What’s it going to take to actually do something about these ultra-rich leeches literally destroying our planet and everything good on it to inflate a number in a bank somewhere? How do we actually build up the initiative to stop it?
All our other problems seem largely centered around our inability to appropriately respond to extreme greed. Not only in actually actively stopping it, but in even identifying it or being able to properly censure it in the first place. The moment you start talking about the rich being the cause of our problems, there’s a section of society that starts tuning you out. I definitely feel like as things get worse people are starting to catch on, but even once we’re there, where do we go?
If we actually get to the point of agreeing that excessive wealth is inherently misanthropic and should be a crime in and of itself, how do we make it a crime while so much power sits in the hands of those who’d be on the losing end of that decision?
I hope the WGA and SAG can spark a change in people’s consciousness around labor. I’d honestly love to see a lot more interviews and independent podcasts coming from the picket lines. If there’s anyone who can convince Americans to fight for the value of their labor, it’s the people write and play the parts in the stories they love.
The moment you start talking about the rich being the cause of our problems, there’s a section of society that starts tuning you out.
That’s because this is an insane claim.
If we actually get to the point of agreeing that excessive wealth is inherently misanthropic and should be a crime in and of itself
This is a massive “If.” I could probably never be convinced that one person’s wealth is inherently detrimental to someone else’s well-being.
These are very extreme views. I support the Hollywood strike, my buddy is a union leader (as were both my parents), and I’m a reliably Democrat voter, and I couldn’t disagree more with what you’ve said above.
That’s because this is an insane claim.
Consider that they have the power to massively improve everyone’s lives but are choosing not to.
Perhaps they didn’t personally cause and create some of those problems, but they are still the only ones with the power to make the necessary changes, so the continuation of those problems is indeed their doing.
In what way does the logistics revolution spurred by Amazon’s growth not massively benefit every person who buys anything in the US? You’re seriously suggesting with a straight face, that Microsoft hasn’t saved literally hundreds of millions of lives just in database tech alone?
You’re talking out of your ass here man. Hell, you’re putting billionaires on par with running a government which is simply absurd.
It’s not on rich people to save the fucking world, though Bill Gates has personally done more for the world than most governments ever have. It’s on voters to pass policies that provide them better lives. That’s the point of democracy
Are you serious lmao
You think billionaires have no influence on government? Please
I think you don’t understand how government functions in any real way at all
Oh no! Anyway…
Edit: In case the subtlety slipped by some folks, I was pointing out how very unimportant the film industry is as a whole. I stand by the folks striking for better conditions and pay, but without Hollywood the world will continue on. Humanity doesn’t need a new Marvel movie to survive the next year. Food, water, construction, transportation, these things are critical infrastructure. But I do not care if Hollywood stops making cookie cutter movies for a while, let the studios feel the crunch. Who can honestly say they are totally caught up on all the shows they want to watch, anyway? Go watch something you didn’t have time for before, because the newest season of “Someone else’s life” just aired. Go make a new friend, read a new book, or explore a new place. Don’t want to or can’t for some reason? Ok, go watch anything else, there is more media then you consume in a lifetime available for you to peruse on the internet.
To add; this is, in my opinion a bigger deal than UPS. There are other freight companies. It’s bigger than the railroads. We have other shipping. We only have one Hollywood. Entertainment sucked the last time they striked. It started all the reality shows.
How’s that boot taste?
I don’t care how fast AI can pump out “high quality content” because I refuse to consume any of it. I really hope the strikes are successful.
If it is high quality, why do you care how it was produced?
But it’s not the high quality content that’s threatened by AI, it’s the mediocre gargabe. It’s the endless stream of poor quality TV shows and movies which are produced not as art, but as a means of steady predictibile income for the companies involved. That’s the industry aspect of the business. This side of the business consumes most of the talent in the industry. They all know it’s not good and they all hope they will get the funding to actually work on the things they know will be high quality. I think AI will allow them to do that.
Further more, this strike is not just about AI. I think this aspect is the one media outlets care most about and gets reported on more. The entertainment industry has suffered a major shift with streaming platforms and the movement of money from production studios to streaming platforms has left the employees behind. They’re getting less money from streaming platforms but still do the same work. That’s what the strike is about. The industry didn’t care for them when it changed.
I’m looking for an interaction with the artists. I do not care what an AI produces… and I don’t care what a marketing team or boardroom of producers produces. I’m looking for an artist’s vision.
I’m looking for an interaction with the artists.
How exactly are you interacting with them while sitting on your couch looking at a screen?
This is an appeal to purity argument. You’ve invented some higher standard (that doesn’t really even make sense) with the purpose of excluding the thing you don’t like.
Do you understand how art works at all?
That it’s an entirely subjective experience and to presume that someone’s enjoyment of it means that a human had to be involved in It’s creation is such a ridiculous response.
Have you ever seen the paintings that one chimpanzee made? They’re actually pretty nice in composition. Am I allowed to like the way they look even if no human made them?
So long as it’s not a glorified machine learning program designed to commit mass fraud and copyright infringement, then yes. Until then, go cry harder.
I’m going to think back to people like you in 15 years and smile at how naive you were.
The audience responds en masse by tuning in, paying up, being changed, perpetuating the ideas back into the culture through the filter of their own personality, chatting about the thing, praising or criticizing the artist.
This is an appeal to purity argument. You’ve invented some higher standard
Nope. It has absolutely nothing to do with “purity.” It has to do with humans doing the ancient human thing of making art. Dancing, singing, telling stories. You’re bringing in the abstraction of purity.
Hollywood (in its crudest aspect) is already an AI algorithm for churning out trash. That’s why I tune out already. Because it is not humans telling each other stories. It is pure corporate manipulation. More AI in the hands of producer-goons just means more corporate manipulation and less humans telling each other stories.
AI in the hands of an artist is a tool for exploring and creating. AI in the hands of corporate goons is the total opposite.
