“This ‘groundbreaking’ AI proposal that they gave us yesterday, they proposed that our background performers should be able to be scanned, get one day’s pay, and their companies should own that scan, their image, their likeness and should be able to use it for the rest of eternity on any project they want, with no consent and no compensation. So if you think that’s a groundbreaking proposal, I suggest you think again.”

  • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sounds like they want to put actors out of work, while painting it as a good thing. Ai is already at the point where it’s being exploited by the wealthy to fuck the poor even more, and it needs to be legislated. Nip this bullshit in the bud.

    • dudebro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      How is AI fucking the poor? It’s just preventing the pseudo-wealthy from keeping up with the actual-wealthy.

      I have no sympathy for either group.

      • ramble81@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Then you obviously don’t know how a movie is made and who is involved. Once you have a full AI movie, you won’t need any of the hands on set that definitely aren’t rich… Grips, caterers, assistants, makeup, wardrobe, etc. Those aren’t “pseudo-wealthy”. They’re working a 9-5 to make ends meet.

        • MrMonkey@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          *Since those jobs can’t pay enough what’s wrong with replacing them with AI? Then they wouldn’t be working in such poor conditions.

          Maybe they could learn to code to be prepared for ‘Jobs of the Future’

          Once you AI has the ability to make “movies” then everyone will have the chance to make their own, something few people have the ability to do now. Isn’t that gain much higher than a catering company closing?

        • dudebro@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They’re not doing it to ‘make ends meet.’ That implies they’re struggling to survive, not thrive.

          Maybe once they start getting screwed over by copyright and patent laws, they’ll stop advocating for them.

          Then we can have AI movies, real movies, and any blend of the two. Only problem is nobody can use the government to protect their ideas.

          It will result in cheaper products and services all around the world, at the expense of those making way too much money right now.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I worked sound on movies. Not big budget ones, but they were still movies made by studios.

            It didn’t pay well.

            • dudebro@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m sure you did less work for more money than the vast majority of people struggling in Africa.

              You chose to stay in LA, one of the most expensive cities in the world.

              • qwertyqwertyqwerty@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                So people should make less money in more developed countries because people in Africa do? What are you arguing for here? A person making $30 instead of $15 an hour isn’t going to affect Africa in any tangible way. Global wealth inequality is a much larger issue than Hollywood, and I’m not sure why they would even be brought into the same argument.

                • dudebro@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I’m arguing the disparity in wealth should shrink and people like those in the article are just passing a bunch of money around at the top.

                  We have the excess to help those less fortunate, but we’d rather further ourselves because it’s what’s cool. It’s a cultural issue centered around the idea that those who have more deserve more and those who have less don’t matter.

                  People like you get really mad whenever anyone suggests anything to the contrary and that’s why these problems don’t get solved. People like you don’t care to solve them.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Well you can be sure of that, but it would be a lie. Days on set can be 20 hours. And then you have to come back and do another 20 hour day the next day. And you get paid very little for doing it unless you’re on a big budget film, which I never was.

                • dudebro@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Might want to see how people live in Burundi before you call it a lie.

                  And keep in mind, you’re only subjected to this conditions so people richer than you can be even richer at your expense. (Long hours, low wages, high rent)

                  This is what I mean by passing a bunch of money around at the top. It doesn’t even matter if you make more money because it’s just going to end up in the hands of landlords and investors. All of does is drive up inflation, making it so the truly poor people never benefit from our excess.

  • dethb0y@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    There may be a group of entertainers i have less sympathy for than actors, but i’d be hard pressed to think who it might be.

      • dudebro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because they don’t need more money.

        They need to spend less. It’s not about putting food on the table. It’s about living as lavish a lifestyle as possible to show off in front of your peers.

        • livus@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Hmm I think you’re thinking about like the 1% of actors who are rich and famous.

          Most actors are not in that situation. They are just working people like anyone else only their income is precarious like any freelancer.

          • dudebro@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, I’m thinking about the vast majority of people who live in LA.

            They’re just passing a bunch of money around at the top. As soon as they make more, prices go up and the world’s poorest continue to stagnate.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I guess I wasn’t one of the vast majority of people who lived in L.A. I was just working crew and occasional actor. My money went to things like rent and food. Weirdly, most of my colleagues were in the same boat.

              Now admittedly, there are millions of people in L.A., but a lot of the ones in the entertainment industry sure as hell weren’t passing money around, we were barely making a living.

              • dudebro@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah, a living in one of the most expensive cities in the world.

                You could be living a cheaper life anywhere else, but you feel entitled to live in LA.

                No sympathy from me. Spread out.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I live in a cheaper place now. Indiana. My quality of life is not especially different. I didn’t feel entitled to live in L.A., I went where I could put my skills to good use. Being paid a low wage in L.A. was a higher wage than a low wage in Indiana, but the cost of living is also higher.

                  Maybe don’t make guesses about how other people live their lives.

                  And let me guess- I shouldn’t have moved to Indiana, I should have moved to Botswana or something if I don’t want to feel “entitled.”