[dead]
The Oscars just banned AI from winning acting and writing awards
61–70 of 77 posts
Re: The Oscars just banned AI from winning acting and writing awards
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "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.
Naturally, as it's derived from Wittgensteinian [1] readings. Colloquialisms don't fare well in the domain of philosophy of law.
Re: The Oscars just banned AI from winning acting and writing awards
#63This reminds me of when Tron was disqualified from getting an Oscar for visual effects because the production team “cheated” with computer graphics.
Re: The Oscars just banned AI from winning acting and writing awards
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Haha, okay. This is a galaxy brain take if I ever heard one.
Naturally, as it's derived from Wittgensteinian [1] readings. Colloquialisms don't fare well in the domain of philosophy of law. 1. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein ]
You're having trouble staying on topic. Each pathetic attempt strays further and further from the central question here, which is the use of AI in films and the Academy's decision to impose certain rules around that. The issue is whether this is a meaningless gesture or if it will have real consequences in terms of determining this technology's implementation. What's more troubling is, you haven't demonstrated an understanding of Wittgenstein in the first place yet you confidently cite him to substantiate your circular argument. I'm not particularly concerned with what you think is relevant or not to the discussion as you are guilty of begging the question. Citing Wittgenstein doesn't help you here. If you think it does, you are stuck in the weeds of a language game. Your reply wasn't an adequate counterargument; it was a pretentious non sequitur.
Re: The Oscars just banned AI from winning acting and writing awards
#65Remember 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 Disn…
> It looks like critics of Tron's visual effects mistakenly thought the computer was generating it all for them, with little human input,
I no longer remember the details but I certainly didn't get the impression that "human input" vs "no human input" was the actualy criterion.
And this line to me is meaningless unless we have specific definitions of what the Christ Wedge meant by "animation" and "just effects"
> “[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.”"
Re: The Oscars just banned AI from winning acting and writing awards
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Naturally, as it's derived from Wittgensteinian [1] readings. Colloquialisms don't fare well in the domain of philosophy of law. 1. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein ]
You're having trouble staying on topic. Each pathetic attempt strays further and further from the central question here, which is the use of AI in films and the Academy's decision to impose certain rules around that. The issue is whether this is a meaningless gesture or if it will have real consequences in terms of determining this technology's implementation. What's more troubling is, you haven't demonstrated an und…
Allow me to skip your drivel to the only point worth addressing:
> "The issue is whether [...] it will have real consequences in terms of determining this technology's implementation."
It certainly has consequences regarding this technology's implementation at the Academy.
Re: The Oscars just banned AI from winning acting and writing awards
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're having trouble staying on topic. Each pathetic attempt strays further and further from the central question here, which is the use of AI in films and the Academy's decision to impose certain rules around that. The issue is whether this is a meaningless gesture or if it will have real consequences in terms of determining this technology's implementation. What's more troubling is, you haven't demonstrated an und…
Allow me to skip your drivel to the only point worth addressing: > "The issue is whether [...] it will have real consequences in terms of determining this technology's implementation." It certainly has consequences regarding this technology's implementation at the Academy .
Certainly? Sounds like a baseless assertion.
Re: The Oscars just banned AI from winning acting and writing awards
#68Obviously 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 Oscars are 100% vibes based. It was only very recently made a requirement that the judges actually watch the movies that are nominated.
Re: The Oscars just banned AI from winning acting and writing awards
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Half of Andy Serkis' job portraying Gollum was done by animators, even though Serkis provided the basic facial expressions. I would've given him the best voice acting award though.
Every last motion Gollum makes was Serkis doing it, including when he's jumping up on rocks and climbing down head-first. The animators certainly deserve credit for the facial expressions and the rest of the work of the digital costume, but he physically acted the part.
I don't disagree, but facial expressions is like 50% of acting if not more. That's why I said "Half of Andy Serkis' job portraying Gollum was done by animators"
Re: The Oscars just banned AI from winning acting and writing awards
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every last motion Gollum makes was Serkis doing it, including when he's jumping up on rocks and climbing down head-first. The animators certainly deserve credit for the facial expressions and the rest of the work of the digital costume, but he physically acted the part.
I don't disagree, but facial expressions is like 50% of acting if not more. That's why I said "Half of Andy Serkis' job portraying Gollum was done by animators"
[deleted]