“This ‘groundbreaking’ AI proposal that they gave us yesterday, they proposed that our background performers should be able to be scanned, get one day’s pay, and their companies should own that scan, their image, their likeness and should be able to use it for the rest of eternity on any project they want, with no consent and no compensation. So if you think that’s a groundbreaking proposal, I suggest you think again.”
Can we replace the studios execs with AI instead?
We’d probably get better movies like That.
That will put cocaine dealers out of work.
and ruin the economy’s of most of central/south america
Sounds like they want to put actors out of work, while painting it as a good thing. Ai is already at the point where it’s being exploited by the wealthy to fuck the poor even more, and it needs to be legislated. Nip this bullshit in the bud.
What examples can you give where the rich is fucking the poor by using AI right now?
Artists were the first to take a hit. Then you’re gonna lose writers people who write game dialogue and such, you’re gonna lose service people, etc. Those are all ways the rich are trying to make the poor obsolete
How is AI fucking the poor? It’s just preventing the pseudo-wealthy from keeping up with the actual-wealthy.
I have no sympathy for either group.
Then you obviously don’t know how a movie is made and who is involved. Once you have a full AI movie, you won’t need any of the hands on set that definitely aren’t rich… Grips, caterers, assistants, makeup, wardrobe, etc. Those aren’t “pseudo-wealthy”. They’re working a 9-5 to make ends meet.
*Since those jobs can’t pay enough what’s wrong with replacing them with AI? Then they wouldn’t be working in such poor conditions.
Maybe they could learn to code to be prepared for ‘Jobs of the Future’
Once you AI has the ability to make “movies” then everyone will have the chance to make their own, something few people have the ability to do now. Isn’t that gain much higher than a catering company closing?
They’re not doing it to ‘make ends meet.’ That implies they’re struggling to survive, not thrive.
Maybe once they start getting screwed over by copyright and patent laws, they’ll stop advocating for them.
Then we can have AI movies, real movies, and any blend of the two. Only problem is nobody can use the government to protect their ideas.
It will result in cheaper products and services all around the world, at the expense of those making way too much money right now.
Do you know how much a lot of those positions make? A lot are in the $15/hour range if they’re lucky. That’s for a Production Assistant, others are very much in that range to. Given that numerous studies have shown that’s not enough to live on depending on the state, it very much means they’re struggling to survive.
Right. Do you know the difference between a need and a want?
It’s not like these people are surviving off of peanut butter sandwiches.
Please, tell the starving kids of Africa those in LA aren’t making enough money.
What’s your point here? Are you just chaffed by the terminology? The point is there’s a lot in the industry that are making a substandard wage. And now those at the top want to even take that away to make a few more pennies.
My point is that I don’t care for people who want more money. Those who need it should come first.
Greedy, entitled people have been conflating to the two to fool others into thinking they always ‘need’ more. Just look at these comments. Some people really don’t know the difference between want and need.
I worked sound on movies. Not big budget ones, but they were still movies made by studios.
It didn’t pay well.
I’m sure you did less work for more money than the vast majority of people struggling in Africa.
You chose to stay in LA, one of the most expensive cities in the world.
So people should make less money in more developed countries because people in Africa do? What are you arguing for here? A person making $30 instead of $15 an hour isn’t going to affect Africa in any tangible way. Global wealth inequality is a much larger issue than Hollywood, and I’m not sure why they would even be brought into the same argument.
I’m arguing the disparity in wealth should shrink and people like those in the article are just passing a bunch of money around at the top.
We have the excess to help those less fortunate, but we’d rather further ourselves because it’s what’s cool. It’s a cultural issue centered around the idea that those who have more deserve more and those who have less don’t matter.
People like you get really mad whenever anyone suggests anything to the contrary and that’s why these problems don’t get solved. People like you don’t care to solve them.
Well you can be sure of that, but it would be a lie. Days on set can be 20 hours. And then you have to come back and do another 20 hour day the next day. And you get paid very little for doing it unless you’re on a big budget film, which I never was.
Might want to see how people live in Burundi before you call it a lie.
And keep in mind, you’re only subjected to this conditions so people richer than you can be even richer at your expense. (Long hours, low wages, high rent)
This is what I mean by passing a bunch of money around at the top. It doesn’t even matter if you make more money because it’s just going to end up in the hands of landlords and investors. All of does is drive up inflation, making it so the truly poor people never benefit from our excess.
Isn’t this already covered with the Back to the Future 2 lawsuit? They can’t use an actors likeness without thier explicit permission. Just because it’s “ai” doesn’t make it any different, ai is just a SFX.
The explicit permission would be in the new labor agreement, I think…
True, good call. I completely spaced on that. Pretty shitty thing to do. “You know that thing that’s illegal for us to do? Put it in the contract that we can do it!”
SFX
VFX, SFX are things that are actually happening on Set.
Aw Hell No! Actors should setup a trust for their image likeness that lives on forever. If Hollywood every uses their likeness the fees go into that trust.
SAG-AFTRA president Fran Drescher said that “If we don’t stand tall right now, we are all going to be in trouble, we are all going to be in jeopardy of being replaced by machines.”
Can’t stop smiling now that I know what Fran Drescher has been up to :-)
Thankfully not audio work.
She is not in any way the first person I would expect to be president of SAG-AFTRA. Maybe she’ll be president one day. It happened before.
Its always funny how the US are likey some third world country where entrepreneurs/rich people always try the worst ethically possible thing first, asking shamelessly.
In europe, entrepreneurd and corps arent saints but they dont start with the worst shameless proposal possible.
I guess the difference is knowing shame
The difference is accountability.
Why not both
Honestly, I don’t think shame is applicable to corporations really. When you spread all the activity between hundreds and thousands of people, no one feels truly responsible for the company’s actions.
I’ve worked with/at some huge companies, and it’s not like CEOs or director boards are actively sitting and plotting genocides, while evilly laughing and curling their moustaches. They often don’t give a shit at all, they’d rather just chill on their yachts or whatever.
What happens is they set a guideline, like “we need X% amount of growth next year”. After that, managers start pitching ideas, product designers with their small teams compete for resources, someone somewhere finds a way to rise CTR or save some money here and there. But “let’s be evil lol #noshame” is nowhere to be seen. It’s just tiny ideas that are not that impactful on their own congregating into a vile mess.
That’s why regulations and high fines are so important. They help stop those ideas from being pitched.
Remember that Nestle exec who wanted to make water not a human right?
Do you know why Star wars, Indiana Jones, The breakfast Club ect, are fantastic. The acting. We humans can only be tricked for so long witha a placebo. These films I mentioned, you can tell the hard work that went into them, the love and detail. Also taking someone’s life right sounds like digital slavery.
Star Wars had mediocre acting at best. The special effects and story were what made those movies.
Which is funny, because the story isn’t that good in the first place.
Isn’t Star Wars the franchise that really kick started the trend of bringing dead/younger versions of actors back as CGI replicas?
The quote is about background performers. Nobody notices their acting and they usually aren’t even professional actors.
People don’t notice or remember things that look natural. Those background actors will absolutely stick out like sore thumbs when they’re not backed by real performances.
The age of generative AI is upon us, and you can’t stop progress. There’s no putting that genie back in the bottle.
Generative AI, like your image and speech, are just tools, it’s your responsibility to use it for good or bad, and it shouldn’t be owned by anyone else.
But since the cat’s out of the bag now, so the next best thing is that this power should belong to everyone. There will be bad actors of course, but security through obscurity has rarely ever worked, if more people are exposed to AI generation, then they will understand what it can and can’t do, and thus can better look out for themselves.
Besides, StableDiffusion is pretty fun.
The big difference is the keeping it forever part of the proposal. Background actors have already been digitally inserted into movies for a while and only get a days pay to get the scanning and motion capture done.
I mean, sure, let’s use it and have fun. No one is really arguing total bans. But you have to pay people when you use their likenesses. Otherwise, you know, Metahuman exists.
Of course. The law already protect the right of people’s likeness when used commercially, but there are still some questions surrounding that.
For example, whenever somebody makes one of these ultra-realistic sketches of celebrities based on photographs on the Internet like on r/art and tries to sell them, should they also pay the original photographer and the original subject? Supreme Court recently said yes 7-2 in their latest ruling on “Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith”, with Kagan being a notable dissent. Give it a read, food for thought.
No shit? It’s basically slavery but not as morally objectionable.
It’s still morally objectionable, but not as much.
If you’ve not seen it there’s a film about exactly this… The Congress
less the cost of maintaining the hardware and software - might end up saving the film industry a lot of money in the long run, having to no longer hire or pay actors… or someone could steal/pirate their IP and release their own AIgen movies. or perhaps the public won’t pay to see movies with fake actors
That’s a great idea. Let’s tax the studios accordingly on their increased profits, spend the tax dollars on creating a welfare floor for the acting industry so they can live their best lives acting in whatever they want, and let’s legislate around it so it isn’t used for malicious purposes like slander, fraud or blackmail. We get movies starring favorite actors in a market still dictated by demand, the studios keep making millions like before and the actors can still make a nice living. Everyone wins. Oh, except the ultra greedy.
Add to that the fact that hollywood is dominated by pedophiles, rapists and psychopaths, and it is obvious to see the laughable corruption in the US government will allow them to take a big fat shit on everything decent once again.
Eat the rich.
I see no problem here.
There may be a group of entertainers i have less sympathy for than actors, but i’d be hard pressed to think who it might be.
If these same studio owner types could AI your job away and send you into poverty, they would. And eventually they will. So I’ll stick with the actors on this side, not to mention this is about background actors, who 99% of the time are regular people with regular jobs who use background acting as a side gig, and they want to ai away their jobs.
Man if AI could take my job i’d let it have it and then feel bad for it.
That only works if you get a basic income to supplement the job you lost, otherwise it’s just profit for your boss while you get fucked
Why?
Most of the actors I know are really nice.
Because they don’t need more money.
They need to spend less. It’s not about putting food on the table. It’s about living as lavish a lifestyle as possible to show off in front of your peers.
Hmm I think you’re thinking about like the 1% of actors who are rich and famous.
Most actors are not in that situation. They are just working people like anyone else only their income is precarious like any freelancer.
No, I’m thinking about the vast majority of people who live in LA.
They’re just passing a bunch of money around at the top. As soon as they make more, prices go up and the world’s poorest continue to stagnate.
Surely even in LA a lot of the actors are waiters/bit part extras?
As for world poverty I agree it’s more inportant than better payment for workers in wealthy nations, but I think it’s ok to care about both.
I guess I wasn’t one of the vast majority of people who lived in L.A. I was just working crew and occasional actor. My money went to things like rent and food. Weirdly, most of my colleagues were in the same boat.
Now admittedly, there are millions of people in L.A., but a lot of the ones in the entertainment industry sure as hell weren’t passing money around, we were barely making a living.
Yeah, a living in one of the most expensive cities in the world.
You could be living a cheaper life anywhere else, but you feel entitled to live in LA.
No sympathy from me. Spread out.
I live in a cheaper place now. Indiana. My quality of life is not especially different. I didn’t feel entitled to live in L.A., I went where I could put my skills to good use. Being paid a low wage in L.A. was a higher wage than a low wage in Indiana, but the cost of living is also higher.
Maybe don’t make guesses about how other people live their lives.
And let me guess- I shouldn’t have moved to Indiana, I should have moved to Botswana or something if I don’t want to feel “entitled.”
OK we get it. You hate actors and anything that gets close to them. Now go hang out in shit posts.
No, I don’t hate actors. You clearly don’t get it.
I keep saying I have no sympathy for greedy people. Globally speaking, most people living in LA are wealthy. They’re just passing that wealth around at the top which is why other places of the world stagnate.
It’s a cultural issue. You’re just upset someone is criticizing that culture of consumerism.
You’re not making any useful point. Just screaming into the void. I’m not really sure how you don’t see this as turning into a much bigger problem. When Ai is able to synthesis human labor those at the bottom get fucked first.
I might could agree aaa level actors don’t need more money, there’s plenty who do. And not just actors but most everyone who makes the movies and shows we enjoy gets fucked by the producers and studios.
I guess the point is that money is being made and when it isn’t going to the people actually involved in productions, it goes straight to studio executives and shareholders, including those same execs. If films are making a lot of money, why should people on certain rungs of the production ladder be working paycheque to paycheque or be being strongarmed in to signing away any hope of future earnings.
I don’t really think you know the difference between ‘want’ and ‘need.’
It’s not like these people are surviving off of peanut butter sandwiches, lol. A lot of them probably think they’re too good to shop at places like Walmart, too.
No, they get no sympathy from me. Not while children go without food, water, shelter, electricity, and education.
things are worse elsewhere so they shouldnt try to improve their life. great response.
i hope when you need a pay raise your boss has the same attitude.
No. People who have more wealth than average don’t deserve more so long as children go without: food, water, electricity, education, and shelter.
Instead of lying about what I’m saying, why not try to argue against it? Why do you people keep putting words in my mouth? Oh yeah, because it’s easier to argue against than what I’m actually saying.
your whole argument is things are worse in africa so they shouldnt get any more money. its a bullshit argument. everyone deserves to live a better life. with that argument we might as well go back to the robber baron days because people had it worse than the striking workers even back then. after all why should someone with 4 walls a roof and a bed complain about their working conditions, others have it worse. “oh your 7yo lost her right arm in an industrial accident? dont complain theres people who dont have any jobs to go to.” great argument.
yes we as a whole global community should be doing a lot more for the least of us but most of the people that bring us entertainment arent swimming in gold pools ala scrooge mcduck. like the vast majority of americans they are barely getting by. and besides the money not going to everyone else making movies and tv shows arent going to make the lives of anyone else better but the studio execs and producers.
Would you take a pay raise? Because you probably don’t really deserve it with your fancy internet connection.
I agree.
I really don’t care for people in LA complaining they don’t have enough money.
