Post AXl77r4Ee5W8BdC4oa by avirr@sfba.social
(DIR) More posts by avirr@sfba.social
(DIR) Post #AXkZPBELXITtCd0rWy by carnage4life@mas.to
2023-07-16T10:47:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
A friend shared a controversial opinion about the WGA strike I’ve been noodling on. The argument was no industry owes people jobs in the face of technological advancement.If ChatGPT means Netflix can go from 6 regular writers to 4 for Stranger Things, should they never be able to do that to preserve 2 writing jobs? Industries typically don’t ignore software productivity to preserve jobs. Why should Hollywood be different?
(DIR) Post #AXkZPBqzDdOD8T5il6 by wogan@mastodon.africa
2023-07-16T11:15:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@carnage4life I'm wondering about the corollary of that: What if ChatGPT allows 6 regular writers to generate 2x the content they otherwise could, further enabling Netflix to produce ever-more-niche shows for ever-more-specific audiences, increasing revenue overall?In *that* event, should those writers (who input the actual creativity and manage the output) not be compensated more?Instead of, for eg, losing their jobs because the studio can produce an equally-mediocre product for lower cost?
(DIR) Post #AXkZaoDCwYyZHt1dM8 by wogan@mastodon.africa
2023-07-16T11:17:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@carnage4life That, to me, is the true "no industry owes people jobs" argument: If the nature of jobs change, those that adapt to incorporate new tech should (and are, far as I can tell) lifted alongside the same tide as everyone who chooses to push for it.Should non-AI-enabled writers be allowed to hold the entire industry back? We didn't do that for ice men, morning knockers or town criers, either.
(DIR) Post #AXklW95h5WhI2n3OC0 by tob@hachyderm.io
2023-07-16T13:31:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wogan @carnage4life The writers are striking because the studios do not compensate them for their work. AI is a side issue, but again, it's not about "productivity." Writers (and actors) recognize that studios will use "AI" to take their work without compensation for perpetuity.
(DIR) Post #AXkoayu6gpnPlCdCpE by wogan@mastodon.africa
2023-07-16T14:05:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tob @carnage4life That part I've seen lots of (specifically, streaming residuals are effectively non-existent compared to historical royalty structures), but then the streaming commercial model itself is (far as I can tell) substantially different too: If it's anything like Spotify's revenue-share model, then it legit doesn't matter how much production cost/effort went into a release, compensation is strictly driven by consumption, which afaik is quite different.
(DIR) Post #AXkogjrHXeewpp3UUC by wogan@mastodon.africa
2023-07-16T14:06:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tob @carnage4life The WGA did point out, somewhere, that the total USD value of what they were asking for was like in the ~$300 million range (might be way off on the specific number here, but there is a number), and their argument was that the studios "make billions" and "can easily afford this", but that might not be strictly true. For one thing, market cap != revenue, and that gets super-easily conflated in debates like this.
(DIR) Post #AXkou4BNHxWhdKoCTw by wogan@mastodon.africa
2023-07-16T14:09:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tob @carnage4life Although the top, #1 demand (from wgacontract2023.org) sort of says it all:"Increase minimum compensation significantly to address the devaluation of writing in all areas of television, new media and features"On the face of it, that can literally be read as "pay us more for producing decreasingly-valuable output". It doesn't explain *why* writing is being devalued in all areas though, and I'd really like to understand why that's happening.
(DIR) Post #AXkwogt3GyJ7ZLBadc by tob@hachyderm.io
2023-07-16T15:16:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wogan @carnage4life Yes. I am sure the #1 demand from the writers is "pay us more for our worthless product." That's definitely the correct reading. 🙄Though, now that I think about it. Maybe what they're saying is that studios have manipulated the way they calculate the "value" of writing in order to limit payouts.Since that is exactly what the studios have done, it stands to reason that's what the union is talking about.
(DIR) Post #AXkxpeRNx9riE4GcWe by wogan@mastodon.africa
2023-07-16T15:49:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tob @carnage4life But that's the exact question here: I don't do "maybe's", I'm trying to understand the mechanics behind what's happening.The way the demand is written (passive voice) does not suggest that AMPTP has deliberately and consciously sought to screw over writers (and exactly, specifically, ONLY) writers by artificially devaluing writing and the resulting compensation.It suggests that, generally, writing has gotten less valuable (greater supply? reduced demand).
(DIR) Post #AXkyAMminBrXY47n2u by wogan@mastodon.africa
2023-07-16T15:52:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tob @carnage4life Streaming is also a different beast, commercially. Old-school movie distribution (tape reel duplication, later disk drives) did not require the same perpetual keep-the-lights-on expenditure as on-demand streaming services do, as an example. Make one movie, deliver the tapes worldwide, you're done - not so with streaming.That's one of like, 50 confounding variables between "1950s Hollywood" and "2020s Hollywood", surely 100% of the delta is not just AMPTP being dicks?
(DIR) Post #AXkyJ1z1V9mLdj0hH6 by wogan@mastodon.africa
2023-07-16T15:54:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tob @carnage4life Also, would love to see evidence for the "that is exactly what studios have done [manipulated the way they calculate the value of writing in order to limit payouts]" - is there a source you can point me to? Really curious to see how the numbers stack up against reported revenue.
(DIR) Post #AXl77r4Ee5W8BdC4oa by avirr@sfba.social
2023-07-16T17:33:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wogan @carnage4life No matter how much “content” — scripts — the writers create, the costs of production are enormously greater, so no. Also the scripts might be tuned to niche audiences but they will probably be shit without context, clichés all the way down.