

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…

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

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#42

Post by eszed »

hexage1814 wrote: post #11

>GenAI is not used to replace or generate new talent performances This is 100% a lie. Studios will use this to replace humans. In fact, the idea is for the technology – AI in general – to be so good you don't need humans anywhere in the pipeline. Like, the best thing a human could produce would only be as good as the average output of their model, except the model would be far cheaper and faster. And... that's okay,…

I think you're right, in general - certainly AI will replace background actors, though that's already been happening for years without AI generation. I'm also pretty sure that if/when AI can generate whole films, then that'll happen, too.

However, this statement is a hell of a lot better than I expected to see, and suggests to me that the actors' strike a few years ago was necessary and successful. It may, as you say, only be holding back the "capitalism problem" dike, but... At least it's doing that?

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#43

Post by p1necone »

AmbroseBierce wrote: post #37
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.…

Or they can do like Call of duty, that just makes skins "heavily inspired" by other franchises they don't own, the week Borderlands 4 came out they put a few cell shaded skins that heavily resembles the look of that game's characters, there is one that skin that is pretty much like reptile from mortal Kombat called "vibrant serpent", they got a bit of heat in May of this year for releasing a skin that looked too much…

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.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#44

Post by hexage1814 »

doodaddy wrote: post #28
hexage1814 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue wasn't if they said that thing or not; companies say a lot of things which are fundamentally a lie, things to keep up appearances – which are oftentimes not enforced. It's like companies arguing they believe in fair pay while using Chinese sweatshops or whatever. In this case, for instance, Netflix still has a relation with their partners that they don't want to damage at this moment, and we are not at the…

I’m inclined to agree. The goalposts will move once the time is right. I’ve already personally witnessed it happening; a company sells their AI-whatever strictly along the lines of staff augmentation and a force multiplier for employees. Not a year later and the marketing has shifted to cost optimization, efficiency, and better “uptime” over real employees.

The truth is that Netflix, Amazon, or any other company, honestly, would fire 99% of their workforce if it were possible, because they only care about profit – hell, they are companies, that's why they exist. At the same time, brands have to pretend they care about society, people having jobs, the climate, whatever, so they can't simply say: "Yeah, we exist to make money and we totally want to fire you guys as soon as possible." As you said, it's all masked as staff augmentation and other technical mumbo jumbo.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#45

Post by captainkrtek »

zer00eyz wrote: post #41
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…

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.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#46

Post by captainkrtek »

yorwba wrote: post #13
simonw wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Generated material is temporary and not part of the final deliverables" sounds like they are not looking to generative AI for content that they will air to the public. Later on they do have a note suggesting that the following might be OK if you use judgement and get their approval: "Using GenAI to generate background elements (e.g., signage, posters) that appear on camera"

"If you can confidently say "yes" to all the above, socializing the intended use with your Netflix contact may be sufficient. If you answer “no” or “unsure” to any of these principles, escalate to your Netflix contact for more guidance before proceeding, as written approval may be required." They do want to save money by cheaply generating content, but it's only cheap if no expensive lawsuits result. Hence the need f…

They also mention reputation / image in there. If I can’t tell something is generated by AI (some background image in a small part of a scene), it’s just CGI. But if its the uncanny valley view of a person/animal/thing that is clearly AI generated, that shows laziness.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#47

Post by hexage1814 »

eszed wrote: post #42
hexage1814 wrote: post #11

>GenAI is not used to replace or generate new talent performances This is 100% a lie. Studios will use this to replace humans. In fact, the idea is for the technology – AI in general – to be so good you don't need humans anywhere in the pipeline. Like, the best thing a human could produce would only be as good as the average output of their model, except the model would be far cheaper and faster. And... that's okay,…

I think you're right, in general - certainly AI will replace background actors, though that's already been happening for years without AI generation. I'm also pretty sure that if/when AI can generate whole films, then that'll happen, too. However, this statement is a hell of a lot better than I expected to see, and suggests to me that the actors' strike a few years ago was necessary and successful. It may, as you say…

I would somewhat disagree with this statement being a sign the strike was a success because, like, AI is not at the point of generating a whole movie in human quality today, so Netflix issuing this statement like this now, in November 2025, costs them literally nothing, and feels more like a consolation prize: "Here, take this statement, so you guys can pretend the strike achieved anything."

When AI gets good enough, 2, 3, 5, 10 years from now, they simply reverse path, and this statement wouldn't delay Netflix embracing AI films that much, if anything.

> I would somewhat disagree with this statement being a sign the strike was a success because, like, AI is not at the point of generating a whole movie in human quality today, so Netflix issuing this statement like this now, in November 2025, costs them literally nothing, and feels more like a consolation prize: "Here, take this statement, so you guys can pretend the strike achieved anything."

>

> When AI gets good enough, 2, 3, 5, 10 years from now, they simply reverse path, and this statement wouldn't have delay Netflix embracing AI films that much, if anything.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#48

Post by captainkrtek »

hexage1814 wrote: post #11

>GenAI is not used to replace or generate new talent performances This is 100% a lie. Studios will use this to replace humans. In fact, the idea is for the technology – AI in general – to be so good you don't need humans anywhere in the pipeline. Like, the best thing a human could produce would only be as good as the average output of their model, except the model would be far cheaper and faster. And... that's okay,…

>GenAI is not used to replace or generate new talent performances

>> This is 100% a lie.

We’ve had CGI for decades and generally don’t mind. However, the point at which AI usage becomes a negative (eg: the content appears low quality) because of its usage, I’d expect some backlash and pulling back in the industry.

In film and tv, customers have so much choice. If a film or tv is low effort, it’s likely going to get low ratings.

Every business and industry is obviously incentivized to cut costs, but, if those cost cuts directly affect the reputation and imagery of your final product, you probably want to choose wisely which things you cut..

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#49

Post by legitster »

I know that people get very up in arms about AI in creative industries - but I feel like people don't necessarily understand that even in creative industries there is a LOT of monotonous, exploitative grunt work.

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. Miyazaki gets to design his beautiful characters - but the task of getting those characters to screen must be carried out by massive team of illustrators for whom "creative liberty" is a liability to their career.

(And this example is only for the creative aspects of film-making. There is a lot of normal corporate and logistical stuff that never even affects what you see)

That's not to say I'm looking forward to the wave of lazy AI-infused slop that is heading our way. But I also don't necessarily agree with the grandstanding that AI is inherently anti-creative or only destructive. I reserve the right to be open-minded.

The irony is that movies and TV themselves represented a cheaper, industrialized and commoditized alternative to theater. And theater is still around and just as good as it ever was.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#50

Post by lawlessone »

legitster wrote: post #49

I know that people get very up in arms about AI in creative industries - but I feel like people don't necessarily understand that even in creative industries there is a LOT of monotonous, exploitative grunt work. 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. Miyazaki gets to design his beautiful characters -…

What happens to the illustrators now?
Post reply on HN