4 ms·

It's for an AI program director, not just some random dev. As technology advances actors will be more under threath from 100% syntetic 'stars' than from some r

It's for an AI program director, not just some random dev. As technology advances actors will be more under threath from 100% syntetic 'stars' than from some random meatspace origin lucky genetic draw. I do understand the hurt and fear. Just not sure this deamon can be put back into the bottle. Unions had coal shovelers on diesel locomotives for some time, but it did not last.

triceratops 3y ago
They might not be able to prevent AI actors in the future. But they might be able to negotiate a deal that keeps current actors out of poverty.
- PeterStuer 3y ago
  All for it. But how?
  - triceratops 3y ago
    Profit sharing.
    - ars 3y ago
      That's the exact same thing as residuals. Just a different word that means the same thing. If you mean profit sharing based on actual profit, then they would also need to share in the risk, i.e. invest money. No one wants that, so residuals is what they do instead. It wouldn't help anyway, most actors are mostly background or one-off scenes and do too little to actual make money there. The big names aren't at risk of poverty. The issue is not the payment structure, the issue is that this field is way too small for the number of members, the union needs to reduce its ranks.
      - triceratops 3y ago
        If "profit sharing" is the "exact same thing" as residuals and residuals don't require a money investment - you only have to have worked - then why does profit sharing require one?
        ars 3y ago
        Profit sharing minus investment equals residuals. So I was saying they already have profit sharing without investment. I guess I could have explained that in a simpler way.
        triceratops 3y ago
        Residuals apply to works that already exist. Profit sharing is from future works. That's the difference. Is that fair? It doesn't need to be. Studios don't try for fair - they get as much as possibly can. So should the actors and all of the other workers.
        ars 3y ago
        If that's what you want, then invest. What makes some actor who showed up for 1 day on a film worthy of getting income from future works? What about the guy who made breakfast for them? How about the electrical who installed the light bulbs? The whole concept of residuals is just a way to spread out payments and share risk - instead of everything being upfront, the money is given out later, and only if the work performs well.
        triceratops 3y ago
        > What makes some actor who showed up for 1 day on a film worthy of getting income from future works? What about the guy who made breakfast for them? How about the electrical who installed the light bulbs? Contracts. It's not about fairness. It's about what you can negotiate. If the electricians' union wants the same deal and can get it, good luck to them.
- ars 3y ago
  They won't. Acting already isn't a viable career except for around 4,000 people. This won't change that. These people who work for scale are doing it for prestige, not money - because there is no money in it. The union is kind of taking advantage of people and making them think that acting is an actual career, but it's not unless you are in the top 0.0001%. (Yes that figure is accurate.)
  - PUSH_AX 3y ago
    Where are you getting these numbers from? I was under the impression that people can and do work as professional extras. And then there's voice work too. And to be honest if any roles in TV/movies/Ads are going to get AI'ed it's them.
    - ars 3y ago
      Well 87% of membership earn too little for it to be a career. The union claims 116K active members, so that's 15K people who actually earn money. Industry figures are that only 1 to 5% of people actually work in anything other than an extra or a day job. So with an active membership of 116K, that's between 1,000 and 5,000 people who actually make a living as actors. They get a lot of press, and they like it that way, but the framing is kind of messed up, since this isn't a full-time job for most of them.
      - triceratops 3y ago
        Ok so why can't the rest continue to make as much as they would have made otherwise? They can still work their day jobs.
        ars 3y ago
        They sure can if the like, but don't lie to actors and pretend like it's actually a career. The guild really needs to reduce ranks, or at least let people know that it's not a career guild, it's more of a club.

triceratops 3y ago

They might not be able to prevent AI actors in the future. But they might be able to negotiate a deal that keeps current actors out of poverty.

PeterStuer 3y ago
All for it. But how?
- triceratops 3y ago
  Profit sharing.
  - ars 3y ago
    That's the exact same thing as residuals. Just a different word that means the same thing. If you mean profit sharing based on actual profit, then they would also need to share in the risk, i.e. invest money. No one wants that, so residuals is what they do instead. It wouldn't help anyway, most actors are mostly background or one-off scenes and do too little to actual make money there. The big names aren't at risk of poverty. The issue is not the payment structure, the issue is that this field is way too small for the number of members, the union needs to reduce its ranks.
    - triceratops 3y ago
      If "profit sharing" is the "exact same thing" as residuals and residuals don't require a money investment - you only have to have worked - then why does profit sharing require one?
      - ars 3y ago
        Profit sharing minus investment equals residuals. So I was saying they already have profit sharing without investment. I guess I could have explained that in a simpler way.
        triceratops 3y ago
        Residuals apply to works that already exist. Profit sharing is from future works. That's the difference. Is that fair? It doesn't need to be. Studios don't try for fair - they get as much as possibly can. So should the actors and all of the other workers.
        ars 3y ago
        If that's what you want, then invest. What makes some actor who showed up for 1 day on a film worthy of getting income from future works? What about the guy who made breakfast for them? How about the electrical who installed the light bulbs? The whole concept of residuals is just a way to spread out payments and share risk - instead of everything being upfront, the money is given out later, and only if the work performs well.
        triceratops 3y ago
        > What makes some actor who showed up for 1 day on a film worthy of getting income from future works? What about the guy who made breakfast for them? How about the electrical who installed the light bulbs? Contracts. It's not about fairness. It's about what you can negotiate. If the electricians' union wants the same deal and can get it, good luck to them.
ars 3y ago
They won't. Acting already isn't a viable career except for around 4,000 people. This won't change that. These people who work for scale are doing it for prestige, not money - because there is no money in it. The union is kind of taking advantage of people and making them think that acting is an actual career, but it's not unless you are in the top 0.0001%. (Yes that figure is accurate.)
- PUSH_AX 3y ago
  Where are you getting these numbers from? I was under the impression that people can and do work as professional extras. And then there's voice work too. And to be honest if any roles in TV/movies/Ads are going to get AI'ed it's them.
  - ars 3y ago
    Well 87% of membership earn too little for it to be a career. The union claims 116K active members, so that's 15K people who actually earn money. Industry figures are that only 1 to 5% of people actually work in anything other than an extra or a day job. So with an active membership of 116K, that's between 1,000 and 5,000 people who actually make a living as actors. They get a lot of press, and they like it that way, but the framing is kind of messed up, since this isn't a full-time job for most of them.
    - triceratops 3y ago
      Ok so why can't the rest continue to make as much as they would have made otherwise? They can still work their day jobs.
      - ars 3y ago
        They sure can if the like, but don't lie to actors and pretend like it's actually a career. The guild really needs to reduce ranks, or at least let people know that it's not a career guild, it's more of a club.