Writers Strike & AI

[Witchblade77]

What does the human mind do, but "shuffles and remixes" until it comes up with something that seems new, or a new way to look at something? Our brains are just a collection of neurons firing ON or OFF that create our memories, ideas, thoughts. To think a computer cannot get to the point where it can mimic what we do..... you'd have to have quite the limited view on creation. If your view is a religious one, that our creation is based on some sort of divine intevention and not us simply using what we know to produce new ideas, then ok, good luck with that.

As a perfect example, a bunch of people 2000 years ago remixed an Egyptian god with Judaism and created Christianity. That seems to have grown and survived pretty well. You really think an AI couldn't have figured that out?

Just consider for a moment, that every script, idea, paper, and concept that AI comes up with adds to its "knowledge" and allows it to grow and "learn". Once someone programs it to be able to judge what ideas work and what don't, it can then learn quite rapidly.

Pretending this cannot grow exponentially out of control, and that AI isn't already past the point where writers striking to prevent its use is just loud seppuku, is foolish. This strike is telling the people that own media companies that they need to move forward with AI even more, because it will replace the people that cause them trouble, and to pretend that the AI we have now cannot easily replace the crap that's produced nowadays, and likely do a better job...... forgive me if I think you give the writers who are striking more credit than they deserve.

you continue to show fundamental lack of understanding of how human mind works vs how so called AI works. I also love the irony of you bringing up human achievements and then devaluing them because "AI could have done that" could it? could it really? Ai doesn't come up with ANYTHING. it only copies what has already been developed by human minds. it doesn't process experiences. it doesn't THINK. it doesn't FEEL. it cannot create value judgements because no matter how complex you make the algorithm - its still just an algorithm. NOT any sort of intelligence capable of understanding context, etc.

P.S.
1. letting AI write school papers undermines the point of, I don't know... LEARNING TO COMMUNICATE. then again, if you consider how little people like you seem to value communication let alone nuance, no wonder you see no problem
2. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture...ms-1234736601/

[Gumble]

you continue to show fundamental lack of understanding of how human mind works vs how so called AI works. I also love the irony of you bringing up human achievements and then devaluing them because "AI could have done that" could it? could it really? Ai doesn't come up with ANYTHING. it only copies what has already been developed by human minds. it doesn't process experiences. it doesn't THINK. it doesn't FEEL. it cannot create value judgements because no matter how complex you make the algorithm - its still just an algorithm. NOT any sort of intelligence capable of understanding context, etc.

P.S.
1. letting AI write school papers undermines the point of, I don't know... LEARNING TO COMMUNICATE. then again, if you consider how little people like you seem to value communication let alone nuance, no wonder you see no problem
2. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture...ms-1234736601/

"Because I say you're wrong you're wrong!" - Wonderful argument approach. Nothing ever convinces people like telling them what you don't know, loudly, and then yelling at them UR WRNG when they don't agree with you.

Also, if you're trying to communicate, instead of just screaming at the wall, hoping for someone to listen to you, I might suggest:

1) Actually reading what people wrote.
2) Not making "ur wrong" claims in anger and only providing the "cause I said so" support.
3) Not using references that reinforce the point the person you are arguing with made because you don't understand them.
4) And finally, not using rolling stone as a reference to anything serious.

But again, feel free to continue to scream at the wall. I'm sure it will agree with you any day now.

[Xath]

I heard the same bullshit with cryptocurrency.

That isn't really comparable. Crypto doesn't create value while AI can actually create given the correct parameters.

[eschatological]

Yea, there is very good reason to be concerned with copyright law, however I'd be curious how they will deal with connections between an AI in Germany, following copyright law, that connections to an AI in South Korea, that isn't following it at all, and prevent information sharing and learning between them.

Copyright is subject to a number of international agreements, but I agree it's not comprehensive or worldwide. This is really the problem of modern law: the world is so small that a law in any one jurisdiction/nation really has no weight if it can't be enforced worldwide - but no one wants a world wide system of governance, which is why the UN is so toothless.

[Xath]

the ai is currently garbage tho???
i mean show me one thing the AI has made that isn't the worst thing you have ever seen?

everything ive seen of it trying to do things comes off as having access to all the knowledge, understanding nothing of it and then bullshitting with made up citations or references to please the person asking it. Maybe it could replace politicians which is a low bar.

There's a lot of AI art that if it wasn't tagged as AI would not be obvious.

[baskev]

You do realize you've not brought one concrete example of a bad writer who's constantly getting work while shitting on your favourite stuff right? Not one.

I'm sure you'll post another link with the usual Witcher blather whilst ignoring that a lot of people like the Witcher TV show.

Do you realize i did... Colin Trevorrow


Here a other:
David S. Goyer
Emily Carmichael


And did i say i did not like or hate the witcher tv show? Nope thats you filling things in to change the nerrative.
I liked it. But i did feel it was straying to far from its core story. And arcs/personalities of people.

And you sidestep the wednesday stuff. So you are clearly here not to discuss but to be a green horde species that is not goblin or orc.

[Ivanstone]

Do you realize i did... Colin Trevorrow


Here a other:
David S. Goyer
Emily Carmichael


And did i say i did not like or hate the witcher tv show? Nope thats you filling things in to change the nerrative.
I liked it. But i did feel it was straying to far from its core story. And arcs/personalities of people.

And you sidestep the wednesday stuff. So you are clearly here not to discuss but to be a green horde species that is not goblin or orc.

Trevorrow may or may not have made good Jurassic movies. Its largely irrelevent because every one after the first one was just the studio milking the property. If it wasn't him it would've been somebody else making $1B per movie. This is a bad producer problem not a bad writer problem.

Emily Carmichael see above.

Its been a stretch since Goyer has done anything great. I haven't seen Terminator Dark Fate yet but the usual idiots hate it so it might be good. Unfortunately the fans keep on giving him money anyways.

Straying from the source material is neither a good thing or a bad thing. If you want Witcher as you like it, go learn Polish and read it correctly. I also made no assumptions on your opinion of the show just that you wallow in conspiracy theories.

Wednesday seems to be a well liked TV show. Again straying from the source material is neither a good thing or a bad thing. Completely rehashing the better Wednesday episodes from the original series is probably a bad idea though.

[Witchblade77]

"Because I say you're wrong you're wrong!" - Wonderful argument approach. Nothing ever convinces people like telling them what you don't know, loudly, and then yelling at them UR WRNG when they don't agree with you.

Also, if you're trying to communicate, instead of just screaming at the wall, hoping for someone to listen to you, I might suggest:

1) Actually reading what people wrote.
2) Not making "ur wrong" claims in anger and only providing the "cause I said so" support.
3) Not using references that reinforce the point the person you are arguing with made because you don't understand them.
4) And finally, not using rolling stone as a reference to anything serious.

But again, feel free to continue to scream at the wall. I'm sure it will agree with you any day now.

you should really take your own advice, but you will not. so have a lovely life now.

[Kaleredar]

That isn't really comparable. Crypto doesn't create value while AI can actually create given the correct parameters.

I think you'll find people in creative industries are at no want for "ideas." Go to every writer's room or art department and each and every person there will have dozens of ideas. So AI is really not needed to generate "ideas," unless you want to do a bad job of it cheaply because you're trying to produce volume instead of quantity.

Do you realize i did... Colin Trevorrow


Here a other:
David S. Goyer
Emily Carmichael


And did i say i did not like or hate the witcher tv show? Nope thats you filling things in to change the nerrative.
I liked it. But i did feel it was straying to far from its core story. And arcs/personalities of people.

Their movies make money. That's why they keep getting work. I mean, The Asylum keeps pumping out borderline IP-fraud drek year in year out. Because it nets them an income.

[Nymrohd]

Copyright is subject to a number of international agreements, but I agree it's not comprehensive or worldwide. This is really the problem of modern law: the world is so small that a law in any one jurisdiction/nation really has no weight if it can't be enforced worldwide - but no one wants a world wide system of governance, which is why the UN is so toothless.

Well the EU can levy massive fines to anyone who wants to sell their product in their backyard which tends to be an effective deterrent. And the law goes beyond copyright into privacy concerns and transfer of data across borders. The EU parliament has done a lot of work on understanding potential problems in multiple areas of tech so they seem well prepared to tackle the issue of AI regulation.

Ultimately companies can indeed just hire people to produce content to train their AI with.

- - - Updated - - -

What does the human mind do, but "shuffles and remixes" until it comes up with something that seems new, or a new way to look at something? Our brains are just a collection of neurons firing ON or OFF that create our memories, ideas, thoughts. To think a computer cannot get to the point where it can mimic what we do..... you'd have to have quite the limited view on creation. If your view is a religious one, that our creation is based on some sort of divine intevention and not us simply using what we know to produce new ideas, then ok, good luck with that.

I'd say the main difference is human irrationalism. The human brain is a much more imperfect machine, at least to our reckoning, than a PC is. It makes connections that seem random and through this irrational factor generates novelty. AI should not be capable of doing so.

[baskev]

Trevorrow may or may not have made good Jurassic movies. Its largely irrelevent because every one after the first one was just the studio milking the property. If it wasn't him it would've been somebody else making $1B per movie. This is a bad producer problem not a bad writer problem.

Emily Carmichael see above.

Its been a stretch since Goyer has done anything great. I haven't seen Terminator Dark Fate yet but the usual idiots hate it so it might be good. Unfortunately the fans keep on giving him money anyways.

Straying from the source material is neither a good thing or a bad thing. If you want Witcher as you like it, go learn Polish and read it correctly. I also made no assumptions on your opinion of the show just that you wallow in conspiracy theories.

Wednesday seems to be a well liked TV show. Again straying from the source material is neither a good thing or a bad thing. Completely rehashing the better Wednesday episodes from the original series is probably a bad idea though.

Again, movies doing good does not mean great writing.
And you wanted proof of bad writing. not succes.

T dark fate= like t3

not saying that: your gaslighting here. I am saying, staying at the core of a story. You can stray from source material if they want. To add to it, remove some bad parts. But to change the core of 1 or several things of the show is weird.
If you make egg fried rice in your own way. It can have things you want into it. But rice and eggs are the 2 basics you always need. Otherwise it aint egg or rice.
And again, not conspiracy theories. You are saying that to lesser the leaks.
I would say you where right if it was only 1 outlet. But it has been A lot of them. Even ones with credible sources who get a lot of leaks right. And even the show runners etc have said Cavill wanted to much like book stuff.

And again, not saying that. You are again trying to change the core of my point. I am saying wednesday is a certain type of person. You can make her evolve into something new, add or detract something of her. But completly changing who and what she is does not work. is a very bad idea.
see the egg fried rice comment again.
if they make a movie about Malcom X that is mostly history accurate. You could maybe change a love triangle thing , add something or remove something. But changing per example his race would not work.


again, i am pro better paying of them. But like i said before. There are some writers who should look at the source material for 1 min.

- - - Updated - - -

Their movies make money. That's why they keep getting work. I mean, The Asylum keeps pumping out borderline IP-fraud drek year in year out. Because it nets them an income.

My comments are not about money. they are about good writing.
throwing a nuke at a battle field does not make you a sniper
winning a million dollars does not make you good at buisness.


And yes i agree, they keep pumping out this crap. And if we do not say anything about it, it will never change.
Btw its just my opinion. you guys do not have to like it.

[Ivanstone]

Again, movies doing good does not mean great writing.
And you wanted proof of bad writing. not succes.

not saying that: your gaslighting here. I am saying, staying at the core of a story. You can stray from source material if they want. To add to it, remove some bad parts. But to change the core of 1 or several things of the show is weird.
If you make egg fried rice in your own way. It can have things you want into it. But rice and eggs are the 2 basics you always need. Otherwise it aint egg or rice.
And again, not conspiracy theories. You are saying that to lesser the leaks.
I would say you where right if it was only 1 outlet. But it has been A lot of them. Even ones with credible sources who get a lot of leaks right. And even the show runners etc have said Cavill wanted to much like book stuff.

And again, not saying that. You are again trying to change the core of my point. I am saying wednesday is a certain type of person. You can make her evolve into something new, add or detract something of her. But completly changing who and what she is does not work. is a very bad idea.
see the egg fried rice comment again.
if they make a movie about Malcom X that is mostly history accurate. You could maybe change a love triangle thing , add something or remove something. But changing per example his race would not work.


again, i am pro better paying of them. But like i said before. There are some writers who should look at the source material for 1 min.

Sigh. Your opinion IS NOT RELEVANT. JW3 got nominated for a Razzie for its writing and it still has positive audience scores to go along with the truck load of money it made. Evidently a lot of people liked the writing.

Again, leaks are just politicizing. You're very loudly stating that Cavill wants it to be like the books. Did it occur to you that the exact thing Cavill wants might lead to a lousy script? Same with Wednesday. You're running on Ortega's opinion alone.

The Watchmen is a very precise adaptation of the comic book but its not all that good. Did Snyder refuse to read the source material for even 1 minute?

Again if you like the original more, go watch/read/whatever the original. The odds of making anything great are slim to begin with. You'll find no end of bad writing in even original material.

[jonnysensible]

There's a lot of AI art that if it wasn't tagged as AI would not be obvious.

ai art lmao, did you come up with that prompt yourself? all the words on your own? amazing you are a true artist.

[Fencers]

AI can do very good illustrations. There was an article a few months back where an AI drawing program was fed a writer's script. The AI could generate illustrations from reading the script's character descriptions alone. It produced 3 interpretations of the main character.



That's pretty good work compared to having a human illustrator mock up the same character. In the same article, they did a side-by-side and no one could tell what was created by AI or a human illustrator.

Regardless of personal taste, AI that can already generate imagery from a description alone or draft an outline is directly a concern for the majority of commercial art. Because that is what the majority of commercial art consists of- outlines, mock-ups, and visual concepts.

[Shadowferal]

Top AI researchers and CEOs warn against ‘risk of extinction’ in 22-word statement

"Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.”

This statement, published by a San Francisco-based non-profit, the Center for AI Safety, has been co-signed by figures including Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, as well as Geoffrey Hinton and Youshua Bengio — two of the three AI researchers who won the 2018 Turing Award (sometimes referred to as the “Nobel Prize of computing”) for their work on AI. At the time of writing, the year’s third winner, Yann LeCun, now chief AI scientist at Facebook parent company Meta, has not signed.

The statement is the latest high-profile intervention in the complicated and controversial debate over AI safety. Earlier this year, an open letter signed by some of the same individuals backing the 22-word warning called for a six-month “pause” in AI development. The letter was criticized on multiple levels. Some experts thought it overstated the risk posed by AI, while others agreed with the risk but not the letter’s suggested remedy.

----------

I thought there was another thread...well, it's related.

[eschatological]

These guys are just grifters who want money pumped into their industry to "study" the problem they themselves have claimed to have created, when AI hasn't gained independent thought and is still tied to human input/direction.

[Mic_128]

These guys are just grifters who want money pumped into their industry to "study" the problem they themselves have claimed to have created, when AI hasn't gained independent thought and is still tied to human input/direction.

I mean, I'd rather they work out how to deal with the problem before AI gains independent thought and isn't tied to human input/direction.

[jonnysensible]

These guys are just grifters who want money pumped into their industry to "study" the problem they themselves have claimed to have created, when AI hasn't gained independent thought and is still tied to human input/direction.

exactly these people are hype merchants selling fantasies to idiots. The only existential threat to humanity is climate change which these private jet flying dipshits have no desire to address.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean, I'd rather they work out how to deal with the problem before AI gains independent thought and isn't tied to human input/direction.

what if its really fucking cool and not rokos basilisk.

[Kathandira]

"Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.”

I don't think we need to worry about Skynet just yet. Making it a priority is a bit preemptive.

But it shouldn't be completely off the radar.

[jonnysensible]

Top AI researchers and CEOs warn against ‘risk of extinction’ in 22-word statement

"Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.”

This statement, published by a San Francisco-based non-profit, the Center for AI Safety, has been co-signed by figures including Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, as well as Geoffrey Hinton and Youshua Bengio — two of the three AI researchers who won the 2018 Turing Award (sometimes referred to as the “Nobel Prize of computing”) for their work on AI. At the time of writing, the year’s third winner, Yann LeCun, now chief AI scientist at Facebook parent company Meta, has not signed.

The statement is the latest high-profile intervention in the complicated and controversial debate over AI safety. Earlier this year, an open letter signed by some of the same individuals backing the 22-word warning called for a six-month “pause” in AI development. The letter was criticized on multiple levels. Some experts thought it overstated the risk posed by AI, while others agreed with the risk but not the letter’s suggested remedy.

----------

I thought there was another thread...well, it's related.

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/202...ction-from-ai/

important companion piece that as soon as the EU said they would do regulation sam altman had a hissy fit (because his business model is based on stealing data to train his llm)

these guys a fucking chumps and so is anyone who eats this shit up