LogFAQs > #974853400

Muscles posted...

Do they really think they can just replace people with ai and it would hurt the quality or do they just not care about the quality? Ai reminds me of cgi where you can tell its not real regardless of how good it gets, it's in the uncanny valley for sure

Considering what Hollywood's been putting out for the last few years, computers probably can do better at humans at this point.

But it's less about what AI can do now, and more about what it can do in the future. If studios agree to restrict AI, then that will become part of contracts going forward, which will prevent studios from using it even after it improves. In the same way, the union isn't really worried about AI replacing jobs now, they're worried about AI replacing jobs in the future, and they're trying to get ahead of the curve.

Basically, studios want to keep the right to use AI for when it finally becomes sophisticated enough to actually start replacing humans, whereas the humans want rules in place that prevent AI from replacing them when it is good enough to replace them. It's futureproofing for both sides.

It's the equivalent of if unions tried to ban CGI in 1990. It wouldn't really have mattered much then, but it would have a huge impact on films today considering how CGI has become integral to so many films.



crazyisgood posted...

Why is it OK for AI or machines to replace some jobs but not these jobs?

That's part of why I have zero sympathy for people complaining about AI art.

These are people who've never given a shit when factory workers were getting replaced by machines, or when automated systems started replacing phone operators or cashiers (or even when over-reliance on CGI in films cost special effects engineers and stuntmen jobs). Because "creatives" have always assumed that their jobs would be safe forever. No computer will ever be able to paint a masterpiece or compose a symphony! Human soul, art, etc etc.

But now we've reached a point where it's starting to look like musicians, artists, actors, and writers can all be replaced once AI becomes sophisticated enough, and those people are all suddenly shitting their pants. Panic is setting in as people are starting to realize that NO ONE is irreplaceable. So there's a huge pushback on AI from the people most at risk from it, regardless of what advantages it might have for everyone else.

Artists will probably be about as successful against AI in the long run as everyone else was. In other words, they're pretty much fucked.


It also doesn't help that most arguments talking about how crucial human awareness and insight are to producing "art" ring incredibly hollow and hypocritical considering how commodified and soulless "entertainment" has become over the last hundred years or so. Most popular music, film, shows, and illustration produced at this point has nearly zero artistic value, and is produced as "content" more than "art". It exists to entertain at the most shallow level and generate revenue. The number of people actually producing art for the sake of art are limited at best - and ironically wouldn't necessarily change even if AI content generation becomes commonplace (in the same way that massive Hollywood studios producing vapid and shallow blockbusters doesn't prevent indie directors from creating heartfelt and stylized films on their own, and massive record labels deliberately cultivating mass-produced top 40 hits doesn't prevent someone from picking up a guitar and putting out their own music on sites like YouTube).

If anything, a rise in AI art would theoretically make it harder for true artists to profit from their art - but the system as it current exists already makes that incredibly difficult, because artists are already marginalized by corporate interests and content production. Works that are fueled by actual passion and vision are few and far between compared to stuff crapped out solely to sell ad revenue or to push subscriptions to a streaming platform.