Netflix Uses AI Effects For First Time To Cut Costs (bbc.com) 64
Netflix says it has used visual effects created by generative AI in one of its original TV shows for the first time. From a report: The streaming giant's co-chief executive Ted Sarandos said AI, which produces videos and images based on prompts, was used to create a scene of a building collapsing in the Argentine science fiction show, The Eternaut. He said the technology allowed the production team to complete sequences faster and at a lower cost.
The use of generative AI is controversial in the entertainment industry over concerns it creates content using others' work without their consent and fears that it will replace the work of humans. [...] Asked about Netflix's use of AI, Mr Sarandos said the technology has allowed productions with smaller budgets to use advanced visual effects.
The use of generative AI is controversial in the entertainment industry over concerns it creates content using others' work without their consent and fears that it will replace the work of humans. [...] Asked about Netflix's use of AI, Mr Sarandos said the technology has allowed productions with smaller budgets to use advanced visual effects.
and fears that it will replace the work of humans (Score:2)
Computers replaced the model-makers and nobody gave a shit.
Get used to it.
Re: (Score:2)
There is only one remedy for this problem which doesn't lead to wave after wave of this, and it is to separate the basic needs of the living from employment
In other words, there is no remedy for this "problem."
Perhaps the "problem" isn't a bug, but a feature. Nobody is as interested in my personal lifestyle and comforts, than me. If a basic living isn't motivation enough for me to do whatever is necessary to obtain that basic living standard, why should someone else work harder so that I don't have to? And if won't do whatever it takes to achieve that basic standard of living, why am I entitled to it?
Millenia ago, people literally had to scavenge for their own
Re: (Score:1)
In other words, there is no remedy for this "problem."
Not as long as we keep sucking billionaire cock, no. It will never provide enough sustenance to live on.
Perhaps the "problem" isn't a bug, but a feature. Nobody is as interested in my personal lifestyle and comforts, than me.
And you're not interested in anyone else's comfort, either.
Today, we have much more advanced and fault-tolerant systems.
Systems which are under attack.
But these have not removed the basic foundation of truth that, if you don't work, you don't eat.
Just the food thrown away is enough to eat. Keep defending that.
Re: (Score:2)
There isn't enough money, from all the billionaires who ever lived, to keep everybody's needs satisfied, without people having to work.
And you're not interested in anyone else's comfort, either.
You say this as if it's a problem! Why should I be motivated to work harder, so YOU can live more comfortably? Your personal standard of comfort, is all yours to maintain. Your discomfort, your standard of living, is not my problem, or anybody else's, but yours.
Now, if you are disabled or an invalid, then yes, it is absolutely society's responsibility to help such people. Bu
Re: (Score:2)
You say this as if it's a problem!
It's the problem, not a problem. As long as you only care about you, and not about anyone else, there's no reason why anyone should care about you. In fact, it's actively harmful for them to waste time caring about you, because they're not going to get that care back.
Re: (Score:2)
You are turning my argument into a straw man. It's not that simple.
Just because *I* don't care about *your* standard of living, doesn't mean I care about no one's standard of living. There are people who need and deserve help. Able-bodied people should be expected to work for their own living. Those who truly need hep, we should help.
Re: (Score:2)
You are turning my argument into a straw man.
You don't understand the import of your own argument.
Just because *I* don't care about *your* standard of living, doesn't mean I care about no one's standard of living.
Nice solidarity there bro. Shame if something should have already happened to it.
Re: (Score:2)
The concept is called "Enlightened Self-Interest". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] This concept is a recognition that people will work hardest to care for themselves, but that taken to its extreme, is unhealthy for society. It's a pragmatic concept, rooted in realism. People do care about other people, but only to a point. An economic model that harnesses people's self-interest, while not throwing away altruism, is the most realistic model possible, that has the best overall results for the most people.
Re: (Score:2)
The concept is called "Enlightened Self-Interest".
PR for selfishness.
People do care about other people, but only to a point.
The point at which they might actually have to act like they care, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree. Humans are by nature, at their very core, selfish. Any economic system that ignores this reality, is doomed to fail.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans are by nature, at their very core, selfish. Any economic system that ignores this reality, is doomed to fail.
So is any economic system based around not only enabling but promoting selfishness. And here we are, watching it happen in realtime.
Re: and fears that it will replace the work of hum (Score:2)
How far are you willing to maximize your selfishness beyond all reason, to ensure its failure, just so you can say see! I was right!?
Re: (Score:2)
I know, so much wrong with this world. Capitalism is the worst economic system anyone could dream up, except for all the others.
*Every time* altruism has formed the basis of an economic system, it has quickly descended into chaos or dictatorship. Every time. Even early Christians, who were on fire with their newfound faith, and shared literally everything with each other--found that some people within their own ranks found ways to cheat the system (Acts 5).
So while "enlightened self-interest" may seem evil,
Re: (Score:2)
There have to be boundaries, absolutely. We let people keep their earned wages, but they have to pay taxes, which go to pay for things that benefit the common good. No, I don't advocate for an extreme version of capitalism that completely ignores the plight of the unfortunate. That's a straw man, no civilized country does this. That's very different from advocating "free money for everyone."
Re: fears that it will replace the work of humans (Score:5, Insightful)
There is only one remedy for this problem which doesn't lead to wave after wave of this, and it is to separate the basic needs of the living from employment
In other words, there is no remedy for this "problem." Perhaps the "problem" isn't a bug, but a feature. Nobody is as interested in my personal lifestyle and comforts, than me. If a basic living isn't motivation enough for me to do whatever is necessary to obtain that basic living standard, why should someone else work harder so that I don't have to?
You are totally misunderstanding the problem.
Your implicit assumption here that it is possible for a person "to do whatever is necessary to obtain that basic living standard." But the question is: once AI becomes good enough that it can do every job cheaper than a human, how do humans survive?
You say "why should someone else work harder so that I don't have to?"-- but it's not another human that is working harder. It is a mechanism. And that mechanism is cheaper than you are.
And it's not that you don't "have" to. It's that work no longer exists for you to work at.
...
But these have not removed the basic foundation of truth that, if you don't work, you don't eat.
if, as you say, the truth is "if you don't work, you don't eat", what happens when there is no work to be had?
Re: (Score:3)
You say "why should someone else work harder so that I don't have to?"-- but it's not another human that is working harder. It is a mechanism. And that mechanism is cheaper than you are.
Thanks for getting it. This is what the Luddites were saying, and why I like to invoke them despite it making people mad because they've been gaslit over what their message was. It wasn't "smash all the things", it was "everyone should benefit from the things, and if not, there is no reason we should not smash them". They were people with nothing left to lose. Continuing automation will make that of virtually all of us, and certainly every one of us here. If we were important enough for it not to, we wouldn
Re: (Score:2)
once AI becomes good enough that it can do every job cheaper than a human
This is a dystopian sci-fi fantasy that will never come to pass. There will always be jobs for humans. Throughout history, humans have automated the jobs they didn't want to do, and new jobs were created replacing them. AI is just a tool, an invention, it's not *actually* intelligent.
if, as you say, the truth is "if you don't work, you don't eat", what happens when there is no work to be had?
This is a logical fallacy. It's like asking, "What if we were to build an immovable object that could stand up to an irresistible force?" It's a contradiction. There will *always* be work that machines can't do more cheaply tha
Re: (Score:3)
once AI becomes good enough that it can do every job cheaper than a human
This is a dystopian sci-fi fantasy that will never come to pass. There will always be jobs for humans.
And your authority for making that pronouncement is?
Many things that have never previously happened in human history have happened.
if, as you say, the truth is "if you don't work, you don't eat", what happens when there is no work to be had?
This is a logical fallacy. It's like asking, "What if we were to build an immovable object that could stand up to an irresistible force?" It's a contradiction.
You apparently don't know what a logical fallacy is. "In my opinion this won't happen" is not the definition of a logical fallacy.
You go on to say "don't even think about it even as a thought exercise."
There will *always* be work that machines can't do more cheaply than humans. All automation ever invented, has limits.
Man will never fly.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, we can ask questions. But that's not the same as claiming that AI is about to end civilization as we know it.
And your authority for making that pronouncement is?
Many things that have never previously happened in human history have happened.
My authority is history. While AI has never happened before, inventions that replace human labor, has happened over and over and over. This is nothing unique to AI, that sets it apart from past inventions, when it comes to the impact on human labor. That's not to say that it's different at all, just not different in an economic sense.
Countless inventions throughout history, replaced some human
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, we can ask questions. But that's not the same as claiming that AI is about to end civilization as we know it.
You said it was a "logical fallacy" to even ask the question.
And your authority for making that pronouncement is? Many things that have never previously happened in human history have happened.
My authority is history. While AI has never happened before,
Bingo.
AI, if it advances along the lines that have been laid out for it, could very reasonably reach the point where it can replace humans in most jobs.
Maybe some hitherto-unsuspected new type of jobs will pop up that AI can't do. But we don't know that.
Even if AI and robotics can't do all jobs, if it replaces a high fraction of work without replacing that with other work that people will pay for, our current economic paradigm (as the grandpare
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention, some jobs can have their workflow change to match up better with robots+ai. Robot+ai doesn't have to do it exactly how a human may go about doing the same task, it just needs the end results to be about the same or better.
Just because we do a certain set of task a specific way today doesn't mean we can't revisit them with increase in technology.
This is why, yes, I think robots+ai and changes in work flow will, at some point, be putting most people out of work.
We live in interesting times.
Re: (Score:2)
AI, if it advances along the lines that have been laid out for it
There are only three groups of people who think AI will do this. Group 1 is the marketing arms of AI companies. Group 2 is snake oil CEOs who use AI talk to convince investors to part with their money. Group 3 is those who think the sky is falling.
It will *not* advance along the "lines that have been laid out for it." This is sheer daydreaming.
Even if it does replace a "high percentage" of jobs...that's not different from farming, which has seen 95% of its human jobs replaced. And yet, we are STILL finding
Re: (Score:2)
AI, if it advances along the lines that have been laid out for it
There are only three groups of people who think AI will do this. Group 1 is the marketing arms of AI companies. Group 2 is snake oil CEOs who use AI talk to convince investors to part with their money. Group 3 is those who think the sky is falling.
But there are more groups who think that it could happen. Since you have a crystal ball and can predict the future you don't need to think about it.
It will *not* advance along the "lines that have been laid out for it."
So, you're saying we can't even ask the question, because you can predict the future.
Right.
So, if this is so absolutely certain, why are you still replying?
Re: (Score:2)
This reminds me of the doom and gloom that was predicted in 1999. Remember Y2K? Yes, I was answering questions like this back then. Civilization was going to implode. It *could* happen. There *could* be widespread electrical outages. There *could* be chaos in the streets. I had one friend who was stockpiling bullets because they were going to be the only thing that could be used as currency, once the Y2K apocalypse burst upon us.
In those days, I also worked to help people gauge risks. Sure, all those things
Re: (Score:2)
Your "historical evidence" is meaningless. Your argument "don't think about the future because it will be all sunshine and roses" is fine for you, but I don't think you can predict the future.
Re: (Score:2)
You are mischaracterizing my position, and you know it. It's not going to be "all sunshine and roses." It will also not be an apocalypse.
Actually, the future *is* predictable, just not in detail or with precision. Future weather can also be predicted, in the same way. In both cases, by observing history, we can make reasonable, broad-strokes predictions about the future. We won't always be right, but we can get close.
There is a long history of inventions that replaced jobs, or made people more productive. B
Re: (Score:2)
Let me be more specific. I don't think you can predict the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not?
If I see dark clouds heading towards me, I can make a pretty reliable prediction that it's going to rain.
If a car is heading towards me and I'm in a busy roadway, I can make a pretty reliable prediction that I'm going to get hurt.
If I study the history of inventions, then yes, I think I can make predictions from it.
Yes, even *you* can read history and learn to draw conclusions from it.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the "AI will take ALL jobs away from people" argument. So... tell me, exactly WHO is going to be buying these products the AI is going to be churning out if no one has a fucking job, and therefore no money is being circulated?
Exactly. That is the question. You nailed it:
How does our current economic model, which relies on the assumption that people must have jobs, operate when there are no jobs that an AI can't do at lower cost?
Jesus fucking christ, it's a self solving problem. All you have to do is think about it for half a second. It's literally IMPOSSIBLE under any form of capitalism,
So, you just predicted that the problem will solve itself when capitalism fails.
Fine. And then what?
Re: and fears that it will replace the work of hum (Score:2)
"If a basic living isn't motivation enough for me to do whatever is necessary to obtain that basic living standard, why should someone else work harder so that I don't have to?"
Why not fully legalize suicide? What if I want to be self-sufficient living off the land but you force me to buy my way out of your system by participating in it first, before I can exit? Do you see the hypocrisy in your position?
Re: (Score:2)
He doesn't want to legalize suicide. He wants to legalize comfortably abstracted murder. And we're most of the way already, so he may well get to fulfill his Nazi fantasy of all of the undesirables expiring.
Re: (Score:2)
There is only one remedy for this problem which doesn't lead to wave after wave of this, and it is to separate the basic needs of the living from employment
In other words, there is no remedy for this "problem."
This is the comment that triggered you? This is a failure of imagination, not a law of nature. The "problem" is that technological advancement is on track to obsolete entire categories of human labor faster than new ones can be created. Dismissing the proposed remedy out of hand ignores the scale of the challenge. The conversation about decoupling basic needs from employment isn't about giving up; it's about adapting our social contract to a new economic reality. You either haven’t thought this throu
Re: (Score:2)
The "problem" is that technological advancement is on track to obsolete entire categories of human labor faster than new ones can be created.
There is no evidence for this, nor is there a precedent in all of history. AI adoption will take longer than anyone suggests, or fears.
You are promoting two flawed premises:
1. That AI will obliterate all work. Yes, it will change how we work, and it will eliminate some jobs, like all automation technology before it, but it will not eliminate it.
2. That UBI, or separating money from work, is possible. It's no more possible than a perpetual motion machine, and for the same reason: in every cycle, some energy
What a mean-spirited and wrong headed post (Score:1)
To address the specific points in this post the reason CGI took over is because it's cheaper, and the reason it's cheaper is that t
Re: (Score:3)
You're a lot dumber than I thought. Didn't think I'd see you cheerleading for more of the same oppressive bullshit, but here you are.
I assure you I am far stupider than you think I am (Score:2)
Anyway did your account get hacked or something? What part of my post is championing oppressive bullshit?
Or you just call anything you don't like oppressive bullshit? How very libertarian of you. What's next, needing a license to make toast in your toaster?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you only read the first paragraph of my comment? Because your comment was a trash response to the rest of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BTW the Luddites were wrong, companies shouldn't have to engage in pessimisation (aka the use of clearly inferior processes on purpose) just to offer someone employment.
BTW you're wrong, that was not their position.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Then what on Earth was their position?
The position of the Luddites was that the gains from increases in productivity from automation should not accrue solely to the already wealthy, but should also benefit the working class. Rather than only making the rich richer, they should enable us to work less and benefit more.
Fast forward to today. As worker productivity has increased, the workers' share of the profit has decreased, and this has enabled the owning class to dominate every aspect most people's existence by controlling government through ca
Re: (Score:2)
Re: and fears that it will replace the work of hum (Score:2)
What if you throttle progress by ignoring stock market returns when calculating productivity so that you have an excuse to delay things like the 8-hour work day which the Greenback Party was already calling for in the 1870s? How regressive and suppressive is the current dominant economic model?
Re: (Score:2)
And what you don't understand is that there is no general "increase in productivity"
What I understand is that you have an insatiable taste for boot leather.
When the economy as a whole does, you get things like the 8-hour workday and weekends
We got those because union members fought and died for them, not magically or due to the invisible hand or whatever other magical thinking you want to invoke.
the productivity of the economy as a whole
It's worker productivity, not GDP. Though if the bosses can't make more with more worker productivity, then they are fuckups.
Re: (Score:2)
And what you don't understand is that facts don't care about your feelings (for example, facts don't care whether you feel that "I have an insatiable taste for boot leather"). The cold hard facts are that AI (LLMs) have done nothing so far to increase productivity for those essentials needed to satisfy "the basic needs of the living". LLMs haven't eliminated (or even reduced) the amount of labor it takes to make clean water or electric
Re: (Score:2)
No they didn't. Prop makers, set designers, set builders, etc., are still plentiful and employed in the creative arts.
It was thought that CGI would replace everything, but many still use the traditions, using CGI when it's basically something that's impossible to do physically.
CGI has replaced some jobs - matte painting, for example, is no longer done using panes of glass mounted in front of the camera, that stuff is digitally edited out and replaced. The matte painters simply updated their tools to involve
Re: (Score:1)
We do know because "AI" tools have been used for a long while. They weren't LLMs, but rather other kinds of guessing tools. [espressive.com] There are a bunch of them regularly used in CG. That's why I scoff at the idea that this is a new problem, as it certainly is not, and this industry is responsible in large part for promoting the use of these tools.
I don't mock the actual problem, though. It's a real problem, it is just the same problem as every other automation problem. The scope has been creeping since the original e
Re: (Score:2)
CGI replaced people doing special effects. And no, special effects weren't always CGI.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they didn't. The VFX world is a wonderful example of how tech doesn't just magically replace something, but instead complements it. The best movies still use underlying quite detailed models as reference for the VFX team to build on their CGI. If the VFX looks really good, chances are there's a real element to them.
AI is just the next step. This isn't putting anyone out of business, it's just adjusting their workflow which may save on costs. This is quite important in an industry where one can file
Re: and fears that it will replace the work of hum (Score:2)
Computers replaced the model-makers and nobody gave a shit. Get used to it.
There is an interesting contradiction there. If "nobody gives a shit", then why do people have to "get used to it"? Try breathing exercises. Hug a tree now and then.
Inevitabot (Score:1)
NuffsedGPT
Reminds me the Light & Magic documentary... (Score:1)
Re: Effect-ive (Score:2)
But what if the director can get it from a bot by talking to it instead of a human?
Next it will replace Netflix (Score:2)
Publishers planning on using AI to write books 'in the style of' will also be short lived for the same reason.
It needs to replace the work of humans (Score:2)
All tools need to replace the work of humans. The nail gun replaced the work of hammering a nail, but it didn't eliminate the need for the builder. The industry very much uses AI as a tool, not replacing workers, but replacing the work they do so that those workers can do more in less time.
The VFX industry is full of incredibly tedious tasks. The number of time you see something without realising that someone hand edited it frame by frame will truly blow your mind. And yeah many people here may know the sto