3 ms·

Playing devil's advocate here: do you feel the same when you use a calculator instead of a human computer who could be getting paid money instead of saving you

by epups 3y ago

Playing devil's advocate here: do you feel the same when you use a calculator instead of a human computer who could be getting paid money instead of saving you some?

likenesstheft 3y ago
Do you feel the same knowing that a company can steal your thought patterns, keystrokes, likeness in manner of speech and thought and appearance, and build an AI that codes about as good as you or will one day, without giving you a dime or needing you? Effectively cutting off your legs too since you won't even be able to monetize your own likeness anymore since they can just preempt you in that area too, via alterations to the likeness. It's not just Hollywood extras who are victims here - it's everyone.
- cwkoss 3y ago
  We need to implement UBI in this country. I don't think laws requiring that extras in films be real humans is a very effective social safety net.
  - likenesstheft 3y ago
    That's true but what's more simple? Implementing UBI or banning this practice? Right now the latter is more simple and feasible. The former takes more time and investigation into how to do it properly so it scales forever.
    - cwkoss 3y ago
      I don't think a law mandating human extras will be very effective in guaranteeing jobs. More likely, filmmakers will just change shots so there are less reasons for people to be in the background, because it is mandated to be expensive.
    - em-bee 3y ago
      banning non-human extras is completely unfeasable. do you think it makes sense to stop every indie filmmaker with a small budget who can't afford to hire a lot of actors and extras from using computer generated characters? how about a fully computer animated film with a few real human characters? computer generated characters are not the problem. scanning real humans and keeping the perpetual right to use the data without paying is the problem.
      - buffington 3y ago
        I think the real problem isn't scanning the humans and keeping perpetual rights to use the data without paying. It's scanning humans without telling them that's what they're being scanned for. While the stories I've heard may be anecdotal, I've heard people who, as extras on a production, tell stories about being scanned with zero explanation as to why. If people want to sign away their likeness, fine, but they need to be the ones agreeing to that.
        em-bee 3y ago
        If people want to sign away their likeness, fine, but they need to be the ones agreeing to that. not until we have laws that make sure that those rights can not be signed away exclusively. no contract should be able to prevent someone using their own likeness to make a living. it's the same problem as with non-compete clauses.
  - nebula8804 3y ago
    UBI is just a way for techbros to help quell the eventual calls for their heads. It will effectively be another way to cut off the masses from ever leaving their societal strata. I guess its already rare enough that people escape their parents income level but at least with tech there was some hope because the elites didn't see the technology coming. Now that they are awake they will do everything they can to close that door. UBI is one method. I don't have a good solution to the problem that UBI solves though. :/
    - cwkoss 3y ago
      > UBI is just a way for techbros to help quell the eventual calls for their heads. > I don't have a good solution to the problem that UBI solves though These sentences are at odds, you admit that UBI solves a problem, but since it doesn't end classism altogether is's not worthwhile?
      - nebula8804 3y ago
        It solves a massive problem while at the same time creating another massive problem. Was my comment really that unclear?
buffington 3y ago
That's a devilish bit of advocacy, one that I couldn't argue until I remembered exactly what I was replying to. The commenter I replied to was pondering the "societal good" of replacing humans with digitized versions of those same humans. I don't believe your calculator example was written as a way to compare "societal good" as much as it was written to be an example of a tool that replaces a human. To answer your question, I don't feel the same when using a calculator. When I use a calculator I'm not putting someone out of a job. If I don't have a calculator, I don't go hire a human computer - I just use different tools (my brain). That's not the say calculators, or similar, haven't put people out of jobs in the past. I think digitizing someone's likeness so that you don't need to hire them again is a different thing entirely. When talking about that in the context of "societal good", replacing an entire segment of jobs that humans can get paid for (so that studios can keep a few bucks) doesn't seem like it increases "societal good", and actually decreases "societal good." Maybe that could have been said about calculators ages ago, and maybe 20 years from now the notion of hiring extras will feel a lot like replacing human computers with electronic calculators.
- epups 3y ago
  > I think digitizing someone's likeness so that you don't need to hire them again is a different thing entirely. When talking about that in the context of "societal good", replacing an entire segment of jobs that humans can get paid for (so that studios can keep a few bucks) doesn't seem like it increases "societal good", and actually decreases "societal good. I don't know. We have automated a ton of jobs with technology, and while that makes some rich people richer there is great societal good in it. In fact I think keeping any job that can be automated artificially existing through regulation decreases societal good, in my opinion. I think pushing for regulation here can actually backfire. A big studio can handle the logistics and costs of hiring extras, while a smaller one may not.

by epups 3y ago

Playing devil's advocate here: do you feel the same when you use a calculator instead of a human computer who could be getting paid money instead of saving you some?

likenesstheft 3y ago

Do you feel the same knowing that a company can steal your thought patterns, keystrokes, likeness in manner of speech and thought and appearance, and build an AI that codes about as good as you or will one day, without giving you a dime or needing you? Effectively cutting off your legs too since you won't even be able to monetize your own likeness anymore since they can just preempt you in that area too, via alterations to the likeness. It's not just Hollywood extras who are victims here - it's everyone.

cwkoss 3y ago
We need to implement UBI in this country. I don't think laws requiring that extras in films be real humans is a very effective social safety net.
- likenesstheft 3y ago
  That's true but what's more simple? Implementing UBI or banning this practice? Right now the latter is more simple and feasible. The former takes more time and investigation into how to do it properly so it scales forever.
  - cwkoss 3y ago
    I don't think a law mandating human extras will be very effective in guaranteeing jobs. More likely, filmmakers will just change shots so there are less reasons for people to be in the background, because it is mandated to be expensive.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    banning non-human extras is completely unfeasable. do you think it makes sense to stop every indie filmmaker with a small budget who can't afford to hire a lot of actors and extras from using computer generated characters? how about a fully computer animated film with a few real human characters? computer generated characters are not the problem. scanning real humans and keeping the perpetual right to use the data without paying is the problem.
    - buffington 3y ago
      I think the real problem isn't scanning the humans and keeping perpetual rights to use the data without paying. It's scanning humans without telling them that's what they're being scanned for. While the stories I've heard may be anecdotal, I've heard people who, as extras on a production, tell stories about being scanned with zero explanation as to why. If people want to sign away their likeness, fine, but they need to be the ones agreeing to that.
      - em-bee 3y ago
        If people want to sign away their likeness, fine, but they need to be the ones agreeing to that. not until we have laws that make sure that those rights can not be signed away exclusively. no contract should be able to prevent someone using their own likeness to make a living. it's the same problem as with non-compete clauses.
- nebula8804 3y ago
  UBI is just a way for techbros to help quell the eventual calls for their heads. It will effectively be another way to cut off the masses from ever leaving their societal strata. I guess its already rare enough that people escape their parents income level but at least with tech there was some hope because the elites didn't see the technology coming. Now that they are awake they will do everything they can to close that door. UBI is one method. I don't have a good solution to the problem that UBI solves though. :/
  - cwkoss 3y ago
    > UBI is just a way for techbros to help quell the eventual calls for their heads. > I don't have a good solution to the problem that UBI solves though These sentences are at odds, you admit that UBI solves a problem, but since it doesn't end classism altogether is's not worthwhile?
    - nebula8804 3y ago
      It solves a massive problem while at the same time creating another massive problem. Was my comment really that unclear?

buffington 3y ago

That's a devilish bit of advocacy, one that I couldn't argue until I remembered exactly what I was replying to. The commenter I replied to was pondering the "societal good" of replacing humans with digitized versions of those same humans. I don't believe your calculator example was written as a way to compare "societal good" as much as it was written to be an example of a tool that replaces a human. To answer your question, I don't feel the same when using a calculator. When I use a calculator I'm not putting someone out of a job. If I don't have a calculator, I don't go hire a human computer - I just use different tools (my brain). That's not the say calculators, or similar, haven't put people out of jobs in the past. I think digitizing someone's likeness so that you don't need to hire them again is a different thing entirely. When talking about that in the context of "societal good", replacing an entire segment of jobs that humans can get paid for (so that studios can keep a few bucks) doesn't seem like it increases "societal good", and actually decreases "societal good." Maybe that could have been said about calculators ages ago, and maybe 20 years from now the notion of hiring extras will feel a lot like replacing human computers with electronic calculators.

epups 3y ago
> I think digitizing someone's likeness so that you don't need to hire them again is a different thing entirely. When talking about that in the context of "societal good", replacing an entire segment of jobs that humans can get paid for (so that studios can keep a few bucks) doesn't seem like it increases "societal good", and actually decreases "societal good. I don't know. We have automated a ton of jobs with technology, and while that makes some rich people richer there is great societal good in it. In fact I think keeping any job that can be automated artificially existing through regulation decreases societal good, in my opinion. I think pushing for regulation here can actually backfire. A big studio can handle the logistics and costs of hiring extras, while a smaller one may not.