• Sev@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Don’t really follow this much, what’s the TL:DR with all this? Something something more pay? Good on em , i think?

    • psycho_driver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not following it much either so take what I’m saying with a grain of salt but I believe it’s a combination of the actors deciding to support the ongoing writer’s strike, in addition to having some of the same concerns as the writers with regard to their rights in a changing digital landscape (see the somewhat overblown AI craze currently in progress).

    • littlecolt@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just like when reruns first became a thing, the actors are striking to be paid for the use of their likeness and their performances. With TV reruns becoming less popular, yet people are rewatching old favorites on streaming, the actors rightly want to be paid for streaming rewatches. That is one of the biggest things. Streaming platforms are making big money from hosting old shows, and the actors want their cut.

      • jhymesba@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Sure. The leading actors in a production are crazy rich. But according to indeed.com, the average actor earns between $7.25 and $36.00 an hour, averaging at $15.29. For every lead, you’ve got countless little people backing them up. Strikes aren’t just about the crazy wealthy leading actors. It’s also about the dude pulling in $15 an hour. In fact, the leads aren’t going to license their likeness and voices to the studio execs, so they really have nothing to worry about. But they’re here standing in solidarity with the people who don’t have that luxury, who will go in, get a $3000 cheque, then never work in the industry again.

        Just to be clear, you’re busy simping for the billionaires who run the media industry, pointing to the millionaires who are saying they are being nasty to everyone in industry. Says a lot about you, buddy!

          • jhymesba@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t believe for a second that you actually believe this. I think you’re just a concern troll trying to hide behind the inequity that allows kids to go without food and water while pushing the false narrative that every actor earns millions of dollars a year and thus doesn’t “deserve” to strike. If you really are concerned about kids, then perhaps stand in solidarity of the hundreds of thousands of people NOT earning seven figures so THEIR kids may be guaranteed food and water, and pressure the folks who ARE earning seven figures to show a little charity for the kids you’re so concerned about.

      • vimdiesel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        bro, like 75% of actors have 2 other jobs they’re working to keep a roof over their head lmao, no including all the electricans, makeup, set builders, CGI, etc that work on movies. You should educate yourself. Only 0.1% of them are living like kings, and most of those are nepo-babies with connections to land the big roles.

  • pineapplefriedrice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    They’re fighting a losing battle, but I hope a side effect of it is that new people come in and change both the economics and artistry of Hollywood. Most Hollywood content sits in a very rigid box. It’s repetitive, unoriginal, and unappealing. People are encouraged to eat ramen for every meal in order to “make it”, simply because far too many of them try (which is partially the result of the “follow your dreams” narrative in America as well). The further down you are, the worse your compensation. Good ideas get missed or thrown out and relegated to dollar theatres all the time.

    If this strike goes on long enough that it starts to flush people out, I’m ok with that. Sucks for the people who are going to lose their livelihoods, but for some of them that was an eventuality. Hopefully in the end creators will have more creative freedom and receive more proportional compensation.

    • Spesknight@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The movie industry needs a bigger market for independent movies. Look at the videogames, the indies are holding the creativity among a similar crisis for the aaa titles as for the movies. We need an “EA Orginals” for the majors…

    • itsJoelleScott@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’re fighting a losing battle, but I hope a side effect of it is that new people come in and change both the economics and artistry of Hollywood. Most Hollywood content sits in a very rigid box. It’s repetitive, unoriginal, and unappealing.

      My two cents is there’s a structural issue that’s converged to strictly Campbellian story-telling as the end-all-be-all structure. Sure, you’ll have something come out of HBO or AppleTV that breaks it, but AAA movies rarely break it.

  • TendieMaster69@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have mixed feelings about this. I hope they all are compensated fairly, but technology keeps getting better and capitalism latches on to the absolute cheapest solution. If that includes firing most employees and using AI to save billions a year then they will do it. I think this will just excacerbate AI proliferation in the end. Alas, no one gets paid to strike in America.

    • englishlad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is why governments need to get involved legislationing profits from AI work. Shareholders can’t be the beneficiary of lower costs from AI when it means workers lose their jobs. There needs to be an AI specific tax, to support people losing their livelihoods.

      • vimdiesel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think they are doing the right thing before AI gets firmly set in as the “norm” and that laws are put in place that movies have to use human actors, or they get labeled properly as AI movies so we can skip them if we don’t approve of AI taking over the industry.

        • boonhet@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          so we can skip them if we don’t approve of AI taking over the industry.

          Spoiler alert: Nobody will give a fuck, people will watch AI movies, and human actors will lose their jobs.

          The only question is, shall we tax AI usage and implement UBI? Or watch as entire industries full of people will be laid off? And HOW to tax AI usage? Just implement huge taxes on dividends, stock buybacks and annual salaries and bonuses > 10 mill?

          • HamSwagwich@showeq.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Very true. The amount of luddites in this thread are amazing.

            It sounds like angry old people telling at a car in the horse era. It’s happening whether you like it or not. Taxing it as a special case is ridiculous, especially since it just means you move your operations to a friendly jurisdiction that won’t tax you.

            Happened with a large portion of Hollywood moving to Canada awhile back.

            It will happen with AI. Embrace it and find a way to make money with it. Fighting it won’t do any good.

            This is what separate successful people from failures. Most people are failures because they can’t envision a way to adapt so rail against progress. Those that see an opportunity instead of a problem are the ones they are going to succeed.

            • funkless@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              the car replaced the horse, the plane replaced the ship, we still drive, we still travel.

              My prediction is that AI will replace the PC like it replaced the typewriter, like it replaced the quill.

              People will still write and act, but it will be a faster process.

    • Syringe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just like the last writers strike produced an endless unmitigated firehose of reality TV and bastardized all the good TV channels, this move is going to double down on that model

      AI isn’t going to be able to do what actors can do. Not for some time yet. The content will probably start off okay, but we’ve already seen issues with AI used for “creative” purposes. It sucks. The quality of content on streaming platforms is already hurting. This is going to make it even shittier.

      Something will get figured out, because now there are gonna be a lot of people sitting around at home with no bread and no games.

    • Misconduct@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Well, yeah. That’s part of why they’re on strike lol. They are very aware of that threat. Everyone is

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      The actors’ anti-AI protests are much, much stronger than the writers’ (and I say this as someone who is nevertheless 100% supportive of the writers’ demands vis-a-vis AI). Because the actors are literally talking about studios demanding to have the right to use their likeness. That’s not a technological hurdle that has to be overcome, it’s literally just profiting off of someone else’s image without having to pay them. A mere $200 to hire an actor for one day, and they own their likeness in perpetuity; that’s what studios are supposedly asking for.

      The writers’ case is still very strong, in my opinion. Because their fear (and I think it’s very founded) is not that their jobs will be replaced by AI. Not in a real sense. But that they’ll be forced to do like 90% of the work for like 50% of the pay because of studios’ use of AI. The way studio credits/payment works for writers, “revising” an existing script pays less than writing a script fresh. So if the studios can create a really shitty script with AI and hand it to a writer who has to do a significant amount of work editing it to be in an actually-usable state. But because they’re being paid to revise it, not write it, they don’t get paid commensurate to the amount of work actually being done.

      In theory, the writers’ case could eventually be harmed by actual use of AI in a way that the actors’ simply cannot (an AI could theoretically eventually replace an actor entirely, but that’s not the debate on the table right now). I think that “eventually” is much further away than most techbros seem to suggest, because frankly LLMs are just not as close to AGI as it seems they usually get thought of as. But that eventually could happen, and then the nature of a writers’ job will have to change more substantially in a way that does hurt them quite a bit more. Though it’s worth noting that AI is even further away from doing the less-obviously-“writery” work writers do, which often sets them on the path to becoming directors and producers, and without that pipeline for creating the higher-level roles, film studios are going to struggle to keep making films.

  • Tygr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    160
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve been “striking” for a long time now, against junk TV in general. There’s an occasional awesome show that delivers but 95% of it is low-effort junk TV like dating, survival, cooking and other shows like it.

    I haven’t had live TV in years and it’s quite shocking to see what the average user deals with. Junk TV + ads that play 30% of the time is absolutely insane.

      • Tygr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah. I’ll watch an occasional Gordon Ramsay here and there. I’m more referring to the baking shows, kids cooking shows and similar. But you know what I mean, replace all variants of cooking with the many variants of home improvement, how many do we need?

        • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yea there are simply too many, they’ve flooded the airways with a lot of garbage instead of a small amount of quality that reruns

    • cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even the most high effort shows have so much useless digression and pointless characters that are developed and killed off in a single episode.

    • blivet@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      1 year ago

      I haven’t had live TV in years and it’s quite shocking to see what the average user deals with. Junk TV + ads that play 30% of the time is absolutely insane.

      Yeah, I’ve had the same experience. We don’t have live TV, and when we occasionally hang out with friends or family who do I’m always flabbergasted at the frequency and length of ad breaks nowadays, and similarly amazed that despite a nearly endless list of channels there never seems to be anything I actively want to watch.

      • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Bruce was talking about it 30 years ago when we had 57 channels and nothin’ on. It’s only gotten worse since then.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        My parents still have cable TV (I just got them a Roku not long ago, so fingers crossed…), and at this point I can’t stand to watch it for more than about one and a half commercial breaks. It’s hard to believe anybody willingly subjects themselves to that trash when ad-free alternatives are available.

      • timetraveller@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        I had one of them first TiVos, then upgraded to them expanded versions modes online for 1TB of shows. The 30-second skip button pressed six(6) times would effectively (skip) the ads. Never looked back. When I see or hear a commercial at someone’s house it rocks me like I’m in a different dimension and time.

        • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Personally I rarely watch TV in real time, so the only time of year I ever really see commercials is during the NFL season.

      • leapingleopard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        40
        ·
        1 year ago

        I can’t believe the people that allow commercials to blare in their living rooms without diving for the remote control like the house is on fire. Is it just me? and they just continue normal conversation like it’s somehow possible to hear them.

        • lumcos@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          diving for the remote control like the house is on fire

          lol this is me, it’s not just you 😂

          Our house is generally on the quieter side. Partly because some of us are on the spectrum, and partly because we like to actually hear each other when we converse. Haven’t paid for TV in years, don’t miss it.

    • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      109
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      low-effort junk TV like dating, survival, cooking and other shows like it.

      … in other words, exactly the shows that don’t use actors or writers

        • reev@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t know how other companies work, but I work at a company that produces a lot of reality TV shows. They definitely have writers that will lead the direction that the shows take (for example challenge ideas for a dating show or maybe bow they deliver hints to a blind customer cooking show) and they’ll have some leading questions in interviews (or even asking to phrase things for more drama if the contestants want to and they usually say yes) but you’d be surprised at how unscripted the ones we produce are.

    • mmagod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      lol only 30%?

      jokes but i agree… i remember going to visit some relatives and sat and watched tv with them… i too was so shocked at how they’d sit idly thru commercials jarring into their show, slapping them in the face…

      i can’t stand it. just about anything i watch, when i watch, is commercial free

      • MyNameIsIgglePiggle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think they get that from most half hour shows are 22 minutes and hour shows only 42 minutes.

        But if course networks have been known to cut them back even further to squeeze some more ads in

  • Hedup@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    If there’s any silver lining to AI taking over entertainment industry, then that could hopefully be getting rid of celebrity worship.

    • topperharlie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      honestly, I can see this only affecting the little guy like always, big stars probably can afford to lawyer up and earn money for the AI usage of their image. Not to mention that adding extras in the background is many times easier to get away with rather than the main character

    • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the following and drama that vtubers has can teach you something, is that celebrity worshipping is not going anywhere.

      • speck@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Generated, Cartoon characters are already being worshipped, for sure this won’t be a big leap

    • vimdiesel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is a bad take. Smooth brained people like to worship -something- whether it’s a deity, a politician, an actor, or an AI character. Only the faces change, it’s the same old situation.

  • reksas@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    104
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Fuck hollywood.

    This would be good opportunity for people to start new film studios and such, founded on more equal profit sharing. Let greedy pieces of shit shrivel and die without labor to exploit. There is no negotiating with those kinds of people as they will just try to find ways to force and manipulate people to do what they want.

    • Aux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      52
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s ironic that Hollywood was created by filmmakers and actors who got tired of being exploited by investors and cinemas alike.

          • potoo22@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            23
            ·
            1 year ago

            People dislike a greedy business.
            Start a humble competing business.
            Greedy business falls in line or fails.
            Competing business now free to push profits, becoming greedy business.
            People dislike a greedy business.

            • randon31415@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              People dislike a greedy business. Start a humble competing business. Greedy business lowers prices to crush competition, or buys it outright. People continue to dislike a greedy business.

        • Idea1407a@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          “Money makes the world go around…”

          “Greed is good”

          Making money is fine, but at what cost?

    • river@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Charlie Chaplin did a similar thing - United Artists. Then it got sold to MGM. and so on

    • TrenchcoatFullOfBats@belfry.rip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s also worth noting that many of the “indie” production companies are backed by billionaire money. For example, Annapurna (movies: Her, Zero Dark Thirty, American Hustle, games: Journey, Stray, Kentucky Route Zero, Outer Wilds) was founded by Megan Ellison, the daughter of Larry Ellison of Oracle software, worth about $150 billion.

      Indian Paintbrush, the production company that has financed all of Wes Anderson’s movies since 2007, is run by Steven Rales, CEO of Danaher, worth $7.3 billion.

      It’s not just production or indie firms either - CAA (Creative Artists Agency) talent agency that represents people like Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, The Weeknd, Bob Dylan, Aubrey Plaza, Bradley Cooper, Cardi B, Chris (Evans, Hemsworth and Pine), Salma Hayek and thousands of writers, producers and directors, is currently in final talks to be purchased by Francois-Henri Pinaul, who owns Gucci, Balenciaga, Girard-Perregaux and Christie’s auction house, is married to Salma Hayek, and is worth about $33 billion.

  • Margot Robbie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you still have the bird app or some other method, send your support of solidarity to your favorite actors. They will definitely appreciate it.

    • Dojan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah! I’m sick of it. Not only do they want infinite money but also infinite growth.

      Literally like a cancer. Feasting on society until nothing is left.

    • vimdiesel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You wanna get really mad? A new practice they were trying to pull off was bring in some young good looking actors; do 3d body scans, record a bunch of voice data, and then have them allow the studios a perpetual license to use their likeness for a few thousand bucks. How evil is that?

      • lohrun@fediverse.boo
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s only a matter of time for desperate people to sell their likeness to a company doing that. If there was a company out there saying they’d pay you $3k to do a full body 3d scan, record 1 hour of voice lines, and own the rights to your image…do you know how many people would do that? (Probably a significant amount)

        Evil and awful yes, but people are desperate for cash in this economy and most people wouldn’t truly understand what they are giving up to the company

        • TendieMaster69@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Let’s hope some never become desperate, because they see through the lies and wouldn’t be doing anything for money. They’d have fun watching things break.

        • vlad@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          At this point they should just pay OpenAI to AI generate their “actors”

    • jimmyjoners@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This. I want more strikes. I’m tired of everything going to shit and the masses sit back and do nothing. I’ve gone to a few protests recently, and honestly it’s cheap therapy for me. Feels nice to actually DO something.

      • kklusz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        And what have you actually accomplished with marching and shouting? I went to quite a few BLM protests back in 2020, got tear gassed and shit along with my friends, and yet still haven’t seen anything meaningful change.

        • CeruleanRuin@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Change is slowwwww, my brother. It’s rare that an actual upheaval happens and things shift noticably overnight.

          It is and always has been a long, long struggle, and there is no final victory, only temporary triumphs that must be vigorously defended, because the enemy will never stop trying to take back every inch.

          • lohrun@fediverse.boo
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            Change doesn’t have to be slow and we don’t need to make more excuses for the people able to make the change. Protests outside of the US have shown how to accelerate change in the direction they want. At this point though, it appears that a lot of people have given up hope that anything will change

            • CeruleanRuin@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              And can you blame them? The opposition infrastructure is so incredibly overbuilt that it’s like trying to chip away at a wall when they keep taking away your tools.

    • CyPhD@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think it’s even more goddamn nefarious than just destroying the planet for wealth - if some of the shit I’ve been reading is right, then AI has changed the game and this strike is our fucking chance to get ahead of the shit that these studios want to pull. In what world is it okay to pay an actor a single day’s worth of work and retain their likeness in pepertuiry using AI generation.

      I’ll admit that I’m not very knowledge on the whole workings of the AI part of it, but I do feel like every actor should have full control over their likeness and how it should be recorded and how it is applied to AI.

      • MBM@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        From what I heard it’s not even new technology but from ~2016, they’re just trying to push it through again but now under the guise of AI

      • vimdiesel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        The 1% would murder us all and replace us with AI if given the chance, never forget that. They’d be too stupid to realize that the AI bots would take them out next.

  • Sigilos@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Oh no! Anyway…

    Edit: In case the subtlety slipped by some folks, I was pointing out how very unimportant the film industry is as a whole. I stand by the folks striking for better conditions and pay, but without Hollywood the world will continue on. Humanity doesn’t need a new Marvel movie to survive the next year. Food, water, construction, transportation, these things are critical infrastructure. But I do not care if Hollywood stops making cookie cutter movies for a while, let the studios feel the crunch. Who can honestly say they are totally caught up on all the shows they want to watch, anyway? Go watch something you didn’t have time for before, because the newest season of “Someone else’s life” just aired. Go make a new friend, read a new book, or explore a new place. Don’t want to or can’t for some reason? Ok, go watch anything else, there is more media then you consume in a lifetime available for you to peruse on the internet.

      • Sigilos@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        What boot? The boot of the industrial propaganda machine that I’m refusing to be concerned about when it just might have to slow down on producing another cinematic universe for merchandising? Screw the studios, let them deflate a little while the people who do the work strike for better conditions and wages. I’m sure the next Thor movie can wait a couple more years before becoming a lunchbox.

        • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The workers get to choose what gets produced do they?

          You are complaining about exactly the same people that the workers are striking against.

          • Sigilos@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You are complaining about exactly the same people that the workers are striking against.

            Yes, because as a worker of any kind, I stand in solidarity with the people who are looking for fair compensation for their time and work.

            The workers get to choose what gets produced do they?

            Yes. If I work at a chemical plant, then find out the plant has been poisoning the town I live in, my most effective way to stop that happening is to refuse to make more poison and convince as many of my neighbors and colleagues who work with me to do the same. The boss won’t come down from his office and make it himself, will he? As the person making it, I’m morally responsible for it’s existence.

            • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Right. The impression given by your original post (pre edit) was that of not caring about the workers, I’ve just seen that edit and see the misunderstanding here now.

        • zouden@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They get mad when I point out they don’t work that hard and have a lot of excess wealth.

          I think this is an imaginary conversation you have while in the shower

    • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      To add; this is, in my opinion a bigger deal than UPS. There are other freight companies. It’s bigger than the railroads. We have other shipping. We only have one Hollywood. Entertainment sucked the last time they striked. It started all the reality shows.

  • ThinlySlicedGlizzy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    120
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t care how fast AI can pump out “high quality content” because I refuse to consume any of it. I really hope the strikes are successful.

    • DreamButt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      honestly we need legislation that protects artists who use their art as a means to live

        • Nine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          That is one way to view it. However due to everyone, in including blue collar workers, having their lively hoods threatened by AI we need to ask the question if were okay, as a society, for there to be more jobs eliminated than created. Are we okay with the current ways and (some would say the illusion of) the free market controlling everything? Are we okay with letting people suffer needlessly? Would you be okay with looking into the eyes of someone you know and saying “too bad that’s the free market baby!” Because it’s starting with the arts but it’s not stopping there. It’s only a matter of time before it will not need many warm bodies to do things. The knowledge works are next on the list and it won’t be long after that where manual labors will be impacted. This is all WAY before we even hit AGI.

          I’m not saying that AI taking jobs is a bad thing. I think it is an amazing thing but we need to start embracing it as an opportunity for things to be more Star Trek and less dystopian hellscape. That means changing this mindset that a lot of us have and start asking ourselves how do we want the world to look in 100 or even 500 years from now.

          HTH

        • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          They just have to get a real job too, like everyone else.

          Would you mind expanding on what a “real” vs “fake” job is? I disagree with the premise entirely but i am not taking you with a loaded question, i am honestly curious about what that means to you (and by extension what other people who use that term might mean)

        • wuddupdude@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          The free market kind of sucks at making art and I think it’s okay and good for the government to subsidize it.

      • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s funny to me because all these people are saying exactly what everyone used to say about mobile phones, about the internet, about computers… I know so many people who railed against the internet saying they’d never use it and that computers only make things more difficult - now they’re all yelling on Facebook about how the evil corporations they work for aren’t letting them work from home lol

        AI will keep getting better and the way people use it will continue to evolve, there will be truly great things made by obsessive outsiders which speak to people in ways nothing has… Just like with every minor technical or social Innovation in art. Many of the giants of the old era will vanish and many new greats will grow and start to stagnate into conformity…

        I’m excited for the future and all the interesting things it brings, we can’t just stop creativity and progress because some affluent performers want guarantees of stability which just don’t exist in reality

    • Victor Gnarly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I do too hope the strikes are successful. That said, you’ve likely already been consuming generative technology for some time now. Disney alone has nearly a decade of research into it already. Advanced VFX applications use all sorts of generative tech too. When I was working in LA we referenced public data all the time. I know it’s gotten a huge spotlight on it given private AI capitalizing/evangelizing it all but the very real threat of digital scabs taking people’s jobs needs the biggest spotlight right now. I do think the tables will turn if nothing good can come out of Hollywood and those artists begin weaponizing that same tech against the execs. I see what studios are doing as no different than impersonation & identity theft by using this tech to limit working hours to skirt union protections.

      • kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        But why? I feel like people are twisting their arguments against AI. Or they are being twisted against.

        Why does an actor care where there lines come from? We live in a world where The Room was written and released, but AI content is going to be the end of media? People aren’t that special. Our thoights aren’t that special. We don’t have souls. We’re just thinking machines, and nothing we create is more unique than something that we created creates.

        • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          But why? …

          Because this is about enshitification of life for studio exec profits. It’s not really about where a machine can or should be a part of creative works, but HOW they are being used.

          Nearly very industry in which LLMs are being used in the latest hype wave, it’s not being used to improve anything but concentration of wealth in the hands of a dwindling number of individuals by worsening product quality and real ability of any of humanity, outside of those of hereditary wealth, to be get by.

    • TheCraiggers@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      because I refuse to consume any of it

      I guarantee you already have and didn’t notice.

      There’s a philosophical argument to be made for sure, and I’d probably even agree with you. But the reality is that the technology is here, and it’ll be used in pursuit of the almighty buck.

      • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s what makes it especially insidious. We want entertainment made by people, for people, not by AIs for corporations and their pockets.

        • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, we need human writers! I don’t think AI can turn great books into shitty movies as well as actual writers. AI scripts sound like a real gain, IMO.

          • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Questions for everybody else:

            1. Who actually thinks like this?

            2. Why are big Lemmy instances allowing obvious shills to concern troll and forum slide on their servers?

            • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Well, for one, I think like this. And given the upvote, at least one other person does as well. And six others disagree. Which is fine with me, by the way, people can disagree and be civilized about it.

              As for “obvious shills and trolls” - just because I like the technology and dislike current writers, I’m a troll? With thinking like this you should perhaps go live in a totalitarian state, cause that’s how they roll - “you’re either with us or you’re bad”.

              Can you pretty please let me have my opinion?

              • Loom In Essence@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Why do you expect AI to write better scripts than “current writers”? Do you believe than humans are incapable of good writing, and we need AI to finally make the first good art to ever exist?

                • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Not first good art, no, there are many great movies. It’s usually when people who are famous enough to do whatever are the directors (Tarantino, Nolan). But the usual crap? All the unimaginative movies and TV shows? Botching good books by not understanding the source material at all? That’s most of the writers and that’s who I think should be replaced by AI. We were doing a presentation on capabilities of AI recently and one sentence my colleague came up with sums it up: AI is not some super smart thing, it’s like millions of average people who can think really fast.

        • kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m fine with AI content. It’s going to make making media so much easier for people who aren’t inherently artistic but have a vision they want to show.

          • Loom In Essence@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            There are already teams of humans ready to do all that stuff. AI adds nothing there. The non-artistic person with a vision can already collaborate with skilled artists.

            But more importantly, we are not worried about artists using AI as a tool. We are worried about corporate goons using AI to fire all creative staff and generate manipulative trash.

            • Kale@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The first company that debuts an entirely AI film will be a game changer, since it’s training set will be all the greats/popular films from Godfather, Taxi Driver, Jurassic Park, Star Wars, Inglorious Bastards, and Parasite.

              Then everyone will want to get in on the game and we’ll see a huge number of AI films. To be noticable and unique, a certain amount of hallucinating will be allowed. After a couple more years, you’ll see model collapse as the film AIs are now using other AI output as their training input.

              AI systems need a steady “diet” of human created material to continue to create material that is relevant and interesting to humans.

              Robert Evans has a great episode on “behind the bastards” about AI and children’s books. The majority of Kindle published children’s books and coloring books are AI generated. There are Kindle books on how to make hundreds of AI children’s books a month using AI tools, including how to write the prompt for the AI input.

            • kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Okay so instead of me just working on a fun product for free in my own time, I have to pay someone a fair wage as if this is a commercial product I’m producing?

              There’s several people in this thread arguing we should outright ban the use, instead of coming up with ways to protect artists without artificially limiting AI.

              • Loom In Essence@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I have to pay someone a fair wage as if this is a commercial product I’m producing?

                There’s several people in this thread arguing we should outright ban the use,

                I didn’t see anyone ITT making that argument, and anyway this whole debate is specifically and explicitly about hollywood goons using AI to churn out trash without paying the talent. It’s not about some broke artist using AI to bring his vision to life. As I already said. It’s beyond straw man to treat that as the position that’s being criticized

    • RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      If it is high quality, why do you care how it was produced?

      But it’s not the high quality content that’s threatened by AI, it’s the mediocre gargabe. It’s the endless stream of poor quality TV shows and movies which are produced not as art, but as a means of steady predictibile income for the companies involved. That’s the industry aspect of the business. This side of the business consumes most of the talent in the industry. They all know it’s not good and they all hope they will get the funding to actually work on the things they know will be high quality. I think AI will allow them to do that.

      Further more, this strike is not just about AI. I think this aspect is the one media outlets care most about and gets reported on more. The entertainment industry has suffered a major shift with streaming platforms and the movement of money from production studios to streaming platforms has left the employees behind. They’re getting less money from streaming platforms but still do the same work. That’s what the strike is about. The industry didn’t care for them when it changed.

      • Knusper@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        If it is high quality, why do you care how it was produced?

        To me, this is comparable to fiction vs. non-fiction.

        Personally, I do already find fiction less engaging, because there’s nothing romantic about these stories. With which I’m not referring to a love story, I mean that there’s no sense of wonder of what lead to these events. It happened that way, because a writer wrote it that way.

        And yet, the one thing still tying fiction to reality is the writer. You can still wonder what life experiences they’ve made to tell this story and how they’re telling it.
        Our current narrow AIs don’t make life experiences, so you lose even that strand of meaning.

      • R51@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        To answer your question about quality: it matters because it’s not real. The act of producing something of quality is what makes us better people. It ties into motivation to be better. Computers automating repetition doesn’t hinder that (as much, it does affect learning curves). The notion that computers be used for an output that would normally require creativity is just throwing away the essense of creation, the end product is not the only thing that benefits us. There’s no objective to why it was created, an AI writing something that evokes emotion is a party trick. All it really does is promote consumption and demoralize innovation, and ironically it hides behind innovation as the end-goal of the project. It’s just dead. One of the most beautiful things within creating something of value is the very process of creating it, having the passion and desire to do so, and the will to bring it into existence. AI is a cursed attempt at trying to replicate this process, and by lifting that kind of burden from a human inhuman.

        • MelonTheMan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree with you when it comes to AI in its current form - I wouldn’t even call it a party trick, just dumb luck. Machine learning through repetition will use existing ideas and tropes.

          However you can provide the model with unique ideas, new tropes, characters, environments, and settings. The model in its current form could generate something nearly usable (script wise) and still be a valid piece of art with some cleaning up. Just because you save time doesn’t make an idea less “good”

          In the future we could have near sentient AI that generates actual pieces of art far faster and better than a person can.

        • RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s no objective to why it was created, an AI writing something that evokes emotion is a party trick.

          Then it’s not valuable. The question still stands: if something is truly valuable, does it matter how it was created? You are not answering this question, you are simply pointing out why AI in your opinion cannot produce art. My question is a bit “tongue in cheek”, of course. It cannot be truly answered without a specific example of creation. I’m asking it to prove a point: we’re dismissing something we don’t understand.

          All it really does is promote consumption and demoralize innovation

          I’d argue that this is what Hollywood already does. And as you rightly argued through your comment, it brings little artistic or creative value.

          • kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            To me, it’s the same feeling as the teachers that wouldn’t accept papers written on a computer (after an age where we know how to write) because “it’s less honest”.

            I’m not good at drawing. I would love to try to make a game. Anti-AI luddites are happy that I will never produce something because I am incabable of doing something that an AI could easily accomplish.

        • dimlo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          i refuse to believe AI can replace totally of the human part in the industry. Yeah some of the weak actors will be pushed out as they are not doing the job good enough, but it’s inevitable that one day technology is advanced that AI can actually replace human workforce. Like car manufacturing industry that have massive machines to assemble car parts, but also there are things only human can do. We don’t need crappy scriptwriters writing rubbish soap opera that my 10 year old daughter can write because they are no more generic than a AI churn out script. It’s like hiring a typewriter operator in 2023. Or rubbish actors that are like reading their script out with minimal effort and skills. It does not make sense.

          • dustyData@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            typewriter operator in 2023

            There’s this people called stenographers who are paid quite well, they can write hundreds of words per minute and essentially transcribe a conversation in real time. They are hired by courts to create records of the sessions, by journalists, parliaments and to transcribe subtitles for audiovisual media. They use this cool typewriter like machine called a stenotype that was invented in 1880. The thing is, they tried to replace them with speech recognition computers. They discovered they needed a human to sanitize input for the computer, essentially a person who can speak really fast and really mechanically, repeating what others said in the room, or what was said in the movie or whatever, into an oxygen-mask-like sound proof microphone. So, they still had to pay someone to be there. Many places decided they could just pay the stenographer and receive higher quality products despite the slightly higher costs. Then YouTube tried to use machine learning to auto-create closed captions. Before that they used a community contribution approach that depended on volunteers to take some time to transcribe the subs. That change to automation was such a fiasco that some big YouTube channels now advertise that they pay an actual company with humans to do the closed captions for their videos in the name of proper quality accessibility. Because automated closed caption tends to do interesting stuff and it’s even worse when they try to throw auto-translation into the mix.

            The point is, people tend to not understand technology and how it relates to humans, specially techbros and techies who have the most skewed biases towards tech and little sociological understanding. Nothing can be accurately predicted in that realm, and most relations that result from the appearance of new technology are usually paradoxical to common sense.

        • ramble81@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re just not going to give up this crusade are you? Going to start comparing salaries of line workers to starving kids in Africa again?

            • TheActualDevil@sffa.community
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You realize that most actors and writers are barely or not at all paid enough to live. This idea of the rich and famous actor is an edge case that you’re letting become your whole idea of them because they’re exactly that. Famous. But even you have to realize that there are countless others that will be and currently are being affected by the things their striking against. For too many years already writers have been shafted by production companies by hiring them as short term contractors to avoid paying them a fair wage or give them an option for royalties. And when literally everyone in the industry is doing that, then they have no choice if they want to get paid at all.

              And being mad because some high profile rich fuckers are participating is insane. Their participation shows just how important it is. They’ll be fine. They have millions and they’re still out there on the picket line anyway because the things the industry does and wants to make worse is bad for humans. That’s what collective action is about and it’s beautiful.

        • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s not what progress looks like, but you do you, fam. We’ll be over here on our new federated sites watching stuff made by actual human beings while Hollywood starves to death as everyone else stops watching that garbage.

          Or we will campaign the federal government to ban the tech outright and your lazy shill ass will have to actually do something useful to make a living.

          • kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            We’ll be over here on our new federated sites watching stuff made by actual human beings

            slowly puts away stable diffusion community subscriptions

            I, too, got mad at the creation of the personal computer and lobbied congress to ban them because they aren’t as real as my subjective interpretation of reality, work, and honesty.

      • Loom In Essence@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m looking for an interaction with the artists. I do not care what an AI produces… and I don’t care what a marketing team or boardroom of producers produces. I’m looking for an artist’s vision.

        • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m looking for an interaction with the artists.

          How exactly are you interacting with them while sitting on your couch looking at a screen?

          This is an appeal to purity argument. You’ve invented some higher standard (that doesn’t really even make sense) with the purpose of excluding the thing you don’t like.

            • kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              That it’s an entirely subjective experience and to presume that someone’s enjoyment of it means that a human had to be involved in It’s creation is such a ridiculous response.

              Have you ever seen the paintings that one chimpanzee made? They’re actually pretty nice in composition. Am I allowed to like the way they look even if no human made them?

              • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                So long as it’s not a glorified machine learning program designed to commit mass fraud and copyright infringement, then yes. Until then, go cry harder.

                • kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m going to think back to people like you in 15 years and smile at how naive you were.

          • Loom In Essence@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The audience responds en masse by tuning in, paying up, being changed, perpetuating the ideas back into the culture through the filter of their own personality, chatting about the thing, praising or criticizing the artist.

            This is an appeal to purity argument. You’ve invented some higher standard

            Nope. It has absolutely nothing to do with “purity.” It has to do with humans doing the ancient human thing of making art. Dancing, singing, telling stories. You’re bringing in the abstraction of purity.

            Hollywood (in its crudest aspect) is already an AI algorithm for churning out trash. That’s why I tune out already. Because it is not humans telling each other stories. It is pure corporate manipulation. More AI in the hands of producer-goons just means more corporate manipulation and less humans telling each other stories.

            AI in the hands of an artist is a tool for exploring and creating. AI in the hands of corporate goons is the total opposite.

        • hark@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Then hollywood is the wrong place to look. AI can make it even worse, but hollywood has been mostly devoid of expressing artistic vision long before AI came around.

    • vimdiesel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I hope there is some kind of “label” that comes out of this like the Surgeon General’s cigarette warning. “This movie is 87% AI generated” so I won’t have to bother thinking about whether to skip it. Fuck lazy & greedy movie makers. They’d giveup their immortal soul for $3.50

    • JeffCraig@citizensgaming.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are many issues besides AI stuff that are causing this strike.

      Yes, with the quick emergence of AI in all industries, we do need strong workers rights agreements and laws to address it, but AI isn’t really the primary issue.

      People pick positions in these arguments that are too stringent and not realistic. There will be places where AI is useful in this industry. The union just needs to make sure AI isn’t abused in order to completely replace certain types of laborers.

  • vimdiesel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    103
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best possible outcome. No one wants that AI generated shit while actors and behind the scenes people make starvation wages.

      • Syrc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        So if we’re going to have AI replacing Actors, Animators, VAs, Writers and everything there’s going to be a lot less people to pay and ticket prices will go down by 90% right?

        The whole population will benefit from AI and not just people who already make way too much money like it happened with pretty much every other technological innovation right?

        • vimdiesel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Bro you are waaaaayyyyy overly optimistic on who AI is gonna benefit :) . It won’t be the 99% in the end.

          • Syrc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That was sarcasm, I thought the “Right? Right?” was enough to give it away lol

        • dustyData@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just like WallStreet, the ultimate goal is to also replace audiences entirely with AI sentient viewers. That way they can create millions of viewers who will be pre-primed to want to watch the same pieces of media several hundred times. They can even view the movie at 500% speed so they can do so in a shorter timespan than meat viewers. OpenAI will be the first company to offer culturally insensitive and politically neutral 100% synthetic audiences to feed your Hollywood releases. For just cents per 1 million viewers/hour you too can release a blockbuster. This includes Twitch and YouTube audiences!

        • kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          So your argument isn’t against AI, it’s against studios. Or your argument is against us, and our complacency when it comes to corporate or profit overreach.

          I don’t see how you could take that as an argument against AI in general. Stanley Yelnatz wasn’t wrong for looking for the shorter shovel.

          • Syrc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure, just like my gripe is mainly with school shooters rather than with guns, and with crazy billionaires rather than with social media.

            But since you can’t realistically regulate the users to a healthy level, you have to regulate the tool. Because, just like those other two things, the benefit it brings to regular people is minuscule compared to the harm it can do.

        • RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The whole population will benefit from AI and not just people who already make way too much money like it happened with pretty much every other technological innovation right?

          Humanity benefited from the invention of the printing press. Humanity benefited from the industrial revolution. Humanity benefited from the invention of computers. Humanity will benefit from AI too, greatly so. This is not what is up for debate. Some people made fortunes from it, but does that matter when you compare it to how much good it brought about?

          • Syrc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Did it really benefit that much from it though? We can now be infinitely more productive while working, but are still required to work the same work week and have the same purchasing power, if not less in some countries. And the products made with that work cost pretty much the same, even though it costs much less to produce them.

            Very rarely a technological innovation actually ended up improving common people’s quality of life, and the ones that did were due to being improving of the end product in nature.

            AI doesn’t improve the end product (rather, currently it worsens it), it just improves the efficiency. And like with the Industrial Revolution, people will get paid the same, will have to work the same amount of time, and their end products will cost the same. CEOs will benefit from it and no one else, if history says anything.

              • Syrc@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Just from a quick Google search. Skip to the end if you want raw hour comparison.

                I’ll gladly accept a huge AI implementation if it means cutting even 20% of current working hours while keeping the same salary, but I’m really skeptical on that.

                • RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That’s not what I’m debating. What about healthcare? What about acces to education? What about infant death rates? What about travel? What about not having to worry about starvation? Clean water directly into your home? Hot water too? Electricity? Have these not improved the quality of life greatly? You must not know history if you think your average peasant was living a better life preindustrialisation.

                  I’m not sure what work you’re doing at the moment but you seem pretty burned out by it. Maybe it’s time for a change