5 ms·
I don't see what the problem is. This is perfectly legal. Private companies can do whatever they want with their own money.
by OO000oo 3y ago
I don't see what the problem is. This is perfectly legal. Private companies can do whatever they want with their own money.
- roflyear 3y agoI don't understand these responses. Are you trying to push the window to make people feel like it is unacceptable to be critical of a company's actions? What if I am a shareholder (I am, through ETFs) of Netflix and I disagree with this? Shouldn't I be allowed to discuss and criticize the action?
- sokoloff 3y agoEven if you’re not a shareholder, you’re welcome to discuss and criticize the action with anyone who will listen.
- m_0x 3y agoThe only thing you need to understand about people that make comments like that is that they don't care about anything unless (or until) it affects THEM personally. The second it affects them, now it's real, now it's "OH this shouldn't be legal". Those people lack empathy.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago100% agree. So many of the responses here are of the "why can't they just eat cake?" variety. Actors are striking because (a) they want to still have a viable career and (b) studios still need actors, and AI still needs humans for training. Do I think any of these commenters would be OK if the script was flipped and instead the deal was "We will pay you a thousand dollars to train this AI programmer for a week so we can then fire you and have the AI write all the programs instead." Borderline psychopathy in my opinion.
- wiseowise 3y agoa) Disagreeing with Luddites isn't psychopathy b) Article is complete bogus, nobody is talking about replacing actors with AI
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago> Article is complete bogus, nobody is talking about replacing actors with AI That is just 100% wrong. It is literally a major point of contention in the demands of SAG and big reason they went on strike.
- wiseowise 3y agohttps://jobs.netflix.com/jobs/285059234 https://jobs.netflix.com/jobs/285059234
- epistasis 3y agoIn a field like acting where stars make millions per year, and the critique of this job is that somebody amounts to "this person is making too much money," the critiques run a bit hollow. Will the SAG put a cap on actor's compensation? What makes an AI job worth inherently less than acting?
- OO000oo 3y ago> Are you trying to push the window to make people feel like it is unacceptable to be critical of a company's actions? I'm trying to encourage thinking a bit more about the circumstances at hand. Hot air criticism is useless an so is economistic (or, Luddite) bargaining. The issue is at the root of how our society is organized. In short, new technology should benefit all of society equally because all new technology stands on the shoulders of all working people and their ancestors.
- roflyear 3y agoWe know that isn't how things work.
- mostlysimilar 3y agoLegal and moral are not the same. The law is largely beholden to massive corporations that are entrenched enough to abuse people in the pursuit of profit. One of the only levers we have to fight back is to call out these abuses and loudly call attention to them.
- wang_li 3y agoA studio creating pure AI personalities to star in their movies seems perfectly fine. There is no requirement that these AI generated performers are based on real people. Arguing against generalized AI in film and television is arguing against electric cars because it will put the ICE engine manufacturers out of business. AI generated performers seems like a good idea. You can see the impact the passage of time has had on shows, e.g. Stranger Things. Why should a franchise be limited by the ability of a star actor to continue looking the same age decade after decade and eventually have to stop because the actor has aged out or just flat out died?
- OO000oo 3y ago> One of the only levers we have to fight back is to call out these abuses and loudly call attention to them. This is a ridiculous non-solution that has never really worked in practice. At best, it might revise the legal/PR strategies of the corporations and enables even more dishonesty on the part of various nonprofits who ostensibly "support" a related cause. More often, it's simply a big fat waste of effort. Historically, organizing labor to withhold labor power to win political power for working people is in fact the only strategy that has actually worked. This is not what the actor/writer guilds are doing, though. They are merely bargaining for economistic industry-specific measures, not the political interests of working people as a whole.
- CPLX 3y agoStriking is also legal. Now what?
- bannedbybros 3y ago[dead]
- Rzor 3y agoSay that to the railroad workers.
- OO000oo 3y agoWrong. For one, solidarity strikes are extremely illegal in the US, which neuters the ability of working people to affect their own political circumstances. Also, the US congress is always prepared to wage violence to end a strike. However, in the case of an actor strike rather than a railroad strike, they should be expected to support the studios' ability to wait out the strike instead.
- vore 3y agoThere are also countries where beating your wife is perfectly legal. I don’t think you should use legality to determine if something is a problem or not.
- anigbrowl 3y agoNobody disputed its legality. Actors are using their existing bargaining power to negotiate for a contractual commitment.