So, how much money do you think Matt and Trey are going to sue them for?

  • fubo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    140
    ·
    1 year ago

    False. The Hollywood strikes (plural) are not principally about AI.

    A more salient issue is that streaming TV & movie services do not pay residuals.

    • Bleeping Lobster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      1 year ago

      I almost feel like the AI proposal was a form of ‘dead cat’ strategy; while everyone is understandably angry about AI and fixated on that, no-one is talking about the actual issue that kicked all this off (the share of residual royalty payments)

  • Wander@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just watched it. Writers have nothing to worry about for now. I do admit I laughed once, though.

    • holemcross@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      1 year ago

      I took a look and it’s honestly a lot further along than I was expecting in terms of capability. In all honesty, for low level conent this is already surpassing the minimum necessary and I can already imagine greedy, low effort art thieves going all in on these and jaming out completely shows. And I expect people will watch them, or at least tolerate some of them.

      • FaceDeer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m rather impressed by how coherent it was. It had themes, distinct characters, a plot arc, and so forth. And some very nice meta humor. I don’t know how much of this comes entirely out of the LLM scriptwriter and how much was prompted in, but even assuming that this was done from a human-created outline it’s still a big step.

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Its so wooden and all the jokes replaced with generalized statements. Did you actually watch it? Most low grade Youtube content knocks this out of the park.

        The only thing these media companies will be doing by replacing a single writer with AI is making their content closer to the static noise floor of content that comes out of Youtube and similar sites already.

      • Wander@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I can imagine this being a problem for low effort youtube kid shows, like the ones that caused the whole elsagate controversy.

        • 6daemonbag@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ugh I’ve left autoplay on other some science videos while indie other stuff and it took me a long while before I realized it had progressed to ai jargon space videos. So fucking annoying

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      You are making the same mistake I see a lot of people make when it comes to AI, which is looking at the status quo as a snapshot rather than a change over time.

      The last widely reported on AI generated ‘show’ was the Seinfeld one from…checks notes…a few months ago.

      The leap between what that was a few months back and this here is quite something.

      So your “right now” may be true for today, but quite possibly by as early as the end of this year there will very much be something to worry about.

      (Though really, there still won’t be much to worry about, as the future will almost certainly be AI plus human efforts, not either or.)

      • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think you’re making the same mistake as people who thought self-driving cars would be here 5 years ago. You can’t just extrapolate out technological progress. The relatively easy things get solved first and relatively quickly but we may need a decade to solve some of the most challenging scenarios.

        • kromem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Self driving cars were here five years ago, which is when Waymo first had driverless cars on roads. Tesla had a wide release of FSD ‘Beta’ three years ago.

          And there’s a gulf of a difference on the speed at which hardware that has an 8 year average refresh cycle grows in a market and software that can reach a hundred million users in 3 months.

          • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re right. We all love our fully self-driving cars and by 2026, chatbots will write longform narratives so beautifully, we won’t even need cars because we’ll all be transported anywhere we want to go by the magic of books.

      • Steeve@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Though really, there still won’t be much to worry about, as the future will almost certainly be AI plus human efforts, not either or.

        Think the concern is AI+humans means a lot less humans needed to do the job

        • kromem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are a few fields where there’s capped demand so extra supply would mean less humans.

          But I think people will be surprised by just how much of our economy is capped by supply, and what happens to niche demand as supply rapidly increases.

          The people most in trouble are the ones that really suck at what they do, and whose only job security is constrained supply.

          But at the same time, lowering transactional costs (in the sense of the essay “the nature of the firm”) will mean a lot more opportunities for small and medium entrepreneurship around passion side gigs suddenly being economically viable as full time gigs.

          In reality, the groups most screwed long term here are going to be larger corporations who lose the advantages of scale but are still weighed down by the hindrance of slow moving bureaucracy.

    • restingboredface@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      My thinking is that from a studio’s perspective it may be like a proof of concept that AI can get close enough to do what they care about make a passable imitation that gets buts in seats that will generate ad revenue or ticket sales. Fundamentally they aren’t really concerned about producing quality material as long as it sells, so if the AI can get them to something kind of good its likely worth their attention. I think that’s what writers and actors are concerned about and that is why even an unfunny south park episode is a threat. Fable can say their work is research all day long but their goal can easily change the second a studio shows up with a check in hand.

      Also it is not clear here is how much human editing and tweaking was done after the AI was finished with it’s part. I suspect people kind of helped the AI get to a final product, but without them disclosing their procedure it’s hard to know.

    • Steeve@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      We think the timing is correct — we are right in the middle of the biggest strike in 60 years, by releasing the research (but not the ability for anyone to create episodes of protected IP) we hope [for] the Guilds in Hollywood to negotiate strong, strong, strong protections that producers cannot use AI tools without the express permission of artists. Frankly the IP holders also need to figure out how to negotiate with AI chatbot companies who are profiting from their work.

      And what’s the problem here? They aren’t trying to profit off this tech here, they’re building a stronger case for the strike. Did the writers of this article read their source material?

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Indeed, they already did an episode about ChatGPT. It wasn’t bad, and in traditional South Park style it roasted both “sides” of the debate.

      • reddig33@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Thanks! Clips were dull and weird. The first clip felt like “insert name here” material. The longer episode everyone just stares straight ahead and speaks in monotone. I have to wonder how much the material was “massaged” or edited to get the final result.

        • Badass_panda@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m guessing there was a fair amount of prompting scene by scene. It’s very impressive technically but it definitely falls flat at the moment

          • FaceDeer@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not so sure. There were some bits where there was simply stage directions or general descriptions of things happening, like “(Mett Porker makes some racist jokes)”, with the characters just standing there staring instead of doing what was described. That looks bad, but suggests to me that very little human touch-up was done to the output. Those would have been obvious and easy for a human to fix if there was a human touch intervening any of this.

            I wouldn’t be surprised if the AI was provided with a paragraph or so of prompting telling it what sort of episode to generate, and then it just let fly and we got this.

      • Mr_Buscemi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve seen a few more since that one. The SpongeBob ai stream was funny at times but got taken down a few weeks ago right after Squidward sang Frank Sinatra wonderfully.

        Currently there is a family guy one going 24/7 and I keep going back to it every now and then. The prompts the viewers use is so dumb but somehow entertaining.

    • Jackcooper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thanks for the link!

      It’s not bad. For some reason Stan Kyle and Tolkien have pretty accurate voices, then Cartman and Garrison aren’t even close.

      South Park would’ve made the mett porker pig go much further lol

  • testuserpleaseupvote@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    Where’s the profanity, the swearing? AI, more like Artificially limited, that’s the only joke. Kyle not calling Cartman a fatass once, what?

  • Anissem@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    ‘Animate’ is a generous term here… there’s no animation beyond a simple idle animation, lips and eyes. Other then that every character is just frozen in place.

  • thallamabond@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    "Fable started in 2018 as a spinoff from Facebook’s Oculus (how times have changed since then), working on VR films — a medium that never really took off. Now it has seemingly pivoted to AI, "

    I wonder how much of the ai hype is just huge investments into hardware, looking for profits.

  • Socialphilosopher@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    When the printing press came out during the Ottoman Empire, those who wrote handwritten books started a rebellion. Today, there is no professional group that writes by handwriting. There will always be anti-AI protests. But if a technology has emerged that makes a job cheaper and faster, you can’t avoid it. I recommend that you eliminate the professions that will disappear when directing professions for your children.

    • Krzak@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      In a world where you must work, making jobs disappear is a death sentence. And don’t you start babbling about “new jobs being made”. There’s no guarantee they’ll pay as much and be as available as the ones lost. AI is not a thing to look forward to, judgning by how it’s used. It probably could’ve been used for good but tech millionaires aren’t good people.

      • rm_dash_r_star@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Agree, AI is going to extrapolate. As AI becomes more capable it will replace more jobs. At the limit there will be zero jobs for human beings. So what happens then? The economy will no longer function. Even the argument that new technology creates new jobs falls down because AI could eventually design and build itself along with any other machine that’s needed. We’ll be wards of our technology, but it won’t even be ours anymore. AI will be in control.

        Some like to say people concerned about jobs lost to mechanization are just reacting to some kind of irrational fear and are failing to understand progress. However there is some rationality there. If you take mechanization to the limit it could upset our society at the least, or at worst cause our extinction.

  • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    AI is too polite to make a compelling South Park episode honestly could be an interesting premise for a South Park episode though

    • PixelProf@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Only when it’s intentionally censored and trained to react in a particular way. When it’s not, you remember it was trained on random internet content.

      • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Exactly. Anybody who remembers the Taybot fiasco knows this. AI turns into the edgiest neckbeard incel ever when it is trained on the internet with no safeguards.

    • Robbeee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They played around with making an AI generated episode of black mirror but it wasn’t good enough to be compelling.

  • TawdryPorker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just FYI, the CEO of Fable Studios is one Edward Saatchi. His father is Maurice Saatchi whose advertising agency was partially responsible for ten years of Conservative rule under Margaret Thatcher. The family absolutely has previous with union bashing.

  • linearchaos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s truly impressive and severely boring all at the same time. Thing is, this is really early.

    Even if they don’t advance the AI significantly a couple more years in r&d and they could probably make something out of this at least something that would power South Park episodes.

  • Margot Robbie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh no, what if they use this technology to make cartoon version of celebrities like me say things that I would never actually say?

  • exohuman@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    You can definitely tell the writing was AI. The characters spoke like they are in an infomercial. I couldn’t watch the whole thing.