4 ms·

Obviously just performative signalling that doesn't really do much. You can't definitively tell if AI was used, so the rule can never realistically be enforced

by 0x3f 5mo ago

Obviously just performative signalling that doesn't really do much. You can't definitively tell if AI was used, so the rule can never realistically be enforced. Then again, the Oscars are surely almost entirely vibes based anyway. So it's hardly some internally consistent system of merit in the first place.

userbinator 5mo ago
The younger generation also increasingly pays less attention to traditional mainstream entertainment and media, as now they can create more of it with AI. Edit: funny to see the anti-AI crowd showing up again, how predictable... you can downvote but you can't stop the truth! Legacy entertainment is dying, and will soon become irrelevant.
- npinsker 5mo ago
  I’m downvoting because it’s an unusual (and probably false) claim made with no evidence — particularly your clause after “as” needs a more substantive defense. Can you convince me a bit that you speak for the younger generation?
  - userbinator 5mo ago
    Look at the popularity of all the AI satire/parody videos and memes on YouTube. I've seen a lot of the younger generation who get the majority of their entertainment from the former and pay very little attention to traditional celebrities and the like.
  - AlexeyBelov 5mo ago
    This user is a troll. Don't bother.
NicuCalcea 5mo ago
You can't definitively tell if athletes are doping, or students are cheating, it should then be allowed.
- 0x3f 5mo ago
  It's much easier to tell if athletes are doping than to 'detect' AI in text that's already Oscar-for-writing level good. I would suggest the latter is quite literally impossible.
  - edmundsauto 5mo ago
    I have always heard that dopers are consistently ahead of testing regimes. I don’t think it is easier to tell than AI, which always seems pretty obvious to me.
    - 0x3f 5mo ago
      You have to consider that any AI content worthy of the Oscar shortlist is going to be very high-quality, and likely intensely hand/human-tweaked in the first place. It's not from the general population of all AI content out there. > I have always heard that dopers are consistently ahead of testing regimes I don't know about that, even the very biggest names with the most funding quite often get dinged for it. I suppose I'm not really saying that the detection rate for doping is high, though, just that it's much higher than AI detection in high-quality content (which I would suggest is approximately zero).
  - NicuCalcea 5mo ago
    How do you know that it's easier? How do you prove athletes who have not been caught doping were in fact not doping?
frollogaston 5mo ago
It prevents anyone from blatantly using AI. If they want to use it anyway and risk getting found out, sure. That's still a big difference.
- 0x3f 5mo ago
  Can you explain how an Oscar-worthy piece of writing would somehow be able to contain blatant AI-generated content? How would it have already passed the good-enough-for-an-Oscar filter?
  - chungusamongus 5mo ago
    [dead]
  - frollogaston 5mo ago
    If there's some admission or evidence internally that they used AI.
    - 0x3f 5mo ago
      But in order for that to be required, it couldn't be 'blatant'. Unless you mean the admission itself is 'blatant'? Then, I suppose so, although the normal interpretation of that would be from the content itself.
happytoexplain 5mo ago
I wish we could stop the slide of the term "performative" into meaninglessness. Just because something is hard or even impossible to enforce, doesn't mean you don't state that it is not allowed and that there are consequences for being caught. That's a common fallacy that overly engineering-minded people fall into. We're humans. We care about things. There is nothing strange about me asking you not to do something that I can't stop you from doing.
- 0x3f 5mo ago
  How are there consequences for being caught if it's impossible to detect? Moreover, why stop here? There are many great rules that are impossible to enforce. Why not a rule that the author isn't allowed to have any racist thoughts when writing the material? We can't read minds, but it sure is a nice thing to care about, don't you think?
  - edmundsauto 5mo ago
    It doesn’t always have to have consequences when it’s a curated access club like the Oscars. It’s ok to have cultural norms that aren’t enforced by consequences, at the very least some of the ethical participants will follow them. I know that I try to follow the spirit of the clubs I participate in, and if they don’t have these types of statements often I just don’t know what the community thinks is ok. It breaks down when assholes join, or the overly self-interested. This mindset permeates America today, but there are still many collective organizations that don’t need punitive measures. These are less common but when you find them, it’s often a positive signal.
- chungusamongus 5mo ago
  There is absolutely no fallacy in the statement you're responding to. Laws are meaningless if they cannot be consistently enforced.
  - AndrewDucker 5mo ago
    Actually, laws can be really effective even if they are only enforced intermittently.
sebastiennight 5mo ago
I guess the Best Visual Effects category is going to be tough to judge, but don't you think it might be quite hard to win the Best Actress Academy Award if your AI-generated heroine can't come get the trophy? Also, "truth" is a thing that exists, and just because you can't always tell if somebody cheated the rules or not, does not mean the rules are "performative signalling".
- 0x3f 5mo ago
  I don't think AI-generated 'avatars' are anywhere close to being Oscar-worthy as things stand, so it seems kind of a moot point (hence the 'signalling' thing). If they ever get that good, I would just say you can't really fight the market. If AI content is good enough that people want it, then the Oscars just get left behind after a while. But that's fine, and up to them. > Also, "truth" is a thing that exists, and just because you can't always tell if somebody cheated the rules or not, does not mean the rules are "performative signalling". I don't really understand. If you can't hope to discover the truth, in what way is it not performative or signalling?
  - sebastiennight 5mo ago
    > If they ever get that good, I would just say you can't really fight the market. If AI content is good enough that people want it It might be "good enough" that you can't see the difference, which is not equivalent to "people want it". Maybe if people knew that "it"'s not the real thing, they'd assign lower value to "it". Our startup works in video editing. It's not that difficult to foresee that you might be a true fan of [insert your favorite podcaster or content creator], and maybe some AI models would enable $podcaster to duplicate themselves "perfectly", but as a true fan you'd still feel betrayed to learn you just listened to 2 hours of slop that $podcaster was not involved in. "Ha! You say you're vegan but I just tricked you into eating meat-disguised-as-veggies" isn't the most convincing gotcha.
MrMember 5mo ago
The Oscars are 100% vibes based. It was only very recently made a requirement that the judges actually watch the movies that are nominated.
therealpygon 5mo ago
I’d say there is a difference between awarding an Oscar to an AI actor, and a production receiving an Oscar that for a work that includes an AI actor. I also see no reason that AI specific categories shouldn’t be offered. Just because a person wasn’t holding a camera or a person wasn’t in front of it doesn’t mean it lacks artistry. A one shot prompt can only get an estimation of what you asked for, no matter how descriptive you are. To get what you actually intended, what you imagined, the process looks quite a lot more like smarter versions of.the traditional workflows for digital effects. (Remove a background, add this thing, paint out that thing, etc.)
- 0x3f 5mo ago
  > A one shot prompt can only get an estimation of what you asked for, no matter how descriptive you are. Isn't that true of all creative outputs, even of 'legacy' provenance?

by 0x3f 5mo ago

userbinator 5mo ago

The younger generation also increasingly pays less attention to traditional mainstream entertainment and media, as now they can create more of it with AI. Edit: funny to see the anti-AI crowd showing up again, how predictable... you can downvote but you can't stop the truth! Legacy entertainment is dying, and will soon become irrelevant.

npinsker 5mo ago
I’m downvoting because it’s an unusual (and probably false) claim made with no evidence — particularly your clause after “as” needs a more substantive defense. Can you convince me a bit that you speak for the younger generation?
- userbinator 5mo ago
  Look at the popularity of all the AI satire/parody videos and memes on YouTube. I've seen a lot of the younger generation who get the majority of their entertainment from the former and pay very little attention to traditional celebrities and the like.
- AlexeyBelov 5mo ago
  This user is a troll. Don't bother.

NicuCalcea 5mo ago

You can't definitively tell if athletes are doping, or students are cheating, it should then be allowed.

0x3f 5mo ago
It's much easier to tell if athletes are doping than to 'detect' AI in text that's already Oscar-for-writing level good. I would suggest the latter is quite literally impossible.
- edmundsauto 5mo ago
  I have always heard that dopers are consistently ahead of testing regimes. I don’t think it is easier to tell than AI, which always seems pretty obvious to me.
  - 0x3f 5mo ago
    You have to consider that any AI content worthy of the Oscar shortlist is going to be very high-quality, and likely intensely hand/human-tweaked in the first place. It's not from the general population of all AI content out there. > I have always heard that dopers are consistently ahead of testing regimes I don't know about that, even the very biggest names with the most funding quite often get dinged for it. I suppose I'm not really saying that the detection rate for doping is high, though, just that it's much higher than AI detection in high-quality content (which I would suggest is approximately zero).
- NicuCalcea 5mo ago
  How do you know that it's easier? How do you prove athletes who have not been caught doping were in fact not doping?

frollogaston 5mo ago

It prevents anyone from blatantly using AI. If they want to use it anyway and risk getting found out, sure. That's still a big difference.

0x3f 5mo ago
Can you explain how an Oscar-worthy piece of writing would somehow be able to contain blatant AI-generated content? How would it have already passed the good-enough-for-an-Oscar filter?
- chungusamongus 5mo ago
  [dead]
- frollogaston 5mo ago
  If there's some admission or evidence internally that they used AI.
  - 0x3f 5mo ago
    But in order for that to be required, it couldn't be 'blatant'. Unless you mean the admission itself is 'blatant'? Then, I suppose so, although the normal interpretation of that would be from the content itself.

happytoexplain 5mo ago

I wish we could stop the slide of the term "performative" into meaninglessness. Just because something is hard or even impossible to enforce, doesn't mean you don't state that it is not allowed and that there are consequences for being caught. That's a common fallacy that overly engineering-minded people fall into. We're humans. We care about things. There is nothing strange about me asking you not to do something that I can't stop you from doing.

0x3f 5mo ago
How are there consequences for being caught if it's impossible to detect? Moreover, why stop here? There are many great rules that are impossible to enforce. Why not a rule that the author isn't allowed to have any racist thoughts when writing the material? We can't read minds, but it sure is a nice thing to care about, don't you think?
- edmundsauto 5mo ago
  It doesn’t always have to have consequences when it’s a curated access club like the Oscars. It’s ok to have cultural norms that aren’t enforced by consequences, at the very least some of the ethical participants will follow them. I know that I try to follow the spirit of the clubs I participate in, and if they don’t have these types of statements often I just don’t know what the community thinks is ok. It breaks down when assholes join, or the overly self-interested. This mindset permeates America today, but there are still many collective organizations that don’t need punitive measures. These are less common but when you find them, it’s often a positive signal.
chungusamongus 5mo ago
There is absolutely no fallacy in the statement you're responding to. Laws are meaningless if they cannot be consistently enforced.
- AndrewDucker 5mo ago
  Actually, laws can be really effective even if they are only enforced intermittently.

sebastiennight 5mo ago

I guess the Best Visual Effects category is going to be tough to judge, but don't you think it might be quite hard to win the Best Actress Academy Award if your AI-generated heroine can't come get the trophy? Also, "truth" is a thing that exists, and just because you can't always tell if somebody cheated the rules or not, does not mean the rules are "performative signalling".

0x3f 5mo ago
I don't think AI-generated 'avatars' are anywhere close to being Oscar-worthy as things stand, so it seems kind of a moot point (hence the 'signalling' thing). If they ever get that good, I would just say you can't really fight the market. If AI content is good enough that people want it, then the Oscars just get left behind after a while. But that's fine, and up to them. > Also, "truth" is a thing that exists, and just because you can't always tell if somebody cheated the rules or not, does not mean the rules are "performative signalling". I don't really understand. If you can't hope to discover the truth, in what way is it not performative or signalling?
- sebastiennight 5mo ago
  > If they ever get that good, I would just say you can't really fight the market. If AI content is good enough that people want it It might be "good enough" that you can't see the difference, which is not equivalent to "people want it". Maybe if people knew that "it"'s not the real thing, they'd assign lower value to "it". Our startup works in video editing. It's not that difficult to foresee that you might be a true fan of [insert your favorite podcaster or content creator], and maybe some AI models would enable $podcaster to duplicate themselves "perfectly", but as a true fan you'd still feel betrayed to learn you just listened to 2 hours of slop that $podcaster was not involved in. "Ha! You say you're vegan but I just tricked you into eating meat-disguised-as-veggies" isn't the most convincing gotcha.

MrMember 5mo ago

The Oscars are 100% vibes based. It was only very recently made a requirement that the judges actually watch the movies that are nominated.

therealpygon 5mo ago

I’d say there is a difference between awarding an Oscar to an AI actor, and a production receiving an Oscar that for a work that includes an AI actor. I also see no reason that AI specific categories shouldn’t be offered. Just because a person wasn’t holding a camera or a person wasn’t in front of it doesn’t mean it lacks artistry. A one shot prompt can only get an estimation of what you asked for, no matter how descriptive you are. To get what you actually intended, what you imagined, the process looks quite a lot more like smarter versions of.the traditional workflows for digital effects. (Remove a background, add this thing, paint out that thing, etc.)

0x3f 5mo ago
> A one shot prompt can only get an estimation of what you asked for, no matter how descriptive you are. Isn't that true of all creative outputs, even of 'legacy' provenance?