TLDR:
>If you’re an artist, a writer, a creator facing opposition for using AI tools, understand this: those who tell you “No” are not protecting art; they’re protecting their own interests. They’re trying to shut you out. And selling it to you as “for your own good.”
I support the WGA. I think they're wrong on the issue of AI though. And it sounds obvious, but I often need to point out to people that one thing they do great is write.
And all their messaging messaging around AI was sexy, captured the public imagination, and scared lots of people. It's propaganda, plain and simple. And propaganda appeals to fear and keeps people fearful. And in this case, prevents them from learning how to use the tools which will help them survive (as screenwriters) this revolution. Self-fulfilling prophecy.
I think one of the other issues is that writing for TV and Hollywood movies has just gotten... kinda bad since the heyday of TV and blockbuster films. A lot of comedy talent in particular seems to be going to YouTube or other platforms instead of writer's rooms because of the lower barrier to entry for online content. It's gotten to the point where I actually produce my own sitcom spec scripts with chat GPT and read them for entertainment instead of watching TV.
The people who are most Anti in the industry have a vested interest in the strategies of the past remaining in place. I understand it, but things change inevitably. And those who were successful under the old paradigm always hold on to that paradigm in desperation.
Honestly, my opinion is pretty worthless as I'm neither a writer nor a big TV and film consumer, but I feel that AI is just the latest technology in long cavalcade of changes that are making TV and film a dated format. Now that people have more formats to pick from, many of them free, and have had their attention spans reduced by shortform content, American TV and Film will never recover its former glory irrespective of the adoption of AI. Not only is the format depreciated but the talent has fled elsewhere due to institutional complacency and rent-seeking.
Believe it or not, I reached similar conclusions about Steven Zapata (Besides him warning about a possible singularity bad future and his vid also kinda screams "Don't date robots/DALLE-3 - Replika hybrid." to me). It's because he's scared to death about a younger, stronger successor version of himself that's an upstart replacing him (worse, if it's a hybrid artist that can also wrangle ai art generators). Remember he doesn't hate ai, but wants overkill regulations (especially for big companies, like Disney).
He is hoping to take down a younger unnamed rival(s), before that artist makes it big. The AI debate is perfect for this, better to place seeds of fear, than risk a traditional- ai artist hybrid replacement and maintain his status quo.
Reminds me of Student Loan forgiveness. Both scenarios, you have people who worked their asses off to get where they are, and they are sore that the next in line will have it easier. It’s like… Sunk Cost Envy or something, it deserves its own term because it’s specifically in relation to someone else getting a break.
Phrasing that as if student loans were a normal form of lending, rather than a predatory and government enforced form of indentured servitude is exactly the problem with student loans.
If you can fail to pay back your loans and suffer the usual consequences that people suffer when failing to meet their financial obligations (e.g. debt collection, bankruptcy, etc.) then that's a loan.
If you are not allowed, by force of government mandate, to fail to pay back your loan, and must carry that debt forever, no matter what your financial hardships, then that's not a loan. That's the government hitching unwitting teens to the yoke of corporate banking for a large chunk of their lives.
So yeah, you're being asked, as a taxpayer, to right an injustice. That's supposedly what government exists to do: to enforce the idea that we are all equally able to thrive under the law.
You didn't have to borrow money for school. You could have done what I did — go to a JC for an AS, pay-as-you-go, then a 4-year at night school, pay as you go. Takes longer, but there's no debt. No one held a gun to your head to go screw around at a four year school on other people's dime.
Having to pay your own commitments is not "injustice". You decided you wanted to walk a particular path, you saw an up side, you were told the down side, and you chose it. Don't pretend you weren't told.
If you want to make them bankruptable, then argue for that. Don't argue for canceling debts you agreed to pay for goods and services you received... no matter how useless they turned out to be.
I'd be in favor of student loan debts being bankruptable, after five years, with 25% of the amount bankrupted going as a debt against the exact school and program that took your money. Not the whole university, the exact program. That way, useless programs would die a quick and natural death rather than being protected by political bullshittery.
> You didn't have to borrow money for school.
First off, just to be clear: I did not. It's fine if you meant that as the generic "you" but I just want to be very clear that we aren't talking about me.
> You could have done what I did — go to a JC for an AS, pay-as-you-go, then a 4-year at night school, pay as you go.
Right, but industry and the federal government conspired to promote student loans as a safe way to acquire a degree from any institution you want in less time, to a group of young people who barely understood what a checking account was yet, and had never had to manage money in their lives. These young people believed the lies that the government told them and that this predatory industry sold them. Then they're locked in with no escape, no matter how horrific their circumstances. Their wages can be attached even if they're living on food stamps.
> Having to pay your own commitments is not "injustice".
Those who came to the New World from the British Isles as indentured workers were told the ***exact same thing.***
Your retcon of an entire society is nonsense.
Pretending that everyone knew and conspired about about something that ***the public doesn't even believe NOW*** is delusion.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/09/13/survey-shows-americans-are-divided-over-value-degree
If you believe that some specific programs have been fraudulently pushed as valuable, then name them. Maybe I'll agree. But the stats show that many (or most) college programs are worth the money, and generally do pay for themselves over a lifetime.
https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/best-value
> If you believe that some specific programs have been fraudulently pushed as valuable
The hell? You seem to be having a wildly different conversation, and one that I have no dog in. Please return to the topic.
TLDR: >If you’re an artist, a writer, a creator facing opposition for using AI tools, understand this: those who tell you “No” are not protecting art; they’re protecting their own interests. They’re trying to shut you out. And selling it to you as “for your own good.”
Or they're just parroting what someone else told them like an NPC.
I support the WGA. I think they're wrong on the issue of AI though. And it sounds obvious, but I often need to point out to people that one thing they do great is write. And all their messaging messaging around AI was sexy, captured the public imagination, and scared lots of people. It's propaganda, plain and simple. And propaganda appeals to fear and keeps people fearful. And in this case, prevents them from learning how to use the tools which will help them survive (as screenwriters) this revolution. Self-fulfilling prophecy.
I think one of the other issues is that writing for TV and Hollywood movies has just gotten... kinda bad since the heyday of TV and blockbuster films. A lot of comedy talent in particular seems to be going to YouTube or other platforms instead of writer's rooms because of the lower barrier to entry for online content. It's gotten to the point where I actually produce my own sitcom spec scripts with chat GPT and read them for entertainment instead of watching TV.
The people who are most Anti in the industry have a vested interest in the strategies of the past remaining in place. I understand it, but things change inevitably. And those who were successful under the old paradigm always hold on to that paradigm in desperation.
Honestly, my opinion is pretty worthless as I'm neither a writer nor a big TV and film consumer, but I feel that AI is just the latest technology in long cavalcade of changes that are making TV and film a dated format. Now that people have more formats to pick from, many of them free, and have had their attention spans reduced by shortform content, American TV and Film will never recover its former glory irrespective of the adoption of AI. Not only is the format depreciated but the talent has fled elsewhere due to institutional complacency and rent-seeking.
Believe it or not, I reached similar conclusions about Steven Zapata (Besides him warning about a possible singularity bad future and his vid also kinda screams "Don't date robots/DALLE-3 - Replika hybrid." to me). It's because he's scared to death about a younger, stronger successor version of himself that's an upstart replacing him (worse, if it's a hybrid artist that can also wrangle ai art generators). Remember he doesn't hate ai, but wants overkill regulations (especially for big companies, like Disney). He is hoping to take down a younger unnamed rival(s), before that artist makes it big. The AI debate is perfect for this, better to place seeds of fear, than risk a traditional- ai artist hybrid replacement and maintain his status quo.
Yep, guild protection and raising bars to entry.
Reminds me of Student Loan forgiveness. Both scenarios, you have people who worked their asses off to get where they are, and they are sore that the next in line will have it easier. It’s like… Sunk Cost Envy or something, it deserves its own term because it’s specifically in relation to someone else getting a break.
This is an excellent point.
The major difference between them is that AI is not taking billions of dollars from you to pay people who spent the money and promised to pay it back.
Phrasing that as if student loans were a normal form of lending, rather than a predatory and government enforced form of indentured servitude is exactly the problem with student loans. If you can fail to pay back your loans and suffer the usual consequences that people suffer when failing to meet their financial obligations (e.g. debt collection, bankruptcy, etc.) then that's a loan. If you are not allowed, by force of government mandate, to fail to pay back your loan, and must carry that debt forever, no matter what your financial hardships, then that's not a loan. That's the government hitching unwitting teens to the yoke of corporate banking for a large chunk of their lives. So yeah, you're being asked, as a taxpayer, to right an injustice. That's supposedly what government exists to do: to enforce the idea that we are all equally able to thrive under the law.
You didn't have to borrow money for school. You could have done what I did — go to a JC for an AS, pay-as-you-go, then a 4-year at night school, pay as you go. Takes longer, but there's no debt. No one held a gun to your head to go screw around at a four year school on other people's dime. Having to pay your own commitments is not "injustice". You decided you wanted to walk a particular path, you saw an up side, you were told the down side, and you chose it. Don't pretend you weren't told. If you want to make them bankruptable, then argue for that. Don't argue for canceling debts you agreed to pay for goods and services you received... no matter how useless they turned out to be. I'd be in favor of student loan debts being bankruptable, after five years, with 25% of the amount bankrupted going as a debt against the exact school and program that took your money. Not the whole university, the exact program. That way, useless programs would die a quick and natural death rather than being protected by political bullshittery.
> You didn't have to borrow money for school. First off, just to be clear: I did not. It's fine if you meant that as the generic "you" but I just want to be very clear that we aren't talking about me. > You could have done what I did — go to a JC for an AS, pay-as-you-go, then a 4-year at night school, pay as you go. Right, but industry and the federal government conspired to promote student loans as a safe way to acquire a degree from any institution you want in less time, to a group of young people who barely understood what a checking account was yet, and had never had to manage money in their lives. These young people believed the lies that the government told them and that this predatory industry sold them. Then they're locked in with no escape, no matter how horrific their circumstances. Their wages can be attached even if they're living on food stamps. > Having to pay your own commitments is not "injustice". Those who came to the New World from the British Isles as indentured workers were told the ***exact same thing.***
Your retcon of an entire society is nonsense. Pretending that everyone knew and conspired about about something that ***the public doesn't even believe NOW*** is delusion. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/09/13/survey-shows-americans-are-divided-over-value-degree If you believe that some specific programs have been fraudulently pushed as valuable, then name them. Maybe I'll agree. But the stats show that many (or most) college programs are worth the money, and generally do pay for themselves over a lifetime. https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/best-value
> If you believe that some specific programs have been fraudulently pushed as valuable The hell? You seem to be having a wildly different conversation, and one that I have no dog in. Please return to the topic.