[0x3f]

Obviously just performative signalling that doesn't really do much. You can't definitively tell if AI was used, so the rule can never realistically be enforced.

Then again, the Oscars are surely almost entirely vibes based anyway. So it's hardly some internally consistent system of merit in the first place.

[happytoexplain]

I wish we could stop the slide of the term "performative" into meaninglessness.

Just because something is hard or even impossible to enforce, doesn't mean you don't state that it is not allowed and that there are consequences for being caught. That's a common fallacy that overly engineering-minded people fall into.

We're humans. We care about things. There is nothing strange about me asking you not to do something that I can't stop you from doing.

[chungusamongus]

There is absolutely no fallacy in the statement you're responding to. Laws are meaningless if they cannot be consistently enforced.

[AndrewDucker]

Actually, laws can be really effective even if they are only enforced intermittently.

[0x3f]

I'm not sure how true this is.

If you consider low-stakes crimes, typically to get to a steady state of effectiveness you need at least some sort of bootstrapped period of ubiquitous enforcement. If that's impossible then I'm not sure you ever get to effectiveness.

If we're talking high-stakes, death-penalty-lottery-if-you-break-the-rules type stuff, then I think actually detection rate (i.e. consistent enforcement) is the biggest predictor of reduced rates, not severity of punishment.

[happytoexplain]

Sure, but even giving 100% of the benefit of the doubt you're raising, it still doesn't follow that it is purely "performative" to formally establish a rule just because it may soon become impossible to identify rule-breakers without whistle-blowers or intel.

[0x3f]

Well what purpose does the rule serve if it can't be enforced, if not signalling/norming?

[chungusamongus]

That is incoherent. Laws that are not consistently enforced are by definition ineffective. For starters, you can at least grant that the law was ineffective for those who violated it and didn't get caught, an inevitable consequence of "intermittent" enforcement. More than that, inconsistent application of the law incentivizes more sophisticated ways to evade it, which means the people who do get caught are simply the ones with less money, resources, connections, etc. If your rejoinder here is that the law still functions as a deterrent to some degree, the onus is on you to prove that.

Let's also acknowledge that you're straying further and further from the central point of this particular discussion. This is not simply about "intermittent" enforcement. Enforcement of this rule will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, as the technology gets more sophisticated.

[SideQuark]

And laws can be completely useless when enforced intermittently.

Laws that are enforced and more importantly are enforceable have a much higher rate of making a difference. The same works here.

[spankibalt]

> "Laws are meaningless if they cannot be consistently enforced."

Laws, per se, are not meaningless. How effective they are is utterly irrelevant in this context; it's another question altogether.

[chungusamongus]

Haha, okay. This is a galaxy brain take if I ever heard one.

[spankibalt]

Naturally, as it's derived from Wittgensteinian [1] readings. Colloquialisms don't fare well in the domain of philosophy of law.

1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein]

[chungusamongus]

You're having trouble staying on topic. Each pathetic attempt strays further and further from the central question here, which is the use of AI in films and the Academy's decision to impose certain rules around that. The issue is whether this is a meaningless gesture or if it will have real consequences in terms of determining this technology's implementation. What's more troubling is, you haven't demonstrated an understanding of Wittgenstein in the first place yet you confidently cite him to substantiate your circular argument. I'm not particularly concerned with what you think is relevant or not to the discussion as you are guilty of begging the question. Citing Wittgenstein doesn't help you here. If you think it does, you are stuck in the weeds of a language game. Your reply wasn't an adequate counterargument; it was a pretentious non sequitur.

[happytoexplain]

That just doesn't follow.

[0x3f]

How are there consequences for being caught if it's impossible to detect?

Moreover, why stop here? There are many great rules that are impossible to enforce. Why not a rule that the author isn't allowed to have any racist thoughts when writing the material?

We can't read minds, but it sure is a nice thing to care about, don't you think?

[edmundsauto]

It doesn’t always have to have consequences when it’s a curated access club like the Oscars. It’s ok to have cultural norms that aren’t enforced by consequences, at the very least some of the ethical participants will follow them. I know that I try to follow the spirit of the clubs I participate in, and if they don’t have these types of statements often I just don’t know what the community thinks is ok.

It breaks down when assholes join, or the overly self-interested. This mindset permeates America today, but there are still many collective organizations that don’t need punitive measures. These are less common but when you find them, it’s often a positive signal.

[sebastiennight]

I guess the Best Visual Effects category is going to be tough to judge, but don't you think it might be quite hard to win the Best Actress Academy Award if your AI-generated heroine can't come get the trophy?

Also, "truth" is a thing that exists, and just because you can't always tell if somebody cheated the rules or not, does not mean the rules are "performative signalling".

[0x3f]

I don't think AI-generated 'avatars' are anywhere close to being Oscar-worthy as things stand, so it seems kind of a moot point (hence the 'signalling' thing).

If they ever get that good, I would just say you can't really fight the market. If AI content is good enough that people want it, then the Oscars just get left behind after a while. But that's fine, and up to them.

> Also, "truth" is a thing that exists, and just because you can't always tell if somebody cheated the rules or not, does not mean the rules are "performative signalling".

I don't really understand. If you can't hope to discover the truth, in what way is it not performative or signalling?

[sebastiennight]

> If they ever get that good, I would just say you can't really fight the market. If AI content is good enough that people want it

It might be "good enough" that you can't see the difference, which is not equivalent to "people want it". Maybe if people knew that "it"'s not the real thing, they'd assign lower value to "it".

Our startup works in video editing. It's not that difficult to foresee that you might be a true fan of [insert your favorite podcaster or content creator], and maybe some AI models would enable $podcaster to duplicate themselves "perfectly", but as a true fan you'd still feel betrayed to learn you just listened to 2 hours of slop that $podcaster was not involved in.

"Ha! You say you're vegan but I just tricked you into eating meat-disguised-as-veggies" isn't the most convincing gotcha.

[therealpygon]

I’d say there is a difference between awarding an Oscar to an AI actor, and a production receiving an Oscar that for a work that includes an AI actor. I also see no reason that AI specific categories shouldn’t be offered. Just because a person wasn’t holding a camera or a person wasn’t in front of it doesn’t mean it lacks artistry.

A one shot prompt can only get an estimation of what you asked for, no matter how descriptive you are. To get what you actually intended, what you imagined, the process looks quite a lot more like smarter versions of.the traditional workflows for digital effects. (Remove a background, add this thing, paint out that thing, etc.)

[0x3f]

> A one shot prompt can only get an estimation of what you asked for, no matter how descriptive you are.

Isn't that true of all creative outputs, even of 'legacy' provenance?

[MrMember]

The Oscars are 100% vibes based. It was only very recently made a requirement that the judges actually watch the movies that are nominated.

[frollogaston]

It prevents anyone from blatantly using AI. If they want to use it anyway and risk getting found out, sure. That's still a big difference.

[0x3f]

Can you explain how an Oscar-worthy piece of writing would somehow be able to contain blatant AI-generated content? How would it have already passed the good-enough-for-an-Oscar filter?

[frollogaston]

If there's some admission or evidence internally that they used AI.

[0x3f]

But in order for that to be required, it couldn't be 'blatant'. Unless you mean the admission itself is 'blatant'? Then, I suppose so, although the normal interpretation of that would be from the content itself.

[userbinator]

The younger generation also increasingly pays less attention to traditional mainstream entertainment and media, as now they can create more of it with AI.

Edit: funny to see the anti-AI crowd showing up again, how predictable... you can downvote but you can't stop the truth! Legacy entertainment is dying, and will soon become irrelevant.

[npinsker]

I’m downvoting because it’s an unusual (and probably false) claim made with no evidence — particularly your clause after “as” needs a more substantive defense. Can you convince me a bit that you speak for the younger generation?

[userbinator]

Look at the popularity of all the AI satire/parody videos and memes on YouTube. I've seen a lot of the younger generation who get the majority of their entertainment from the former and pay very little attention to traditional celebrities and the like.

[AlexeyBelov]

This user is a troll. Don't bother.

[NicuCalcea]

You can't definitively tell if athletes are doping, or students are cheating, it should then be allowed.

[0x3f]

It's much easier to tell if athletes are doping than to 'detect' AI in text that's already Oscar-for-writing level good. I would suggest the latter is quite literally impossible.

[edmundsauto]

I have always heard that dopers are consistently ahead of testing regimes. I don’t think it is easier to tell than AI, which always seems pretty obvious to me.

[0x3f]

You have to consider that any AI content worthy of the Oscar shortlist is going to be very high-quality, and likely intensely hand/human-tweaked in the first place. It's not from the general population of all AI content out there.

> I have always heard that dopers are consistently ahead of testing regimes

I don't know about that, even the very biggest names with the most funding quite often get dinged for it. I suppose I'm not really saying that the detection rate for doping is high, though, just that it's much higher than AI detection in high-quality content (which I would suggest is approximately zero).

[NicuCalcea]

How do you know that it's easier? How do you prove athletes who have not been caught doping were in fact not doping?