Re: [TV orNotTV] Digest for tvornottv@googlegroups.com - 5 updates in 1 topic

[Mark Smith]

Can the actors sue if they use their images & voices to create a whole show?

On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 5:21 AM <tvor...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

tvor...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

Topic digest
View all topics

• Artificial intelligence making for new threat to (striking) actors - 5 Updates

Artificial intelligence making for new threat to (striking) actors

Bob Jersey <bobj...@ptd.net>: May 14 06:25AM -0700 No article (there was one recently at Vanity Fair, but it might be paywalled), but a string of thought-provoking tweets from the one and only Justine Bateman, a veteran of guilds and a techie... https://twitter.com/JustineBateman/status/1657476895972413440 (link) B

Tom Wolper <two...@gmail.com>: May 14 10:38AM -0400 Until someone actually produces an AI generated script and it gets acclaim there’s not much to get excited about.   On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 9:25 AM 'Bob Jersey' via TVorNotTV <

PGage <pga...@gmail.com>: May 14 08:47AM -0700 I don’t know about getting excited, but I think she illustrates well the ways in which AI could easily impact the industry, in the near future or almist present, and is making the point these issues need to be locked into the current contract, or they never will be.   Actually, her last point applies in many ways. In 3-5 years a talent strike won’t mean much if studios/streamers can create content using non Union digitally stored images and AI scripts.     -- Sent from Gmail Mobile

"Kevin M." <drunkba...@gmail.com>: May 14 09:29AM -0700 In 3-5 years, the programmers who created the AI that write the scripts will want compensation, and if they don’t get it the AI will go on strike.   Begs the question: Who gets the Emmy or Oscar nomination for best screenplay or script of it is generated using AI?   Begs the bigger question: What’s the point of AI generated media?   I know there are people who watch TV to enjoy mindless pablum, but that is not me. I like to be challenged by the media I consume. I like it to be about more than what’s on the surface. I have no doubt that AI will one day generate content that is thought provoking, but a computer has no interest in being thought provoking. A computer has no interest in being heartfelt or earnest or comical or capricious. I don’t watch media whose sole purpose is to make money. And that would be the sole purpose of every bit of media conceived by AI. I’m sure it will happen. And I’m sure it will make money for somebody. But is that the point?     -- Kevin M. (RPCV)

Tom Wolper <two...@gmail.com>: May 14 02:12PM -0400 I’m not advocating a head in the sand approach. The entertainment industry takes advantage of technological innovations all the time and it impacts what we see on the big and small screen whether it’s digital cameras, CGI special effects, or AI generated images or scripts. If the WGA sees the economics of streaming an existential threat then they have to focus their negotiations on that. If they want to add AI to the negotiations they are going to have to give up something in streaming rights.   The kinds of movies and shows Bateman cites have no interest to me. But I won’t be who they are targeted to and younger generations are brought up on video games and CGI graphics. So I don’t see it as an imminent crisis but that could also be my bias.

Back to top

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.