This article has no information about the deal at all.
Was it upvoted 14 times because others hoped for someone to read it and post the terms of the deal in a comment?
If so: Here is the answer. The terms are not in the article :)
So, as far as I can see, there is absolutely no new information in this article except for "Hollywood Actors Strike Ends With a Deal". Even the second part of the title "That Will Impact AI and Streaming for Decades" seems pure fantasy considering the deal is not disclosed.
So from my perspective, the whole article could have been:
The Hollywood actors strike ends with a deal.
The terms have not been disclosed.
For more info about the strike, check our
previous coverage: [some links]
Or am I missing something? If nothing - why isn't this kind of "to the point" journalism a thing? Could one make a news website which works that way? Would there be demand for this?
>The union is so far providing some details of the agreement, more of which will likely emerge in the next few days
so it's not in the article because they haven't allowed those details to be public yet. dare i say, that's ominous to announce "we agree" but to keep the terms secret till it's inked, but we'll see i guess
Regulate use of artificial intelligence on MBA- covered projects: AI-generated written material is not considered literary material, source material or assigned material under the MBA.
AI is not a writer under the MBA.
Writer can elect to use AI when performing writing services, if Company consents and provided writer follows applicable company policies. Company cannot require writer to use AI software (e.g., ChatGPT) when performing
writing services.
Company must disclose to writer if any material given to writer has been generated by AI or incorporates AI-generated material.
Guild reserves right to assert that exploitation of writers’ material to train AI is prohibited by MBA or other law.
----------------------------
Notably, the demand "MBA-covered material can’t be used to train AI" appears not to be part of the tentative agreement.
> Writer can elect to use AI when performing writing services, if Company consents and provided writer follows applicable company policies. Company cannot require writer to use AI software (e.g., ChatGPT) when performing writing services.
Seems like a loophole: a company could increase the workload to the point GPT tools are needed and claim a writer is not performing (when compared to a writer that does use GPT).
"Even though the terms of the tentative deal reached Thursday are unclear, it’s hard to imagine the actors didn’t get at least some of the AI protections they were seeking."
So, inconclusive. The idea that your face would become 'their' property forever after you act in a minor role is absurd. Not hard to imagine how this fundamentally changes the entire ecosystem.
Was it upvoted 14 times because others hoped for someone to read it and post the terms of the deal in a comment?
If so: Here is the answer. The terms are not in the article :)
So, as far as I can see, there is absolutely no new information in this article except for "Hollywood Actors Strike Ends With a Deal". Even the second part of the title "That Will Impact AI and Streaming for Decades" seems pure fantasy considering the deal is not disclosed.
So from my perspective, the whole article could have been:
Or am I missing something? If nothing - why isn't this kind of "to the point" journalism a thing? Could one make a news website which works that way? Would there be demand for this?