Poll of the Day > SAG is on strike. I work in the film biz. AMA.

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
ParanoidObsessive 07/17/23 6:18:41 PM #51:	adjl posted... Probably, but AI CEOs would have no need for money, so right out of the gate they have less incentive to maximize the profit margin like that. Except the role of a CEO is to maximize profit, because that's their obligation to shareholders. So an AI CEO almost certainly would be utterly ruthless in squeezing every last drop of efficiency out of its employees, to the point of happily replacing them all if it earned a few extra pennies. An AI CEO wouldn't be voting itself pay raises or diverting funds into golden parachutes, but it would still be using all the same methods for generating overall company profit. Because that would literally be its purpose. adjl posted... Code them with the core goal of creating jobs (that thing billionaires are always bragging about doing) that pay a livable wage But that's not the job of a CEO. If you coded your hypothetical AI with that objective, it would certainly strive to achieve that as an objective - but the same could be said of human CEOs. You're essentially adding extra stipulations to the role, then holding it against human CEOs for failing to live up to a standard that doesn't actually exist. Ultimately, the problem isn't in the ability of a human or an AI to do the job, it's fundamentally disagreeing on what the job should be in the first place. And no amount of AI is ever going to solve that problem. A lot of the problems people see in modern corporate culture go back to the fact that stock investment and shareholding mandates a degree of growth beyond mere profitability. It's no longer enough for a business to be successful (ie, what most people think the purpose of a business is), corporations must strive to have positive growth at all times forever. Which lends itself to both anti-employee and anti-consumer policies, because literally nothing matters other than the bottom line. The role of the CEO is to essentially be the spearpoint of that mindset. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:974901211] in SAG is on ... [t:80508689]...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite><quote>Probably, but AI CEOs would have no need for money, so right out of the gate they have less incentive to maximize the profit margin like that.</quote>Except the role of a CEO is to maximize profit, because that's their obligation to shareholders. So an AI CEO almost certainly would be utterly ruthless in squeezing every last drop of efficiency out of its employees, to the point of happily replacing them all if it earned a few extra pennies.An AI CEO wouldn't be voting itself pay raises or diverting funds into golden parachutes, but it would still be using all the same methods for generating overall company profit. Because that would literally be its purpose.<cite>adjl posted...</cite><quote>Code them with the core goal of creating jobs (that thing billionaires are always bragging about doing) that pay a livable wage</quote>But that's not the job of a CEO. If you coded your hypothetical AI with that objective, it would certainly strive to achieve that as an objective - but the same could be said of human CEOs.You're essentially adding extra stipulations to the role, then holding it against human CEOs for failing to live up to a standard that doesn't actually exist.Ultimately, the problem isn't in the ability of a human or an AI to do the job, it's fundamentally disagreeing on what the job should be in the first place. And no amount of AI is ever going to solve that problem.A lot of the problems people see in modern corporate culture go back to the fact that stock investment and shareholding mandates a degree of growth beyond mere profitability. It's no longer enough for a business to be successful (ie, what most people think the purpose of a business is), corporations must strive to have positive growth at all times forever. Which lends itself to both anti-employee and anti-consumer policies, because literally nothing matters other than the bottom line.The role of the CEO is to essentially be the spearpoint of that mindset.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
shadowsword87 07/17/23 6:22:29 PM #52:	I disagree with CEOs being optimal replacement, there isn't enough text to properly build up. Plus with enough random curveballs being thrown their way it can be weird. Middle management however, or a supervisor, or hell HR? Oh baby easy replacement. <cite>shadowsword87 posted [p:974901292] in SAG is on ... [t:80508689]...</cite> <quote>I disagree with CEOs being optimal replacement, there isn't enough text to properly build up. Plus with enough random curveballs being thrown their way it can be weird.Middle management however, or a supervisor, or hell HR? Oh baby easy replacement.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 07/17/23 10:13:47 PM #53:	ParanoidObsessive posted... If you coded your hypothetical AI with that objective, it would certainly strive to achieve that as an objective - but the same could be said of human CEOs. Well, yes, but you can't really code a human CEO with a new objective if you don't like their current one. Not without some very ethically questionable methods, at least. ParanoidObsessive posted... You're essentially adding extra stipulations to the role, then holding it against human CEOs for failing to live up to a standard that doesn't actually exist. It's a standard they'd meet if they had no other choice but to meet it. As it stands, they choose not to, both because they have to compete against others who are making the same choice and because making that choice yields greater benefits for them, but by taking away not only that choice but also their ability to lobby against laws that would take away that choice (which is precisely why they still have the choice), things stand to look a lot better. ParanoidObsessive posted... A lot of the problems people see in modern corporate culture go back to the fact that stock investment and shareholding mandates a degree of growth beyond mere profitability. It's no longer enough for a business to be successful (ie, what most people think the purpose of a business is), corporations must strive to have positive growth at all times forever. Which lends itself to both anti-employee and anti-consumer policies, because literally nothing matters other than the bottom line. The thing is, that's actually fine, provided there are sufficiently robust safeguards in place to ensure employee and consumer welfare aren't sacrificed in that pursuit. Because there aren't, those are corners that get cut in the race to grow the fastest, simply because that's what has to happen to stay competitive. What's needed to stop modern corporate culture from being so harmful is simply a level playing field with inalienable standards that prevent those harms. AI can absolutely provide that, and spends a lot less time whining and suing people over it. shadowsword87 posted... I disagree with CEOs being optimal replacement, there isn't enough text to properly build up. Plus with enough random curveballs being thrown their way it can be weird. It'd be a little awkward to train because so much of the history isn't simply text, but for the most part I would expect that an AI with records of CEO's decisions and contexts over the last couple decades would be enough to replace them pretty completely. The main problem there would be that there'd be nobody higher up to check on it and correct its course if something went wrong, and it would definitely fall flat in trying to deal with brand new paradigm shifts (though truly brand new paradigm shifts are exceedingly rare, such that a sufficiently trained AI would likely be able to relate any new one to enough old ones to manage). shadowsword87 posted... Middle management however, or a supervisor, or hell HR? Oh baby easy replacement. Very much so. Front-line supervisors are still good to have for day-to-day directions and advice, but pretty much anything above that only exists to roll up performance metrics and compare them against some threshold. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:974905859] in SAG is on ... [t:80508689]...</cite> <quote>ParanoidObsessive posted... </cite><quote>If you coded your hypothetical AI with that objective, it would certainly strive to achieve that as an objective - but the same could be said of human CEOs.</quote>Well, yes, but you can't really code a human CEO with a new objective if you don't like their current one. Not without some very ethically questionable methods, at least.ParanoidObsessive posted... </cite><quote>You're essentially adding extra stipulations to the role, then holding it against human CEOs for failing to live up to a standard that doesn't actually exist.</quote>It's a standard they'd meet if they had no other choice but to meet it. As it stands, they choose not to, both because they have to compete against others who are making the same choice and because making that choice yields greater benefits for them, but by taking away not only that choice but also their ability to lobby against laws that would take away that choice (which is precisely why they still have the choice), things stand to look a lot better.ParanoidObsessive posted... </cite><quote>A lot of the problems people see in modern corporate culture go back to the fact that stock investment and shareholding mandates a degree of growth beyond mere profitability. It's no longer enough for a business to be successful (ie, what most people think the purpose of a business is), corporations must strive to have positive growth at all times forever. Which lends itself to both anti-employee and anti-consumer policies, because literally nothing matters other than the bottom line.</quote>The thing is, that's actually fine, provided there are sufficiently robust safeguards in place to ensure employee and consumer welfare aren't sacrificed in that pursuit. Because there aren't, those are corners that get cut in the race to grow the fastest, simply because that's what has to happen to stay competitive.What's needed to stop modern corporate culture from being so harmful is simply a level playing field with inalienable standards that prevent those harms. AI can absolutely provide that, and spends a lot less time whining and suing people over it.shadowsword87 posted... </cite><quote>I disagree with CEOs being optimal replacement, there isn't enough text to properly build up. Plus with enough random curveballs being thrown their way it can be weird.</quote>It'd be a little awkward to train because so much of the history isn't simply text, but for the most part I would expect that an AI with records of CEO's decisions and contexts over the last couple decades would be enough to replace them pretty completely. The main problem there would be that there'd be nobody higher up to check on it and correct its course if something went wrong, and it would definitely fall flat in trying to deal with brand new paradigm shifts (though truly brand new paradigm shifts are exceedingly rare, such that a sufficiently trained AI would likely be able to relate any new one to enough old ones to manage).shadowsword87 posted... </cite><quote>Middle management however, or a supervisor, or hell HR? Oh baby easy replacement.</quote>Very much so. Front-line supervisors are still good to have for day-to-day directions and advice, but pretty much anything above that only exists to roll up performance metrics and compare them against some threshold. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 07/18/23 10:43:59 AM #54:	adjl posted... Well, yes, but you can't really code a human CEO with a new objective if you don't like their current one. Not without some very ethically questionable methods, at least. Yes, but if you change the context of what a CEO is, human CEOs would attempt to fulfill the requirements simply by virtue of it being their job. This is how employment generally works. adjl posted... It's a standard they'd meet if they had no other choice but to meet it. As it stands, they choose not to It's a standard they choose not to meet because it is literally not their job. Again, you're essentially adding extra stipulations to the role, then holding it against human CEOs for failing to live up to a standard that doesn't actually exist. You're defining the obligations of a CEO by your own feelings of what the job should be, not based on what actual companies want their CEOs to be. What you're doing is the equivalent of complaining about your garbageman because he doesn't also wash your car and mow your lawn for you. Sure, it would be awesome if a garbageman (oh, wait, sorry, "sanitation worker") went so far above and beyond their job that they helped out in other ways, but they're not being paid to do so, they're not expected to do so, and ultimately, you'd be wrong for judging them poorly for not doing so. The problem isn't the CEO, it's how the role is defined in business. Replacing human CEOs with AI CEOs wouldn't change that in the slightest, because the AIs would be programed with the exact same expectations and obligations. What you want/need is to redefine the entire corporate structure and ethos. I'm not even suggesting you're wrong to think that CEOs should be expected to consider more than just the corporate bottom line, or that the world wouldn't be a better place if businesses were incentivized to care more about their customers/employees/the environment/etc. But that's not the world we actually live in. And AI isn't going to change that. This is essentially a "garbage in, garbage out" scenario. AIs will only be as good as their programming. And it's still humans programming them (whether directly or indirectly). --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:974913908] in SAG is on ... [t:80508689]...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite><quote>Well, yes, but you can't really code a human CEO with a new objective if you don't like their current one. Not without some very ethically questionable methods, at least.</quote>Yes, but if you change the context of what a CEO is, human CEOs would attempt to fulfill the requirements simply by virtue of it being their job. This is how employment generally works.<cite>adjl posted...</cite><quote>It's a standard they'd meet if they had no other choice but to meet it. As it stands, they choose not to</quote>It's a standard they choose not to meet because it is literally not their job.Again, you're essentially adding extra stipulations to the role, then holding it against human CEOs for failing to live up to a standard that doesn't actually exist. You're defining the obligations of a CEO by your own feelings of what the job should be, not based on what actual companies want their CEOs to be.What you're doing is the equivalent of complaining about your garbageman because he doesn't also wash your car and mow your lawn for you. Sure, it would be awesome if a garbageman (oh, wait, sorry, "sanitation worker") went so far above and beyond their job that they helped out in other ways, but they're not being paid to do so, they're not expected to do so, and ultimately, you'd be wrong for judging them poorly for not doing so.The problem isn't the CEO, it's how the role is defined in business. Replacing human CEOs with AI CEOs wouldn't change that in the slightest, because the AIs would be programed with the exact same expectations and obligations. What you want/need is to redefine the entire corporate structure and ethos.I'm not even suggesting you're wrong to think that CEOs should be expected to consider more than just the corporate bottom line, or that the world wouldn't be a better place if businesses were incentivized to care more about their customers/employees/the environment/etc. But that's not the world we actually live in. And AI isn't going to change that.This is essentially a "garbage in, garbage out" scenario. AIs will only be as good as their programming. And it's still humans programming them (whether directly or indirectly).</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 07/18/23 10:54:26 AM #55:	ParanoidObsessive posted... Again, you're essentially adding extra stipulations to the role, then holding it against human CEOs for failing to live up to a standard that doesn't actually exist. You're defining the obligations of a CEO by your own feelings of what the job should be, not based on what actual companies want their CEOs to be. Well, yeah. That's exactly how business regulations work: You take things that businesses would otherwise do/not do for the sake of their own interests, and you force them to not do/do them for the sake of making the world a better place. That's true whether it's making corporations prioritize creating jobs that pay livable wages or whether it's making corporations hire adults instead of kidnapping orphans. ParanoidObsessive posted... This is essentially a "garbage in, garbage out" scenario. AIs will only be as good as their programming. And it's still humans programming them (whether directly or indirectly). As it stands, though, the CEOs resisting efforts to change those standards do so out of their own self-interest, since the company making less money means they make less money. An AI doesn't have that personal stake, nor does it have the capacity to lobby against reprogramming efforts, which makes it much easier to reprogram them as needed. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:974914056] in SAG is on ... [t:80508689]...</cite> <quote>ParanoidObsessive posted... </cite><quote>Again, you're essentially adding extra stipulations to the role, then holding it against human CEOs for failing to live up to a standard that doesn't actually exist. You're defining the obligations of a CEO by your own feelings of what the job should be, not based on what actual companies want their CEOs to be.</quote>Well, yeah. That's exactly how business regulations work: You take things that businesses would otherwise do/not do for the sake of their own interests, and you force them to not do/do them for the sake of making the world a better place. That's true whether it's making corporations prioritize creating jobs that pay livable wages or whether it's making corporations hire adults instead of kidnapping orphans.ParanoidObsessive posted... </cite><quote>This is essentially a "garbage in, garbage out" scenario. AIs will only be as good as their programming. And it's still humans programming them (whether directly or indirectly).</quote>As it stands, though, the CEOs resisting efforts to change those standards do so out of their own self-interest, since the company making less money means they make less money. An AI doesn't have that personal stake, nor does it have the capacity to lobby against reprogramming efforts, which makes it much easier to reprogram them as needed.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CyborgSage00x0 07/18/23 12:18:41 PM #56:	shadowsword87 posted... I disagree with CEOs being optimal replacement, there isn't enough text to properly build up. Plus with enough random curveballs being thrown their way it can be weird. Middle management however, or a supervisor, or hell HR? Oh baby easy replacement. CEO is all number crunching and making the best financial and long-term growth for itself/shareholders. This could very easily be replicated by an AI. One could argue CEOs aren't needed at all, and Board of Trustees/shareholders could simply vote to proceed on things (they already do, but somehow also think they need one dude paid dozens of millions of years to propose ideas, first). --- PotD's resident Film Expert. <cite>CyborgSage00x0 posted [p:974915387] in SAG is on ... [t:80508689]...</cite> <quote>shadowsword87 posted... </cite><quote>I disagree with CEOs being optimal replacement, there isn't enough text to properly build up. Plus with enough random curveballs being thrown their way it can be weird.Middle management however, or a supervisor, or hell HR? Oh baby easy replacement.</quote>CEO is all number crunching and making the best financial and long-term growth for itself/shareholders. This could very easily be replicated by an AI.One could argue CEOs aren't needed at all, and Board of Trustees/shareholders could simply vote to proceed on things (they already do, but somehow also think they need one dude paid dozens of millions of years to propose ideas, first).</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CyborgSage00x0 07/18/23 12:49:22 PM #57:	https://twitter.com/sentammoses/status/1681127057701617664?s=46&t=MclOgjiC_DZiKahxLVoZDg SAG and AMPTP proposals. --- PotD's resident Film Expert. <cite>CyborgSage00x0 posted [p:974916000] in SAG is on ... [t:80508689]...</cite> <quote>https://twitter.com/sentammoses/status/1681127057701617664?s=46&t=MclOgjiC_DZiKahxLVoZDgSAG and AMPTP proposals. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jen0125 07/18/23 12:51:09 PM #58:	CyborgSage00x0 posted... https://twitter.com/sentammoses/status/1681127057701617664?s=46&t=MclOgjiC_DZiKahxLVoZDg SAG and AMPTP proposals. Can you post the other two tweets? I can't use Twitter without an account <cite>Jen0125 posted [p:974916028] in SAG is on ... [t:80508689]...</cite> <quote>CyborgSage00x0 posted... </cite><quote>https://twitter.com/sentammoses/status/1681127057701617664?s=46&t=MclOgjiC_DZiKahxLVoZDgSAG and AMPTP proposals.</quote>Can you post the other two tweets? I can't use Twitter without an account </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 07/18/23 1:06:53 PM #59:	For whatever reason, I seem to be able to see the tweet without an account, so here you go:https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/0/6/AAB4-6AAEq1G.jpg https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/0/7/AAB4-6AAEq1H.jpg https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/0/8/AAB4-6AAEq1I.jpg --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:974916386] in SAG is on ... [t:80508689]...</cite> <quote>For whatever reason, I seem to be able to see the tweet without an account, so here you go:https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/0/6/AAB4-6AAEq1G.jpg https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/0/7/AAB4-6AAEq1H.jpg https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/0/8/AAB4-6AAEq1I.jpg </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DevilSummoner1 07/18/23 1:08:26 PM #60:	CyborgSage00x0 posted... https://twitter.com/sentammoses/status/1681127057701617664?s=46&t=MclOgjiC_DZiKahxLVoZDg SAG and AMPTP proposals. That's fuckin terrible <cite>DevilSummoner1 posted [p:974916426] in SAG is on ... [t:80508689]...</cite> <quote>CyborgSage00x0 posted... </cite><quote>https://twitter.com/sentammoses/status/1681127057701617664?s=46&t=MclOgjiC_DZiKahxLVoZDgSAG and AMPTP proposals.</quote>That's fuckin terrible </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jen0125 07/18/23 1:08:49 PM #61:	Oh I could see all images but her tweet says "1/3" which usually means there are two more relevant tweets they're posting. Thanks though. <cite>Jen0125 posted [p:974916435] in SAG is on ... [t:80508689]...</cite> <quote>Oh I could see all images but her tweet says "1/3" which usually means there are two more relevant tweets they're posting. Thanks though. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 07/18/23 1:17:48 PM #62:	Jen0125 posted... Oh I could see all images but her tweet says "1/3" which usually means there are two more relevant tweets they're posting. Thanks though. Oh, there are. I don't see 2/3, but here's 3/3: https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/2/1/AAB4-6AAEq1V.jpg https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/2/2/AAB4-6AAEq1W.jpg https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/2/3/AAB4-6AAEq1X.jpg --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:974916633] in SAG is on ... [t:80508689]...</cite> <quote>Jen0125 posted... </cite><quote>Oh I could see all images but her tweet says "1/3" which usually means there are two more relevant tweets they're posting. Thanks though.</quote>Oh, there are. I don't see 2/3, but here's 3/3:https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/2/1/AAB4-6AAEq1V.jpg https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/2/2/AAB4-6AAEq1W.jpg https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/2/3/AAB4-6AAEq1X.jpg </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jen0125 07/18/23 1:40:47 PM #63:	Ty!! <cite>Jen0125 posted [p:974917111] in SAG is on ... [t:80508689]...</cite> <quote>Ty!! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jen0125 07/18/23 1:42:12 PM #64:	Damn, they really don't want to pay these people residuals while they reap the benefits of using the media in perpetuity. <cite>Jen0125 posted [p:974917132] in SAG is on ... [t:80508689]...</cite> <quote>Damn, they really don't want to pay these people residuals while they reap the benefits of using the media in perpetuity. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 07/18/23 3:50:27 PM #65:	Indeed not. They seem to be rather attached to making ridiculous amounts of money from streaming and not giving any of it to the people that actually did the work. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:974919793] in SAG is on ... [t:80508689]...</cite> <quote>Indeed not. They seem to be rather attached to making ridiculous amounts of money from streaming and not giving any of it to the people that actually did the work.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CyborgSage00x0 07/18/23 3:58:02 PM #66:	One of the central arguments of the Unions is that it is no longer "new media." --- PotD's resident Film Expert. <cite>CyborgSage00x0 posted [p:974919950] in SAG is on ... [t:80508689]...</cite> <quote>One of the central arguments of the Unions is that it is no longer "new media."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 07/18/23 4:01:38 PM #67:	Yep. I can understand being conservative about revenue sharing when nobody was really certain how it was going to play out, but it's playing out as a near-complete replacement for "traditional media," denying everyone involved the residuals and other long-term income they would have otherwise received. There's no excuse now for not trying to make streaming work like other releases. This is just studios being greedy. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:974920012] in SAG is on ... [t:80508689]...</cite> <quote>Yep. I can understand being conservative about revenue sharing when nobody was really certain how it was going to play out, but it's playing out as a near-complete replacement for "traditional media," denying everyone involved the residuals and other long-term income they would have otherwise received. There's no excuse now for not trying to make streaming work like other releases. This is just studios being greedy.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jen0125 07/18/23 4:05:10 PM #68:	CyborgSage00x0 posted... One of the central arguments of the Unions is that it is no longer "new media." And they're absolutely right. It's current and future. <cite>Jen0125 posted [p:974920078] in SAG is on ... [t:80508689]...</cite> <quote>CyborgSage00x0 posted... </cite><quote>One of the central arguments of the Unions is that it is no longer "new media."</quote>And they're absolutely right. It's current and future. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Poll of the Day > SAG is on strike. I work in the film biz. AMA. (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > SAG is on strike. I work in the film biz. AMA.