Writers Guild strike 2023

145,637 Views | 1612 Replies | Last: 9 mo ago by uujm
IrishAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Claude! • 10:40a, 5/8/23
Claude! said:
TCTTS said:
Very well said, and I agree 100%. That's also cool to hear about your executive approach, and my hat off to you for going against the grain in that regard. Honestly, you and I probably aren't that far apart on this stuff, or even politically. I think a lot gets misinterpreted and projected in the noise here, which I'm as much to blame for as anyone.

I'm also not a big union guy or anything, and am not even a member myself. I just want see A) people treated/compensated fairly, and B) these corporations finally have to concede in some way, shape, or form. Granted, based on what I'm hearing, it sounds like it's not even the traditional studios who are being the staunchest, it's Big Tech - Netflix, Amazon, Apple, etc - who, being the new guys on the content block, either don't fully understand how this industry has operated for decades - or - don't care. Probably a little of both. Either way, all the better that they hopefully get a dose of reality too. It sounds like, if there's something on the AMPTP side to cause a fissure, it'll be the old guard vs. the new guard battle, which the unions can hopefully take full advantage of and exploit.
At a guess, the Amazons and Apples are against this in part because they're (allegedly) losing a ****load of money on their streaming services (largely due to circumstances within their control).
I agree, it's a blend of big tech mixing with studios and the impact and influence of wall street on all of them now. I work in tech, and can tell you, everything is done with a goal of improving earnings per share. Profit, R&D, and long term sustainability don't matter at all as long as the street approves of your earnings per share. And the moment they don't, companies begin to cut margins to stave off activist investors (hedge funds). Who, if you don't cut margins enough, will buy up shares to hit certain ownership percentages so that they can start influencing the board. This is the problem in the streaming sector, the metric for earnings per share was based on the constant growth in subscribers, but now that growth has slowed the street has come calling demanding blood and the upper level executives will do whatever than can so that their stock options aren't hit and/or they won't be ousted by board and shareholder manipulation from those hedge funds. I've been a part of this scenario at multiple companies.

Ironically, if you don't really understand this issue, the movie Other People's Money with DeVito is actually a good guide. But instead of investors and small to medium businesses, you now have conglomerates doing it to enterprises (and not much pushback from the top of the enterprises since it will drive up their stock compensation).

Reply Quote
6
1 edit
ABATTBQ11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cinco Ranch Aggie • 4:11p, 5/8/23
AG
Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

AI is something that should concern nearly every one, but I think the smart play is to understand what it can do and more importantly, what it cannot. I'm a software engineer. Yes, AI can generate C# code. But can it sit down with clients to actually understand the issues they need to solve?


Kind of this.

AI will certainly be able to replicate human scripts in the coming years, emotion and all. Think of a writer who has watched every movie and every show ever made, read every book ever written, and who can spit out lines on command for any given situation. That's going to be an AI script generator. Where "writers" will come in is in getting the situation and the story, but even that may eventually become an AI's job. You don't tell it what kind of story you want and tweak the plot until you're happy, then have it till in the details. It'll be like Star Trek's holodeck. For the audience, the benefit is that the ultimate writer, the AI, has a wider breadth of experience and some level of randomness, so it has less of a chance of essentially remaking older stories and using worn out tropes. To support this, look at Al****O. It destroyed the best human players in the world because it saw millions of games and used tactics and strategies.

That doesn't mean it can necessarily understand why changes are necessary or why a "writer" is having it make certain changes. It can't understand why an audience might like certain things over others. The smart writers will embrace AI and use it as a tool to push out lots of potential content. The others will continue as they are and struggle to keep up in the deluge.
Reply Quote
2
Capybara
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ABATTBQ11 • 4:24p, 5/8/23
I doubt anyone respects your opinion here considering you just compared writing to a video game while also saying "content". Ultimately what I care about the most as it relates to LLM is their failure to "write" novels. The novel is the ultimate art form of the unraveling of consciousness, and a writer's style opens a window into not just their life but the lives of many they potentially only know of.

Look, it's clear that you don't read much which is fine. However, **** like you typed above dismisses labor of nearly every form and fashion and its importance in our survival. If you earnestly believe what you've written, then our civilization, not just "writing", is done. There is no future in which we all just get to garden or cook or watch "content" or drink or do drugs or **** or hike while these tools do most of the work for us. Instead, you'd see a massive rise in depression followed by suicide.
Reply Quote
BenTheGoodAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Capybara • 5:02p, 5/8/23
AG
Dang dude. I don't think he's trying to put anyone down for their ability to write. It's clear that AI is going to displace some surprising elements of all sectors that people thought were once irreplaceable.

The advancement of a computer's ability to play games is not a bad analogy for the current advancement in AI we're seeing. There were people who never believed that a computer could be creative enough to win at Chess. Now, is there a human who can beat the top machines at Chess?

Reply Quote
17
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Capybara • 5:07p, 5/8/23
AG
Yeah, even I'm saying...

Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Capybara
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BenTheGoodAg • 5:24p, 5/8/23
I'm not sure why anyone, anyone who enjoys what life is and must be anyway, would just sit back and accept that technological advancement is always good for us.

These models are trained largely on Reddit, twitter, and message boards. Because of that, they're just reproducing data into data. Data into data unto depression might as well be the motto of every SM site/app, and make no mistake, the progression of LLM is as an attempt to create digital consciousness. The guys "progressing" this have already taken a chunk out of my generation and to a lesser extent millennials, and I'm never going to stop being bitter about that. You would too if you'd seen a friend attempt suicide directly because of the illusions this technological movement produces.
Reply Quote
BenTheGoodAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Capybara • 5:40p, 5/8/23
AG
I don't know where I or the poster above said it's a good thing. Like it or not, technological advancement is happening. Personally, I reflect a lot on what it means for me and my kids, and not without anxiety. I realize that it may mean I've got to stretch, grow, or reinvent myself. And some of that means embracing or understanding the technology that's coming down the pipeline I'm OK with that, but not without some angst. But that's life. Nearly every new major technology in history has come with some good and bad.

You are free to do and say whatever you wish, but I think if you direct your bitterness at people who are just engaging in the conversation, you'll look up and realize that you've isolated yourself. And I don't believe anybody wants that for you.

I'm sad to hear about your friend. And very sorry. For you, and I'm sure for all the other people that were hurt by that.

Reply Quote
10
1 edit
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:56p, 5/8/23
AG
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Capybara
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BenTheGoodAg • 6:15p, 5/8/23
Feast, song, dwelling, and work all flow into one another, and each must exist in anyone's life if they're to live. Yes, good and bad has come from each new development, but I've yet to hear the good from this "vision" put into action by those like Sam Altman. He's stupid enough to think some combination of UBI and LVT would assuage people and allow them to live!

Yes, I agree that I shouldn't be so combative on here. I'm rarely this way in person, and you have to realize I, along with most everyone else, turns into something completely unrecognizable on the internet because you aren't letting convictions, emotions, and subtleties out into others. Any one of us becomes worse off as we're incentivized to spend more time in this illusion.

I want the best for you and your kids, make no mistake. I truly cannot imagine raising children in this age, and because I'm gay, there's no pressure to do so. I keep trying to make myself believe this in an overreaction and that these developments will hit skids like what has happened in self-driving technology, but I probably need to see those tangible failures that strike the fear of death into us before I can legitimately feel as such.

It's clear that I need to step away from this topic for now, and I wish you the best.
Reply Quote
1
Jugstore Cowboy
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Claude! • 7:11p, 5/8/23
AG
Claude! said:
TCTTS said:
They're shutting down everything…

Dude in the second pic is dressed like every Marvel superhero trying to stay incognito.
I feel like you wouldn't have to be a big Hollywood insider to tell the difference between the Teamsters and the writers if you happened to walk past a picket.
Reply Quote
3
superunknown
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to IrishAg • 8:15p, 5/8/23
AG
This was an excellent post.

Quote:

This is the problem in the streaming sector, the metric for earnings per share was based on the constant growth in subscribers, but now that growth has slowed the street has come calling demanding blood and the upper level executives will do whatever than can so that their stock options aren't hit and/or they won't be ousted by board and shareholder manipulation from those hedge funds. I've been a part of this scenario at multiple companies.


This exact scenario is playing out right now for a chunk of my friends at a software company (media adjacent) that was just merged/taken in by a larger group. Sure they're not directly affected by the WGA strike but that company literally has no reason to exist if there's nothing to broadcast (ie, content to sell ads around) and the brain drain from that company is 1)astounding and 2) could affect my company (media) as we are a huge user of that software.
Reply Quote
PatAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:44p, 5/8/23
AG
Is there a chance Capybara is just a ChatGPT based poster? It reads like fanction
Reply Quote
13
Sea Speed
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PatAg • 12:14a, 5/9/23
AG
PatAg said:
Is there a chance Capybara is just a ChatGPT based poster? It reads like fanction


Chatgpt or not, dude has been off the rails on basically every post I have seen him make on this board
Reply Quote
12
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:04a, 5/9/23
AG
Preach…

Reply Quote
maroon barchetta
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 6:48a, 5/9/23
But use one of those same artist's songs for 20 seconds in a YouTube video and watch their label come after hit for money.

I'm with Snoop. Artists have to tour to make money now. Streams aren't paying like singles and album sales and radio airplay used to.
Reply Quote
2
Head Ninja In Charge
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:00a, 5/9/23
AG
At the very least, to Snoop's point, provide a clear breakdown on the revenue split from platform to platform or a clear breakdown of what constitutes a sales conversion. Like most people, I really love music and was interested enough in how artists actually get paid now and I swear, there were at least 10 different formulas that I read and none of them made real sense to me.

If I was creative/smart enough to create content that people loved enough to generate actual revenue like a musician or a writer, I for damn sure would want a standard for how I'm getting paid and moreover, a sense of confidence that I'm getting paid the fair amount.
Reply Quote
7
StinkyPinky
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to maroon barchetta • 8:16a, 5/9/23
AG
maroon barchetta said:
But use one of those same artist's songs for 20 seconds in a YouTube video and watch their label come after hit for money.

I'm with Snoop. Artists have to tour to make money now. Streams aren't paying like singles and album sales and radio airplay used to.
Streaming revenue basically buys the artist a cup of coffee and gives them bus money. Touring is the only significantly revenue stream for them. On the positive side it results in more bands touring frequently which is a good thing.
Reply Quote
Definitely Not A Cop
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 8:31a, 5/9/23
AG
TCTTS said:
Preach…




Purely conjecture below based on my gut. Take with a grain of salt.


I think musicians make way more money now than they did during the CD days. But the difference is that their music (besides touring) isn't what makes them money anymore. It's the constant promotions now on their social media, podcast, webstore, etc. You can make way more money than you ever did before, the technology has just changed what needs to be done to do that. Before, it was based almost entirely on your music. Now, it's based much more on your outreach and personality from different social media platforms.

I also would bet we have 10x the number of artists making a career off music than we did when snoop was just starting out as well.

Streaming has just made making music an affordable hobby like photography. The market is flooded by content, as it has never been cheaper to get play time from anyone worldwide.
Reply Quote
1
3 edits
jackie childs
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 8:34a, 5/9/23
TCTTS said:
has anybody ever seen Nolan out of uniform?
Reply Quote
3
cone
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:22a, 5/9/23
AG
is someone going to counter-protest Nolan for writing Tenet?
Reply Quote
4
bluefire579
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Definitely Not A Cop • 9:22a, 5/9/23
AG
Definitely Not A Cop said:
TCTTS said:
Preach…




Purely conjecture below based on my gut. Take with a grain of salt.


I think musicians make way more money now than they did during the CD days. But the difference is that their music (besides touring) isn't what makes them money anymore. It's the constant promotions now on their social media, podcast, webstore, etc. You can make way more money than you ever did before, the technology has just changed what needs to be done to do that. Before, it was based almost entirely on your music. Now, it's based much more on your outreach and personality from different social media platforms.

I also would bet we have 10x the number of artists making a career off music than we did when snoop was just starting out as well.

Streaming has just made making music an affordable hobby like photography. The market is flooded by content, as it has never been cheaper to get play time from anyone worldwide.
What you mention is actually a great parallel to the writer's strike here, because songwriters in particular have been hurting from streaming and the way the landscape has changed in the past several years.

Rolling Stone did an article about this fairly recently. Not sure if there will be a similar movement there (or if songwriters are even unionized), but it feels very similar to the situation here.
Reply Quote
Definitely Not A Cop
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bluefire579 • 9:25a, 5/9/23
AG
Yeah, the biggest thing with the writers strike is residuals not being paid out. That's seems insane to me. It's like paying the Home Depot employee who installs your refrigerator residuals from sales, but not the engineer who designed it.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
EclipseAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:15a, 5/9/23
AG
Without realizing it, Snoop answered his own question.

He said, "If I sell so how many streams ..."

But the listener isn't paying for individual streams. Just like the viewer isn't paying for individual views of a show on Netflix.

I don't know how you fix that without going back to old-school models. We're gonna make people buy shows one episode at a time again?
Reply Quote
2
Iowaggie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:29a, 5/9/23
AG
So the strike is just a week old.

What is the prediction now for how long this goes on? Another week? 6 weeks? 3 months?

I'm always pessimistic on labor stoppages resolving quickly, and especially feel that the media corporations are just going to drag this out, but is this strike still active on the 4th of July?
I'm guessing yes but I also don't win NCAA bracket predictions either.

Reply Quote
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Iowaggie • 12:46p, 5/9/23
AG
At this point I would be surprised if it's resolved before Labor Day. The two sides are just so far apart.

The wild card is the DGA. Both the DGA and the SAG contracts expire at the end of the June. SAG sounds like they'll likely come to an agreement, but apparently the DGA is nearly as far apart with the AMPTP as the WGA. So if the DGA strikes as well, and all of Hollywood shuts down come July 1, hopefully that would be more of an impetus for all sides to come to an agreement, but who knows. I'm now hearing the strike could potentially last even longer if that happens.

The Emmys are September 18, a couple weeks after Labor Day, and it sounds like no one would want to see those cancelled (seeing as the show uses WGA writers), but if all parties are still far apart by then, it's not like they're going to rush to come to an agreement just for an awards show.

The DGA begins negotiations tomorrow, so hopefully we at least start hearing more rumblings on that front soon...
Reply Quote
2 edits
ABATTBQ11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Capybara • 1:36p, 5/9/23
AG
Capybara said:
I doubt anyone respects your opinion here considering you just compared writing to a video game while also saying "content". Ultimately what I care about the most as it relates to LLM is their failure to "write" novels. The novel is the ultimate art form of the unraveling of consciousness, and a writer's style opens a window into not just their life but the lives of many they potentially only know of.

Look, it's clear that you don't read much which is fine. However, **** like you typed above dismisses labor of nearly every form and fashion and its importance in our survival. If you earnestly believe what you've written, then our civilization, not just "writing", is done. There is no future in which we all just get to garden or cook or watch "content" or drink or do drugs or **** or hike while these tools do most of the work for us. Instead, you'd see a massive rise in depression followed by suicide.


I do believe it, and I also believe you have no ****ing clue what you're rambling about either.

Current and future writers will have to understand how to use AI to create content if they want to be competitive as a professional. The expectations for what and how much they can produce how fast will only get higher. Eventually the only way to survive will be to use AI to create a rough mold of what they want and then tweak it to the finish line. I work with people who view their jobs as an art form and all think they have the secret sauce. I've built tools that automate some of the things they do and automate parts of their work to get them to an approximation that they then finish off. You know how many complain that I'm ruining their livelihood or stripping the individual nuance from their jobs? None. They're thankful that they now have more hours to devote to other things or arriving at a better end result because they now have a jumping off point much closer to their final destination.

If a writer spends a few minutes using AI to generate dialogue options for a scene and then tweaks them to arrive at something they're happy with over the next half hour instead of writing and editing over the course of a day, they're going to be more productive and arrive at the same place. They're still in control of the end result, but they're starting closer to the finish. That jumping off point will edge closer and closer, but at the end of the day, they're responsible for shaping the way there and the end result. It's no different than a craftsman using power tools and jigs to crank out furniture instead of cutting each piece by hand. The furniture is the same, but the use of better tools makes producing it much faster and easier.
Reply Quote
7
ABATTBQ11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BenTheGoodAg • 2:21p, 5/9/23
AG
BenTheGoodAg said:
Dang dude. I don't think he's trying to put anyone down for their ability to write. It's clear that AI is going to displace some surprising elements of all sectors that people thought were once irreplaceable.

The advancement of a computer's ability to play games is not a bad analogy for the current advancement in AI we're seeing. There were people who never believed that a computer could be creative enough to win at Chess. Now, is there a human who can beat the top machines at Chess?



No, there's not, and Go is a far more complex game than chess, with infinitely more possible moves and variations. The current iterations of Go playing AI are simply unbeatable by humans. Players who have spent a lifetime playing and honing their skills and are considered the absolute best in the world simply can't keep up.

AlphaStar is another excellent example. It played Starcraft II at a near professional level before being retired. As an RTS, Starcraft II requires far more complex problem solving and strategic analysis than either Chess or Go because players must balance production, resource gathering, unit balance, defense, and other priorities, and it involves much more ambiguity because you do not know everything about what your opponent is doing and can't see the entire map. When it first went into development, it was estimated by some that it would take at least 5 years to beat a human player. It could compete with professional players in about 2, and when added anonymously to the game's online multiplayer, it rose to the top .2% of players within 2 months. DeepMind decided that was enough development and moved on to other projects. For what was essentially a proof of concept, it's incredible.

Needless to say, AI in gaming has made leaps and bounds from Deep Blue vs Kasparov. To say that AI can't make the same progress in a different space just because it has historically been populated by creatives is asinine. To say it will result in the downfall of humanity if it does is just preposterous paranoia.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
nai06
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Nanomachines son • 2:53p, 5/9/23
AG
Nanomachines son said:
DTP02 said:
beanbean said:
WOW are we getting ready to see the first occupation be lost to AI?


Frankly, the writers need to be pushing the AI limitations much harder, especially since they're already on strike anyway.

It sounds like the AI protection is more of a tertiary issue for the writers, but it should be front and center because it's a game changer.

There are plenty of careers which AI is going to have a major impact on, and the ability of those professions to hang on anywhere close to current participation levels depends on either their lobbying power (professionals in fields like law, finance, and medicine) or their union as in this case.

If I'm in the writer's guild I ram thru more stringent protections from AI now or run the risk of having a big chunk of those jobs eliminated by the time the deal comes up again a few years from now. The focus on compensation or working conditions is a short-term focus when they should be prioritizing the existential threat to their profession.


Yep, this should be their number one issue. In fact it should be pretty much the only major issue. This will crush them if they aren't careful.

It's already very prevalent in book such that many organizations are no longer accept proposed books because they had so many AI submissions.


I think you're pretty far off when it comes to AI and publishing.

1. Currently, you can write a whole book with AI and try to sell it yourself. No one is stopping you but you probably aren't going to sell very many copies either. Writing is more than just spitting out words onto a page. Editing a book is just as important. It's the part of writing that really makes an author's vision and voice come to life. It's one of the two major reasons self published books often don't make any money (the other is that they just plain suck).

AI doesn't solve that problem for you.

2. Let's say you decide to write a book with AI. If you don't self publish it, who is going to actually buy your book? Certainly not any of the Big 5 Publishing Houses and truthfully not anyone. AI generated content can't be copyrighted. No publisher is going to spend money on a book that I could turn around and sell myself along with all of the related characters, etc.

This isn't affecting book submissions like you think it is.


So where does AI affect writing/publishing? Mainly in places that accept self submissions for work. One off short stories, articles, etc. Some of those publications have stopped accepting new submissions because of AI generated stories. So rather than publishing AI work they are pausing to figure out how they can exclude it.

Reply Quote
1
ABATTBQ11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nai06 • 3:18p, 5/9/23
AG
nai06 said:
Nanomachines son said:
DTP02 said:
beanbean said:
WOW are we getting ready to see the first occupation be lost to AI?


Frankly, the writers need to be pushing the AI limitations much harder, especially since they're already on strike anyway.

It sounds like the AI protection is more of a tertiary issue for the writers, but it should be front and center because it's a game changer.

There are plenty of careers which AI is going to have a major impact on, and the ability of those professions to hang on anywhere close to current participation levels depends on either their lobbying power (professionals in fields like law, finance, and medicine) or their union as in this case.

If I'm in the writer's guild I ram thru more stringent protections from AI now or run the risk of having a big chunk of those jobs eliminated by the time the deal comes up again a few years from now. The focus on compensation or working conditions is a short-term focus when they should be prioritizing the existential threat to their profession.


Yep, this should be their number one issue. In fact it should be pretty much the only major issue. This will crush them if they aren't careful.

It's already very prevalent in book such that many organizations are no longer accept proposed books because they had so many AI submissions.


I think you're pretty far off when it comes to AI and publishing.

1. Currently, you can write a whole book with AI and try to sell it yourself. No one is stopping you but you probably aren't going to sell very many copies either. Writing is more than just spitting out words onto a page. Editing a book is just as important. It's the part of writing that really makes an author's vision and voice come to life. It's one of the two major reasons self published books often don't make any money (the other is that they just plain suck).

AI doesn't solve that problem for you.

2. Let's say you decide to write a book with AI. If you don't self publish it, who is going to actually buy your book? Certainly not any of the Big 5 Publishing Houses and truthfully not anyone. AI generated content can't be copyrighted. No publisher is going to spend money on a book that I could turn around and sell myself along with all of the related characters, etc.

This isn't affecting book submissions like you think it is.


So where does AI affect writing/publishing? Mainly in places that accept self submissions for work. One off short stories, articles, etc. Some of those publications have stopped accepting new submissions because of AI generated stories. So rather than publishing AI work they are pausing to figure out how they can exclude it.



This comes with caveats.

If I generate a novel using AI and use it as a jumping off point to start editing, I can go copyright that work. I've added creative input through the editing process and shaped the final result, which the US Copyright Office says is enough to grant authorship and copyright. AI can build a framework, characters, write dialogue, etc, and as long as you make creative additions or edits to flesh it out and finish it, you can copyright it. While this doesn't happen on a wide scale yet, it probably will eventually.

That said, one day this may all change. If I continually direct the creative process of an AI, requesting edits and changes and telling it what creative directions I want it to go in, effectively using it as a writer with me playing the part of editor, I am in some ways creatively arranging its work in my own way. That may also eventually serve as a foundation for copyrighting, and AI may be looked at as more a tool of the author than as the author itself.


ETA Writing, and art in general, is little more than a cycle of innovation and imitation. All writers and artists learn from historic and contemporary works, and they are influenced by those in their own works. Small innovations are made and applied to previous ideas and widely adopted and the cycle continues. No one sits down to write a novel without ever having read a book, and people write that they know. A well structured AI with a training set of millions of books and short stories is eventually going to be able to write something really good, because it is effectively well read and can draw on the experience and influence of countless great authors. Is it basically imitation? Sure. Is it innovative in its scope and its potential to randomly make new combinations of existing elements? Also sure.
Reply Quote
3
2 edits
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ABATTBQ11 • 3:36p, 5/9/23
AG
Yeah, this is where all of this is heading, IMO. Same for screenplays. It'll basically be like having a glorified research assistant, who also then takes a stab at a first draft of a scene/chapter (and thus, ultimately, the entire book/script). Or, in some instances, maybe the writer takes a first stab at a scene/chapter, but then has the AI do various alternate iterations to compare/contrast, and then incorporates bits and pieces from those iterations into their own version. Either way, the author will be the one providing all the prompts and parameters, and will be doing the final edits/passes, enough to grant sole authorship over the final product. To the point where no one will be able to tell an AI was ever involved.
Reply Quote
1
3 edits
ABATTBQ11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 5:24p, 5/9/23
AG
TCTTS said:
Yeah, this is where all of this is heading, IMO. Same for screenplays. It'll basically be like having a glorified research assistant, who also then takes a stab at a first draft of a scene/chapter (and thus, ultimately, the entire book/script). Or, in some instances, maybe the writer takes a first stab at a scene/chapter, but then has the AI do various alternate iterations to compare/contrast, and then incorporates bits and pieces from those iterations into their own version. Either way, the author will be the one providing all the prompts and parameters, and will be doing the final edits/passes, enough to grant sole authorship over the final product. To the point where no one will be able to tell an AI was ever involved.


It will certainly go beyond this. Think of a combination of story creation and editing with deep fake generation. Instead of generating a script to read, there's the future potential of straight up creating scenes to watch and edit. If an AI can generate ascript and also generate images and video, there's no reason why the script can't become the prompt for the video generation and the process can't become one where the script is skipped entirely. In the same way animators make low resolution walkthroughs and options for scenes before fully rendering them, you could have sample deep fakes created that convey the background, dialogue, actors, etc and then ok it for a full render. You could explore a lot of options without having to do a lot of casting or shooting.

This may not be feasible yet, but look at how far digital effects have come since Jurassic Park and think what could be possible in another 30+ years. A writer could potentially create an entire movie on their own by directing an AI content generator through textual prompts. There could be no need for shooting locations, actors, sets, or any number of things that drive up costs. Not saying it will happen, but all of the pieces are certainly there for it to be possible. As a stepping stone, think of creating deep fake trailers as a part of a pitch deck. That's a good possibility right now based on current technology.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
nai06
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ABATTBQ11 • 5:26p, 5/9/23
AG
ABATTBQ11 said:
nai06 said:
Nanomachines son said:
DTP02 said:
beanbean said:
WOW are we getting ready to see the first occupation be lost to AI?


Frankly, the writers need to be pushing the AI limitations much harder, especially since they're already on strike anyway.

It sounds like the AI protection is more of a tertiary issue for the writers, but it should be front and center because it's a game changer.

There are plenty of careers which AI is going to have a major impact on, and the ability of those professions to hang on anywhere close to current participation levels depends on either their lobbying power (professionals in fields like law, finance, and medicine) or their union as in this case.

If I'm in the writer's guild I ram thru more stringent protections from AI now or run the risk of having a big chunk of those jobs eliminated by the time the deal comes up again a few years from now. The focus on compensation or working conditions is a short-term focus when they should be prioritizing the existential threat to their profession.


Yep, this should be their number one issue. In fact it should be pretty much the only major issue. This will crush them if they aren't careful.

It's already very prevalent in book such that many organizations are no longer accept proposed books because they had so many AI submissions.


I think you're pretty far off when it comes to AI and publishing.

1. Currently, you can write a whole book with AI and try to sell it yourself. No one is stopping you but you probably aren't going to sell very many copies either. Writing is more than just spitting out words onto a page. Editing a book is just as important. It's the part of writing that really makes an author's vision and voice come to life. It's one of the two major reasons self published books often don't make any money (the other is that they just plain suck).

AI doesn't solve that problem for you.

2. Let's say you decide to write a book with AI. If you don't self publish it, who is going to actually buy your book? Certainly not any of the Big 5 Publishing Houses and truthfully not anyone. AI generated content can't be copyrighted. No publisher is going to spend money on a book that I could turn around and sell myself along with all of the related characters, etc.

This isn't affecting book submissions like you think it is.


So where does AI affect writing/publishing? Mainly in places that accept self submissions for work. One off short stories, articles, etc. Some of those publications have stopped accepting new submissions because of AI generated stories. So rather than publishing AI work they are pausing to figure out how they can exclude it.



This comes with caveats.

If I generate a novel using AI and use it as a jumping off point to start editing, I can go copyright that work. I've added creative input through the editing process and shaped the final result, which the US Copyright Office says is enough to grant authorship and copyright. AI can build a framework, characters, write dialogue, etc, and as long as you make creative additions or edits to flesh it out and finish it, you can copyright it. While this doesn't happen on a wide scale yet, it probably will eventually.

That said, one day this may all change. If I continually direct the creative process of an AI, requesting edits and changes and telling it what creative directions I want it to go in, effectively using it as a writer with me playing the part of editor, I am in some ways creatively arranging its work in my own way. That may also eventually serve as a foundation for copyrighting, and AI may be looked at as more a tool of the author than as the author itself.


ETA Writing, and art in general, is little more than a cycle of innovation and imitation. All writers and artists learn from historic and contemporary works, and they are influenced by those in their own works. Small innovations are made and applied to previous ideas and widely adopted and the cycle continues. No one sits down to write a novel without ever having read a book, and people write that they know. A well structured AI with a training set of millions of books and short stories is eventually going to be able to write something really good, because it is effectively well read and can draw on the experience and influence of countless great authors. Is it basically imitation? Sure. Is it innovative in its scope and its potential to randomly make new combinations of existing elements? Also sure.


At least under current rules, that would likely not be eligible for a copyright for the entire work. Only the human elements could be copyrighted with the AI created portions not receiving protection.

Giving a prompt to an AI machine is effectively giving instructions to a commissioned artist with the AI machine deciding the output. That isn't human authorship and therefore not eligible for copyright, even if a human edits it. At least that seems to be the view of the U.S. Copyright office (its the example they give).


Its a big gamble since that would be a case by case basis and publisher is not necessarily going to want to invest time and money into a work that they may not be able to own. I agree that could change, but for the foreseeable I don't see and end to the publishing industry or even the massive drastic change some are predicting.
Reply Quote
ABATTBQ11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nai06 • 6:07p, 5/9/23
AG
https://www.metastellar.com/nonfiction/news/ai-work-can-be-copyrighted-if-human-creativity-was-involved/

Quote:
"When an AI technology determines the expressive elements of its output, the generated material is not the product of human authorship," wrote Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office, in the new policy statement. "In other cases, however, a work containing AI-generated material will also contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim. For example, a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that 'the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.'"


If you take AI generated content and exercise enough creative control and input, you can copyright the entire work.

There's also the issue of exactly who is going to know what was or was not AI generated and how. If a manuscript is sent to a publisher, how are they going to determine the creative process behind it? How would the copyright office?
Reply Quote
3
2 edits
Capybara
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:58p, 5/9/23
Way too many replies and branches to sift through, so I'll try to sum up my concerns as succinctly as possible.

It's clear that I'm talking past everyone because I truly don't care about how these tools will produce content, specifically screenplays in genres of the most interest, while most everyone else does. Whatever. Nai06 seems to be close to my perspective in that style, or voice, dictates the movement and structure of a novel. Plot structure, characters, and dialogue follow the writer's breath. Having used GPT-4 to tinker with a few ideas, it's too restrictive to ever unravel a lasting voice or allow you to breathe in this context. In fact, you find yourself having to edit and rewrite more than before. Writing objectively good short stories, novellas, novels, etc. comes with constant surprises.

I guess I'm just confused as to why there's a heavy undercurrent of utilitarian ideas on here when it comes to writing novels specifically. Talk to any novelist and you'll quickly find they loathe practicality in their processes. Also, I'm not sure why anyone thinks increased efficiency in writing novels is a good, or necessary, thing since writers damage their reputations by publishing too often.

We need to allow the most unique people to largely exist in their own worlds. Currently, I see these tools as a continuation of digital creativity in that they homogenize voices and visions. I don't trust anyone who either implicitly or explicitly wants this. Clearly I haven't been succinct, but if you've made it this far, then it doesn't matter.
Reply Quote
1 edit
double aught
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ABATTBQ11 • 7:19p, 5/9/23
AG
ABATTBQ11 said:

This may not be feasible yet, but look at how far digital effects have come since Jurassic Park and think what could be possible in another 30+ years.

I guess. But those Jurassic Park effects still hold up to me.
Reply Quote
6
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.