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

The Oscars just banned AI from winning acting and writing awards

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 77 posts

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

#51

Post by 627467 »

> banned ai from winning acting

Aren't most cgi acting already unable to be nominated for acting award - even when theres much more deliberate human involvement in the cgi acting? Or maybe they could have been nomination but never was? I see no ambiguity here: if there's no actor that performed anything for the genAI result there's no actor to be nominated. Does this need clarification?

> banned ai from winning writing awards

I'm going to be looking into how this is enforced/investigated. Again: a human must claim they wrote the script.

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

#53

Post by Rekindle8090 »

happytoexplain wrote: post #14
0x3f wrote: 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.

I wish we could stop the slide of the term "performative" into meaninglessness. Just because something is hard or even impossible to enforce, doesn't mean you don't state that it is not allowed and that there are consequences for being caught. That's a common fallacy that overly engineering-minded people fall into. We're humans. We care about things. There is nothing strange about me asking you not to do something th…

[dead]

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

#54

Post by SideQuark »

AndrewDucker wrote: post #29
chungusamongus wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is absolutely no fallacy in the statement you're responding to. Laws are meaningless if they cannot be consistently enforced.

Actually, laws can be really effective even if they are only enforced intermittently.

And laws can be completely useless when enforced intermittently.

Laws that are enforced and more importantly are enforceable have a much higher rate of making a difference. The same works here.

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

#55

Post by _alternator_ »

Papazsazsa wrote: post #41
_alternator_ wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's certainly a lot less messy!

My point is that falling in love with an actor is (usually) falling in love with an idea or image, not an actual person, and in that way it's not that much different than jacking off.

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

#56

Post by spankibalt »

chungusamongus wrote: post #21
happytoexplain wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish we could stop the slide of the term "performative" into meaninglessness. Just because something is hard or even impossible to enforce, doesn't mean you don't state that it is not allowed and that there are consequences for being caught. That's a common fallacy that overly engineering-minded people fall into. We're humans. We care about things. There is nothing strange about me asking you not to do something th…

There is absolutely no fallacy in the statement you're responding to. Laws are meaningless if they cannot be consistently enforced.

> "Laws are meaningless if they cannot be consistently enforced."

Laws, per se, are not meaningless. How effective they are is utterly irrelevant in this context; it's another question altogether.

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

#57

Post by sebastiennight »

0x3f wrote: post #36
sebastiennight wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the Best Visual Effects category is going to be tough to judge, but don't you think it might be quite hard to win the Best Actress Academy Award if your AI-generated heroine can't come get the trophy? Also, "truth" is a thing that exists, and just because you can't always tell if somebody cheated the rules or not, does not mean the rules are "performative signalling".

I don't think AI-generated 'avatars' are anywhere close to being Oscar-worthy as things stand, so it seems kind of a moot point (hence the 'signalling' thing). If they ever get that good, I would just say you can't really fight the market. If AI content is good enough that people want it, then the Oscars just get left behind after a while. But that's fine, and up to them. > Also, "truth" is a thing that exists, and j…

> If they ever get that good, I would just say you can't really fight the market. If AI content is good enough that people want it

It might be "good enough" that you can't see the difference, which is not equivalent to "people want it". Maybe if people knew that "it"'s not the real thing, they'd assign lower value to "it".

Our startup works in video editing. It's not that difficult to foresee that you might be a true fan of [insert your favorite podcaster or content creator], and maybe some AI models would enable $podcaster to duplicate themselves "perfectly", but as a true fan you'd still feel betrayed to learn you just listened to 2 hours of slop that $podcaster was not involved in.

"Ha! You say you're vegan but I just tricked you into eating meat-disguised-as-veggies" isn't the most convincing gotcha.

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

#59

Post by chungusamongus »

spankibalt wrote: post #56
chungusamongus wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is absolutely no fallacy in the statement you're responding to. Laws are meaningless if they cannot be consistently enforced.

> "Laws are meaningless if they cannot be consistently enforced." Laws, per se , are not meaningless . How effective they are is utterly irrelevant in this context; it's another question altogether.

Haha, okay. This is a galaxy brain take if I ever heard one.

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

#60

Post by chungusamongus »

AndrewDucker wrote: post #29
chungusamongus wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is absolutely no fallacy in the statement you're responding to. Laws are meaningless if they cannot be consistently enforced.

Actually, laws can be really effective even if they are only enforced intermittently.

That is incoherent. Laws that are not consistently enforced are by definition ineffective. For starters, you can at least grant that the law was ineffective for those who violated it and didn't get caught, an inevitable consequence of "intermittent" enforcement. More than that, inconsistent application of the law incentivizes more sophisticated ways to evade it, which means the people who do get caught are simply the ones with less money, resources, connections, etc. If your rejoinder here is that the law still functions as a deterrent to some degree, the onus is on you to prove that.

Let's also acknowledge that you're straying further and further from the central point of this particular discussion. This is not simply about "intermittent" enforcement. Enforcement of this rule will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, as the technology gets more sophisticated.

Post reply on HN