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

71–77 of 77 posts

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

#71

Post by therealpygon »

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’d say there is a difference between awarding an Oscar to an AI actor, and a production receiving an Oscar that for a work that includes an AI actor. I also see no reason that AI specific categories shouldn’t be offered. Just because a person wasn’t holding a camera or a person wasn’t in front of it doesn’t mean it lacks artistry.

A one shot prompt can only get an estimation of what you asked for, no matter how descriptive you are. To get what you actually intended, what you imagined, the process looks quite a lot more like smarter versions of.the traditional workflows for digital effects. (Remove a background, add this thing, paint out that thing, etc.)

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

#72

Post by userbinator »

npinsker wrote: post #47
userbinator wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Look at the popularity of all the AI satire/parody videos and memes on YouTube. I've seen a lot of the younger generation who get the majority of their entertainment from the former and pay very little attention to traditional celebrities and the like.

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

#73

Post by 0x3f »

therealpygon wrote: post #71
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’d say there is a difference between awarding an Oscar to an AI actor, and a production receiving an Oscar that for a work that includes an AI actor. I also see no reason that AI specific categories shouldn’t be offered. Just because a person wasn’t holding a camera or a person wasn’t in front of it doesn’t mean it lacks artistry. A one shot prompt can only get an estimation of what you asked for, no matter how desc…

> A one shot prompt can only get an estimation of what you asked for, no matter how descriptive you are.

Isn't that true of all creative outputs, even of 'legacy' provenance?

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

#74

Post by maplethorpe »

ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #65
maplethorpe wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" > “[T…

> And this line to me is meaningless unless we have specific definitions of what the Christ Wedge meant by "animation" and "just effects"

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, sorry. What else do you think he might have meant?

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

#75

Post by frollogaston »

0x3f wrote: post #22
frollogaston wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It prevents anyone from blatantly using AI. If they want to use it anyway and risk getting found out, sure. That's still a big difference.

Can you explain how an Oscar-worthy piece of writing would somehow be able to contain blatant AI-generated content? How would it have already passed the good-enough-for-an-Oscar filter?

If there's some admission or evidence internally that they used AI.

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

#76

Post by 0x3f »

frollogaston wrote: post #75
0x3f wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain how an Oscar-worthy piece of writing would somehow be able to contain blatant AI-generated content? How would it have already passed the good-enough-for-an-Oscar filter?

If there's some admission or evidence internally that they used AI.

But in order for that to be required, it couldn't be 'blatant'. Unless you mean the admission itself is 'blatant'? Then, I suppose so, although the normal interpretation of that would be from the content itself.

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

#77

Post by AlexeyBelov »

npinsker wrote: post #47
userbinator wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This user is a troll. Don't bother.
Post reply on HN