Youtor
The Tao of AI
YOUR LINK HERE:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rbICbMS2ao8
When Steven Spielberg brought Stanley Kubrick’s unfilmed screenplay “A.I. Artificial Intelligence” to the screen in — of all ironic years — 2001, most of us had never before heard the acronym. In science fiction parlance it represented an ominous harbinger of things to come — the prospect of a “Terminator”-level tipping point where humanity finds itself at risk of being replaced by its own artificial creations. • • Twenty-three years later, “A.I.” is no longer science fiction or theory. The great android replacement theory has failed to materialize — but our incarnation of A.I. is widely deemed a threat just the same. So much so that for a solid year it has been the single greatest stumbling block in film industry labor negotiations — the central issue during last year’s SAG and WGA strikes, and a major factor in the ongoing negotiations with both Teamsters and animators. In a shockingly short period of time, A.I. has become the most ubiquitous — and the most misunderstood — acronym in the world. • • Precisely what A.I. can and cannot do, and what it may and may not end up doing, remains a topic of considerable debate. A.I. integrations are now routinely used to “clean up” video, audio and still images, while millions of others routinely use ChatGPT to reduce their research and writing workload. At the same time, A.I.’s foibles have been the stuff of headlines, from the fiasco of the first “Megalopolis” movie trailer (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...) to some profoundly embarrassing incidents involving Google’s Gemini (https://www.npr.org/2024/03/18/123910...) and Adobe’s Firefly (https://www.semafor.com/article/03/13...) . • • Ultimately, the real concern for creatives pertains to the “likeness rights” and the use of copyrighted intellectual property which may be used to “train” the machine learning algorithms which constitute the basic building blocks of all A.I. • • To help separate fact from fiction from speculation, I went to the most authoritative source I know — veteran attorney Mark Lee (https://www.rimonlaw.com/team/mark-lee/) of law firm Rimon. An expert in the field of intellectual property specifically as pertains to the entertainment industry, Mark’s work on behalf of artists, authors and athletes and the protection of their work and likenesses has been far-reaching. In addition to contributing to “right of publicity” statutes in California, Ohio and Pennsylvania, he is the author of “Entertainment and Intellectual Property Law,” which is regularly updated and may be purchased at (https://store.legal.thomsonreuters.co...) Thomson Reuters. • • Given the complexity and the seriousness of the subject, and the fact that A.I. will increasingly become a part of all our daily lives for the foreseeable future, I proposed a two-tiered approach to the subject — an exchange of questions and answers in email — which are furnished below — followed by a free-flowing podcast conversation which you can watch or listen to above. • • W.M. • • Wade Major: Is it fair to say that “AI” is being used to generally brand a wide variety of machine learning algorithms and machine language models which are all fundamentally different tools? • • Mark Lee: The answer may depend on how you define “different,” but I don’t think so. All AI tools differ from traditional algorithms in the same essential way. Traditional algorithm-based programs are all ultimately and utterly predictable. Responses to stimuli have all been worked out in advance. They will give the same answer to the same question every time. • • In contrast, AI programs exhibit dynamic behavior, and can adapt and evolve as they are trained on more and better data. Answers to questions will differ, and often improve, as the AI learns how to better answer them from the input it is provided. And the AI decides how to do it. • • Which is not to say the answer will always be right. In my field, the law, AI is already famous for giving wrong answers to legal questions, and making up non-existent statutes or case law to support wrong arguments in legal briefs. Some courts have already issued rules barring use of AI in pleadings and motions for this reason. But that is a different issue, and beyond the scope of your question. • • WM: When “AI” entered the conversation over artists’ rights during the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes, there were wildly conflicting stories as to what was actually at stake. Can you clarify what the specific concerns are for actors and writers? And how do their concerns dovetail with ...
#############################
