ᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ 帝

A geologist and archaeologist by training, a nerd by inclination - books, films, fossils, comics, rocks, games, folklore, and, generally, the rum and uncanny… Let’s have it!

Elsewhere:

  • Yrtree.me - it’s still early days for me in the Fediverse, so bear with me
  • 253 Posts
  • 931 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle
  • The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences acknowledged the existence of generative AI yesterday in new rule changes for its annual Oscars awards ceremony. Rather than dictate its use or require disclosures, the Academy simply says using AI doesn’t, on its own, hurt a movie’s chances — but that how it’s used could.

    That seems fair.

    The Brutalist used AI to improve Hungarian accents, which seems a reasonable use for it. They also used it to generate photographs of fictional buildings, which has done someone out of a job. However, someone else has to come up with the prompts and sift through the results, it just feels a bit… Cheap? Low effort?






  • As one studio after another began clamoring to pay Sinners’s $90 million-ish asking price, the director’s agents at WME notified them of a few strings attached. Coogler would retain final cut (a creative dispensation reserved for the industry’s crème de la crème), command first-dollar gross (that is, a percentage of box-office revenue beginning from the movie’s theatrical opening rather than waiting for the studio to turn a profit), and, most contentiously, 25 years after its release, ownership of Sinners would revert to the director.

    And they say it like this is A Bad Thing, creators should have more control over the things they make - Hollywood shafting people just makes everything worse. The studios are still going to make plenty of money.










  • FWS, which is partly funded by the writer JK Rowling

    “Millionaire spends cash to make people’s lives worse”

    They argue that a very clear definition by the court on what a woman is would also help clear up an ambiguity about who qualifies to use women’s services.They argue that a very clear definition by the court on what a woman is would also help clear up an ambiguity about who qualifies to use women’s services.

    There doesn’t seem any ambiguity: Do they have a GRC? It’s either either yes or no. Trying to define a woman is difficult and could lead to a lot more ambiguity.

    They say people who self-identify as trans but do not have a gender recognition certificate are being allowed to use women-only services and spaces.

    Laws are broken all the time, it’s not an argument to change the laws.