| ▲ | The Oscars just banned AI from winning acting and writing awards(gizmodo.com) |
| 54 points by ZeidJ 2 hours ago | 33 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | Papazsazsa 40 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| Good. The intangibles of art are undeniable. - emotional connection - aesthetics - zeitgeist - lived experience - artist journey You're free to fall in love with your sexbot, but it's still just jerking off. |
| |
| ▲ | _alternator_ 29 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | And what is falling in love with an actor? Not jerking off? | |
| ▲ | ejje 34 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Shhh you’re going to upset a lot of people on here who are depressed and want others to feel like them! | | |
|
|
| ▲ | jedberg 44 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Given the latest court ruling in March that AI works can't be copyrighted, this makes a lot of sense. The movie itself can't be copyrighted if it uses AI (although there is still some unresolved issues around how much AI). |
| |
| ▲ | chungusamongus 39 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Hah, no. Just because AI was employed in the production to some extent doesn't mean it can't be copyrighted. It is not so black and white. You are not describing the situation accurately. | | |
| ▲ | jedberg 21 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I literally said: "although there is still some unresolved issues around how much AI" Which is really the crux of the issue. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | 0x3f an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | happytoexplain an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | chungusamongus 36 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | There is absolutely no fallacy in the statement you're responding to. Laws are meaningless if they cannot be consistently enforced. | | |
| ▲ | AndrewDucker 25 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Actually, laws can be really effective even if they are only enforced intermittently. | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 14 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I'm not sure how true this is. If you consider low-stakes crimes, typically to get to a steady state of effectiveness you need at least some sort of bootstrapped period of ubiquitous enforcement. If that's impossible then I'm not sure you ever get to effectiveness. If we're talking high-stakes, death-penalty-lottery-if-you-break-the-rules type stuff, then I think actually detection rate (i.e. consistent enforcement) is the biggest predictor of reduced rates, not severity of punishment. |
| |
| ▲ | happytoexplain 23 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | That just doesn't follow. |
| |
| ▲ | 0x3f 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 4 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
| |
| ▲ | sebastiennight 28 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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 2 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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? |
| |
| ▲ | frollogaston an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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 36 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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? |
| |
| ▲ | userbinator an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | NicuCalcea an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | You can't definitively tell if athletes are doping, or students are cheating, it should then be allowed. | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 40 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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 2 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | spankibalt an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Obvious decision for any institution with at least a modicum of artistic self-respect. |
| |
| ▲ | jmp1062 43 minutes ago | parent [-] | | agreed, as AI is more widely adopted in cinematography i assume they will start adding categories specifically for it... hate the idea of them ever competing directly against actual humans performing | | |
| ▲ | dylan604 32 minutes ago | parent [-] | | They already have categories for animation and post visual effects. They just don't necessarily show those awards during the broadcast |
|
|
|
| ▲ | jedimastert an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I would be surprised if it weren't already de facto banned, like how motion capture performances are essentially banned from Best Actor/Actress awards |
| |
| ▲ | _aavaa_ an hour ago | parent [-] | | Why should motion capture be banned from those awards? | | |
| ▲ | jedimastert an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I didn't say should, I said are. The rationale (which, again, I'm not arguing for or against) is that mocap performances are not strictly speaking totally the actors, because mocap has to be cleaned and can be (and very often is) edited and tweaked after the fact by animators. Not to mention there are often required liberties taken because a model cannot line up one to one with an actor anatomically. In a sense, mocap performances are done by a team of animators where one animator puppeted a model in real time. | |
| ▲ | chuckadams an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't know, but Andy Serkis was robbed of a Best Supporting Actor nomination because Gollum was regarded as "just a CG Character". | | |
| ▲ | guitarlimeo an hour ago | parent [-] | | Half of Andy Serkis' job portraying Gollum was done by animators, even though Serkis provided the basic facial expressions. I would've given him the best voice acting award though. | | |
| ▲ | chuckadams an hour ago | parent [-] | | Every last motion Gollum makes was Serkis doing it, including when he's jumping up on rocks and climbing down head-first. The animators certainly deserve credit for the facial expressions and the rest of the work of the digital costume, but he physically acted the part. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | ekjhgkejhgk 35 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Remember when they tried to ban computers from winning best special effects? Tron, famously. |
