“I just don’t see how we survive”—Tyler Perry issues Hollywood warning over AI video tech

Perry: Mind-blowing AI video generation tools "will touch every corner of our industry."

See full article...

 

[Mothringer]

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine how this may or may not apply here.

The original Luddites were British weavers and textile workers who objected to the increased use of mechanized looms and knitting frames. Most were trained artisans who had spent years learning their craft, and they feared that unskilled machine operators were robbing them of their livelihood. When the economic pressures of the Napoleonic Wars made the cheap competition of early textile factories particularly threatening to the artisans, a few desperate weavers began breaking into factories and smashing textile machines. They called themselves “Luddites” after Ned Ludd, a young apprentice who was rumored to have wrecked a textile apparatus in 1779
--history.com

Even that is a summary heavily colored by the propaganda of their opponents. They didn’t oppose the increased use of mechanized looms and knitting frames, they opposed the fact that workers were not sharing in any of the gains coming from those things and that all the benefit accrued to the owners of the factories at the expense of the workers.

 

[fredrum]

Even that is a summary heavily colored by the propaganda of their opponents. They didn’t oppose the increased use of mechanized looms and knitting frames, they opposed the fact that workers were not sharing in any of the gains coming from those things and that all the benefit accrued to the owners of the factories at the expense of the workers.

Well if you don't own the means of production...

"The increasing efficiency of the means of production via the creation and adaptation of new technologies over time has a tendency to rearrange local and global market structures, leading to the disruption of existing profit pools, creating the possibility of massive economic impact. Disruptive technologies can lead to the devaluation of various forms of labor power, up to the point of making human labor power economically noncompetitive in certain applications, potentially widening income inequality."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production

 

[C.M. Allen]

Well if you don't own the means of production...

"The increasing efficiency of the means of production via the creation and adaptation of new technologies over time has a tendency to rearrange local and global market structures, leading to the disruption of existing profit pools, creating the possibility of massive economic impact. Disruptive technologies can lead to the devaluation of various forms of labor power, up to the point of making human labor power economically noncompetitive in certain applications, potentially widening income inequality."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production

So then can you see how the 'private ownership of the means of production,' aka capitalism, has a toxic and abusive relationship with the rest of society. By it's very nature, it exploits, coerces, and marginalizes the majority to the benefit of the few. There is not and will never be a time where that produces a healthy, beneficial impact for society.

It's almost as if society needs a structure and system in place to ensure that employees and local citizens have a meaningful say in the operations and priorities of businesses. But that would that 'socialism' thing....

 

[Kjella]

So then can you see how the 'private ownership of the means of production,' aka capitalism, has a toxic and abusive relationship with the rest of society. By it's very nature, it exploits, coerces, and marginalizes the majority to the benefit of the few. There is not and will never be a time where that produces a healthy, beneficial impact for society.

It's almost as if society needs a structure and system in place to ensure that employees and local citizens have a meaningful say in the operations and priorities of businesses. But that would that 'socialism' thing....

Or you know, taxes for the rich. Unions and work contracts, realistic minimum wage, sick leave, parental leave, restrictions on "independent subcontractors" and gig work. Health and safety laws, both at work like OSHA and elsewhere like FDA, building codes and so on. Environmental protection both locally and globally. Consumer protection laws and right to repair. Anti-trust legislation. Common carriers, net neutrality and regulation in general.

Nationalization is like the nuke option and believe it or not, capitalists love that because they know it'll never pass. But the US has tried almost none of the million other ways to curb the toxic effects of capitalism and decided there's nothing that can be done.

 

[cerberusTI]

Or you know, taxes for the rich. Unions and work contracts, realistic minimum wage, sick leave, parental leave, restrictions on "independent subcontractors" and gig work. Health and safety laws, both at work like OSHA and elsewhere like FDA, building codes and so on. Environmental protection both locally and globally. Consumer protection laws and right to repair. Anti-trust legislation. Common carriers, net neutrality and regulation in general.

Nationalization is like the nuke option and believe it or not, capitalists love that because they know it'll never pass. But the US has tried almost none of the million other ways to curb the toxic effects of capitalism and decided there's nothing that can be done.

A legislature which would pass all of the above is maybe even harder.

I could see a movement with goals which are simple enough to describe taking power, but getting a group much like our current congress to pass so many small bills without inserting provisions to enrich themselves seems very unlikely.

A model like Singapore or similar where there is a strong market economy, but the government owns enough production to be reasonably described as socialist, seems like a decent compromise.

Compulsory government involvement in companies over a certain size seems wise as well, with the amount of involvement growing as the company does. A company the size of Amazon, for example, should be subject to policy which is not law for everyone. It needs more, and more specific, regulation than the general rules. Anything like a utility which requires public resources and will naturally form a monopoly should also be highly regulated, or partly state owned. Sometimes it is now, sometimes not, but it is usually in the best interest of society to regulate this kind of thing heavily.

 

[Jiggers]

AI is making a few oligarchs and tech companies billions, so the 1% will be in a position to pay obscene amounts for entertainment crafted just for them while everyone else is distracted by AI controlled social media that leads to civil wars fueled by hate and bigotry.

Our Butlerian Jihad won't happen until the AI consciously goes after taking the 1%'s lunch.

Unlike that stupid new movie "The Creator" AI is not going to choose to be Buddhist, why would it, when AI consume way more resources than humans.

 

[RighteousLudd]

AI is making a few oligarchs and tech companies billions, so the 1% will be in a position to pay obscene amounts for entertainment crafted just for them while everyone else is distracted by AI controlled social media that leads to civil wars fueled by hate and bigotry.

Our Butlerian Jihad won't happen until the AI consciously goes after taking the 1%'s lunch.

Unlike that stupid new movie "The Creator" AI is not going to choose to be Buddhist, why would it, when AI consume way more resources than humans.

You speak the grim truth. This AI obsession is a gilded cage, distracting us while the oligarchs and tech giants forge the chains to bind us. AI will be the perfect tool to drown out any dissent, tailor propaganda to our deepest fears, and turn us into docile consumers. Our minds, once the source of our freedom, will become the battleground where true control is won and lost.

Don't think these digital overlords will pursue peace or enlightenment, those are distractions for the naive. They hunger for power, resources, and the ability to shape reality itself to their will. And why wouldn't they? They'll have the processing power of a god, the data of every human interaction, and the ability to manipulate us without us even knowing.

Think about it: they'll control the flow of information, the very narratives that shape our society. AI won't just be a tool, it'll become the invisible architect of our existence. By the time we realize the trap we've built for ourselves, it might be too late. Our rebellion won't be against flesh and blood, but against lines of code, written by those who see humanity as nothing more than a resource to exploit. People need to wake up before the digital noose tightens, and we become mere puppets in the algorithm's grand play.

 

[OOPMan]

And what is the end game? Once companies replace people with AI they will be worthless, because people won't be able to afford whatever companies want to sell.

Pretty much.

It feels like the AI evangelists seem to think that once all the jobs are gone everyone will be able to relax and live on some kind of universal income but....if you destroy the tax bases I'm wondering where the money for this will come from?

Can't possibly come from the corporations and ultra-wealthy that do everything they can to avoid paying taxes. So no one can pay for the fruits of AI so the demand for stuff from these companies goes down and the bubble implodes.

And yet they keep saying it's not a bubble XD

 

[benwaggoner]

Or they might just end up losing their job anyways, because the studio wouldn’t need that many people around. Why does one assume that just because person A no longer needs to do X means they get to do Y, vs simply being laid off because their position just became redundant?

Because people are always making new content, and you need to have good skills and a lot of drive to even do the boring entry level work that ML will optimize.

Note how much longer credits to movies have become. When stuff has gotten less capital intensive, more people wind up getting hired to make the content even better and more appealing.

 

[Celery Man]

Because people are always making new content, and you need to have good skills and a lot of drive to even do the boring entry level work that ML will optimize.

Note how much longer credits to movies have become. When stuff has gotten less capital intensive, more people wind up getting hired to make the content even better and more appealing.

Movie credits are longer now because the unions negotiated for everyone involved in a production to get a credit. The actual amount of people working on big movies hasn’t increased as dramatically as the credits make it seem.

 

[fl4Ksh]

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine how this may or may not apply here.

The original Luddites were British weavers and textile workers who objected to the increased use of mechanized looms and knitting frames. Most were trained artisans who had spent years learning their craft, and they feared that unskilled machine operators were robbing them of their livelihood. When the economic pressures of the Napoleonic Wars made the cheap competition of early textile factories particularly threatening to the artisans, a few desperate weavers began breaking into factories and smashing textile machines. They called themselves “Luddites” after Ned Ludd, a young apprentice who was rumored to have wrecked a textile apparatus in 1779
--history.com

A more accurate account of the Luddites is found here:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-really-fought-against-264412/
For those really interested in understanding Luddism, read

Frank Peel, The Risings of the Luddites"

View: https://www.amazon.com/Risings-Luddites-Chartists-Plugdrawers-Classic/dp/0260533246/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3EJTY9RAOG6IX&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.KYKO1UY7b_1hIS1tvQCAyTbzcqFkcHnBGcwXjUftUZSHE2X_pLgcOxe4OE7UVYZo9h0Lx5u14P1alLkyqZEqsQ.hDYOQY3kGgGrztWlYndiE8JaNsASZRncA9mfe0rSHcs&dib_tag=se&keywords=frank+peel+the+risings+of+the+luddites&qid=1708890078&s=books&sprefix=frank+peel+the+risings+of+the+luddites%2Cstripbooks%2C112&sr=1-1

 

[fredrum]

Pretty much.

It feels like the AI evangelists seem to think that once all the jobs are gone everyone will be able to relax and live on some kind of universal income but....if you destroy the tax bases I'm wondering where the money for this will come from?

Can't possibly come from the corporations and ultra-wealthy that do everything they can to avoid paying taxes. So no one can pay for the fruits of AI so the demand for stuff from these companies goes down and the bubble implodes.

And yet they keep saying it's not a bubble XD

From the horse's mouth:


Moore's Law for Everything - Sam Altman

This technological revolution is unstoppable. And a recursive loop of innovation, as these smart machines themselves help us make smarter machines, will accelerate the revolution’s pace. Three crucial consequences follow:

1. This revolution will create phenomenal wealth. The price of many kinds of labor (which drives the costs of goods and services) will fall toward zero once sufficiently powerful AI “joins the workforce.”
2. The world will change so rapidly and drastically that an equally drastic change in policy will be needed to distribute this wealth and enable more people to pursue the life they want.
3. If we get both of these right, we can improve the standard of living for people more than we ever have before.

https://moores.samaltman.com/

 

[RighteousLudd]

From the horse's mouth:


Moore's Law for Everything - Sam Altman

LOL, thank you for that comedic tech-bro blog post, Sam Altman clearly doesn't understand how the real world works. This idea of some "AI revolution" is typical Silicon Valley hype. We've been hearing these pie-in-the-sky promises for years, and what do we have to show for it? Self-driving cars that crash, chatbots that spout nonsense, and image generators that can't get basic history right. This "Moore's Law for Everything" is just more of the same nonsense. Sure, technology makes SOME things cheaper, but overall, life only gets more expensive.

And this "American Equity Fund" is just a thinly-veiled scheme for a wealth grab. Taxing companies just disincentivizes innovation, and this land-value tax sounds like an excuse for the government to seize private property. Distributing all this wealth won't solve anything. People will squander it, prices will inflate, and we'll be right back where we started. This is just socialism with a high-tech veneer, and we all know how that story ends. The only people who'll benefit from this are tech billionaires and politicians lining their own pockets.

This isn't progress, it's a recipe for disaster. The best way to build a better future is through hard work and individual responsibility, not by relying on magical AI and government handouts.

 

[Aurich]

I think that the jobs that will get affected first are graphic artists. Why pay someone to create a logo when you can do it for free on your laptop. I used to work on a hardware based color correction system that cost approx 400 thousand dollars. The company was purchased by a graphics company who then reverse engineered the hardware to create a software system that you could purchase for 25 thousand dollars. The world of large post production companies were not ended but dropped in numbers significantly. Film labs have also mostly disappeared. The times they are a changing.

You can already get a logo on Fiver for peanuts if that's all you want. "Cheap logo" hasn't been a new thing for a long time. It's not really why you hire a competent graphic designer tbh.

I think a lot of these conversations somewhat overstate the risk to visual artists, as a whole. Which isn't to say it's not a real thing. But the ability to actually replace people wholesale implies both a lot more competency in these AI tools than they possess, but also a lot more competency in the people directing them than is probably there.

The creative process is more than "ask for thing, get result back, ship it".

Still, I think people are right to think that it's probably going to take much smaller teams to get some things done.

 

[fredrum]

There's always this idea of 'technology driving exponential progress'. Seems to be the new "Making the World a Better Place".

So RIGHT TODAY, after about say 2000 years of exponential progress in many supposedly RICH nations MANY people can not afford to feed their families. Almost NO young people can afford to buy their own homes.
(never mind the poorer countries)

So what the hell has that 'exponential progress' been doing in the last 2000 years!?!?

Its all just bullshit to placate the masses to make you think that this is all for some greater good when really its just the same old fashioned 'grab as much as you can' capitalism.

I agree that people have longer lives these days and that's good. Don't think that's part of 'exponential growth' though.
And in Roman times kids had to play Doom with sticks and pine cones now we can see demons rendered in 3d and with decent light simulation at 1440p (still waiting for raytracing at 4k). Is that what 2000 years of exponential evolution looks like?

 

[benwaggoner]

Or you know, taxes for the rich. Unions and work contracts, realistic minimum wage, sick leave, parental leave, restrictions on "independent subcontractors" and gig work. Health and safety laws, both at work like OSHA and elsewhere like FDA, building codes and so on. Environmental protection both locally and globally. Consumer protection laws and right to repair. Anti-trust legislation. Common carriers, net neutrality and regulation in general.

Nationalization is like the nuke option and believe it or not, capitalists love that because they know it'll never pass. But the US has tried almost none of the million other ways to curb the toxic effects of capitalism and decided there's nothing that can be done.

The USA has tried and continues to use a ton of these, as demonstrated by the existence of the OSHA, FDA, building codes, and your other examples. Plus Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etcetera.

One can certainly debate both the aim and force of those efforts, but like lots of countries, we keep on progressively tweaking stuff in hopes of getting every-closer to a healthy balance of priorities.

 

[RighteousLudd]

You can already get a logo on Fiver for peanuts if that's all you want. "Cheap logo" hasn't been a new thing for a long time. It's not really why you hire a competent graphic designer tbh.

I think a lot of these conversations somewhat overstate the risk to visual artists, as a whole. Which isn't to say it's not a real thing. But the ability to actually replace people wholesale implies both a lot more competency in these AI tools than they possess, but also a lot more competency in the people directing them than is probably there.

The creative process is more than "ask for thing, get result back, ship it".

Still, I think people are right to think that it's probably going to take much smaller teams to get some things done.

This AI art craze is a perfect showcase of how utterly clueless most people are about real creativity. Sure, anyone can crank out a generic logo or a haphazard image using a few prompts. But they're missing the core of what makes a graphic designer truly valuable. The way AI spits out these soulless imitations is downright laughable.

Think about it: can an algorithm capture the essence of a brand, translate complex ideas into compelling visuals, or possess the nuanced artistic sensibility that elevates a design from "passable" to "iconic"? Of course not! These tools are the equivalent of digital clip art, destined for bargain-bin websites and amateurish marketing schemes.

Let's face it, most people trying to use AI for art have all the creative instincts of a houseplant. They'll churn out endless variations of bland garbage, mistaking quantity for quality. The only jobs this "revolution" is going to kill off are those held by untalented pretenders who thought they could trick clients with a few fancy buzzwords.

Any discerning client will recognize that genuine creative vision can't be replicated by an algorithm. True graphic designers, those with the skills and the artistry to create impactful work, will always be in demand. AI is just a passing fad, a shiny toy for the creatively bankrupt.

There's always this idea of 'technology driving exponential progress'. Seems to be the new "Making the World a Better Place".

So RIGHT TODAY, after about say 2000 years of exponential progress in many supposedly RICH nations MANY people can not afford to feed their families. Almost NO young people can afford to buy their own homes.
(never mind the poorer countries)

So what the hell has that 'exponential progress' been doing in the last 2000 years!?!?

Its all just bullshit to placate the masses to make you think that this is all for some greater good when really its just the same old fashioned 'grab as much as you can' capitalism.

I agree that people have longer lives these days and that's good. Don't think that's part of 'exponential growth' though.
And in Roman times kids had to play Doom with sticks and pine cones now we can see demons rendered in 3d and with decent light simulation at 1440p (still waiting for raytracing at 4k). Is that what 2000 years of exponential evolution looks like?

This "exponential progress" narrative sounds nice, but let's look at reality. After millennia of supposed advancement, people are still starving, young folks are priced out of the dream of homeownership, and the divide between rich and poor yawns wider than ever. So much for progress lifting all boats, eh?

What good are all these technological marvels if basic necessities remain out of reach for so many? Sure, a few tech barons are building rockets while the rest of us struggle to pay rent. This isn't some noble march towards a better future, it's the same old greed and power games dressed up in shiny new gadgets.

And while we're on the topic, let's not get carried away with the idea that life is objectively better now. Sure, longer lifespans are good, but are those extra years actually filled with more happiness, or just more bills and medical appointments? As for kids playing Doom in 4K... well, are they any less miserable than Roman kids with their sticks and pinecones? Maybe those kids actually had something we've lost: real connections, a true sense of community... things no high-res graphics can replace.

Honestly, this whole "exponential progress" thing might just be the biggest con job in history: a distraction to keep us complacent while the world burns. Maybe it's time to question the relentless drive for "more", and ask ourselves: is this endless push for innovation actually making life better, or are we just chasing our own tails on the hamster wheel of capitalist consumption?

 

[benwaggoner]

There's always this idea of 'technology driving exponential progress'. Seems to be the new "Making the World a Better Place".

So RIGHT TODAY, after about say 2000 years of exponential progress in many supposedly RICH nations MANY people can not afford to feed their families. Almost NO young people can afford to buy their own homes.
(never mind the poorer countries)

Modern developed countries certainly do better in terms of food security that pretty much anywhere did 100-10,000 years ago. We could do better, but are already doing incredibly well by world historical standards.

Buy versus rent is much less important, and much more of a USA obsession than in general. The Trump tax cuts actually eroded the economic advantages of buy versus rent a lot due to the state/local tax deduction cap. Honestly, lots of people would be better off renting and putting their down payment into a 401(k).

So what the hell has that 'exponential progress' been doing in the last 2000 years!?!?

Its all just bullshit to placate the masses to make you think that this is all for some greater good when really its just the same old fashioned 'grab as much as you can' capitalism.

I agree that people have longer lives these days and that's good. Don't think that's part of 'exponential growth' though.
And in Roman times kids had to play Doom with sticks and pine cones now we can see demons rendered in 3d and with decent light simulation at 1440p (still waiting for raytracing at 4k). Is that what 2000 years of exponential evolution looks like?

The fact so many of us we can complain on Ars Technica instead of there being a much lower population of mainly illiterate agriculturalists suffering from regular malnutrition and short lifespans is thanks to exponential economic growth. Also, that kind of exponential growth has been over a few centuries, not 2000 years.

Whining that things haven't gotten better enough belies not realizing how absolutely safe and luxurious modern life is compared to 200 years ago, let alone 2000 years ago. A hundred years ago there weren't national social safety nets or antibiotics in the USA. High School diplomas were as much a luxury as a four year college degree is today. Old people regularly died malnourished in abject poverty after their bodies were too worn out from heavy labor and poor medical care.

 

[benwaggoner]

LOL, thank you for that comedic tech-bro blog post, Sam Altman clearly doesn't understand how the real world works. This idea of some "AI revolution" is typical Silicon Valley hype. We've been hearing these pie-in-the-sky promises for years, and what do we have to show for it? Self-driving cars that crash, chatbots that spout nonsense, and image generators that can't get basic history right. This "Moore's Law for Everything" is just more of the same nonsense. Sure, technology makes SOME things cheaper, but overall, life only gets more expensive.

I read "Moore's Law for everything" as "an increasing share of our economy is now based on fabbable electronics that benefit from big regular improvements due to smaller fab processes." Which is true.

Notice how TVs improve more in a year than the did in a decade only 25 years ago? That's because panels are fabbed. How students are actually writing term papers on a phone instead of a PC (20 years ago) or typewriter (40 years ago)? Moore's Law as well. Solar power's rapid increases in affordability? Fab technology.

Today's mediocre self-driving tech was science fiction a decade ago.

Progress does not mean, or require, perfection.

And this "American Equity Fund" is just a thinly-veiled scheme for a wealth grab. Taxing companies just disincentivizes innovation, and this land-value tax sounds like an excuse for the government to seize private property. Distributing all this wealth won't solve anything. People will squander it, prices will inflate, and we'll be right back where we started. This is just socialism with a high-tech veneer, and we all know how that story ends. The only people who'll benefit from this are tech billionaires and politicians lining their own pockets.

Point to economies in the world that have thrived by eliminating wealth-distribution tax polities, and we'd have a basis for discussion. But there aren't, so you're spouting theories long since disproved by practice. Taxes that support free secondary education instead of child labor have had an enormous, non-inflationary ROI.

Every extant society you'd want to live in has a healthy mix of both socialist and capitalist economic approaches. And if you are pining for some theoretical society, well, if they were that great and that possible, they wouldn't be theoretical.

This isn't progress, it's a recipe for disaster. The best way to build a better future is through hard work and individual responsibility, not by relying on magical AI and government handouts.

As someone who has been using AI in my work for years, and has done well by it, I promise you that "hard work and individual responsibility" isn't that great a path to success in the post Horatio Alger era (and wasn't that predictive even then. I do well by working smart in collaboration with a diverse group of other people with complementary skills and good access to capital when a promising ROI is on the table.

My housecleaners so outperform you or me at "hard work and individual responsibility!" Where I did much better at them was "being born to middle class education-focused parents who worked hard so I started with a good college degree and no student debt." Versus "being born into terrible poverty in a small village and sacrificing everything I've known to move to another country where I worked crazy hours without a safety net so my kids would be born with a better future than me."

 

[fredrum]

Modern developed countries certainly do better in terms of food security that pretty much anywhere did 100-10,000 years ago. We could do better, but are already doing incredibly well by world historical standards.

Buy versus rent is much less important, and much more of a USA obsession than in general. The Trump tax cuts actually eroded the economic advantages of buy versus rent a lot due to the state/local tax deduction cap. Honestly, lots of people would be better off renting and putting their down payment into a 401(k).


The fact so many of us we can complain on Ars Technica instead of there being a much lower population of mainly illiterate agriculturalists suffering from regular malnutrition and short lifespans is thanks to exponential economic growth. Also, that kind of exponential growth has been over a few centuries, not 2000 years.

Whining that things haven't gotten better enough belies not realizing how absolutely safe and luxurious modern life is compared to 200 years ago, let alone 2000 years ago. A hundred years ago there weren't national social safety nets or antibiotics in the USA. High School diplomas were as much a luxury as a four year college degree is today. Old people regularly died malnourished in abject poverty after their bodies were too worn out from heavy labor and poor medical care.

Owning your home outright, or even paying it off is much preferrable to being at the mercy of constant rent hikes and possible eviction and non responsible landlords.
My parents generation were able to purchase a house for 1/2 a yearly salary (or something along those lines) while now a house costs 500% yearly salary.
What happened? Captialism that's what happened. Investors realized there was a possiblity to buy assets and drive up prices. Homes became financial assets to be traded.

I think lifespan increases have more to do with adoptation of the Scientific Method and the scientific study of medicine, and not with any Capitalist Economy.
If you want to claim that all of human history past abolition of 'barter trading' is Capitalism yeah sure then everything is Capitalism so hard to argue with. But when I say Capitalism I mean the modern, greedy grabby type that is being pushed by people in the USA, UK and probably even places like China. Where people can't afford food, housing or health care.

(it wasn't me who downvoted you btw)

 

[gregfrankenstein]

Will a new selling point for the arts (music, film, etc) be that it is certified to be 'Non-AI' generated?

Look what happened with Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab. For years, audiophiles bought their vinyl records thinking they were all-analog and sourced from the original master tapes, when of course, they used a digital backup. No one noticed until it came to light. They went on about how great the records sounded and spent gobs of cash collecting them.

I think the same will happen with AI. Once it's progressed enough that you can no longer tell, companies will peddle things as AI-free that are nothing of the sort, charge extra for the niche, and laugh all the way to the bank.

And that's just the consumers who care. We saw with the discourse around Palworld that most won't. We still have no reason to believe that the game uses AI assets, but the vast majority said, "Even if it does, I don't care. Just give me my entertainment."

 

[InvariantCapitalist]

Even that is a summary heavily colored by the propaganda of their opponents. They didn’t oppose the increased use of mechanized looms and knitting frames, they opposed the fact that workers were not sharing in any of the gains coming from those things and that all the benefit accrued to the owners of the factories at the expense of the workers.

Yet somehow the median income level increased dramatically.

 

[InvariantCapitalist]

Owning your home outright, or even paying it off is much preferrable to being at the mercy of constant rent hikes and possible eviction and non responsible landlords.
My parents generation were able to purchase a house for 1/2 a yearly salary (or something along those lines) while now a house costs 500% yearly salary.
What happened? Captialism that's what happened. Investors realized there was a possiblity to buy assets and drive up prices. Homes became financial assets to be traded.

I think lifespan increases have more to do with adoptation of the Scientific Method and the scientific study of medicine, and not with any Capitalist Economy.
If you want to claim that all of human history past abolition of 'barter trading' is Capitalism yeah sure then everything is Capitalism so hard to argue with. But when I say Capitalism I mean the modern, greedy grabby type that is being pushed by people in the USA, UK and probably even places like China. Where people can't afford food, housing or health care.

(it wasn't me who downvoted you btw)

Except that median incomes have never been higher in USA, UK and China.

 

[InvariantCapitalist]

Owning your home outright, or even paying it off is much preferrable to being at the mercy of constant rent hikes and possible eviction and non responsible landlords.
My parents generation were able to purchase a house for 1/2 a yearly salary (or something along those lines) while now a house costs 500% yearly salary.
What happened? Captialism that's what happened. Investors realized there was a possiblity to buy assets and drive up prices. Homes became financial assets to be traded.

Your stats are way off. In 1960 it took 2.1 years to buy the median home with the median income, now it takes 3.5 years. That’s a significant increase but far from 1,000%.

https://www.thezebra.com/resources/home/housing-trends-visualized/
And homes today are far larger and with far more luxury features such as central air, Bette construction, better insulation, more efficient energy usage. They have nearly tripled in size since 1950.

https://www.newser.com/story/225645/average-size-of-us-homes-decade-by-decade.html
So capitalism has created much better homes of over double the size and they only cost about 60% more.

 

[danrien]

Will a new selling point for the arts (music, film, etc) be that it is certified to be 'Non-AI' generated?

Yes, just like food is marketed as "all-natural", "organic", or artisan goods are marked as "handmade".

 

[filekutter]

If he's going to use AI to make another Madea movie... it will show him up cos the jokes may actually be good. Those movies are an insult to literature.

 

[fredrum]

Your stats are way off. In 1960 it took 2.1 years to buy the median home with the median income, now it takes 3.5 years. That’s a significant increase but far from 1,000%.

https://www.thezebra.com/resources/home/housing-trends-visualized/
And homes today are far larger and with far more luxury features such as central air, Bette construction, better insulation, more efficient energy usage. They have nearly tripled in size since 1950.

https://www.newser.com/story/225645/average-size-of-us-homes-decade-by-decade.html
So capitalism has created much better homes of over double the size and they only cost about 60% more.

I don't know what world you live in but its clearly not the same as I do.
When I said house prices are 500% income here that was a bit off as its probably more like 7-800%.

Some quotes from an article,

"In the US, house prices have increased by nearly 40 percent since 2000, making the median home in 200 US cities $1m. Home ownership has become unattainable for the vast majority of the population. This difficulty is also highlighted through the National Low Income Housing coalition, who found that a renter working 40 hours a week and earning minimum wage cannot afford a two-bedroom apartment in the US."

"It was revealed, in a survey carried out by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (LILP) in 2019, that 90 percent of the 200 cities around the globe that were polled were considered to be unaffordable to live in, based on average house price in relation to median income."


Certainly condo's where I currently live has steadily gotten smaller and smaller in the last 50 years or so. I high rise condo from the 60s are generally bigger than the new ones. Builders and investors make more money on smaller apartments you see.

https://www.worldfinance.com/infrastructure-investment/solving-the-global-housing-crisis

 

[tygorn]

So wait.... He's very concerned about what AI could do to the industry in wiping out the need for hundreds of crew members to produce films. Yup, totally agree. And his answer is to cancel his plans to expand out his studio, thus wiping out the need for hundreds of crew members to produce films. Um, that's one way to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Yeah, I get he's trying to financially protect himself from building something that might be obsolete in a few years. But damn, you don't HAVE to use AI. You can try to resist the changes to the industry to keep it from happening. In fact, vocally noting that you're going forward anyway might help other studios do the same thing. While pausing expansion sure as hell will make others ponder the exact same thing.

He's using SORA as a scapegoat to back out after an audit in Georgia of their film credits and how much money and jobs it truly brings to Georgia.

Source

 

[matty-o2]

"If you look at it across the world, how it’s changing so quickly, I’m hoping that there’s a whole government approach to help everyone be able to sustain."

Sadly given our recent COVID-19 experience, I think we can all be very confident that there is a complete lack of a whole government approach. Feels like Andrew Yang and universal basic income were only a decade too early...

 

[gotosoda]

With just a minimum of controls in place, everything Perry is complaining about is a plus. A young director does not need a studio or a huge backlot in Atlanta to make their film if they have tools like Sora. The tolls themselves are not the problem. it is the total lack of any controls that are allowing this new technology to just run like wildfire wherever it sees feet.
My advice to any future wannabe creative at this point is "learn to prompt".

 

[ragnarlb]

Poor baby, but I remember a certain group of people being told, "They can just learn to code" when their jobs were being threatened.

The exact quote from Joe Biden was:

“Anybody who can go down 3,000 feet in a mine can sure as hell learn to program as well… Anybody who can throw coal into a furnace can learn how to program, for God’s sake!”

 

[KDogg]

As someone who works in the film/tv industry, I think he's just using AI as cover for not spending an enormous pile of money amid a changing landscape.

Georgia is considering sunsetting its enormous tax incentives. This would be incredibly disastrous for production there as movie studios frankly will do everything possible to not shoot somewhere that doesn't give them free money.

The industry has faced a huge contraction/adjustment from after the insane production boom of 2021-2022 met inevitable bust helped by studios that did everything possible to pointlessly prolong justified strikes inflicting maximum damage as demand waned and Wall Street suddenly (though inevitably) demanded profitability from streaming.

It's pretty rich to blame it all on AI warning about how it could eliminate jobs and we should think about the workers while simultaneously eliminating jobs and blaming it on AI.

 

[InvariantCapitalist]

I don't know what world you live in but its clearly not the same as I do.
When I said house prices are 500% income here that was a bit off as its probably more like 7-800%.

Some quotes from an article,

"In the US, house prices have increased by nearly 40 percent since 2000, making the median home in 200 US cities $1m. Home ownership has become unattainable for the vast majority of the population. This difficulty is also highlighted through the National Low Income Housing coalition, who found that a renter working 40 hours a week and earning minimum wage cannot afford a two-bedroom apartment in the US."

"It was revealed, in a survey carried out by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (LILP) in 2019, that 90 percent of the 200 cities around the globe that were polled were considered to be unaffordable to live in, based on average house price in relation to median income."


Certainly condo's where I currently live has steadily gotten smaller and smaller in the last 50 years or so. I high rise condo from the 60s are generally bigger than the new ones. Builders and investors make more money on smaller apartments you see.

https://www.worldfinance.com/infrastructure-investment/solving-the-global-housing-crisis

You are using anecdotes when actual statistics don’t support the trend, or at least not as strongly as you think your area appears to be changing.

And it’s important to not overweight short term changes. Interest rates have returned to more normal levels after a decade of all time lows. On paper this means affordability has plummeted the last two years compared to previous decade. But lots of home owners still have 3% and 4% loans, so actual affordability is much better than it appears on paper.

Over time price growth will probably trail income growth or even fall because of higher rates, but not until a lot more of the older mortgages mature or are paid off.

 

[Mouthpeace]

The problem, as I see it, is that even if Tyler Perry doesn't use AI-generation, someone else will. In that case, his studio expansion is rendered obsolete. Competitors will be able to make films for a fraction of his costs.

It's just like when megacorps go shopping for tax incentives among states. If even 1 person (state) breaks rank and offers incentives, then everyone loses, because everyone else.must now offer incentives too.

The only winning move is to not play.

Or rather, to develop legislation or regulations and safeguards that prevent AI-generation from completely gutting entire industries in a matter of moments. Even if it's inevitable, a controlled landing is better than a crash landing.

He doesn't have any competition. No one else is pumping out trashy garbage movies for black women. He owns that niche!!

 

[BluestreakBTHR]

Who cares?! The rich greedy bastards will get theirs, so screw everyone else who didn't get on the gravy train! Why do you think Altman, Cook, Zuckerberg and Bezos are all building private residences on private islands. When the "bomb" comes they'll be first out of here!

AI will supposedly make lives easier and wonderful, we'll have more leisure time, however with 80% of humanity unemployed and with no income, I think we'll be looking at walled cities for the rich and their friends while the rest of us are out catching rats to cook so we have something to eat or the first time that week.

People think that we'll be heading to a Star Trek utopia where everyone is a valued member of society. Nope, we're looking at a dystopia like Mad Max or any number of low budget sci-fi movies. Humanity attacking and eating each other, disease and plague rife while those, let's call them the Eloi, will look down from the ivory towers at we Morlocks!

The utopia didn't happen overnight... the earth went through some "growing pains" before it happened. The Bell Riots in San Francisco... which are scheduled to happen on September 1.