Poll of the Day > SAG is on strike. I work in the film biz. AMA.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Back to playing Diablo4 and TotK I guess!

Is it wrong that I kind of want this strike to last for another year?

How bad is it?

I'm out of the loop. Why is there a strike?

DevilSummoner1 posted...

I'm out of the loop. Why is there a strike?

Without knowing the details, most likely because people aren't getting paid enough to cover the rapidly rising costs of living.

DevilSummoner1 posted...

I'm out of the loop. Why is there a strike?

Studios want to pay actors once to use a Deepfake/AI imitation forever

I predict that studios will make enough money pushing out AI crap that all actors/writers/musicians (for film) will be out of work forever... ... or will team up to make their own studio

Blightzkrieg posted... Studios want to pay actors once to use a Deepfake/AI imitation forever

WITHOUT royalties, mind you

How worried are you about AI and programming replacing the majority of work? Is it like practical effects vs CGI?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

No, I'm not in SAG. But with SAG down, none of us can work.

Dikitain posted...

Is it wrong that I kind of want this strike to last for another year?

The WGA, SAG, or both? I'm curious as to why?

FrozenBananas posted...

How bad is it?

Personally, I have money and can ride it out. But it'll be bad for many, as plenty work paycheck to paycheck. But what the studios are doing is pretty bad.

DevilSummoner1 posted...

I'm out of the loop. Why is there a strike?

The points between the WGA and SAG different, but the broad strokes for both are:
-compensation. Not only pay increases, but residuals (basically royalties). "New Media" was a term invented with the rise of streaming, and since streaming was considered a new, scary/risky frontier, contracts as such were formed in a way that don't follow normal protocol for pay, like cable TV/feature films do. Well, "new media" is no more, and the argument is those deals need to reflect the reality that streaming is now king

-A.I. For the WGA, they want a guarantee that scripts must come from humans, and be touched up by humans. The Studios are like "lolno." Similarly, the Studios are pushing body scanning for A.I. (for background actors mostly), and I think they are trying to codify how, when, and how to be paid for stuff like using the likeness of dead actors, via VFZ and whatnot.

The dollar amounts don't seem to be the issue the Studios have. Rather, they want to use computers and A.I. to basically replace humans.

shadowsword87 posted...

How worried are you about AI and programming replacing the majority of work? Is it like practical effects vs CGI?

It's something that seemed unthinkable not that long ago. But the fact that the Studios are balking at it just shows how they basically already had A.I. replacements in mind. And that's a scary thought, since film is an art form. Ceding that to robots just for people like Bob Iger to get even richer helps no one, but people like Bob Iger. The DGA actually managed to get in their recent deal anti-A.I. language, so it's interesting they aren't budging with the actors or writers.

I hope the strikers get what they want soon

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I do, yes. Nothing the unions are asking seem unreasonable, and it's telling how willing the Studios are to take people out of the equation altogether. They don't really have a good counter-argument that isn't laced with corporate greed. That said, the WGA wants a minimum 6 writer room staffing on every episodic, and I think that's a non-starter they should let go.

Are you IATSE? Do you think they should strike in solidarity?

Jen0125 posted...

Are you IATSE? Do you think they should strike in solidarity?

Yes, and we missed our chance. Other Unions can't just arbitrarily strike in solidarity. It has to come with contract negotiations It wouldn't even matter, since IATSE workers can't really work now. Can't make shows without SAG.

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

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

They cut the camera away from Luke's face almost every time he spoke in Mando season 2 and people still went nuts

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

Yes, and we missed our chance. Other Unions can't just arbitrarily strike in solidarity. It has to come with contract negotiations It wouldn't even matter, since IATSE workers can't really work now. Can't make shows without SAG.

Damn. Hope it works out for all the workers!

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

They don't care. If it drops in quality but profitability is still there then they'll continue.

damn, that's fucked up

adjl posted...

Without knowing the details, most likely because people aren't getting paid enough to cover the rapidly rising costs of living.

It is rarely just about the money, but companies like to pretend it is. So they can make the strikers seem unreasonable, when they reject an offer that is just money, but nothing else.

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?

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

crazyisgood posted...

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

"creatives"
"art form"
Yada yada yada
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/9/6/AAehHGAAEp_0.jpg

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.

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

The WGA, SAG, or both? I'm curious as to why?

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.

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.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/4/6/AAFUswAAD_pq.jpg

kinda sad to see art die tbh but it was inevitable. i feel for everyone that AI and human greed are fucking over.

Nade_Duck posted...

kinda sad to see art die tbh but it was inevitable. i feel for everyone that AI and human greed are fucking over.

I for one welcome our new AI overlords.

POs posts have been AI generated for at least four years now so this isn't a surprising development

Blightzkrieg posted...

POs posts have been AI generated for at least four years now so this isn't a surprising development

I mean, to be fair, people figured out that I was an AI like 20 years ago. Not my fault if you all keep forgetting.

crazyisgood posted...

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

Mostly because the jobs that have been replaced by AI don't have sufficiently strong unions backing them. Industries get away with much, much more when unions don't stop them.

"Working in the film biz" could just mean you pop popcorn at your local theater.

jsb0714 posted...

"Working in the film biz" could just mean you pop popcorn at your local theater.

that would actually be hilarious
I would totally do that
I wish I was a teenager again sometimes just so I could have a shit job that seems fun but can be walked away from.
Nowadays I have to try to keep my job so I can pay my mortgage and not end up living with my parents again.

jsb0714 posted...

"Working in the film biz" could just mean you pop popcorn at your local theater.

Next time read the fucking topic first.

jsb0714 posted...

"Working in the film biz" could just mean you pop popcorn at your local theater.

Cyborg's an actor and has been in multiple films.

He was an extra in Thor.

crazyisgood posted...

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

No one wants to be a factory worker, people do want to be painters, musicians, writers, and film makers though. Imo we should let robots take over the shit jobs no one wants and keep them out of the arts (and other fun jobs)

ParanoidObsessive posted...

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.

So you are telling me masterpieces like Dark Side of the Moon, 2001, and Lord of the Rings are gone regardless of AI?

Muscles posted...

No one wants to be a factory worker, people do want to be painters, musicians, writers, and film makers though. Imo we should let robots take over the s*** jobs no one wants and keep them out of the arts (and other fun jobs)

This fundamentally misunderstands who makes the decisions in this matter. It's not about what jobs people want to do. It's about what jobs those with the resources to influence AI research want to avoid paying people for so they can keep making all the money and not have to give it to anyone else.

There is no "should be." This is just capitalism doing exactly what capitalism does if nobody stops it.

adjl posted...

This fundamentally misunderstands who makes the decisions in this matter. It's not about what jobs people want to do. It's about what jobs those with the resources to influence AI research want to avoid paying people for so they can keep making all the money and not have to give it to anyone else.

There is no "should be." This is just capitalism doing exactly what capitalism does if nobody stops it.

What they fail to realize is that once AI takes over all jobs money will be useless, if no one is working no one will have money to buy things, but it'll also be a post scarcity world once it gets to that point and people can focus on things like art without being a starving artist

Muscles posted...

What they fail to realize is that once AI takes over all jobs money will be useless, if no one is working no one will have money to buy things, but it'll also be a post scarcity world once it gets to that point and people can focus on things like art without being a starving artist

The problem isn't AI taking over all jobs, though. It's AI taking over some jobs, so there are still plenty of people able to buy stuff, but also plenty of people starving to death because they can't work.

This is why UBI is needed in the immediate future. It won't be necessary in a robo-communist utopia where money no longer has any meaning, but there's a long way to go before then and the current powers that be are going to fiercely resist giving up that power (despite the fact that most of their jobs could be done pretty easily by AI).

adjl posted...

The problem isn't AI taking over all jobs, though. It's AI taking over some jobs, so there are still plenty of people able to buy stuff, but also plenty of people starving to death because they can't work.

This is why UBI is needed in the immediate future. It won't be necessary in a robo-communist utopia where money no longer has any meaning, but there's a long way to go before then and the current powers that be are going to fiercely resist giving up that power (despite the fact that most of their jobs could be done pretty easily by AI).

I'm not going to argue against those points, but we have enough garbage entertainment to shift through as is, we don't need to mass produce even more garbage at an even faster rate. The world could stop making any kind of art or entertainment and we'd still have enough to keep people happy for a lifetime

Busy weekend, will respond tomorrow!

SAG deez nutz

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.

jsb0714 posted...

"Working in the film biz" could just mean you pop popcorn at your local theater.

True, but no. I'm in IATSE and actually am on film sets, everything from film and TV, from Netflix to Disney. I'm out there, helping makes the shows.

Muscles posted...

What they fail to realize is that once AI takes over all jobs money will be useless, if no one is working no one will have money to buy things, but it'll also be a post scarcity world once it gets to that point and people can focus on things like art without being a starving artist

This is the "good" outcome of a post-capitalist/A.I. future.

I wouldn't hold your breath for the "good" ending. Nothing about human history suggests we will peacefully arrive to this point, if at all.

adjl posted...

The problem isn't AI taking over all jobs, though. It's AI taking over some jobs, so there are still plenty of people able to buy stuff, but also plenty of people starving to death because they can't work.

Indeed. Change like this is incremental, meaning problems will popup as this progress gradually accelerates. If it was known, planned for, done all at once, with a transition plan in place, that'd be one thing. Instead, we have a government that can't even decide if the sky is blue or not, and not nearly enough people are watching this unfold and worrying about it...and the people doing the watching aren't even the smart ones equipped to deal with or understand the gravity of these changes. It has the very likely potential to get messy very fast.

Hope the union doesn't back down. I've seen union negotations in a few different industries now, and it's fucking sad. They back down too easily. Corporations get a lot of extremely ambiguous language into their deals and have been hacking apart Union protections for decades.

ReturnOfFa posted...

Hope the union doesn't back down. I've seen union negotations in a few different industries now, and it's fucking sad. They back down too easily. Corporations get a lot of extremely ambiguous language into their deals and have been hacking apart Union protections for decades.

Indeed. Luckily, the film unions are quite strong, and since this isn't over simple pay stuff, it's hard to see them caving. Caving means signing the death warrant for their job's relevancy, so striking indefinitely has the same end result. I'm mad still that my union, IATSE, didn't strike, and it was basically 50/50 and we barely passed the agreement. It was a good deal, true, but not the shake-up of the industry many of us wanted.

In fact, I can't help but feel the A.I. push has a hidden ploy in allowing the Studios to shape the narrative. There has been a push to change the industry to accept 10-hour days, and basically better working safe guards and pressure on the Studios/Creatives to get their shit together, since film work is a grueling and hard process. Now, ideas of even discussing that seem foreign.

jsb0714 posted...

"Working in the film biz" could just mean you pop popcorn at your local theater.

I hate this shit. This is on the same level as "the janitor at the studio is a game developer" rhetoric.

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

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.

Eeyup. CEOs and other executives are pretty close to the top of the list of jobs that could be replaced by AI, with massive cost savings both for the company itself and for governments that no longer had to put effort into fighting with entitled babies who want to bend the law for their own gain (there would be a need for additional oversight to ensure the AIs' rules were properly coded, but AIs don't break the rules you give them). Alas, it's CEOs and other executives that have the power to choose who gets replaced by AI, and they like their gold-plated gold too much to ever put themselves on the chopping block.

Though, saying that, I'm genuinely expecting to move into an era where some CEOs do actually get replaced by an AI, complete with an AI-generated image of what a CEO looks like, but that's done in secret and the board and other higher-ups publicly identify this fictional person as the CEO while they siphon off what's ostensibly that person's salary. Then whenever the company gets in trouble, the board votes out the phantom CEO and "hires" a new one to placate the public, continuing business as usual with the free PR boost.

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

to be fair, an A.I. CEO would also likely conclude that replacing humans would be cheaper

Probably, but AI CEOs would have no need for money, so right out of the gate they have less incentive to maximize the profit margin like that. Code them with the core goal of creating jobs (that thing billionaires are always bragging about doing) that pay a livable wage (which billionaires are always crying is impossible), and even though I'd expect to see some decisions made with ruthless, money-minded efficiency, there at least wouldn't be self-serving greed in there.