5 ms·

Nothing absurd about that. What do you think an "Executive producer" is? A "Director" ? Does Peter Jackson get credit for creating the Lord of the Rings Trilogy

Nothing absurd about that. What do you think an "Executive producer" is? A "Director" ? Does Peter Jackson get credit for creating the Lord of the Rings Trilogy films? Christopher Nolan for his films? But did he make them ? No, it was the collective effort of thousands of individuals all working under their direction. Just like if somebody creates software today, and the end result is generated by the collective effort of thousands of agents, the "Director" still gets credit.

tinfoilhatter 1mo ago
The director receives accreditation for directing the film, not creating it.
- onraglanroad 1mo ago
  Doesn't the director generally receive more credit than the producer? How many films do you remember the producer above the director?
  - tinfoilhatter 1mo ago
    What does it matter who receives more credit? The producer produces the film and the director directs it. If I pick my phone and record a video, I'm now the producer and director of the film and the sole creator of it. If there were multiple people involved in the creation of a film I helped to create, I cannot factually say I created it. Just like if someone builds something using code generated by AI, they can't factually say they created it.
    - deleted 1mo ago
      [deleted]
    - swores 1mo ago
      There's a bit more nuance to it though, I think, because traditionally there has been more of a firm line between humans and tools. For example, most people would agree with this line you wrote: "If I pick my phone and record a video, I'm now the producer and director of the film and the sole creator of it." A pedant could say "woah hang on, that's ignoring the fact that actually the iPhone is the one recording the images that make up the film, how can the human get all the credit", yet nobody would actually make that argument when discussing who created the film. Generative AI is pretty much the first time (maybe there are some niche contradictions to this claim?) we consider a tool to be contributing enough creativity to the process that we don't all agree "only one person was operating this tool, so that person is the sole creator" - but some people DO still hold that line, and do consider the human who wrote the prompt to be the creator. And I don't think there's any objective technical metric we can use to say who's right, it comes down to our collective judgement deciding where the line is.
dd8601fn 1mo ago
That’s an interesting way to look at it, and still generous to the llm. By which I mean it puts the llm in the role of actor and such… people practicing an art. It seems harder to make a case that the llm is actually making creative decisions rather than aping a synthesis of past human decisions and expressions of taste, strictly, at every turn. Though I guess it’s all “shades of grey”. I never felt like I was contributing a ton when I was essentially wrapping a large, capable library that some smarter person or people made, either. Tangentially… remember back when we used to see headlines like “12 year old made a web browser!” and we all thought, “No. No they didn’t.” It all feels a little like that, again.

tinfoilhatter 1mo ago

The director receives accreditation for directing the film, not creating it.

onraglanroad 1mo ago
Doesn't the director generally receive more credit than the producer? How many films do you remember the producer above the director?
- tinfoilhatter 1mo ago
  What does it matter who receives more credit? The producer produces the film and the director directs it. If I pick my phone and record a video, I'm now the producer and director of the film and the sole creator of it. If there were multiple people involved in the creation of a film I helped to create, I cannot factually say I created it. Just like if someone builds something using code generated by AI, they can't factually say they created it.
  - deleted 1mo ago
    [deleted]
  - swores 1mo ago
    There's a bit more nuance to it though, I think, because traditionally there has been more of a firm line between humans and tools. For example, most people would agree with this line you wrote: "If I pick my phone and record a video, I'm now the producer and director of the film and the sole creator of it." A pedant could say "woah hang on, that's ignoring the fact that actually the iPhone is the one recording the images that make up the film, how can the human get all the credit", yet nobody would actually make that argument when discussing who created the film. Generative AI is pretty much the first time (maybe there are some niche contradictions to this claim?) we consider a tool to be contributing enough creativity to the process that we don't all agree "only one person was operating this tool, so that person is the sole creator" - but some people DO still hold that line, and do consider the human who wrote the prompt to be the creator. And I don't think there's any objective technical metric we can use to say who's right, it comes down to our collective judgement deciding where the line is.

dd8601fn 1mo ago

That’s an interesting way to look at it, and still generous to the llm. By which I mean it puts the llm in the role of actor and such… people practicing an art. It seems harder to make a case that the llm is actually making creative decisions rather than aping a synthesis of past human decisions and expressions of taste, strictly, at every turn. Though I guess it’s all “shades of grey”. I never felt like I was contributing a ton when I was essentially wrapping a large, capable library that some smarter person or people made, either. Tangentially… remember back when we used to see headlines like “12 year old made a web browser!” and we all thought, “No. No they didn’t.” It all feels a little like that, again.