The Verge: AI startup Runway has made a name for itself building generative models seemingly trained on unlicensed content from around the internet. Now, the company has signed a deal with Lionsgate that will give it access to the studio’s massive portfolio of films and TV shows.
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25628098/mega_04_11_43_07_00362479rc.jpg)
5 comments:
I get that people are excited, but personally, this is a pretty big red flag to me. If I was someone who had ever worked on a project with Lionsgate, especially with so little information available about the terms of the deal, I would be upset to learn that suddenly my work was able to be accessed and possibly used by AI. I think it’s really important to keep the information that is fed into AI separate from creative works and intellectual property––which is already so far from what has happened with this whole AI craze that the situation is pretty disheartening. I get that AI can be a useful tool to help creatives achieve their visions, but we need to be more careful, or else there will continue to be instances of artists having their work stolen and discredited. I hope regulations are coming and coming soon.
As I’ve said earlier this week, I am not on board with AI in creative work. Lionsgate allowing Runway’s AI to use their films and tv shows as a step in the right direction because Runway is not using content on the internet to train its AI with no one’s permission. The use of AI in film production to lower pre-production and post-production costs is a slippery slope. I think the use of this AI in film or tv production removes the peoples jobs for one and also the intentionality behind their design that adds little easter eggs that AI can’t reproduce. Easter eggs like references to previous films, history, and inside jokes on the team made by people working together will be harmed if the process is reduced down to a machine pumping out content. This deal is very concerning for the future production of films and tv shows.
After reading this I just really want to know what the point is. The chair of Lionsgate said that the use of AI tech with be “a great tool for augmenting, enhancing and supplementing our current operations" but I want specifics, this feels too broad for me to see as a positive, especially in this age of using AI without consent and to cause uproar. This reminds of the fact that Keanu Reeves has it written into his contracts that his appearance and performance can not be altered by AI. Knowing that the studios without his knowledge would do this if not for the threat of being sued is alarming. This overall feels incredibly alarming that such big studios are signing deals like this as who knows what doors this could open for other uses. As well as who this is going to put out of a job. I can't help but think of the people whose job it is to create these effects in post and instead all these companies need is one person to tell the AI what to do.
I find this to be a rather questionable and concerning use of AI in modern entertainment. Especially the term “capital efficient” to me just sounds like they want to save money by using AI in their work to replace human manpower. Even further, the fact that the creative teams’ work that's being used to train the AI are not being compensated for it is even sketchier to me than before. Lionsgate fully admitted to using AI to replace background actors in film shots, if that isn’t concerning I don’t know what is. Jobs are already being replaced by the unregulated use of AI, and it's a very real possibility that this escalates to a concerning level. I really hope that regulations start being made for AI in work and quickly before people's lives are ruined by it. This honestly just sounds like a company beginning to replace their workers with AI and trying to sugarcoat it by discussing how it’ll advance the quality of AI instead of mentioning how it’ll replace people’s jobs.
I find this interesting (and concerning), especially with recent union deals regarding the use of AI, though I don’t claim to be too familiar with them. I don’t think the future of AI in the arts is inherently bad, but I certainly disagree with where it’s heading at the moment: exploitative of artists, cheap in terms of process and creativity, and beneficial to only the top of the top. I’ve never heard of AI Startup Runway before this article, and I find it really weird that the company is taking blatant advantage of unlicensed content- and even more negatively now that Lionsgate is on-board (I’m not surprised, except at the claim that it will ‘augment’ actual creative talents’ abilities). They also describe it as ‘capital-efficient’ which is a syllable-heavy way of saying they really don’t like paying actual artists the little they do. Frankly, I find it pitiful that these large companies whine about money.
Post a Comment