Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007

Gaz-L posted:

*shudders* Respecting Walt Disney, disgusting...

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007
Brilliant idea to tie our economy to the habits of sociopathic gamblers.

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007

Dawgstar posted:

Yeah, I used to think it was the budget that torpedoed a show and I guess it might still be but who honestly knows? That Gabriel Iglesias show couldn't have had a huge budget and it got the axe and people seemed to like it in that generically inoffensive sitcom sort of way.

IIRC Netflix's lovely strategy was the back load payoffs, so they'd pay next to nothing for season 1 and maybe season 2 but promise much bigger cuts when they get to season 3 and 4... Which leads Netflix to cancel things before risking a season 3 and having to pay anyone for their work.

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007

Teek posted:

From what I understand for why high viewership new shows still get cancelled, it’s usually because watchers don’t actually finish the shows. Meaning those viewers watch the first few episodes and then bail for whatever reason. So that means they can’t be counted on to be there for a season 2. So while show X may have amazing numbers, not enough are even bothering to watch through to the end.

This double sucks because often if a show is really good... i don't want to binge it. I want to watch it at my own pace, one at a time over a long time. Honestly the better a show is. The less likely I am to finish it in a timely manner.

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007
Any entity that so much as receives a single cent in tax relief or any kind of grant or anything from the government should be forced to make their books transparent. You want public money, okay, well show us what you do with money first.

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007
Is the initiation ritual really elaborate and expensive or does joining a union usually involve giving big bucks first?

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007
Seems like an uncharitable way to frame it and even so... Oh no... People getting jobs.

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007
I knew who C-levels referred to but never thought about the term itself until just now when I looked it up thinking the C was like a grade, the lowest grade before pity-passing and fail.

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007
Lol letting 6 randoms in to peep at the jar of m&M's so they can come back and make a guess in 3 years and also they can't tell anyone if they saw more green m$ms than red

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007
It kind of reminds me of some of the old testament stuff with weird rules and rituals and stipulations to visit the big tent where God would briefly dip a toe in or have an angel say something bossy

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007
Was this story at least in an era before cell phones because it's stupid either way but double lol if not

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007
It's probably both in different piles plus a lot of them making bizarre choices regardless of the data involved.

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007
This will all be fixed with the new one world government, fair rights for everyone

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007

Dawgstar posted:

Remember the idea that Bob Iger coming back would be an improvement? Good times.

(This was, admittedly, a view held primarily by Disney Park Habitués - like the ones who go every day - who felt his predecessor neglected them or something.)

That kind of Disney fan is exactly the kind of person Disney would've wanted for his company town

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007
Those folks should definitely ask for those things regardless.

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007
He knows they want that, therefore it's a valuable resource for him to control.

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007
Aren't all the things the unions asking for be things companies should just have to do anyway? I know our government is broken but all of their demands seem like things that should just be codified into law so all workers get those as baseline benefits.

Might it be worthwhile to pressure their representatives with the same unified voice and circumvent trying to make deals with the devils directly? Especially since the execs are all pissing away government mega millions to do shady poo poo like not release finished media to scam the government out of even more money while avoiding paying workers to boot. Why isn't there an irrational senator who just wants to make some CEOs humbled and eat the dirt they deserve?

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007

...! posted:

lol if you think this country cares about workers enough to mandate anything like that

Double lol if you think that'll get better any time soon

Save your lols, I don't let myself actually think anything hopeful. However, I do still have an easier time imagining Mitch McConnel himself stepping in to implement luxury automated gay space communism over some of the execs just agreeing to make marginally less undeserved profit for any reason.

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007
Bill absolutely subsists on being a shitheel, I would assume he is hoping to bring himself attention with all of this and best thing to do is just keep ignoring him. His very nature makes it counter productive to even dunk on him

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007
It's just negotiation 101. You want to assume control and manifest positive outcomes. You want to open with "we are glad you are so close to securing a helicopter and a million dollars in unmarked bills and we are looking forward to releasing these hostages as soon as we lift off!"
Sets the tone and framing right from the start.

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007
Yikes, give an inch and they'll take a light-year. Training your replacement with every script seems like it should be a deal breaker?

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007

Pinterest Mom posted:

Yeah I've been trying to think of things the studios could do with AI trained on their scripts and whatever proprietary data they have and having the ability to take a script and ask "how many days of filming will this take? what's the estimated budget range on this script? how many distinct locations are there?" seems like it should be unobjectionable for writers.

Should it? In what universe would such tools and analysis ever result in anything other than reduced budget and deadlines, the same crap they always want, with AI modeled after a century of them overworking underpaid people on too short of deadlines + whatever snake oil code techbro of the week wrote.

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007

ashpanash posted:

This isn't some new silicon valley thing, it's just the way things work.

It's not really working out though. The dark bright side I can see here is that execs jobs seem like something AI could handle now with the added bonus of the AI can't get into all the same kind of gross abuses execs get up to. They also don't need executive level pay.

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007
Let's become major shareholders and sue the executive team for not replacing themselves with AI execubots knowing it would make the company more profitable than a massive layoff round of actual workers already being underpaid. When the executives rally to pass laws protecting themselves we swoop in with a rogue pro-human senator to change the wording to protect people instead. All we really need to pull this plan off is immense amounts of wealth.

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007

CapnAndy posted:

An AI cannot write a script on its own right now, though. If we're worrying about hypothetical future generations of AI tech, maybe then, but ChatGPT -- impressive as it is -- falls down pretty spectacularly as soon as you find one of its limits and press at it. (For example, it has absolutely no concept of truth, and will merrily lie about anything if it thinks you'll like the answer better that way.)

It can't yet and that's why you don't want it training on scripts as writers keep writing them. Nobody is worried about this gen of AI replacing creative arts, we just don't want to see it happen at all.

This isn't the kind of technology that brings new jobs -- eventually the goal is for these AIs to be able to replace even those who make them, people who already don't have a good grasp of what the gently caress they are doing or what impacts choices they make have -- and certainly no regard for those impacts and consequences.

This isn't the kind of technology that brings innovations, it regurgitates an imitation of what is put in.

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007

fart blood posted:

I work in a field that only a few months ago was told would be obliterated by AI and after using it I am floored that anyone feels threatened by it.

I'm not saying there aren't dangerous and dicey precedents, nor am I saying 5 years from now things won't be different, I'm just saying right now AI is that's 15% efficiency tool, 15% grift, and 70% very very good marketing.

The main change I've seen working in graphic design is the type of clients who used to send us a lovely cellphone screenshot of Google image searches or maybe a rough mockup from some template site, sometimes now send their crap attempts at getting an AI to make a design or logo for them, asking us to make something printable out of it.

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007
Was this just like filming strangers in public kinda b-roll? Interesting to know it's covered by the unions, I think I kind of assumed most people in b-roll didn't necessarily even know they were being filmed for it but fair game in public for the most part, aside from legal permits. Glad the unions were able to stop Netflix trying to sneak in some work.

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007
Do a recall, sounds like a bad guy

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007
That can't be a good way to find people for roles either. Making a self tape also seems like it 2ould automatically start involving a whole lot of non-acting skills too.

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007
I hope you're right because I'm seeing next year to be a wasteland of reruns and exploring ancient shows yet unseen to avoid seeing whatever cursed crap they put out.

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007
All we ask is for you to give us every reason to murder you as soon as possible.

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007

Aces High posted:

I know people in my workplace who said they had a similarly euphoric reaction to that scene. I reacted the way I did seeing a de-aged Carrie Fisher in Rogue One "uuuugh, why didn't you just cast a lookalike?" Not to mention the weirdness with cgi Peter Cushing as well.

Fisher, Cushing, and Robert Kardashian of all people being puppeted from beyonds the grave with bad CG for different gross purposes really grossed me out. Felt like some kind of universal barrier or agreement had been desecrated. Death was the end of work, you needn't consider at all the ideas of labour or compensation once you pass.

For me even without believing in any kind of soul or afterlife or persistence beyond the body, it still just seems spiritually wrong somehow. The soul and afterlife rules I'm most familiar with also make it a disturbing proposition.

But some people don't seem bothered at all or actively enjoy it. Maybe if ancient Sumerians had the technology and we grew up with ancient-scans popping in on Seinfeld and Sesame Street I wouldn't think twice about it. For now I'm weirded out by the idea of differentiating living/dead/fake performances in a show.

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007

howe_sam posted:

Fisher died like two weeks after Rogue One came out. They didn't set out to digital recreate a dead person when they included Leia in the film.

Now her appearance in RoS is another story, but even that was mostly footage from Force Awakens.

Ah I didn't see it till later and thought that was why they did bad CGI instead of any less bad option.

Cushing then was the soft knock with the Robert Kardashian showing you needn't have any pretense of decency or reservation at all of who you puppet or what you make them say.

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007
Not a fan of how that article glosses over the gross AI demands and the meaninglessness of those pay increases.

Also the way amto trying to spin it like "ooh sagaftra won you really made us come all the way over to you by giving you everything we wanted" is so lovely.

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007
Bob Iger saying the strikes cost has been negligible for them so far and that he's optimistic do not inspire me but what do I know. Is it normal for a strike to be called off before members even know the terms to vote on? And are people returning to work not going to need new contracts?

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007
I wouldn't even be that confident they do have a good way of actually tracking viewership hours accurately. Even ignoring they have immense incentive to fudge numbers and no accountancy for what they say at all (and possibly even more incentive to fudge numbers if select WGA members get curated peaks at their shady data), I just see a lot of the streaming services to be so poorly functional on so many various devices, it's hard to think they have their backend infrastructure and tracking all sorted out. Wouldn't be surprised if they just pay some company that claims to handle all that and themselves not really wanting to give accurate numbers either.

CapnAndy posted:

Yeah, it's very normal. T

Gotcha. I think hearing the "just give us your ai rights and make it even easier to use em when you die" being the last bit of detail I'd heard before "strikes over, deal made!" just has me skeptical.

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007

Tree Reformat posted:

They sure seem to be acting cagey with the contract deets for something you'd think would be an easy Yes from the enthusiastic yet vague way they've been talking it up.

That and the cheery way execs seem to be like "teehee sag practically got everything they asked for!" just feels like they pulled a sneaky.

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007
When I think protections against AI I think more in line with "don't do it" and this is just a faulty mesh of easy loopholes to not even need consent to use body doubles, and no consent or compensation of your ai double is used for parody, criticism, etc. greenlight on having AI actors instead of people is also pretty gross.

Like drat bare minimum Id think you'd need consent 100% of the time but this isn't even close. Without further clarification just seems like a poison pill. Why wouldn't studios just refuse to hire actors who won't accept whatever cheap rear end agreement for a digital puppet of themselves? A puppet they can also make look however they want, say and do stuff you would never agree to.

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007
I am hoping they say no and turn the screws as much as they can while they can, especially after this round of execs being like "strikes were barely an inconvenience" poo poo.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007
It's worse, since that might qualify as commentary, criticism, or satire nobody would need consent. If the KKK wanted to make a satirical video with your digital puppet, they don't need consent, you don't get compensation, and you can't tell them to stop.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply