www.hollywoodreporter.com: The unofficial Silicon Valley motto of “move fast and break things” may be an inspirational rallying cry for innovation, but it cannot apply to the fabric of society itself. It is high time our legislative bodies acknowledge the danger of that motivation and respond in kind, as we are in the midst of an unparalleled technological revolution.
6 comments:
The article goes in depth about certain loopholes that have already been found by companies justifying the copywriting of their product generated by AI, but the article also makes the point that the only way that a computer is able to make that product is from the creative work of actual human artists.
This reminds me a lot of the theatre I worked at this summer. It was a rotating rep theatre in which the scenic designer was the technical director – this was in an effort to cut costs. Since this person was not typically a designer, she openly used AI software to design all four of the sets.
I contacted my undergrad advisor about this because I was outraged, and showed her pictures of one of the sets. She said it was pretty good, but only because the machine probably has millions of pictures to pull from to create a set for this very popular Shakespeare play.
What this all stems from is a general lack of understanding of the point that this article makes at the very beginning. Art is not a product, it’s a process. There is no vulnerability in this AI generated slop. There’s no human.
I think the more you know about how movies, music, and art are made, the more you can understand why AI becoming involved in creativity is such a big deal. When I read the article from The Hollywood Reporter, what stood out to me was how much work goes into creating something that we only see as a finished product. I’ve never worked on a professional movie or made a song, but learning about all the different people involved makes me dislike the work of GenAI even more than I did before. Writers, editors, musicians, sound designers, and many others all bring their own skills and creativity to a project just one. I agree with the author that simply typing a prompt and getting a finished product is different from creating something yourself. AI is an interesting tool, but I think the human effort behind art is what makes it meaningful. This article made me appreciate how much creativity and hard work goes into the entertainment we enjoy.
AI is a hot topic right now in about every field. It is, I think, profoundly impacting nature as a whole. Think about the impact data centers are having on the environment, or ChatGPT’s negative affect on cognitive ability. The article seeks to gain an audience pushing for legislation curbing the ability to profit off of AI generated media, and discusses the different legal stipulations around copyright and fair use, questioning if there is a leg to stand on in copywriting an AI generated media. In part, this is to protect the jobs of people actually creating the media. However, that seems to be the fall out of what the author describes AI prompted media as, “a means of redistributing stolen creativity and artistic talent en masse.” I wholeheartedly agree, it's not a creation to type a prompt into an AI model, especially since those models cannot create anything of their own, and instead rely on the exploitation of other artists' work. I think however this feeds into a larger issue, and one akin to the ChatGPT issue I mentioned earlier. I am additionally hesitant to back AI art in any source for the same reason I don’t ask Chat-GPT to write papers for me; I fear the atrophy of my ability to think critically or creatively. Additionally I worry about the social impact of making the easy option profitable by not passing legislation.
I completely agree with this. I'm fully against the use of AI in the movie and film industry. I think that having AI create for you completely defeats the purpose of this art form. I know this article is talking specifically about AI-generated content for the movie and not AI-created prompts for the movie, which are two very different things. I agree that AI content should not be profited on because it is not anyone's work. I know a lot of art forms are now transforming into what is the fastest and most profitable way to make movies and TV shows, but then when we do this, we end up with lame and uninteresting outcomes. Not only is this horrible for the artistic, but also for the planet. By encouraging the use of generative AI, we are killing our planet. So I do not see any benefits to using it to create movie content, and I am in complete agreement with this article's stance on generating movie content.
I strongly believe that while AI may have a time and a place where it can be instrumental, but that place is not in the arts. The process of art is so important to the product. Many people who enjoy the arts enjoy them because they are able to see something amazing and feel inspired by the human effort that was put in to make it happen. To see art and be able to say ‘a person like me made that’ is a part of what makes art so special in our society. I agree heavily with the idea of legislation requiring clear labeling of what is AI content. When there are so many examples already of AI being used to create things that someone not looking out for it would believe to be real. I have a personal aversion to AI, but I understand that for some people it is seen as a useful tool. Personally I miss the days where all of the things people are trying to use AI for where being run using algorithms.
I find that I have to agree with the others who have commented here, and I appreciate the call-to-action that this article is. I don't use generative AI and, as best I can, avoid media made using it, as I feel a personal obligation to avoid supporting it. I need not restate the importance of an individual when creating art, and the problematic nature of how generative AI gathers its data. The problem I foresee arising with legislating the use of generative AI models is in how to determine how much an individual, willingly or otherwise, contributes to an LLM product.
The vast libraries used by AI have no way of properly crediting the work or the degree to which those individual works influenced their composite product. Obviously monetary compensation isn’t the sole pursuit of artists, and it'd be rather pessimistic to think that it is, but it is how a lot of us have the ability to pursue it. And with no way to quantitatively track how much an individual contributes to a product, even if there was legislation that sought to preserve an artists right to allow or disallow the use of their art in LLMs the need to determine how it might be traceable has yet to be determined.
It’s for that reason, that I think what this article discusses is so important, allowing any amount of profit from an LLM generated script, is an incredibly slippery slope.
Post a Comment