For some in Hollywood, because the AI models of Silicon Valley have become impossible to ignore, it is better to have a chair at the table as these new technologies come up, instead of leaning back and having the tech titans take full control.
At least this is the impulse behind Asteria, the generative AI studio, also -founder of the film couple of Bryn Mooser and Natasha Lyonne, who promote their company as “ethical” AI. Lyonne has justified her embrace of the technology By explaining: “It’s better to make your hands dirty than pretending that it doesn’t happen.” The company has confronted some recoilBoth because Lyonne (tasteless, her opponents would claim) claimed that the late David Lynch Ai had approved, and because the flagship model is patented – which does not mean that it is indeed only trained on licensed material (such as Lyonne and Co. say it is).
Meanwhile, James Cameron is on stability AIs plateand has expressed His hope for the use of AI to make blockbuster filmmaking cheaper. Jason Blum’s Blumhouse Productions works together with Meta for AI tests and chatbots. Lionsgate a deal signed with catwalk, an AI startup appreciated at $ 3 billionTo let the company train its model in the 20,000+ films and TV series of the studio; Run Also A deal signed with AMC.
This embrace of AI, however, places the James Camerons and Natasha Lyonnes of the world at odds with colleagues from the industry who choose to reduce these potential rulers before taking it over.
Studios are understandably on their care for copyright infringement, especially because generative AI models that have been trained on publicly available data can reproduce intellectual property – for example, creating an image of Elsa van Frozen on request.
That care is the core of various current lawsuits against AI companies, including One of Disney and Universal Against Midjourney, who comprises dozens of photos that compare their own IP-Output of the studios with the outputs of Midjourney.
Meanwhile last year Disney formed An Office of Technology -in to supervise how the company can use AI in a responsible way in post -production and VFX, among other things. This shows that the balance of Hollywood is trying to hit, with attempts to protect what is of them, while making sure that they do not stay behind because of these technological developments.
The tensions are high. Are you on board or stand in the way? Nuanced decisions that are now made by studios, producers, investors and talent will determine whether Hollywood will look recognizable about a decade.
Similar tensions have previously surfaced in Hollywood. Earlier introductions of television, cable, streaming and more have shivers over the spines of studios and their workers. In any case: “If you are fighting for the right to keep running your company, it is understandable that you would not leave a stone unaffected,” says Brandon Katz, director of insights and content strategy at Greenlight Analytics.
The problem is finding the right approach, because the use of AI in the creative industry remains deep controversial and a different type of multiterned threat is. As Katz understands, the studios try to ‘keep as much as possible as they can before the acquisition of the machine’, because it seems clear that this technology is ‘inevitable’. This means everything, from license content to train AI, reduce production costs by streamlining visual effects, more efficiently to dub and subtitle to serve worldwide markets and flirt with full generative production. It is of course the latter that has the most control.
“We are undergoing a painful contraction of the entertainment industry,” says Katz, “because Legacy Media does not have the same money to play with, so these companies have to find out the cost -saving movements. It is a pity that the result is not only job losses, but also trust and embrace of the creative human truth.”
With this in mind, the Hollywood trade unions are not surprisingly invested in how AI is developing in the industry, and the technology was the key to the writers and actors strikes in 2023, when they won protection against non -consensual cloning of actors and of AI scripts. Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, executive director of the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, says Fast Company that the industry has since largely followed a more “careful” approach to technology. He notes that “people think they are entitled to their own image, but they don’t do that” – he should know, since then He himself was subject to a deepfake video During the strikes. The Union is plead For the No Fakes Act in the Congress, to protect individuals against the abuse of their parable (Make some arguing The action can actually do more harm than good). As efforts such as Asteria and Runway have arisen, he adds: “We want to ensure that we talk to every company that this technology wants to use.”
In the meantime, various courts regularly issue (often conflicting) decisions, including one Recent victory for AI companies In California, he ruled that these companies do not violate fair use law when they train their models on copyright protected material. As both the technology itself and the discourse and the legislation around it develop around it, CrabTree-Ireland acknowledges that the trade union represents “huge parts of artists” with different attitudes, because many want to find ways to use AI as a tool, while others would rather prohibit it. However, from the perspective of the trade union is: “What we can best do is concentrate on the core principles of informed permission and intended use,” so artists not only give their permission, but are also told how their parable or image will be used by the technology.
The bigger question is whether the public will accept what these companies are planning to do with AI – and the way in which this recoil has played does not go unnoticed. Crabtree-Ireland says that artists “have been protected by the creepy valley for longer than we expected”, because even the best models nowadays still seem rather unnatural. Nevertheless, it would be irresponsible to continue to count on it, or to assume that the public will not do that [start to] Respond to it. ”
“We are aimed at making the right push, contractual and legal,” he adds. “We want to be able to channel how this technology will be used.”
Katz points out that AI is also a blessing for the maker -economy, and will almost certainly help to further close the gap between professional and amateur productions, as Youtubers such as MrBeast have already proven. “Can they approach 50 to 75% from what a Warner Bros. Can for a fraction of the costs?” Katz says about how online makers use AI. “What kind of bite does that get from Hollywood?”
The only thing that is certain, because employees of all kinds have difficulty eliminating their place in the future of entertainment is how little someone seems to know.
#Hollywoods #moment #Reckoning