Rendered at 22:09:21 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
n2d4 45 minutes ago [-]
Amazon is actually much more reasonable than the headline makes it seem:
> “We have the utmost respect and admiration for Luca Guadagnino as an award-winning filmmaker — not to mention a longstanding relationship that we hope to continue,” a spokesperson for Amazon said to Variety in a statement. “We believe that Artificial will be better served if it were released by a different studio and are working closely with the filmmaking team to find the film a new home.”
Well, yeah, I kind of agree. Amazon probably shouldn't be the one producing the film, and it sounds like they're working to get the rights sold to someone else.
The headline also sucks because "after" means "months after with no evidence that it's related". It's just clickbait all around.
schmichael 35 minutes ago [-]
Amazon dropped the movie after announcing a partnership with OpenAI. The headline clearly communicates the only demonstrable action Amazon has taken.
Whether they're actually going to sell it is TBD. Until they do, they've taken no concrete action except cancel it. I don't think this article is clickbait.
n2d4 12 minutes ago [-]
What makes you think they've canceled it? Did you read past the headline?
What should they have done here — keep the movie despite the obvious conflict of interest? Be more secretive about the fact they're trying to separate so no one can write articles like these?
If they did the right thing, it would look exactly like this. And I think it's generally a good idea to assume good faith (even with corporations) — you can still get your pitchforks up if they do refuse to give away the rights to movie.
Fraterkes 24 minutes ago [-]
Why do you agree that Amazon shouldn't be the one producing the film if you don't believe there's any evidence them dropping it is related to the partnership?
n2d4 17 minutes ago [-]
1. Because Amazon is a bigtech corp making a film about another bigtech corp. Plenty of conflicts of interest here (in either direction).
2. Regardless of whether it is or isn't related, implying they are without any evidence is just speculation. There's a reason they didn't say "months after" in the headline, even though it would be much more informative and much less confusing!
You also seem to conflate "there's evidence for" and "you believe that". Those are very distinct statements. "you don't believe there's evidence for X" doesn't make sense here — I said "there is no evidence for X in the article", that's a fact, not a belief.
TurdF3rguson 16 minutes ago [-]
He's agreeing with like, the universe, man.
38 minutes ago [-]
iamflimflam1 42 minutes ago [-]
Headlines are there to trigger people. It’s a shame that hacker news folk fall for them too often.
Lerc 34 minutes ago [-]
>The headline also sucks because "after" means "months after with no evidence that it's related". It's just clickbait all around.
post hoc ergo propter hoc is how print media imply a unstated fact without falling foul of Betteridge's law of headlines.
n2d4 7 minutes ago [-]
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. You are correct, and it is so rampant these days that I wish we just banned the word "after" in headlines.
JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago [-]
There is clearly a church-and-state issue with tech platforms owning studios. On the other hand, they have the cash. Not sure how we solve this without directly plumbing the cash to independent studios through a tax on tech funding a subsidy on independent studios.
humodz 1 hours ago [-]
In the 1940s it was common for studios to own movie theaters, but the Supreme Court ruled that this violated antitrust laws and forced them to sell off their theaters.
To me it's the same situation again, but now the theaters (streaming platforms) owning the studios.
>a tax on tech funding a subsidy on independent studios
Forcing consumers to subsidize an expensive taste sounds like a peculiar idea.
ok_dad 1 hours ago [-]
More like ensuring culture and art isn’t captured by the big conglomerate.
57 minutes ago [-]
nonethewiser 1 hours ago [-]
How is it different than media companies owning studios? Or simply studios existing? Studios publish viewpoints.
What you’re saying seems to completely ignore the first amendment.
ok_dad 1 hours ago [-]
The first amendment is for humans fuck the corps
nonethewiser 56 minutes ago [-]
But in practice no, the government cannot compel speech like this due to the first amendment
boca_honey 42 minutes ago [-]
Corporations are legally humans (in the US). You might not like it, but it is what has allowed our current tech infrastructure to flourish. It's the reason you're able to post this.
ok_dad 30 minutes ago [-]
Sure but I’m not saying it’s not legal right now, I’m saying fuck the corps, free speech is for humans. Fuck the Supreme Court of a ~decade ago, too, for fucking this up.
zeroonetwothree 30 minutes ago [-]
Persons, not humans.
vkou 33 minutes ago [-]
It's also the reason a lot of crap has flourished, too. I'll take a bit less tech progress if it meant less of it.
lotsofpulp 1 hours ago [-]
There is no church-and-state issue because the state is not stopping anyone from distributing video to whoever wants it.
It’s trivial to make and distribute a video (or text website or audio recording). Just because one business does not want to pay for it does not entitle the public to it, like any other media.
nonethewiser 1 hours ago [-]
Yeah the church and state comparison is funny. The principles guiding separation of church and state are why the government can’t stop or punish tech companies from having studios.
What he’s suggesting is to violate the first amendment. You cant just tell tech companies they cant have studios.
vkou 32 minutes ago [-]
Yet we could tell the studio companies that they can't have theatres. How did that not violate it? Has the amendment changed in the past century? Were the judges just stupid?
Maybe it's not so simple?
bluefirebrand 1 hours ago [-]
> It’s trivial to make and distribute a video
It's trivial to shout into the void
It's nontrivial to get heard
Freedom of speech is not sufficient in a world where it is so easy for the powerful to drown out all but the biggest voices
cassonmars 1 hours ago [-]
This feels like a strange take to me. With the internet, it has never been easier for people anywhere in the (connected) world to find an audience, which we've seen to great and detrimental effects. Prior to this, reaching widespread audiences _required_ powerful entities (publishers, marketers, broadcasters).
Why do you feel differently?
gAI 52 minutes ago [-]
At least in the US, it seems like this viewpoint held more water before net neutrality died.
newshackr 1 hours ago [-]
They already paid for it though. The movie was done.
nonethewiser 60 minutes ago [-]
So the government should force them to publish the viewpoint against their will?
baq 2 hours ago [-]
I want a movie about Jassy ratting out Amodei to the feds
throwaway87543 1 hours ago [-]
Amazon can't bury it without alienating Luca Guadagnino. Instead they are allowing anyone else publish it. Maybe A24 will want it, it is screening well.
nicce 2 hours ago [-]
Right after taking part of restricting Fable etc?
seasox 1 hours ago [-]
They don‘t even hide it anymore.
d--b 2 hours ago [-]
Oh so there will be a sequel!
andix 31 minutes ago [-]
Stuff like that happens in every oligarchy.
Either get used to more and more stuff like that, or regulate the sh* out of it. Without stopping stuff like that early on, the concentration of wealth and power only increases.
basisword 2 hours ago [-]
Does Amazon likely have the power to hold this up indefinitely or will it easily be moved to another studio?
Lerc 40 minutes ago [-]
"We believe that Artificial will be better served if it were released by a different studio and are working closely with the filmmaking team to find the film a new home."
They are claiming they will not. Many people would have to have the power to hold it up indefinitely, films get delayed by many different factors. It remains to be seen which happens.
Gagarin1917 1 hours ago [-]
Honestly not that big of a loss. Even if it’s Sam Altman being an ass the entire movie, it still wouldn’t be a good film because it’s about a wet blanket.
He’s not Steve Jobs or something. It’d be about as interesting as a Jeff Bezos film. Nobody cares.
kelvinjps10 31 minutes ago [-]
is more about the drama of him being fired of openai it doesn't have to be positive to be interesting
Gagarin1917 16 minutes ago [-]
I wasn’t saying it needs to be positive, I’m saying he’s a super boring movie character.
A whole movie about him being fired from OpenAI just doesn’t sound compelling. A simple documentary would be a much better format, and likely more accurate and interesting.
CamperBob2 36 minutes ago [-]
Zuckerberg's not a very interesting character but in the hands of a David Fincher, that wasn't a problem. Maybe the same is true for Altman and this director?
zeroonetwothree 29 minutes ago [-]
The Facebook founding was interesting, not sure about Z on his own.
josefritzishere 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
ribosometronome 2 hours ago [-]
It reads like this is meant to be a Social Network style portrayal where Altman is not necessarily portrayed flatteringly or with his approval, no? Where Melania was a payoff to a world leader, dropping this as they're making business deals also seems to be in service of their relationship.
sd9 47 minutes ago [-]
It's too early to do a Social Network for OpenAI
ToucanLoucan 2 hours ago [-]
Because he is one?
ceejayoz 2 hours ago [-]
I wonder how long before we get a Bezos biopic.
jrflowers 1 hours ago [-]
We already had a movie where Kevin Spacey played Lex Luthor
The headline also sucks because "after" means "months after with no evidence that it's related". It's just clickbait all around.
Whether they're actually going to sell it is TBD. Until they do, they've taken no concrete action except cancel it. I don't think this article is clickbait.
What should they have done here — keep the movie despite the obvious conflict of interest? Be more secretive about the fact they're trying to separate so no one can write articles like these?
If they did the right thing, it would look exactly like this. And I think it's generally a good idea to assume good faith (even with corporations) — you can still get your pitchforks up if they do refuse to give away the rights to movie.
2. Regardless of whether it is or isn't related, implying they are without any evidence is just speculation. There's a reason they didn't say "months after" in the headline, even though it would be much more informative and much less confusing!
You also seem to conflate "there's evidence for" and "you believe that". Those are very distinct statements. "you don't believe there's evidence for X" doesn't make sense here — I said "there is no evidence for X in the article", that's a fact, not a belief.
post hoc ergo propter hoc is how print media imply a unstated fact without falling foul of Betteridge's law of headlines.
To me it's the same situation again, but now the theaters (streaming platforms) owning the studios.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic....
Forcing consumers to subsidize an expensive taste sounds like a peculiar idea.
What you’re saying seems to completely ignore the first amendment.
It’s trivial to make and distribute a video (or text website or audio recording). Just because one business does not want to pay for it does not entitle the public to it, like any other media.
What he’s suggesting is to violate the first amendment. You cant just tell tech companies they cant have studios.
Maybe it's not so simple?
It's trivial to shout into the void
It's nontrivial to get heard
Freedom of speech is not sufficient in a world where it is so easy for the powerful to drown out all but the biggest voices
Why do you feel differently?
Either get used to more and more stuff like that, or regulate the sh* out of it. Without stopping stuff like that early on, the concentration of wealth and power only increases.
They are claiming they will not. Many people would have to have the power to hold it up indefinitely, films get delayed by many different factors. It remains to be seen which happens.
He’s not Steve Jobs or something. It’d be about as interesting as a Jeff Bezos film. Nobody cares.
A whole movie about him being fired from OpenAI just doesn’t sound compelling. A simple documentary would be a much better format, and likely more accurate and interesting.