Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hollywood Is Already Using AI (and Hiding It)

vulture.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 67 posts

Re: Hollywood Is Already Using AI (and Hiding It)

#51

Post by [deleted] »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #11
101008 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is not AI per se (which are only a mix of algorithms). The problem is that this new wave of AI is trained in propietary content, and the owners/creators didn't allow it in the first place. If this AI worked without training, no one would say anything.

People would still be griping about how it devalues the hard work artists have put in, "isn't real art" and all the other things. The only difference is the public at large would be telling them to put a sock in it, rather than having some sympathy because of deceptive articles about how big tech is stealing from hardworking artists.

[deleted]

Re: Hollywood Is Already Using AI (and Hiding It)

#52

Post by dingnuts »

taylorius wrote: post #34
est31 wrote: post #27

Tech companies love to show off that they are using AI, how they are embracing it, etc. Among engineers, there is also a growing community of folks who embrace tools like Cursor, Chat GPT, Gemini, v0, etc. When it comes to artists, I have less insight but what I see is that they are extremely critical of it and don't like it at all. It's interesting to see that gap in reactions to AI between artists and tech companie…

Tech people like it because it isn't good enough to completely replace them yet. The sophisticated, coherent architecture of a well designed system is (for now) still beyond the LLMs, so for tech people, it's still just a wonderful tool. But give it another year, and the worm will turn.

lumberjacks didn't go away when chainsaws were invented; demand for wood rose to meet the falling cost of wood and lumberjacks kept cutting down trees. don't see why it won't be any different for programmers.

Re: Hollywood Is Already Using AI (and Hiding It)

#53

Post by simonw »

SoftTalker wrote: post #44
brookst wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If this AI worked without training, no one would say anything. I don’t believe that for one second. People are rightfully scared of professional and economic disruption. OMG training is just a convenient bit of rhetoric to establish the moral high ground. If and when AIs appear that are entirely trained on public domain and synthetic data, there will be some other moral argument.

Yeah I'm not interested in "art" created by a computer. A watercolor by a first-grader is more interesting. Same goes for music. If you need AI and autotune, find another way to earn a living.

Do you think the Lord of the Rings movies were bad art?

Re: Hollywood Is Already Using AI (and Hiding It)

#54

Post by NewsaHackO »

brookst wrote: post #43
101008 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is not AI per se (which are only a mix of algorithms). The problem is that this new wave of AI is trained in propietary content, and the owners/creators didn't allow it in the first place. If this AI worked without training, no one would say anything.

> If this AI worked without training, no one would say anything. I don’t believe that for one second. People are rightfully scared of professional and economic disruption. OMG training is just a convenient bit of rhetoric to establish the moral high ground. If and when AIs appear that are entirely trained on public domain and synthetic data, there will be some other moral argument.

Yea, it definitely is just a convenient argument to people that feel threatened. I in no way feel as though the same internet that has so consistently disregarded copyright laws with such reckless abandon is now clutching their pearls about this.

Re: Hollywood Is Already Using AI (and Hiding It)

#55

Post by unstablediffusi »

101008 wrote: post #9
simonw wrote: post #7

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King back in 2003 used early AI VFX software MASSIVE to animate thousands of soldiers in battle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MASSIVE_(software) - I don't think that was controversial at the time. According to that Wikipedia page MASSIVE was used for Avengers: Endgame, so it's had about a 20 year run at this point.

The problem is not AI per se (which are only a mix of algorithms). The problem is that this new wave of AI is trained in propietary content, and the owners/creators didn't allow it in the first place. If this AI worked without training, no one would say anything.

their consent was not required. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_use

petabytes of training data are transformed into mere gigabytes of model weights. no existing copyright laws are violated. until new laws declare that permission is required, this is a non-argument.

>If this AI worked without training, no one would say anything.

adobe firefly was trained on licensed content, and rest assured, the anti-AI zealots don't give it a pass.

the copyright is just one of the many angles they use to decry the thing that threatens their jobs.

Re: Hollywood Is Already Using AI (and Hiding It)

#56

Post by brookst »

SoftTalker wrote: post #44
brookst wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If this AI worked without training, no one would say anything. I don’t believe that for one second. People are rightfully scared of professional and economic disruption. OMG training is just a convenient bit of rhetoric to establish the moral high ground. If and when AIs appear that are entirely trained on public domain and synthetic data, there will be some other moral argument.

Yeah I'm not interested in "art" created by a computer. A watercolor by a first-grader is more interesting. Same goes for music. If you need AI and autotune, find another way to earn a living.

So you need to know the provenance of art before you can decide if it’s interesting?

Re: Hollywood Is Already Using AI (and Hiding It)

#57

Post by brookst »

NewsaHackO wrote: post #54
brookst wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If this AI worked without training, no one would say anything. I don’t believe that for one second. People are rightfully scared of professional and economic disruption. OMG training is just a convenient bit of rhetoric to establish the moral high ground. If and when AIs appear that are entirely trained on public domain and synthetic data, there will be some other moral argument.

Yea, it definitely is just a convenient argument to people that feel threatened. I in no way feel as though the same internet that has so consistently disregarded copyright laws with such reckless abandon is now clutching their pearls about this.

Seriously. What percentage of these pearl-clutchers were mocking the MPAA and Lars Ulrich and supporting Napster as proof that art should be free?

It’s a high percentage. But time, increased personal wealth, and “OMG this might affect me” all have a lot of power.

Re: Hollywood Is Already Using AI (and Hiding It)

#58

Post by yahoozoo »

throwaway743 wrote: post #28

Hiding it? Are they supposed to slap on a disclaimer? Feels like one could safely assume they've been using it. Anyways, AI generated media is gonna lead to hyper-personalized, on-demand, generated media for people to consume. Sure, hollywood will still be around, but once consumer computing power and the models catch up, there are gonna be a ton of people choosing their own worlds than the ones curated by an industr…

They have to hide it because of the unions.

Re: Hollywood Is Already Using AI (and Hiding It)

#59

Post by yallpendantools »

unstablediffusi wrote: post #55
101008 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is not AI per se (which are only a mix of algorithms). The problem is that this new wave of AI is trained in propietary content, and the owners/creators didn't allow it in the first place. If this AI worked without training, no one would say anything.

their consent was not required. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_use petabytes of training data are transformed into mere gigabytes of model weights. no existing copyright laws are violated. until new laws declare that permission is required, this is a non-argument. >If this AI worked without training, no one would say anything. adobe firefly was trained on licensed content, and rest assured, the anti-AI…

There is no final word on the matter yet and there are counterpoints to the "Transformative use" argument.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/judge-meta-case-wei...

> "You have companies using copyright-protected material to create a product that is capable of producing an infinite number of competing products," Chhabria told Meta's attorneys. "You are dramatically changing, you might even say obliterating, the market for that person's work, and you're saying that you don't even have to pay a license to that person."

> "I just don't understand how that can be fair use," Chhabria said.

https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/12/copyright-office-weighs-ai...

> Stylistic imitation even without substantial similarity would likely be implicated under such a [market-dilution] theory, which could be considered as a market effect under factor four that diminishes the value of the original work used to train the model.

Re: Hollywood Is Already Using AI (and Hiding It)

#60

Post by unstablediffusi »

yallpendantools wrote: post #59
unstablediffusi wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

their consent was not required. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_use petabytes of training data are transformed into mere gigabytes of model weights. no existing copyright laws are violated. until new laws declare that permission is required, this is a non-argument. >If this AI worked without training, no one would say anything. adobe firefly was trained on licensed content, and rest assured, the anti-AI…

There is no final word on the matter yet and there are counterpoints to the "Transformative use" argument. https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/judge-meta-case-wei... > "You have companies using copyright-protected material to create a product that is capable of producing an infinite number of competing products," Chhabria told Meta's attorneys. "You are dramatically changing, you might even say obliterating, the…

that's one sympathetic judge's opinion vs written law.

I'm not American, but it's clear to me that it will be the supreme court that ultimately decides whether licensing is necessary or not. the parties involved - the megacorps with infinite money and the litigious publishers - won't settle for less.

and given that the ruling in favor of the publishers would all but kill the American AI efforts (good luck licensing millions of works needed to train a coherent model) and greatly benefit China (who doesn't give a fuck about IP), I find it highly likely that it will not happen.

Post reply on HN