Quote from: hedgehobbit on September 27, 2023, 02:56:11 PM
I downloaded and read the new contract language on AI that was agreed upon by the WGA negotiators last week. From my reading, it appears that the AMPTP got everything they wanted on AI. The company can use Generative AI (GAI) to create drafts for movies or shows which the WGA writers will modify. The only protection for the writers is that modifying an GAI script won't be considered a "rewrite" and the writer will be considered to have written the finished product.

What is it that you think AMPTP wanted? I think the AMPTP wasn't interested in GAI-written scripts because of the high quality. They wanted GAI-written because they thought it'd be cheaper than using human writers. If they still have to pay a writer full price and give them full credit, then I think the WGA won on this.

This is the summary language from the WGA overview of the settlement:

QuoteArtificial Intelligence

Regulate use of artificial intelligence on MBAcovered projects: AI-generated written material is not considered literary material, source material or assigned material under the MBA. AI is not a writer under the MBA.

Writer can elect to use AI when performing writing services, if Company consents and provided writer follows applicable company policies. Company cannot require writer to use AI software (e.g., ChatGPT) when performing writing services.

Company must disclose to writer if any material given to writer has been generated by AI or incorporates AI-generated material.

Source: https://www.wgacontract2023.org/WGAContract/files/WGA-Negotiations-Tentative-Agreement.pdf

It sounds to me like the company isn't saving any money by generating an AI draft.

Quote from: jhkim on September 27, 2023, 04:32:41 PM

Quote from: hedgehobbit on September 27, 2023, 02:56:11 PM
I downloaded and read the new contract language on AI that was agreed upon by the WGA negotiators last week. From my reading, it appears that the AMPTP got everything they wanted on AI. The company can use Generative AI (GAI) to create drafts for movies or shows which the WGA writers will modify. The only protection for the writers is that modifying an GAI script won't be considered a "rewrite" and the writer will be considered to have written the finished product.

What is it that you think AMPTP wanted? I think the AMPTP wasn't interested in GAI-written scripts because of the high quality. They wanted GAI-written because they thought it'd be cheaper than using human writers. If they still have to pay a writer full price and give them full credit, then I think the WGA won on this.

This is the summary language from the WGA overview of the settlement:

QuoteArtificial Intelligence

Regulate use of artificial intelligence on MBAcovered projects: AI-generated written material is not considered literary material, source material or assigned material under the MBA. AI is not a writer under the MBA.

Writer can elect to use AI when performing writing services, if Company consents and provided writer follows applicable company policies. Company cannot require writer to use AI software (e.g., ChatGPT) when performing writing services.

Company must disclose to writer if any material given to writer has been generated by AI or incorporates AI-generated material.

Source: https://www.wgacontract2023.org/WGAContract/files/WGA-Negotiations-Tentative-Agreement.pdf

It sounds to me like the company isn't saving any money by generating an AI draft.

You fail to notice that while there'll be a writters room it's way smaller than the WGA wanted and that the studios will choose to make multiple 6 episode seasons instead of bigger ones.

In the end the studios won, they got out (with out paying a penny) from deals they wanted out, now there'll be far fewer shows with fewer writters which means they get to "fire" the activists (if they are smart) with ZERO economic repercusions.

Whatever increase in pay the writters that keep working get is offset by the months without any payment, so the first year (at least) for the writters is a wash.

In short: Less shows means less jobs for the writters, shorter seassons means smaller writter's rooms, the studios still can use AI (if they are dumb) and the few writters that get to work will bend backwards not to join their comrades in the unemployment line.

Like I said several times, there's currently NO AI period, and whatever bots exist aren't capable of writting shit, not even to the shitty levels of She-Hulk on D+.

Now, the studios hired AI people, they ARE developing inhouse bots, probably feeding them whatever they own/is in the public domain and will use the next 3 years (the duration of the contract) to train their bots, with the help of the writters/showrunners.

Say in 4 years a studio wants to test an "ai" generated script, they find some strawman, pay him handsomly (still cheaper than a bunch of writters) to say they bought the full rights from him which includes several more scripts.

Then they give the script to a showrunner to produce.

Heck, they don't even need to pay no one, just say they found it in their vaults and use the name from some dead person with no descendants.

Quote from: jhkim on September 27, 2023, 04:32:41 PMWhat is it that you think AMPTP wanted? I think the AMPTP wasn't interested in GAI-written scripts because of the high quality. They wanted GAI-written because they thought it'd be cheaper than using human writers. If they still have to pay a writer full price and give them full credit, then I think the WGA won on this.

In the WGA's initial list of demands they wanted three things: 1) WGA writers can't be asked to edit GAI written material 2) AI can't be used to rewrite or modify WGA written material and 3) that no WGA written material can be used to train AI. They didn't get any of those demands. The only exception is that if a WGA writer owns the rights to the script, that script can't be used to train AI. So the AMPTP only "won" in that they didn't give the WGA what they wanted.

As to the cost, I don't know how much of a show's budget is writing nor do I know whether the average cost per script is much higher than the minimum payment for a script. So I don't know if there is any significant cost savings for studio to use GAI. There might be time savings and they might also be able to hire the minimum number of writers as well.

However, there is also a exemption to minimum writer room requirement if the studio hires a single writer or team to write all the episodes. (My understanding is that the team is paid per script, not per week like a hired writer). So a well run team that uses GAI to assist in writing could, potentially, write a show for significantly less money.

The big win the studios got was in canceling a bunch of doomed to failure projects before they lost even more money on them. They also still get a version of GAI to play with and a much smaller labor pool with lots of people looking to fill any openings to actually keep the writers doing the job of writing instead of being activists.

My sense, particularly with the move to throw Biden to the wolves* is that the smarter progs have seen they've done about all the damage they can do this cycle so they're going to pull back, retrench and let the pendulum swing a bit back (but not even close to where it was before) and once things have simmered down... resume the push (reclaiming the ceded ground quickly because "it's already been done once") even further.

* prediction; they won't impeach, so Kamala doesn't become President, but Biden will have a "health emergency" between the primaries and the convention to throw the selection process entirely into the hands of the party elites (who will pick Gavin Newsom because he's basically the only remotely telegenic non-complete idiot and non-geriatric member they've got to run... and because it keeps the grift in the extended Pelosi family).

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 26, 2023, 05:16:44 PM

Quote from: hedgehobbit on August 26, 2023, 03:52:16 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 26, 2023, 03:43:19 PMSo acting is now dead forever is because Hollywood replaced it with AI. I can't imagine how much that will improve human creativity and art... not.

There still will be actors, only the acting that is done will be used to animate a digital character. Exactly like how video game have been done for over 20 years. So there will be a handful of actors performing all the movies, regardless of which characters are in the movies. At least, that is, until AI improves sufficiently.

QuoteFuck Hollywood. Let it die. Kill it if you have to. Traitors to humanity should be rewarded as traitors deserve. Viva la Butlerian Jihad!

If you hate Hollywood, you should be 100% behind the advancements in AI as it will eventually allow individuals to be able to ask the AI to create any movie or TV show they can image. Star Wars with you as Luke, a new season of the Brady Bunch, and exact adaption of your favorite novel are all things that will eventually be possible.

Sounds like hell on earth. Make new shit. Stop recycling carrion.

We need a dinosaur-killing asteroid or nuclear war ASAP.

Our real world version of a Megacorp dystopia is going to be so much worse than any writer's worst nightmare.

It looks like the first step has been taken. Deadline has reported that SAG-AFTRA has signed a deal with AI voice company Replica Studios to allow digital version of actor's voices to be used in video games.

https://deadline.com/2024/01/sag-aftra-deal-replica-studios-ai-voice-replication-video-games-1235700341/

This came as a bit of a shock to actors which just shows that they didn't actually read the agreement between SAG-AFTRA and AMPTP. In the agreement, which is 129 pages, it clearly lays out the restrictions for using AI. At first reading it sounds good for the actors. The studio needs consent to change the actors performance, or dialog, and must pay the actor for days of work equivalent to the work that what the digital replica replaces. However, those restriction only apply if the digital replica was created for a specific movie that the actors was hired to perform in. The next section details "Independently Created Digital Replica" where the only restriction is that it requires the consent of and compensation for the actor or the actor's estate if the actor is dead. A studio could pay an actor to scan him and then use that scan to bypass four pages of contractual restrictions.

This deal for voice work with Replica Studios is covered by this Independently Created Digital Replica section and seems to follow the guidelines exactly.


Also, the contract uses the term "Digital Replica" to describe a digital actor which resembles a real person and "Synthetic Performer" to describe a digital actor that doesn't resemble a real person. The only limit on the use of a synthetic performers is that the studio must give the Union the right to "bargain in good faith over appropriate consideration" for using a real actor in the role.

They just need to create artificial voices that possess the pleasant qualities of voices people like, and use those in their properties. They will become popular and familiar, won't cost you a dime long term, and you'll never lose the rights.

products like video games MASSIVELY overestimate name recognition for voices.

IMHO all actors = professional liars. They have to believe lies in order to act: https://expressioncity.com/5-acting-techniques-every-actor-should-know/
Especially lying to themselves. Pathetic.
But look on the bright side of AI: It will be safer, cleaner, and the screenwriting will be better in the pr0n industry! No more abused people, just robots!

I have a bigger concern around actors.   I look and think, "Just what did this person have to do to get this part", and given the stories we hear (which means good lord what sort of stuff happens we will never hear about) about some of the literal faustian pacts some of the people in entertainment have made...it makes me queasy.   I suspect they are about abused a group of people (the ones who do what they must to get that every fleeting fame) as history has even seen.   I feel bad for them.

Quote from: Timothe on August 26, 2023, 12:45:19 PM
Did anyone see the movie "Looker"?

Down with AI !!!

No, but I saw S1m0ne.

OpenAI just released an add-on called Sora which is a direct text-to-video generator. This is significantly better (and easier) than the stuff we were seeing when I started this thread.



The prompt for this video was: "A stylish woman walks down a Tokyo street filled with warm glowing neon and animated city signage. She wears a black leather jacket, a long red dress, and black boots, and carries a black purse. She wears sunglasses and red lipstick. She walks confidently and casually. The street is damp and reflective, creating a mirror effect of the colorful lights. Many pedestrians walk about."

Quote from: hedgehobbit on February 16, 2024, 08:47:06 AM
OpenAI just released an add-on called Sora which is a direct text-to-video generator. This is significantly better (and easier) than the stuff we were seeing when I started this thread.

The prompt for this video was: "A stylish woman walks down a Tokyo street filled with warm glowing neon and animated city signage. She wears a black leather jacket, a long red dress, and black boots, and carries a black purse. She wears sunglasses and red lipstick. She walks confidently and casually. The street is damp and reflective, creating a mirror effect of the colorful lights. Many pedestrians walk about."

My new life goal is to live long enough to waste the remainder of my life making full length What If-style movies for myself and my family.

A couple news stories popped in the last weeks regarding AI film making.

First, Lionsgate has signed a deal with an AI company called Runway to create a custom AI trained on all of Lionsgate's film properties. This is the first step to bypass the entire "AI steals peoples content" argument. I expect Disney will do something similar (if they haven't done it already on the sly).

https://investors.lionsgate.com/news-and-events/press-releases/2024/09-18-2024-140126979


Second, director James Cameron has joined the Board of Directors for the company that created Stable Diffusion. This is the first major hollywood "icon" that has gone all in on AI filmmaking. I think it's funny that the guy behind Skynet is trying to bring it about IRL.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/james-cameron-joins-board-ai-firm-stability-stable-diffusion-1236010034/

Speaking in hypotheticals, I wonder if eliminating actors would actually backfire on Hollywood, even if they could generate something just as convincing as the real deal. A lot of Hollywood is built on the image of "movie stars"; the glamour, the cult of personality, the parasocial relationships etc. Lose that, and I wonder how much ticket sales would drop as a result.

Would ticket sales drop?  I don't think an AI actor would impact my purchases and in some cases it might actually boost my interest if AI/CGI allowed for things that were difficult or impossible to film before.