Friday, September 04, 2026
You Shouldn't Be Able to Profit From AI-Prompted Movies
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 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.
Post a Comment