107
Actors say Hollywood studios want their AI replicas — for free, forever (www.theverge.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/tech@kbin.social
85 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

No, this is not a Black Mirror episode.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 3 years ago* (4 children)

I don't know what you mean by this precisely

By that I mean that some dude looking for a game avatar or whatever isn't as likely to be someone used to contracting people to do professional creative work for them. Professional clients who are accustomed to hiring creatives to do work for them are more likely to:

  • be quick to provide feedback and respond to emails
  • have feedback that is clear and actionable
  • communicate professionally
  • pay on time
  • be willing to pay a down payment and sign a contract
  • comprehend the hard work that goes into this stuff and value my time accordingly
  • don't try to push a project (either intentionally or otherwise) into what is known as "scope creep" wherein they jockey for additional work outside of the initially agreed upon scope of work

And lots of other little things like that.

Am I saying that you are like that? No. But having done creative work for north of 15 years this is my informed opinion based on a lot of experience in this field.

I find the "they didn't have permission to train from" argument is complete bunk. That's not a right granted by intellectual property laws; there is no "right to control who learns from a work".

That's your opinion and you might feel differently if you had spent years working hard to achieve something in this specific field.

What needs to happen is society (especially US society) needs to stop linking "working" and "enjoying a comfortable life". Technology is coming for all our jobs, and the sooner we accept that and prepare for it, the better we'll be when it happens.

This I fully agree with. And I wouldn't even necessarily have a problem with AI destroying creative jobs if it meant I was now more free to pursue a life of spending time doing things that I was passionate about because some kind of UBI or whatever was making that possible for me and others.

Like I kinda mentioned earlier, I don't think society is in a good place to fight for this on at least the short term. Basically not until things get really bad. What I expect will happen for now is most all of the windfalls from automation will be siphoned up to to the upper class and corporations and wages will continue to stagnate for the working class and income inequality will continue to skyrocket.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    That's your opinion and you might feel differently if you had spent years working hard to achieve something in this specific field.

    It's not really an opinion; it's just not a right granted by IP laws. I know that people that are financially dependent on this type of work really wish they had this right-- and I fully accept that if I were in the same boat, I would probably also wish I had this right, but that doesn't magically add it to the law.

    All the lawsuits you see popping up are hail marys (maries?); they'll very likely all lose.

    some kind of UBI or whatever was making that possible for me and others.

    Something like this, set at a level that allowed a comfortable life (versus an austere one) would totally flip the whole employment dynamic. The pay for the worst jobs would skyrocket, because no one wants to do those jobs-- they only do them now to stave off starvation and homelessness.

    siphoned up to to the upper class and corporations and wages will continue to stagnate for the working class and income inequality will continue to skyrocket

    I can't help but agree, with sorrow. I imagine it won't get better (in the US, at least) until it impacts the wealthy-- as in, there aren't enough people getting paid to buy the stuff that is getting created by automation. Capitalism needs money flowing to the bottom (traditionally, a wage) to sustain itself. If that flow of money dries up, the whole system collapses. We can either fix it by abandoning capitalism, or by patching capitalism by finding a way for money to flow down other than by wages. (A UBI, for example)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (2 children)

    In my earlier comment in this thread I said my dilemma with using AI for my work was an ethical one, not a legal one. Ethics/morals inform laws for sure, but I think you'd agree that not everything that's technically legal is also ethical. Especially so in a country like the US.

    I think a lot of people would also agree that ethics are to some extent individual. Meaning that what I find ethical or not is going to differ from others. So whether or not this is all legal doesn't mean that it's going to jive with my personal view of what is ethical.

    That dilemma is my own. Whether or not congress people who have a weak grasp of both technology and the arts think one way or another on the matter is a poor ruler for one's own moral code of conduct in my book.

    In any case, good chat. I appreciate that while we don't agree on everything we kept it civil. Now back to work for me (before it gets taken by a robot).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •