Live data from Hacker News

The Oscars just banned AI from winning acting and writing awards

gizmodo.com

41–50 of 77 posts

Re: The Oscars just banned AI from winning acting and writing awards

#41

Good. The intangibles of art are undeniable. - emotional connection - aesthetics - zeitgeist - lived experience - artist journey You're free to fall in love with your sexbot, but it's still just jerking off.

And what is falling in love with an actor? Not jerking off?

It's certainly a lot less messy!

Re: The Oscars just banned AI from winning acting and writing awards

#43
post #15

Given the latest court ruling in March that AI works can't be copyrighted, this makes a lot of sense. The movie itself can't be copyrighted if it uses AI (although there is still some unresolved issues around how much AI).

I would expect that ruling to be overturned at some point. AI is going to be how people work. And saying it can the copyrighted is going to look increasingly absurd, like saying anything produced with Adobe tools can’t be copyrighted.

Re: The Oscars just banned AI from winning acting and writing awards

#45
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but even giving 100% of the benefit of the doubt you're raising, it still doesn't follow that it is purely "performative" to formally establish a rule just because it may soon become impossible to identify rule-breakers without whistle-blowers or intel.

Well what purpose does the rule serve if it can't be enforced, if not signalling/norming?

Your premise is fallacious - at best, it is partially enforceable (like I said: whistle-blowers, intel), which gives it teeth (not necessarily much, but more than zero, which makes it useful to some non-zero extent).

Even at worst, it expresses intent, which has meaning to humans. We are humans. I can't force you to do anything, but I can ask you to. Don't disparage what it means to be humans talking to each other - it's one of the few things we have left on Earth.

Re: The Oscars just banned AI from winning acting and writing awards

#46
post #15

Given the latest court ruling in March that AI works can't be copyrighted, this makes a lot of sense. The movie itself can't be copyrighted if it uses AI (although there is still some unresolved issues around how much AI).

I would expect that ruling to be overturned at some point. AI is going to be how people work. And saying it can the copyrighted is going to look increasingly absurd, like saying anything produced with Adobe tools can’t be copyrighted.

I actually agree with you. Between lobbying from the AI companies, artists when they realize it's a tool they can use to enhance their own work, and probably the movie makers themselves when the realize how much their own people want to use it, it will either be overturned or the laws will be much clearer.

Re: The Oscars just banned AI from winning acting and writing awards

#47
post #2

Obviously just performative signalling that doesn't really do much. You can't definitively tell if AI was used, so the rule can never realistically be enforced. Then again, the Oscars are surely almost entirely vibes based anyway. So it's hardly some internally consistent system of merit in the first place.

The younger generation also increasingly pays less attention to traditional mainstream entertainment and media, as now they can create more of it with AI. Edit: funny to see the anti-AI crowd showing up again, how predictable... you can downvote but you can't stop the truth! Legacy entertainment is dying, and will soon become irrelevant.

I’m downvoting because it’s an unusual (and probably false) claim made with no evidence — particularly your clause after “as” needs a more substantive defense. Can you convince me a bit that you speak for the younger generation?

Re: The Oscars just banned AI from winning acting and writing awards

#48
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't definitively tell if athletes are doping, or students are cheating, it should then be allowed.

It's much easier to tell if athletes are doping than to 'detect' AI in text that's already Oscar-for-writing level good. I would suggest the latter is quite literally impossible.

How do you know that it's easier? How do you prove athletes who have not been caught doping were in fact not doping?

Re: The Oscars just banned AI from winning acting and writing awards

#49

Remember when they tried to ban computers from winning best special effects? Tron, famously.

I found some more details about this, for anyone interested. It looks like critics of Tron's visual effects mistakenly thought the computer was generating it all for them, with little human input, when it was actually quite a laborious process.

"Tron’s offices were trailers in the Disney parking lot, recalls Chris Wedge, then an animator for MAGI, who worked on Tron’s light cycle sequences. “[That’s] because the Disney animation department didn’t believe that this was animation,” he says. “They thought it was computers just making effects. They just didn’t understand anything about it.”"

"Tron’s distinctive glowing circuitry was achieved through a technique called backlight animation, which involves making a negative of each frame and hand-painting the glowing areas. There were 75,000 frames to do; more than half a million pieces of artwork."

"Star Wars and Alien both feature 3D wireframe graphics projected on screens. Only a few companies could produce such images, each of which had their own room-sized computer and their own custom-built software. The process was still cumbersome. “We had to figure out how to position and render objects 24 times to make one second of perceived movement on the screen,” says Bill Kroyer, Tron’s head of computer animation. Tron’s animators had to map out the CGI scenes on graph paper, then calculate the coordinates and angles for each element in each frame."

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jul/05/tron-steven-lis...

Re: The Oscars just banned AI from winning acting and writing awards

#50
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well what purpose does the rule serve if it can't be enforced, if not signalling/norming?

Your premise is fallacious - at best, it is partially enforceable (like I said: whistle-blowers, intel), which gives it teeth (not necessarily much, but more than zero, which makes it useful to some non-zero extent). Even at worst, it expresses intent, which has meaning to humans. We are humans. I can't force you to do anything, but I can ask you to. Don't disparage what it means to be humans talking to each other -…

> Even at worst, it expresses intent, which has meaning to humans. We are humans. I can't force you to do anything, but I can ask you to. Don't disparage what it means to be humans talking to each other - it's one of the few things we have left on Earth.

Isn't that what... signalling is?

Post reply on HN