LogFAQs > #974895223

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

I think they don't care, or they think audiences won't care. Which is a pretty big gamble to make.

Jen0125 posted...

Damn. Hope it works out for all the workers!

Same. Most strikes is about simple pay, QoL stuff. This has turned into a fight not to be replaced by robots.

PK_Spam posted...

How does it feel that the scene from Bojack Horseman where they scan his face and are like okay, now that we have this, we can do whatever we want and we dont care what happens to you because well (producers/executives) will be fine is coming true as we speak?

Considering the subject matter, you'd think I'd be a big Bojack viewer, but I really haven't seen it. I need to get on that. But this is the most "the future is now" moment I've remember having in my life. It's pretty surreal to see all the studios point-blank say they wants to replace humans with A.I. The kicker is, these A.I. programs are in their infancy, are super prone to mistakes and corruption, and are just now going through a shit-ton of legal battles and regulations. It's a big hill to die on, which just shows how little the Studios care about the human element.

crazyisgood posted...

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

Depends what you mean. There's load of problems with A.I. replacing any job, since it's pushing us into the (likely inevitable) future where most jobs aren't done by humans. Which would actually be a good thing, if it shifted us into a post-capitalistic society. Instead, it'll likely turn into some clusterfuck where the mega corps. need to be taxed into oblivion to support the insane unemployed population, rendering their money saving on A.I. moot. But that's a larger topic.

In this case, it's because it is replacing art. Losing the human element to machines is really not something anyone should look forward to. It's also because these machines/A.I. don't even work WITHOUT input from human created work: scouring the internet to teach an A.I. to paint, or reading thousands upon thousands of human-written scripts so it can write, or, as recently revealed that the Studios want to feed all known acting performances into machines, so we don't even need human actors anymore. It's a quite a bit different from robot replacing automobile assembly line workers. Worse, since the A.I. doesn't do it better, only maybe faster, and only works by plagiarizing known *human* works. Which is why ChatGPT, the artwork A.I., etc. are embroiled in lawsuits already.

Essentially, it's especially problematic in art for ethical and moral reasons, never mind the legal and core issues at play.

The irony? You could *easily* make an A.I. that replaces CEOs and other middle management, and save hundreds of millions that way. It's be far easier than replacing artistic talent. Oddly, Bob Iger and their ilk aren't proposing that (to be fair, an A.I. CEO would also likely conclude that replacing humans would be cheaper).

Nightwind posted...

How do you feel about the quite lengthy list of things that SAG says it's members are not allowed to do?

Things even like personal appearances, autographs, and, well, anything they might do to make money based on the skills they already have.

You mean things they can't do while striking? I wasn't aware they can't sign autographs, or a full list (not that stuff like that is enforceable anyways). That said, I'm fine with not appearing to promote movies they made and whatnot.

Dikitain posted...

Both I guess, my reasons have less to do with the complaints of the unions and more to do with wanting to see the downfall of the major Hollywood studios. I just feel like major motion pictures, kind of like AAA video games, are less about the content and more about the money. A longer strike forces the consumer to look at independent productions which are more passion projects since they usually can't afford to use WGA and SAG workers and are therefore unaffected.

Eh, it's kinda a double-edge sword. Loads of indie passion projects are made all the time...rarely are any good. For every "Primer", there's hundreds of slock. Don't get me wrong, I support these films, and help make small projects and shoots for friends in the biz here. But wishing for the collapse of the industry and for thousands to lose their jobs just so we can maybe we can get better indie films isn't a great take. It should be noted that stuff like "Primer" was also made without any strikes needed.

Curiously, the rise of streaming has made it easier and more profitable for indies to get a foothold in, since brining releases to theaters is expensive, and near impossible without studio backing.