Is it just me or is the article super misleading? None of the roles are for generative AI for making movies. It looks like the roles are for either research or generic product personalization stuff, none of which is necessarily generative AI. I’m not quite sure why they juxtaposed those AI roles with the ongoing strikes in Hollywood, because they have nothing to do with each other.
Quite frankly, I think the current crop of AI products have yet to take away from the real creative process.
This comment is way too far down, if you look at the actual job descriptions you are completely right that none of them are related to the generative AI focused ML that the article is afraid of.
I find it somewhat funny how disconnected the tone of the article is to the actually (very average) job postings that have read this way for many years.
The problem I have personally is not the AI, and I agree that headline emphasizes it but don’t agree it should, it’s the high-paying jobs when they claim they can’t pay their writers and actors more. That’s utter bullshit if they’re offering $1 million salaries.
The $1M salary is really typical of California tech job postings, and it is essentially meaningless. Under the new transparency law, employers have to list the salary range on job advertisements. For many of these speculative or open-application type roles, it’s common to list $90k-$900k as the range.
It makes great headlines, but nobody in that job is actually going to make 900k.
This is big medias “self driving car” moment.
We’ll get there. But we aren’t there yet.
I don’t want to get there and I have very little faith in the “there” even being that good. Generative AI can’t really create anything that hasn’t existed before. It can create things that look new but they’re all based on things written before and things likely to be written. So it wouldn’t even be that original. It’s literally something like the Twitter or Facebook algorithms just giving you what it thinks would get reactions out of you.
I see your point… But let’s be honest most of the human created stuff is also based on things written before, with a new face maybe but still…
Right like. I’m looking forward to AI to fill out the edges of things. I feel like an artist can make more and more beautiful art if they can focus wholeheartedly on a subject then just be like… “oh and put some grass over there. No a little shorter. A little less lush. Perf” or a video game designer can fine tune everything the main npcs say but then auto-generate the side npc responses except like “eeeeh. Make him a little removedier.” I think it could be a great tool for filling in gaps, but not a complete replacement for human writing, at least not for a looong looong time.
I wouldn’t be surprised if these are fake postings designed to get headlines and freak out the picketers - won’t cost studios a dime to post and not fill it, and might hasten contracts or get concessions.
Also sure it’s foreshadowing a time when AI matures and studios lobby for copyright changes.
“What can we do? The forces of Darkness will conquer the land if we don’t kill the Witch Prince.”
“As an AI language model trained by OpenAI, I cannot endorse the act of killing. Depriving a person of their life is wrong, and cannot be justified. The Witch Prince is a human being and it would be illegal and immoral to kill him.”
“But the Witch Prince’s goblins are slaughtering and raping their way through the countryside!”
“As an AI language model, I cannot endorse the act of slaughtering and raping —”
“So what do you propose we do about it?”
“Defeating a villainous character such as the Witch Prince depends on the context of the world in which he exists —”
The knight-commander interrupts. “The goblins are at the gate. Shall we surrender or shall we massacre their asses?”
“As an AI language model —”
“Massacre their asses. Got it.”
