rosspruden 's Techdirt Comments
Latest Comments (103)
-
On the post: The Writers’ Strike Makes Sense; Their Demands About AI, However, Do Not
rosspruden ( profile ), 10 Jul, 2023 @ 08:33pmWell said. All creatives need to be the ones rolling these new tools into their workflow. This is another classic iteration of Clayton Christensen's Innovator's Dilemma—either you disrupt your own business model to remain relevant, or someone else will disrupt it for you and make you obsolete. Christensen actually recommends exactly what you're suggesting: someone inside an incumbent organization should be given a directive to compete with the company by any means available—sometimes without even knowing that they're working for the company they're competing against. If they succeed, then their new disruptive business model becomes the incumbent's business model. All creatives—indeed, all businesses—should be doing likewise. Labor unions resist change because disruption (either from within, or from outside) often requires a radical re-ordering of resources... which almost always ends in fewer people being able to do the same amount of work. That goes against the mandate of a labor union—to protect jobs, a way of life, et al. If screenwriters and other creatives don't come up with a plan to use AI on their own terms, then the producers will do it for them. I hate that it comes to that, but I do think that's how this will all play out. -
On the post: The Writers’ Strike Makes Sense; Their Demands About AI, However, Do Not
rosspruden ( profile ), 15 May, 2023 @ 10:23pmSo brave behind a keyboard. Come out into the sunlight and let's play.
-
On the post: The Writers’ Strike Makes Sense; Their Demands About AI, However, Do Not
rosspruden ( profile ), 15 May, 2023 @ 11:51amI read an article years ago about how TV scripts are chosen in Hollywood. The process goes something like this: 1) BIG STUDIO HEAD: "Let's create a really original TV series! Something like [CURRENT SUPER ORIGINAL HIT SHOW]." 2) Big studio head assigns job to their 1st Tier Underlings to "go forth and find amazingly original content." 3) 1st Tier Underlings assign this task to their 2nd Tier Underlings. Now you've got maybe 20-30 people scouring for "super original scripts". 4) The 2nd Tier Underlings each have 10 scripts that are super original, and they can only recommend 3. Which should they recommend? They could choose the most original, but they're young and want to move up in the business... what if their script recommendations are so original, their TV series bombs? They'd be forever known as "that person who recommended the show that bombed." So they choose the most conservative of all their options. 5) Now the 1st Tier Underlings have 3 scripts from each reader and there's a repeat of what happened with the 2nd Tier Underlings: "What if this show bombs? I have a mortgage, and kids to put through school. I'd better recommend the least risky of all of these scripts." 6) Finally, the Big Studio Head gets the least original script recommendations, a re-tread of all the most tired TV series. And when it comes time to really pull the trigger, even the Big Studio Head doesn't want to take a risk on something so original that nobody gets it. The TV series graveyard is littered with shows too niche to gain enough popularity: Star Trek, Firefly, etc. The problem is money. When there's so much money involved, the stakes are absurdly high. You can't iterate something quickly enough because production is expensive and great ideas often take a while to find their audience on network TV. AI helps solve this problem. If a studio head said, "give me something original, something that hasn't been done before," an AI has no career aspirations to incentivize self-censoring its recommendations. AI can quickly pore through every TV series ever made, tabulate all the story similarities, list every iteration of those stories not done before, cross-reference them for popularity, and spit out a basic outline of something original enough to appear fresh and edgy. And do this in minutes, not weeks. This is a job that the Big Studio Head's Underlings were literally incapable of doing.
-
On the post: The Writers’ Strike Makes Sense; Their Demands About AI, However, Do Not
rosspruden ( profile ), 15 May, 2023 @ 11:28amYou claim that you are for the writers, but you’ve mentioned you are pretty out of touch with the writers and cleverly ignored how the WGA does business.
I have always been transparent about how long I have been out of the industry, and honestly forgot about the inner workings of residuals, etc. Not trying to be cagey or anything. Rather than saying this distance makes me "out of touch", I feel that gives me a precious objectivity writers obviously don't have. Can't have, really—they're trying to defend their way of life. How can anyone really expect writers to embrace the future if it means a radical re-defining of everything they know? Likewise, if coachmen were lobbying against cars, which side of history would you want to be on then? If embracing cars means coachmen need to find new employment, that is the unfortunate price to pay in a free market that embraces more efficient business models. The terrible truth about innovation is maybe one sector gets hurt badly, but the rest of the world always benefits greatly. And look—I do stand with the writers on their demands to get a fair share of the huge profits from work they create. It's right there in the headline. Yet I cannot in good faith stand with writers about AI—it's backward thinking and makes them anti-competitive overall. It's like they're asking for the world to pass them by. They should be the ones leading the charge.And there’s also your promotion of NFTs.
This has been mentioned before, and I'm genuinely puzzled by it. The NFT objection seems to be hurled as a mark of shame upon me, like the branding of snake oil salesman, or whatever. So let's address this head on to get it over with. I am a fine art photographer by trade. I sell physical art, and a related avenue of my business is selling art as NFT's. That part of my business is brand new and I'm just getting it off the ground because I've been preoccupied building other parts of my business (it's just me, so I have to focus my time strategically). Thus, NFT's are a key part of what I offer. Perhaps many here are unaware, but art collectors are willing to spend thousands of dollars on collecting NFT's, so NFT's are a proven venue for art collection and a venue I have no shame in conducting. So when people bring it up as some sort of a black mark on my reputation, I am mystified as to its relevance. If you object to selling NFT's in the art space, is it because you think NFT's are intrinsically scammy? Do you have environment concerns about NFT's? Or do you think crypto in general is one big pool of scambait? I have answers to each of those questions but suffice it to say that I don't think any of those objections hold weight, which is why I plan to sell NFT's of my art, despite not having had the time to flesh out that part of my art business. -
On the post: The Writers’ Strike Makes Sense; Their Demands About AI, However, Do Not
rosspruden ( profile ), 14 May, 2023 @ 10:30pmAlso, HUMANS ARE NOT ROBOTS.
I think this comment helped me finally identify a core distinction between two ideological camps in this discussion: CAMP A Humans are organic beings with some sort of "divine inspiration" or "soul" or "unique creativity", none of which AI can ever truly replicate because it doesn't have a soul or whatever. CAMP B Humans are organic problem-solving beings that apply their skills just like every other animals in nature (seek shelter, hunt for food, etc.), just with a far higher intelligence capacity. If you're in Camp A, you can't see how any other creature or machine can do what humans do. There's no "soul", there's no "originality", etc. If you're in Camp B (like me), you see humans as basically organic robots. Naturally, as organic beings, humans solve problems of sexuality, relationships, politics, religions, art, etc. Were we silicon robots, the nature of our problems would be more abstract and mathematical. Art created in this perspective may feel original... but closer examination reveals that originality is actually not that straightforward: when you peek into an artist's life to see what they were thinking and feeling, you might be disappointed to know how much of their art was inspired by what came before. Since most of us never see this process (learning how to make art takes years, and art is typically created in private), we are inclined to see new art as original. It's when humans give a prompt to AI where the entire creative process is laid bare—the time between idea and creation is mere seconds. "How can this be original?" Basically, you and I will never agree simply because we're on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum. In my view, humans are indeed robots. Of course, humans are very bad robots in many ways... we forget things, our "circuitry" often gets fried, our batteries need constant recharging. Anyway, you get my gist. I'm saddened that you feel the need to be snippy or call my character into question. I'm just trying to have a civil conversation. -
On the post: The Writers’ Strike Makes Sense; Their Demands About AI, However, Do Not
rosspruden ( profile ), 14 May, 2023 @ 12:18amAm I the only one who’s getting a scent of sour grapes here?
No sour grapes from me. I was just illustrating that writers work hard to create something that now can be done in only 3 minutes. Smart writers should be celebrating how much time they can save. It was hard work before, but not anymore. What's there to be sour about?I suspect the WGA’s concern here is that studios would use AI writing to minimize human writers’ presence (and thus cost) in the filmmaking process, if not eliminate them entirely.
This is a legit concern, and I'm sure that's why the WGA is striking. Here's where I think most people misunderstand my position: I am agnostic about writers losing jobs. It sucks and I hate to see anyone losing jobs, but markets evolve and disruptive innovations always mean some people will lose their jobs. Now if it means people are losing their jobs without reason, I side unequivocally with the unions. But if writers lose their jobs because AI can do their job better/faster/cheaper? People lose jobs because those jobs can be done better/faster/cheaper by a disruptive innovation. We saw it with coachmen and cars, we saw it with ice block makers and refrigerators, and with any similar such automation machine. AI is merely the latest chapter in that story. Paying humans to do a job that an AI can do better is a compassionate choice. I just don't see businesses making those kinds of compassionate choices—I mean, we are talking about the free market, right? Businesses can't stay competitive if they keep making inefficient business decisions. Sooner or later, someone is going to do the one thing everyone has been shying away from, the one thing that incumbents dare not do for fear of imploding their own business model. So of course the WGA is going on strike—they are justifiably defending their jobs against a potential fatal blow of the ultimate automation machine. But let's all be clear about their motives... the WGA isn't going on strike to make movies better, the WGA is going on strike because their members don't want to adapt to a changing market. If AI can do 90% of a writer's work, then many writers may in fact lose their jobs because they refuse to adapt. It's the smart writers who will become more productive and thrive in the new system—instead of writing 1 script every year, they'll be able to write 1 new script a month (or more). Production can then be supercharged with a flood of new content coming from hybrid writer-AI teams. This has the potential to usher in a new Golden Era of filmmaking... although at the terrible human cost of all those writers who chose not to adapt. Sadly, history has shown this scenario play out too many times. Perhaps this time we can learn from our past? Thus, the WGA is just delaying the inevitable. By boycotting AI in any way, they may protect their jobs in the short-term, but in the long term, they rob the industry of a future that may be very exciting and unpredictable. Writer-AI hybrid teams might be able to generate extremely original work, and lots of it... but we'll never see that work because the WGA is throwing a tantrum about a time-saving technology they don't want anything to do with. By the time the WGA wakes up to regret that choice, it will be too late to pivot. Just like every incumbent before them—candlemakers, landline companies, coachmen, ice block sellers, Kodak—they'll find themselves suddenly overtaken by more nimble competitors and wonder what they could have done differently to prevent it. -
On the post: The Writers’ Strike Makes Sense; Their Demands About AI, However, Do Not
rosspruden ( profile ), 12 May, 2023 @ 10:36pmAh. Yes, I understand now. Sorry if you got offended about my analogy. Really wasn't my intention. FWIW, harsh language I can handle, but with me, it's unnecessary. We can disagree but still be respectful, can't we? Once we resort to name-calling, my brain tends to switch off and I stop listening. If you just want to insult me, the conversation stops. If you want to change my mind, then let's have a civil discussion. If we can do that, I promise to keep listening with an open mind. As for the original post, I think you completely misread the point I was making: it's not that neurodivergent people "are at least in some way not really human." Actually, my point was exactly the opposite—neurodivergent people are human by very definition. Neurodivergent people are, perhaps, even more human than neurotypical people because their ability to do astonishing mental feats proves just how capable humans really are. Thus, in this one aspect only of high processing abilities, some rare types of humans appear shockingly similar to AI. I don't think that's offensive, or even reductive. That's just factual. But if that analogy still offends you, we can easily go the other way: Imagine I took an AI bot and added in all the "imperfections" that organic neurotypical beings possess: deeply imperfect memory recall, slow learning that requires constant repetition with years to fully master, somatic feedback (including mild to severe trauma on occasion) and random chemical imbalances that affect mood, perspective, etc. If all these things—aspects of the human condition that I personally experience as a neurotypical person—were added atop an AI bot, my guess is that AI bots would create art exactly like what humans already produce. If someone described me in the above example, I guess it's possible I could be offended by thinking it's reductive and simply portrays me as nothing but a victim of my genetics and environment. But I don't get offended—I think my analogy is empirically accurate. Hopefully, this example demonstrates how the similarities between AI bots and humanity are much closer than some are perhaps willing to concede. Are you starting to see my point now?
-
On the post: The Writers’ Strike Makes Sense; Their Demands About AI, However, Do Not
rosspruden ( profile ), 12 May, 2023 @ 03:08pmLook, I'm trying to have a genuine human moment here. I've already apologized—profusely and repeatedly. I've also restated my original point with as much sensitivity as I know how. I'm now genuinely asking for constructive feedback for how I could have made my point—which I subsequently qualified very narrowly and with great care—without offending anyone. Now I have to ask—is there anything I can say or do that would ever diffuse your anger? If you just want to be angry because you disagree with me, that would be helpful to know. But if I've done something to upset you or others and nothing I say will ever make that anger go away, then I'll know we'll never agree and I should just move on.
-
On the post: The Writers’ Strike Makes Sense; Their Demands About AI, However, Do Not
rosspruden ( profile ), 12 May, 2023 @ 02:48pmHey, that's not kind. Why are you being mean? I'm asking for honest feedback and you're name-calling? Seriously?
-
On the post: The Writers’ Strike Makes Sense; Their Demands About AI, However, Do Not
rosspruden ( profile ), 12 May, 2023 @ 01:36pmYeah, a lot of stuff on TV isn't better simply because it's written by humans. AI can already match the quality of sitcom writing or Soap Operas. Remember the hilarious pitch meeting in Network? It perfectly eviscerated just how soulless TV writing (by humans!) was:
These are those four outlines submitted by Universal for an hour series. You needn't bother to read them; I'll tell them to you. The first one is set at a large Eastern law school, presumably Harvard. The series is irresistibly entitled "The New Lawyers." The running characters are a crusty-but-benign ex-Supreme Court justice, presumably Oliver Wendell Holmes by way of Dr. Zorba; there's a beautiful girl graduate student; and the local district attorney who is brilliant and sometimes cuts corners. The second one is called "The Amazon Squad." The running characters include a crusty-but-benign police lieutenant who's always getting heat from the commissioner; a hard-nosed, hard-drinking detective who thinks women belong in the kitchen; and the brilliant and beautiful young girl cop who's fighting the feminist battle on the force. Up next is another one of those investigative reporter shows. A crusty-but-benign managing editor who's always gett... [Diana cuts her off]
If all Hollywood pitch meetings were like this, I think AI could actually improve them. -
On the post: The Writers’ Strike Makes Sense; Their Demands About AI, However, Do Not
rosspruden ( profile ), 12 May, 2023 @ 01:17pmWe agree that most of what Hollywood creates is not innovative. Basically, the larger the budget, the less innovative films tends to be. But I'm using innovative here in a different way—business innovate by solving problems in new ways and stay competitive. Has nothing to do with the originality of their storytelling/filmmaking.
-
On the post: The Writers’ Strike Makes Sense; Their Demands About AI, However, Do Not
rosspruden ( profile ), 12 May, 2023 @ 01:10pmAn excellent question. Finally, someone asked it! :) I think the onus is both on the individual, and on society, to prepare for the inevitability that some jobs will be made redundant, and plan accordingly. Stage actors and nurses will have fantastic job security, but any high paying analysis job that AI can do will soon find their jobs obsolete. So it's my role to highlight that inevitability. I don't really care if people get angry with me about it—get in the life boat, ya'll, or you're going down with the ship. I'm a fine art photographer and writer, so I absolutely see some of what I do to be made redundant by AI. Fine. Those parts that are redundant, I'll do less of. And I'll do more of the things AI can never do: performance art, video courses, et al. If I continued only making fine art photography with no promotion of the human aspects around the creation of the art, then I can expect to be out of a job within the year. Art without any human value add is basically no different than AI art.
-
On the post: The Writers’ Strike Makes Sense; Their Demands About AI, However, Do Not
rosspruden ( profile ), 12 May, 2023 @ 12:55pmI actually think there's a strong chance that purely AI movies (written and generated at near zero cost) could eventually deliver something truly original, or seemingly so, and go toe to toe against Hollywood. The problem with tentpole blockbusters is they have to appeal to everyone, which means blockbusters tend toward the familiar, and the cliché (e.g., a "crusty but benign" leader deals with a roque employee). We all know independent films are typically where daring and original entertainment actually resides. Blockbusters dare not be original because they might offend, alienate, or be otherwise unpalatable to large sectors of the market. And they spend hundreds of millions on a movie so they need to make it all back by not being too original. Soon AI generated content will make 100 AI films in an afternoon at zero cost. 90 will be awful, 5 will decent, 3 will be quite good, and 2 will be runaway successes. Which means Hollywood's entire business model is suddenly in the crosshairs.
-
On the post: The Writers’ Strike Makes Sense; Their Demands About AI, However, Do Not
rosspruden ( profile ), 12 May, 2023 @ 12:43pmAddressing this to all on the spectrum: I don't even know what this thread is objecting to, really, but I'm open to being educated on my shortcomings. I sincerely apologize if any of my comments came across as callous, tactless, or demeaning. Truly. That was not my intention and it pains me that it might have come across that way. My original point was simply to illustrate that the human brain sometimes has an incredible ability to do things most of us think are impossible. For example, some people have a photographic memory, and from their perspective, the rest of us must seem constantly forgetful. People with photographic memory aren't on the spectrum, are they? I don't think so. Regardless, if a person with photographic abilities—who compared to most of the population would be considered effectively superhuman and/or godlike—were to perfectly create any art by "copying" what they saw, the resulting outcry would be very very similar to the debate we're having now about AI. I think that's obvious, and a sensible argument. (I don't think I'm demeaning anyone, but perhaps others are seeing something I just can't—if so, please do enlighten me.) Furthermore, if I were to take the art that this person had made and tell others it had made by AI, an outrage would ensue, e.g., "That's not art, that's just copying." The fact that it's getting harder to tell if art is made by AI or humans is exactly my point. As I see it, all humans begin their art journey by copying first. And the human experience is mostly made up of people who don't have photographic memory and these other existing "superhuman" abilities. As forgetful humans, we remember stuff we're trying to copy imperfectly. We organically merge source material for reasons not entirely clear to us, and generate art that all other humans interpret as "real" art. Yet when art is generated so quickly, without difficulty, it undermines how we think about how art is created, or should be created. When we see computers doing what we're capable of, we all get an existential dark night of the soul. We immediately think, "it's not art. It's only copying. How could this possibly be art when there's zero connection, zero struggle??" I would posit the radical(?) idea that it doesn't matter who or what created the art—what matters is how the viewer interprets and values the art. If they like it, and think of it as art, it's art. If they don't, they don't. I hasten to add that the origin of the art's creation is typically inseparable from the art itself, and thus plays a justifiably huge role in how much value is added to the art; if I tell you it's AI art, you may think it's junk. If I tell you it's human art, you may think it's amazing. Or the inverse—it's a purely individual metric that is sure to change over time as more AI art becomes commonplace. Once again, my deepest apologies if I've offended or unfairly characterized anyone on the spectrum—not my intention, and never was. If you have kind and constructive feedback on how I could have made my point more tactfully, I will happily listen and improve my future communications.
-
On the post: The Writers’ Strike Makes Sense; Their Demands About AI, However, Do Not
rosspruden ( profile ), 11 May, 2023 @ 11:00pmI stand corrected. It's been a while since I was in the industry and it wasn't even my radar. Now that you mention it, I feel silly for not having included it. :/ Thanks for the feedback.
-
On the post: The Writers’ Strike Makes Sense; Their Demands About AI, However, Do Not
rosspruden ( profile ), 11 May, 2023 @ 10:57pmThere's a social consequence to massive AI disruption, to be sure. Does society have a responsibility to its citizenry to help them along until they can do something else? I would say yes. I'm not sure what that looks like but there is a social contract that, once broken, tears at society's foundation. Plainly put, if people have nothing to do, and nowhere to go, bad things tend to happen.
-
On the post: The Writers’ Strike Makes Sense; Their Demands About AI, However, Do Not
rosspruden ( profile ), 11 May, 2023 @ 10:53pmNot every job
Look, there's no sugar-coating it: Some jobs just going to fade away. Some sooner than others. But I don't mourn the loss of coachmen or horse whip makers after cars were invented, as I'm sure 100 years from now, they'll not mourn the loss of many jobs getting replaced by AI today. Life is always changing. I don't enjoy seeing all this happen, but it's helpful to know what's about to happen so we can plan accordingly.
-
On the post: The Writers’ Strike Makes Sense; Their Demands About AI, However, Do Not
rosspruden ( profile ), 11 May, 2023 @ 10:46pmLook, I don't want people to lose their jobs, but I'm just making common sense observations about how businesses think in the real world. To clarify further: Let's say two people do the exact same job. Person A does it for $200/hour, and Person B does it for $50/hour. Would you keep paying Person A $200/hour? Of course not. You'd probably fire Person A and hire another person at $50/hour, if you could. Then you'd be paying half as much to deliver twice as much work as before, a 400% increase in productivity. This is what I mean by the market always chooses greater efficiency. Maybe the numbers are less obvious than that but you get the idea. Now let's imagine the same two people. Person A is still paid $200/hour and delivers work at 100% efficiency—great work, perfect! Person B is still paid $50/hour but with only 80% efficiency—it's not great work but it gets the job done. Do you still choose Person B? Of course you do. Because markets don't need 100% efficiency when 80% efficiency is also available. (Personally, I myself prefer 100% efficiency because I'm a perfectionist at heart. But in software circles, there's a very good reason why they advocate for "release early, release often": fast iteration with an imperfect minimum viable product works.) This is the crux of Clay Christiansen's argument in The Innovator's Dilemma: industries get disrupted by entrants who offer a product or service that is good enough (i.e., 80% efficient) to compete with the 100% efficient incumbent. In this scenario, AI is the entrant offering 80% efficiency. AI's work isn't great but it's good enough to beat 100% perfect human work. I don't relish saying it, but I am duty bound to call it as I see it. People are going to lose jobs because AI can do their jobs better. So either they master this new tech or they get left behind.
-
On the post: The Writers’ Strike Makes Sense; Their Demands About AI, However, Do Not
rosspruden ( profile ), 11 May, 2023 @ 08:20pmWriters + AI...?
Imagine how powerful a professional writer could be if they mastered how to write prompts? That's a writer every studio would clamor to hire.
-
On the post: The Writers’ Strike Makes Sense; Their Demands About AI, However, Do Not
rosspruden ( profile ), 11 May, 2023 @ 08:16pmI'm done.
Somehow, we've had a loss of respect in this conversation. I'm trying to be reasonable, and civil, and you're giving me nothing. I was happy to have this conversation earlier, but I think I'm done here.
