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

Using Generative AI in Content Production

partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 155 posts

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#81

Post by doctorpangloss »

stego-tech wrote: post #9

This actually looks pretty good. The key takeaway I got was that they know their business is dependent upon Intellectual Property rights, and that Generative AI in final outputs or productive work undermines the foundation of their future success vis a vis discounting or dismissing IP Law and Rights. That’s likely to be the middle ground going forward for the smarter creative companies, and I’m personally all for it.…

Yeah. No. This document says, “our strategy is wait and see.” It’s the most disruptive media technology since the TV. And they’re like, “whatever.” That is not the move of a “smarter” creative company. Lawyers are really, really bad at running companies, even if you have strong opinions about the law.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#82

Post by marcus_holmes »

It's interesting that they don't explicitly state the fact that AI-generated content cannot be copyrighted. They seem to dance around that. The provision against generating a major character is about respect for talent and so on, rather than the fact that that would make the major character public domain and therefore able to be used by anyone for anything.

I wonder if we're going to see a push back by media companies around copyright over AI-generated content. Though I don't see how; copyright is explicitly an artificial legal protection of human works.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#83

Post by lubujackson »

grugagag wrote: post #52
legitster wrote: post #49

I know that people get very up in arms about AI in creative industries - but I feel like people don't necessarily understand that even in creative industries there is a LOT of monotonous, exploitative grunt work. For every person who gets to make creative decision, there are hundreds upon hundreds of people whose sole purpose is slavish adherence to those decisions. Miyazaki gets to design his beautiful characters -…

> For every person who gets to make creative decision, there are hundreds upon hundreds of people whose sole purpose is slavish adherence to those decisions. Yes but at least those decisions come from some or one person not just an algorirhm

As an engineer and artist, I think a better comparison is painting -> photography. It took quite a while for photography to be considered an art, since it removed so much of the creative control from the artist. But it replaced them with new and different skills, particularly the value of curation.

Some skills, like framing, values, balance, etc. become even more important differentiators. Yes, it is much different. But as long as humans are in the loop, there is an opportunity for human communication.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#84

Post by [deleted] »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #80
retrochameleon wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the record, Arc Raiders (just released) makes me feel like I'm back playing MW2 in the golden days. Just in the sense of playing an awesome game and riding the wave of popularity with everyone else.

Unfortunately games playerbases don't stick around long enough anymore for grinding hard enough to be worth it.

[deleted]

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#85

Post by AnthonyMouse »

BadCookie wrote: post #23
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kind of wonder if that even works. If you take a model trained on Getty and ask it for Indiana Jones or Harry Potter, what does it give you? These things are popular enough that it's likely to be present in any large set of training data, either erroneously or because some specific works incorporated them in a way that was licensed or fair use for those particular works even if it isn't in general. And then when it…

It comes down to who is liable for the edge cases, I suspect. Adobe will compensate the end user if they get sued for using a Firefly-generated image (probably up to some limit). Getting sued occasionally is a cost of doing business in some industries. It’s about risk mitigation rather than risk elimination.

Feels like "paying extra for the extended warranty" vibes. What it covers isn't much (do you expect someone to come after you in small claims court and if they do, was that your main concern?) meanwhile the big claim you're actually worried about is what it doesn't cover.

And if you really wanted insurance then why not get it from an actual insurance company?

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#86

Post by exasperaited »

Worth reading alongside: Equity’s GDPR FAQ.

https://www.equity.org.uk/advice-and-support/know-your-right...

Common-sense, practical, and covers a lot of the shifting ground around an artist’s ability to withdraw consent under GDPR and the ways they can properly use this to prevent their likenesses being used to train their digital replacements.

(Equity is the UK equivalent of the AEA and SAG-AFTRA combined)

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#87

Post by exasperaited »

higginsniggins wrote: post #30
amelius wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> get that shit outta there because we can’t own something we stole from someone else How does anyone prove it though? You can say "does that matter?" but once everybody starts doing it, it becomes a different story.

Any one with a brain knows it is not stolen, but nevertheless the fact that people will claim so is a risk.

It is stolen on a cultural level at least.

But since many of these models will blurt out very obviously infringing material without targeted prompting, it’s also an active, continuous thief.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#88

Post by exasperaited »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #81
stego-tech wrote: post #9

This actually looks pretty good. The key takeaway I got was that they know their business is dependent upon Intellectual Property rights, and that Generative AI in final outputs or productive work undermines the foundation of their future success vis a vis discounting or dismissing IP Law and Rights. That’s likely to be the middle ground going forward for the smarter creative companies, and I’m personally all for it.…

Yeah. No. This document says, “our strategy is wait and see.” It’s the most disruptive media technology since the TV. And they’re like, “whatever.” That is not the move of a “smarter” creative company. Lawyers are really, really bad at running companies, even if you have strong opinions about the law.

Disruptive does not mean good, or useful, or important, or valuable. There is no reason to jump onto a thing early just because it is disruptive: Netflix exists in a different creative world than the tech industry, and its audiences are even more hostile to the idea that AI is being used to steal from the things and people they admire than the audiences of typical tech industry disruptions. People who care about art and artists and films and actors tend not to value slop.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#89

Post by yorwba »

hexage1814 wrote: post #19
yorwba wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The part you quote is part of the list of conditions for an if-statement, so how could it be a lie?

The issue wasn't if they said that thing or not; companies say a lot of things which are fundamentally a lie, things to keep up appearances – which are oftentimes not enforced. It's like companies arguing they believe in fair pay while using Chinese sweatshops or whatever. In this case, for instance, Netflix still has a relation with their partners that they don't want to damage at this moment, and we are not at the…

"Does that statement actually reflect what Netflix truly think and that they actually believe GenAI shouldn't be used to replace or generate new talent performances?"

The if-statement "If you want to do X, you need to get approval." probably does actually reflect what Netflix truly think, but it doesn't mean they believe X shouldn't be done. It means they believe X is risky and they want to be in control of whether X is done or not.

I don't see how you could read the article and come away with the impression that Netflix believe GenAI shouldn't be used to replace or generate new talent performances.

Re: Using Generative AI in Content Production

#90

Post by 3abiton »

roughly wrote: post #2

Shouldn’t be particularly surprising Netflix is leaning in here - they’ve been pretty open about viewing themselves as “second screen”/background content for people doing other things. Their primary need these days is for a large volume of somewhat passable content, especially content they can get for cheap. Spotify’s in a similar boat and has been filling the recommended playlists up with low-royalty elevator music.

Tbh I think theseguidelines are just anticipating future trends.
Post reply on HN