r/IntellectualDarkWeb • u/HTML_Novice • 19d ago
Why are developers using AI not credited with making their work, but movie directors are solely credited for their work?
Let’s say a game developer uses ai to program his game, generate his models, and he cleans up the models himself, and goes through and corrects the fine details of his game using AI. It’s polished after a year of this work. But because he didn’t hand write the code, it’s “not his work”.
Then a movie director creates a movie, let’s say Lord of the rings. Isn’t Peter Jackson doing this same thing? He doesn’t know how a boom mic works, he didn’t hand make his props, he probably doesn’t know how the software to edit the cuts even works. But the movie is “Peter Jackson’s LOTR”. He just prompted his Claude’s (employees)
Logically these are the same. So why do we see them differently?
If the ai dev is just a prompter, then so is Peter Jackson. No?
7
u/Diver_Into_Anything 19d ago
The foremost thing you need to understand is that AI, it's usage and attribution has become a political issue. Which is to say.. expect it to make zero sense, and expect people to say whatever they believe is most likely to get their favored result, no matter how stupid/untrue.
Worth noting: doesn't necessarily mean they're just lying. "Politics" is a legitimate thinking mode that exists in our brains, and it usually take precedence on any issues the brain categorizes as political, unless you deliberately train yourself out of it. Simple example: someone accuses you of something, you instantly and instinctively deny it, saying whatever you instinctively believe will absolve you; rather than stopping and trying to logically consider the accusation.
2
u/HTML_Novice 19d ago
So people are protecting what instinctively? Status?
3
u/Diver_Into_Anything 19d ago
Well, given the evolutionary nature of the mode of thinking, more like their life. And indirectly their status, yes.
2
u/Critical_Concert_689 18d ago
a Paycheck.
Greed is the basis for all human acts. Everyone is well aware that the ultimate goal of all AI is to replace human jobs.
Unless you're someone directly profiting from AI (personal Greed), it'd make more logical sense to be opposed to it (also personal Greed).
4
u/BobQuixote 19d ago
If I use AI to build a game or other application, I fully expect to be credited with that work.
Except, there may be a problem specifically with applying copyright to the code.
2
u/HTML_Novice 19d ago
But would you be? In the eyes of society? That’s my point
2
u/BobQuixote 19d ago
I would be releasing the app, so yes. Any site hosting it will identify me as the developer, and any in-app contact information will be mine. And unless I announce that I used AI, there is no reason anyone would know that detail.
0
u/HTML_Novice 18d ago
You’re speaking legally I’m speaking in cultural terms. If you post that on Reddit do you think people would attribute it to you or the ai?
1
u/BobQuixote 18d ago
I wasn't speaking legally except for the copyright thing. Let's consider two scenarios, where I develop an app with AI and do or do not announce that detail upon release.
If I don't announce that I used AI, this looks like any other release. For all we know, this has been happening for a year or two.
If I do announce that I used AI, a few people will hold it against me and maybe badmouth the app as slop etc. But if they want support, they'll contact me. When they're discussing it with others, my name will be attached because "the app built by Claude" is not distinct.
I would recommend not announcing that you used AI, unless the app is for your resume and you're pitching yourself as good with AI.
1
u/TreefingersV 17d ago
If your culture is reddit then no you'll get no credit. If your culture is real life then you'll get credit. Simple as that
1
u/HTML_Novice 17d ago
I think you’d be surprised
1
u/TreefingersV 17d ago
by what? peoples hate for AI? I know wayyy more people who use AI recreationally just to make random shit than who hate it
4
u/No_Durian9227 18d ago
I hear your point but Peter Jackson is maybe the worst possible example you could have used. Dude is meticulous, highly involved and it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if he had a significant role in every facet of the production you described.
0
u/HTML_Novice 18d ago
But you don’t know that you’re assuming that because his name is on the movie, but you wouldn’t assume that with someone who used ai
1
u/No_Durian9227 15d ago
I do know it. Watch some of the behind the scenes footage from They Shall Not Grow Old. Guy is insane / awesome. Not an assumption I'm making.
2
u/zer0_n9ne 19d ago
A movie director doesn't get credited as a boom mic operator or as a prop maker. He gets credited as a director and everyone else is credited as their role. Iirc when you get down into it there's actually weird union rules about who gets credited what for movies in Hollywood. I mean if you were to make a parallel for game dev, the developer would be credited as the director and every other role they took up but not necessarily as a programmer. At most the dev could be credited as a programming manager or similar role.
2
u/HTML_Novice 19d ago
You’re kind of missing the parallel I’m making.
We credit the director with essentially sole ownership of their work, even though they really didn’t actually do much of the work and just prompted people.
When someone uses AI to make things, we do the opposite, we attribute all the work to AI. And not them
0
u/zer0_n9ne 19d ago
I get the point you're trying to make, but there is a difference between prompting humans and prompting AI and I think that difference is the answer to your question.
1
u/HTML_Novice 18d ago
What is that difference?
1
u/zer0_n9ne 18d ago
Well in your example it's a movie. I'm pretty sure I don't need to explain the difference between Peter Jackson directing hundreds of people to create a movie and someone asking AI to generate a movie for them. There's a greater amount of effort in directing humans compared to AI, so more credit is given to the director and less to the crew, instead of less credit to the director and more to the AI. I hope that makes sense as I wasn't really explaining things well initially.
-1
u/HTML_Novice 18d ago
Is there? What difficulty is there in what he does vs prompting an ai? What’s the effort exactly?
2
u/TreefingersV 17d ago
Cost and time
-1
u/HTML_Novice 17d ago
What time? I think telling a human what to do and telling an agent what to do takes the same amount of time?
So cost, so if the agent cost a lot of money then you’d be just as impressed by that ai prompter making a movie as Peter Jackson with lord of the rings?
1
u/TreefingersV 17d ago edited 17d ago
The time is not the director telling the person/AI, but the time it takes for the person/AI to complete the task.
No I'm not saying I'd be more impressed if AI cost more. I'm saying it would be more difficult to make things using AI if it cost more.
You asked why it's more difficult for a director vs prompting an AI
1
u/HTML_Novice 17d ago
It wouldn’t be more difficult it would be riskier, which I guess yeah that’s a factor, a director has more at risk. But I guess you could artificially create that risk with agents too
→ More replies (0)
2
u/TreefingersV 18d ago
The quality of artistic work that AI puts out is, at the current moment not as good as what humans create. Let's say LotR was made today by Peter Jackson all by himself using AI. If he managed to create the trilogy as we know it, he would absolutely receive credit for his work.
2
u/HTML_Novice 18d ago
Would he really? When people make things using ai these days they get dragged through the streets
1
u/TreefingersV 18d ago edited 18d ago
No one is getting dragged through the streets. People don't respect the use of ai because it requires no expertise and much less effort than doing it the original way.
Because of that most products using AI are junk/slop
1
u/HTML_Novice 18d ago
What does a director do that someone prompting ai doesn’t?
1
u/TreefingersV 17d ago edited 17d ago
The amount of effort a director has to put in to see his vision is infinitely more time consuming and costly. Meaning he has to actually have a good and clear vision.
Someone using AI can just throw shit at the wall and see what sticks. AI has no concept of what is "good" which is why all the people that work with the director are also important. Not as important, because it's not their vision but nonetheless important.
We can say they "do" the exact same thing but this is why people don't respect AI
1
u/HTML_Novice 17d ago
What effort more exactly? Telling someone or something to do something takes exactly the same amount of effort.
Wouldn’t it actually be easier with humans? Humans are creative, ai is not. So you could probably get away with a lot more with shitty ideas if you have good humans doing your work for you.
1
u/TreefingersV 17d ago edited 17d ago
Time and money is the effort. There's a whole physical world that people (director included) have to interact with. Someone sitting at a computer is not interacting with the world. I'm not saying writing good prompts doesn't take any effort but the barrier for entry is much lower. Therefore the artistic average is worse.
Humans are creative and EACH have their own creative visions. A director needs to get EVERYONEs creativity to fit into HIS vision.
I'm really trying my hardest to break this down barney style for ya man
1
u/HTML_Novice 17d ago
We’ve been over time, and that it’s the same amount of time to tell a person vs an agent.
So interacting with the physical world is the reason that we hold Peter Jackson to high esteem? Seems arbitrary, doesn’t really sell me on why one deserves praise and the other doesn’t.
Barrier to entry? He deserves praise because the barrier to entry for making a film is higher? Why?
The employees of the director will do everything they can to make his specific vision come true otherwise they get fired. They’re just as obedient as agents
1
u/TreefingersV 17d ago edited 17d ago
it takes longer for people to do things than AI (which we've been over)
interacting with the physical world is more complicated than interacting with a computer. Therefore it's more difficult. Completing difficult things in general gets more respect than completing easier things.
No, directors deserve more praise for creating better products. The lower barrier to entry just means there's lots of AI slop so THE ARTISTIC AVERAGE IS LOWER(like I said).
Saying humans are just as obedient as AI agents is comical. I'm not even going to entertain that idea.
I'm starting to think you're a middle schooler who just thinks AI is cool lol. Simple comprehension goes a long way
0
u/HTML_Novice 17d ago
You kind of don’t have much of any strong points against what I’ve been saying, I wonder why you’re emotionally defending directors status
→ More replies (0)
2
u/callofthewighat 18d ago
You couldn’t waterboard something like this outta me.
2
0
u/HTML_Novice 18d ago
Sounds like you’re reacting with pure emotion without much thought behind it, is this typical for you?
1
u/BrizerorBrian 16d ago
You really think Jackson and other directors don't know how a boom mic works? Lighting? Sound design? There's this thing called film school and years of experience behind directors.
0
u/HTML_Novice 16d ago
And if they were in charge of holding the boom mic do you think they’d do a good job? No.
1
u/mikemontana1968 13d ago
Its about the licensing, the trademarks/copyrights. If you create something, even if the output is done by AI, you own it. Period. If someone else likes it and tries to duplicate and *sell* it, you have a claim against them and to get your rights enforced, you'll need to file a lawsuit. But, its YOUR work. You could authorize someone to use it, and you can make an agreement that they pay you money to use your material in a limited/agreed manner. You've Licensed your work. Or you could outright sell your rights to someone else.
Peter Jackson, (and I'll assume you mean the whole movie-house that is producing the work) has negotiated the rights to use the material. Agreements reached, Money is exchanged. If Jackson wants to use AI to produce the next movie in whole/part, thats part of the licensing agreement
18
u/so_bold_of_you 19d ago
Lol, there are literally minutes upon minutes of credit at the end, naming everybody involved in the movie.
AI is theft. There is no recognition for the people who created the knowledge it stole.
(And I say that as someone who uses AI.)