9 ms·

Let me put it in perspective for you: Hollywood the actors and writers are on strike because Hollywood, the money making machinery decided to replace them with

Let me put it in perspective for you: Hollywood the actors and writers are on strike because Hollywood, the money making machinery decided to replace them with a product from SV. I don’t care for Hollywood and indeed it has gotten quite garbage anyway but I do support the actors and writers striking because they can. For the rest of us it remains to be seen how we’re going to handle it or whether we boil slowly.. In a way they may determine our fate as well. Imagine one scenario where the strike flops, AI is implemented as replacement and all goes well. In this scenario we’re more or less going to follow the same. I let other scenarios play out however your imagination desires

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
darepublic 3y ago
The non unionized would have no recourse regardless. Except going outside the current game
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > The non unionized would have no recourse regardless. Depending on the power of the union in negotiations, others may benefit as well.
- drewcoo 3y ago
  Not necessarily. The pending UPS strike is about improving the wages and benefits for non-union labor. Which in turn benefits the union labor because otherwise they're at risk of being replaced with cheap scabs someday.
  - batiudrami 3y ago
    In Australia collective bargaining workplaces unions negotiate the pay structure and benefits for all workers, members or not. This leads to some arguments that non union members benefit from the unions without paying the fees, and indeed, in my mostly white-collar government workplace only about 10% of workers are union members. Unions mostly exist for unskilled workers (the most replacable) or specialised workers whose skills don't easily transfer elsewhere.
    - throwaway14356 3y ago
      In the Netherlands employers pay part of the union contribution and members get some money from the union during the strike. Plenty of people are still not members
- cudgy 3y ago
  Yes, they could grab the reins by making their own content without the studios and putting it on YouTube or some other multimedia platform, similar to substack.com
taeric 3y ago
I'm trying to see how this put anything "in perspective." :( I could as easily say they are on strike because the economy is contracting, and they are the least shielded from the contraction. No need to add SV into the mix. Studios have always been on the lookout for ways to not pay them, such that the latest attempt being streaming seems a bit of a non story item. Again, consider if we had never moved to streaming and instead they were trying to get their payouts from the movies that are checked out from redbox. They would be seeing as much of a dropout in residuals as they are seeing, as the dip is in syndication residuals.
- lacrimacida 3y ago
  Sorry, re-reading my comment I could see how my comment may sound offensive and if it does I appologize, that wasn’t the intention. And I do agree with your reasoning from your angle. But do consider other angles so we don’t disagree unnecessarily when we may in fact see the whole picture from different angles.
  - taeric 3y ago
    :) Same, I definitely do not intend my comment in a harsh way. And I do want to stress that I agree getting the writers and actors back at the table is worth doing. Same for all parties involved, all told.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  > I could as easily say they are on strike because the economy is contracting, and they are the least shielded from the contraction. The writer’ and actors’ problem is not a contracting economy (if that is even true). Their biggest problem is people now have tons of cheap entertainment options other than movies/TV, such as TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, WhatsApp, and arguing on forums like Hacker News.
  - taeric 3y ago
    Ish? If this was true, then the studios would also be having a revenue problem.
fnord77 3y ago
if they're being replaced, what good is a strike going to do?
- godzillabrennus 3y ago
  Make the transition slower:
- jrumbut 3y ago
  This is a fight over (among many other things) who realizes the benefits of AI/streaming. AI might mean that writers are freed from drudgery, their talents enhanced with powerful AI tools and now have a much more pleasant job that pays the same or perhaps more because they can produce more content or higher quality content. This is the Star Trek future. AI could also mean that professional writers are barely needed. AI does the work, studio owners reap the benefit, and writers work day jobs and fight over the occasional poorly paid editing gig. We as people will choose how AI changes the social contract. Anyone who relies on selling their labor to feed themselves and their families needs to be advocating for my first scenario, where productivity gains from AI are shared between workers, executives, and investors rather than monopolized by one or the other.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    >Anyone who relies on selling their labor to feed themselves and their families needs to be advocating for my first scenario, where productivity gains from AI are shared between workers, executives, and investors rather than monopolized by one or the other. I feel like the only way to effectively do this is to advocate for higher marginal income/wealth taxes that redistribute those productivity gains. Trying to fight for it on a business to business basis is easily a losing battle. For example, one is going to wonder why they should pay more for groceries if technology can help them pay less.
- Shawnj2 3y ago
  They’re not, they want legal protections to stop companies from replacing them For example paying someone for a day, scanning them, and using their image forever in AI content is both legal and allowed under SAG guidelines. Even if you think that what writers currently do can be done well by AI I’m pretty sure most reasonable people think that companies being able to do that is BS and you should get residuals or a really fat check if a company wants to pull that shit. It’s also about generally deteriorating conditions for actors and writers like shit pay and steaming companies not paying residuals. I actually think the AI part of the writers strike is mostly off the mark because ChatGPT is nowhere near good enough to replace a human writer and won’t be for years but general mistreatment of entertainment industry workers is totally a thing
nitwit005 3y ago
They're also on strike over rather mundane things like residual payments, which have been very low for some streaming shows. The AI bit is just much more exciting to talk about, for everyone involved.
- lacrimacida 3y ago
  It’s the icing on the cake and bluntly ready to extract all the remaining value from the trade. I would not downplay the emphasis AI in this scenario
tessierashpool 3y ago
> Hollywood the actors and writers are on strike because Hollywood, the money making machinery decided to replace them with a product from SV. this is slightly incorrect. the WGA was talking about a strike, then the AMPTP made it clear that they wanted to reserve the right to replace people with AI, and that escalated things quite a lot. but a strike was already on the horizon before that happened. the analysis in the original LA Times article is all about streaming, and barely touches on "AI" (ML). this is correct, in my opinion, because the role of ML in this is kind of an attention-getting red herring. in fact the article's way better than I expected when I clicked the link. I basically endorse its reasoning top to bottom. a little context on that endorsement: I built a decent chunk of Hulu when it launched, and I've worked for an actor whose name you'd all recognize. I have a vaguely insider-ish perspective on this, and I would really urge you to consider the fact that Hollywood's extremely visible, but also quite opaque. this is the most important paragraph in the article: It’s been noted, and correctly so, that entertainment industry labor disputes often erupt when there’s a change in technology — from theaters screening projected films to the cathode ray tube of the home television, say, or the rise of YouTube and other online content in the 2000s — and that happens for a reason. Historically, executives and management use a disorienting new technology to try to justify lowering wages of their workers, and they have done so since the days of the Industrial Revolution. they definitely want to do that with AI, but they have been doing that here in reality with streaming.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

darepublic 3y ago

The non unionized would have no recourse regardless. Except going outside the current game

mschuster91 3y ago
> The non unionized would have no recourse regardless. Depending on the power of the union in negotiations, others may benefit as well.
drewcoo 3y ago
Not necessarily. The pending UPS strike is about improving the wages and benefits for non-union labor. Which in turn benefits the union labor because otherwise they're at risk of being replaced with cheap scabs someday.
- batiudrami 3y ago
  In Australia collective bargaining workplaces unions negotiate the pay structure and benefits for all workers, members or not. This leads to some arguments that non union members benefit from the unions without paying the fees, and indeed, in my mostly white-collar government workplace only about 10% of workers are union members. Unions mostly exist for unskilled workers (the most replacable) or specialised workers whose skills don't easily transfer elsewhere.
  - throwaway14356 3y ago
    In the Netherlands employers pay part of the union contribution and members get some money from the union during the strike. Plenty of people are still not members
cudgy 3y ago
Yes, they could grab the reins by making their own content without the studios and putting it on YouTube or some other multimedia platform, similar to substack.com

taeric 3y ago

I'm trying to see how this put anything "in perspective." :( I could as easily say they are on strike because the economy is contracting, and they are the least shielded from the contraction. No need to add SV into the mix. Studios have always been on the lookout for ways to not pay them, such that the latest attempt being streaming seems a bit of a non story item. Again, consider if we had never moved to streaming and instead they were trying to get their payouts from the movies that are checked out from redbox. They would be seeing as much of a dropout in residuals as they are seeing, as the dip is in syndication residuals.

lacrimacida 3y ago
Sorry, re-reading my comment I could see how my comment may sound offensive and if it does I appologize, that wasn’t the intention. And I do agree with your reasoning from your angle. But do consider other angles so we don’t disagree unnecessarily when we may in fact see the whole picture from different angles.
- taeric 3y ago
  :) Same, I definitely do not intend my comment in a harsh way. And I do want to stress that I agree getting the writers and actors back at the table is worth doing. Same for all parties involved, all told.
lotsofpulp 3y ago
> I could as easily say they are on strike because the economy is contracting, and they are the least shielded from the contraction. The writer’ and actors’ problem is not a contracting economy (if that is even true). Their biggest problem is people now have tons of cheap entertainment options other than movies/TV, such as TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, WhatsApp, and arguing on forums like Hacker News.
- taeric 3y ago
  Ish? If this was true, then the studios would also be having a revenue problem.

fnord77 3y ago

if they're being replaced, what good is a strike going to do?

godzillabrennus 3y ago
Make the transition slower:
jrumbut 3y ago
This is a fight over (among many other things) who realizes the benefits of AI/streaming. AI might mean that writers are freed from drudgery, their talents enhanced with powerful AI tools and now have a much more pleasant job that pays the same or perhaps more because they can produce more content or higher quality content. This is the Star Trek future. AI could also mean that professional writers are barely needed. AI does the work, studio owners reap the benefit, and writers work day jobs and fight over the occasional poorly paid editing gig. We as people will choose how AI changes the social contract. Anyone who relies on selling their labor to feed themselves and their families needs to be advocating for my first scenario, where productivity gains from AI are shared between workers, executives, and investors rather than monopolized by one or the other.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  >Anyone who relies on selling their labor to feed themselves and their families needs to be advocating for my first scenario, where productivity gains from AI are shared between workers, executives, and investors rather than monopolized by one or the other. I feel like the only way to effectively do this is to advocate for higher marginal income/wealth taxes that redistribute those productivity gains. Trying to fight for it on a business to business basis is easily a losing battle. For example, one is going to wonder why they should pay more for groceries if technology can help them pay less.
Shawnj2 3y ago
They’re not, they want legal protections to stop companies from replacing them For example paying someone for a day, scanning them, and using their image forever in AI content is both legal and allowed under SAG guidelines. Even if you think that what writers currently do can be done well by AI I’m pretty sure most reasonable people think that companies being able to do that is BS and you should get residuals or a really fat check if a company wants to pull that shit. It’s also about generally deteriorating conditions for actors and writers like shit pay and steaming companies not paying residuals. I actually think the AI part of the writers strike is mostly off the mark because ChatGPT is nowhere near good enough to replace a human writer and won’t be for years but general mistreatment of entertainment industry workers is totally a thing

nitwit005 3y ago

They're also on strike over rather mundane things like residual payments, which have been very low for some streaming shows. The AI bit is just much more exciting to talk about, for everyone involved.

lacrimacida 3y ago
It’s the icing on the cake and bluntly ready to extract all the remaining value from the trade. I would not downplay the emphasis AI in this scenario

tessierashpool 3y ago

> Hollywood the actors and writers are on strike because Hollywood, the money making machinery decided to replace them with a product from SV. this is slightly incorrect. the WGA was talking about a strike, then the AMPTP made it clear that they wanted to reserve the right to replace people with AI, and that escalated things quite a lot. but a strike was already on the horizon before that happened. the analysis in the original LA Times article is all about streaming, and barely touches on "AI" (ML). this is correct, in my opinion, because the role of ML in this is kind of an attention-getting red herring. in fact the article's way better than I expected when I clicked the link. I basically endorse its reasoning top to bottom. a little context on that endorsement: I built a decent chunk of Hulu when it launched, and I've worked for an actor whose name you'd all recognize. I have a vaguely insider-ish perspective on this, and I would really urge you to consider the fact that Hollywood's extremely visible, but also quite opaque. this is the most important paragraph in the article: It’s been noted, and correctly so, that entertainment industry labor disputes often erupt when there’s a change in technology — from theaters screening projected films to the cathode ray tube of the home television, say, or the rise of YouTube and other online content in the 2000s — and that happens for a reason. Historically, executives and management use a disorienting new technology to try to justify lowering wages of their workers, and they have done so since the days of the Industrial Revolution. they definitely want to do that with AI, but they have been doing that here in reality with streaming.