Comment by doctorpangloss
8 hours ago
Yeah. No. This document says, “our strategy is wait and see.” It’s the most disruptive media technology since the TV. And they’re like, “whatever.” That is not the move of a “smarter” creative company. Lawyers are really, really bad at running companies, even if you have strong opinions about the law.
Disruptive does not mean good, or useful, or important, or valuable. There is no reason to jump onto a thing early just because it is disruptive: Netflix exists in a different creative world than the tech industry, and its audiences are even more hostile to the idea that AI is being used to steal from the things and people they admire than the audiences of typical tech industry disruptions. People who care about art and artists and films and actors tend not to value slop.
Nobody values slop, and not everything is slop, AI or otherwise. Also, stealing is not the same as copyright infringement, unless you subscribe to the RIAA definition of the word.
AI has no intent or creativity, so it can be neither right nor wrong, neither good nor bad.
So just as there's no procedural difference between an AI getting something right and an AI "hallucinating", if the word "slop" describes anything AI generates, it describes all of it.
Either everything generative AI creates is slop or nothing is. So everything is.
Also I know stealing is not the same thing as copyright infringement. I'm talking about stealing livelihoods as much as stealing art.
1 reply →