Netflix Lists $900,000 Job Seeking AI To 'Create Great Content' 73
An anonymous reader shares a report: As Hollywood executives insist it is "just not realistic" to pay actors -- 87 percent of whom earn less than $26,000 -- more, they are spending lavishly on AI programs. While entertainment firms like Disney have declined to go into specifics about the nature of their investments in artificial intelligence, job postings and financial disclosures reviewed by The Intercept reveal new details about the extent of these companies' embrace of the technology. In one case, Netflix is offering as much as $900,000 for a single AI product manager.
[...] Netflix's posting for a $900,000-a-year AI product manager job makes clear that the AI goes beyond just the algorithms that determine what shows are recommended to users. The listing points to AI's uses for content creation: "Artificial Intelligence is powering innovation in all areas of the business," including by helping them to "create great content." Netflix's AI product manager posting alludes to a sprawling effort by the business to embrace AI, referring to its "Machine Learning Platform" involving AI specialists "across Netflix."
A research section on Netflix's website describes its machine learning platform, noting that while it was historically used for things like recommendations, it is now being applied to content creation. "Historically, personalization has been the most well-known area, where machine learning powers our recommendation algorithms. We're also using machine learning to help shape our catalog of movies and TV shows by learning characteristics that make content successful. We use it to optimize the production of original movies and TV shows in Netflix's rapidly growing studio."
[...] Netflix's posting for a $900,000-a-year AI product manager job makes clear that the AI goes beyond just the algorithms that determine what shows are recommended to users. The listing points to AI's uses for content creation: "Artificial Intelligence is powering innovation in all areas of the business," including by helping them to "create great content." Netflix's AI product manager posting alludes to a sprawling effort by the business to embrace AI, referring to its "Machine Learning Platform" involving AI specialists "across Netflix."
A research section on Netflix's website describes its machine learning platform, noting that while it was historically used for things like recommendations, it is now being applied to content creation. "Historically, personalization has been the most well-known area, where machine learning powers our recommendation algorithms. We're also using machine learning to help shape our catalog of movies and TV shows by learning characteristics that make content successful. We use it to optimize the production of original movies and TV shows in Netflix's rapidly growing studio."
Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
So Netflix wants to pay a human being, I assume, up to $900,000 to create (or manage the creation of) great content.
I think AI is over-hyped for what it is.
And I think this job offering is overpaid for what it will create for Netflix.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
posting for a $900,000-a-year AI product manager job
They aren't paying a one-time fee for an AI, this is an ongoing manager position.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and we'll see how long the position remains relevant. Just because they are willing to pay $900K this year for a manager in a new and emerging field doesn't mean they will keep that position as AI matures.
If five different companies are announcing positions for AI managers at $900K, a sixth company doesn't have much choice but to offer a similar salary range. I'm sure the same thing happened with managers and engineers for WiFi, Bluetooth, GPUs, and other new technologies when they were new and unkn
Re: (Score:2)
I expect this is a six-month trial position to see if AI can create something better than Nothing, Forever. Then they'll decide how they want to negotiate with the writers and actors unions.
My guess is that AI can't write well enough on its own, but might be able to act acceptably with sufficient direction. Especially in animated media.
Re: (Score:2)
posting for a $900,000-a-year AI product manager job
They aren't paying a one-time fee for an AI, this is an ongoing manager position.
And, next year, I expect they'll post a $90K/year job for someone to develop an AI that can do AI product management.
Re:Seriously? (Score:4)
Except that the courts have already ruled that AI created content (like monkey created content) is not deserving of the copyright protections that human-created content is.
Re: (Score:2)
Only works "created solely" by AI are not copyrightable.
If human makes any changes, it is copyrightable.
Re: (Score:2)
So asking ChatGPT for a 90 minute + one second film on “details” then the editing out the last second would make it copyrightable? I don’t honk so and the frontier between cops rightable and not is going to be a battleground for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
I think all that's been established is that the AI software can't hold the copyright, not that works created using generative AI can't have a copyright at all.
If an AI generates a script and a company of humans make the movie I bet they could still have the copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
We’ll certainly see but to me what you’re saying is a distinction without a difference
Re: (Score:2)
or is he *saying* that the distinction is without difference?
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think Netflix even knows what the hell it's asking.
Just for reference, a single DGX system is 1 million dollars. That is the only system big enough to run GPT. It's likewise the only system big enough to train "AI Artwork generators"
Let's assuming that, yes, all the ducks line up and Netflix realizes the black mirror episode "Joan Is Awful" is literately possible. What then? You think people are going to keep watching content that has no stakes? Personalized content works only when the personalization has stakes (risks.) G-rated risk-free content may be cheap to make, but nobody under the age of 8 is willing to watch it. You can't just reset-button bottle episodes for adult-oriented content.
You don't want a situation where Netflix generates content about you, and you get upset at the direction it takes, so you go to Amazon, and they also generate content about you that goes in a bad direction. Realisticly, AI "content creation" has only done one good thing consistently, and that is show us our weaknesses.
Charlie Booker (The guy responsible for Black Mirror) , got ChatGPT to write a black mirror episode, what did it come up with?
https://www.empireonline.com/tv/news/charlie-brooker-chatgpt-black-mirror-episode-exclusive-image/
===
“I’ve toyed around with ChatGPT a bit," Brooker reveals in the new issue of Empire. "The first thing I did was type 'generate Black Mirror episode' and it comes up with something that, at first glance, reads plausibly, but on second glance, is shit. Because all it’s done is look up all the synopses of Black Mirror episodes, and sort of mush them together. Then if you dig a bit more deeply you go, 'Oh, there’s not actually any real original thought here.' It’s [1970s impressionist] Mike Yarwood — there’s a topical reference.”
In much of Black Mirror, the problem turns out not to be the technology itself, but the use it’s put to by human beings. In putting together the new series, Brooker became aware of previous patterns in the show, and keen to incorporate new twists. “I was aware that I had written lots of episodes where someone goes 'Oh, I was inside a computer the whole time!'", he chuckles. "So I thought, 'I’m just going to chuck out any sense of what I think a Black Mirror episode is.' There’s no point in having an anthology show if you can’t break your own rules. Just a sort of nice, cold glass of water in the face.”
==
And this is the thing, AI can not be creative. It lacks any human experience to be able to write something human relatable. Likewise with Art generators, all it's done is learn what existing artwork looks like, it has no ability to generate anything new. If some new subject comes along (for example ChatGPT and Stable diffusion doesn't know what a "VTuber" is) it will just mash up things. So entering the names of the MOST POPULAR FEMALE STREAMER ON TWITCH, nothing.
Simply this is the problem with training deep learning on only public domain sources. It will not know anything relevant beyond the 1920's, thus it's usefulness is completely defeated. Just like a human can read a copyrighted novel or textbook, so should a deep learning program. Denying the machine the ability to do things that humans can do without barriers means the AI can never have the experience (not that it 'experiences' anything, but beside the point) the kind of material that might inspire a human to write, draw, or sing about something.
So Netflix, at ~best~ might be able to use AI to pad out material, but nobody is going to want to watch content that consists only of AI-generated material. You know how we know this? Go to twitch and look up vedal987, aka "Neuro-Sama" , the appeal of Neuro-sama is simply how deranged the hallucinations get. Neuro knows absolutely nothing, and it's pretty much as entertaining as watching animals at a zoo during feeding time. Likewise there is "alwaysbreaktime" which is somewhat interactive (but pretty much has low v
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with that AI can't currently generate good original content, but judging for the repetitive nature of most Netflix shows neither can most writers. So a lot of generic writers that are simply copying other shows may loose their jobs.
Re: (Score:1)
And this is the thing, AI can not be creative. It lacks any human experience to be able to write something human relatable. Likewise with Art generators, all it's done is learn what existing artwork looks like, it has no ability to generate anything new. If some new subject comes along (for example ChatGPT and Stable diffusion doesn't know what a "VTuber" is) it will just mash up things.
Yet many successful TV shows and movies are mostly re-hashes of previous ones, and therefore required little or no new creativity. I can easily see AI being used to mostly replace the writers of re-tread shows and flicks.
Also, there's a lot of talk about AI assisting computer programming. I imagine it could be used just as well to assist writers, making the job of churning out passable scripts faster.
I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment I think you're expressing, namely that AI-generated content will have
Re: (Score:2)
Look - I just wanna watch the Witcher fight monsters and grunt at people. Then some magic. I'm sure that this can be done with computers. ...
I will also accept "Star Trek people investigate something weird. Then blast it with phasers/photons."
Re: (Score:2)
>"Star Trek people investigate something weird. Then blast it with phasers/photons."
Star Trek: Scum of the Federation is an intriguing idea. A little bit of Firefly in your Star Trek. Adventures on the periphery of the Federation with characters who aren't afraid to shoot first and ask questions later.
Then again, if you just make that show without the 'Star Trek' label, you probably save a lot of headaches.
Re: (Score:1)
I think you're jumping the shark a bit here.
Netflix could use AI to render content - that was written by humans. That is, a screenwriter writes a film or series or whatever. Netflix puts some people to work who instruct an AI to render scenes of the film using photo-realistic characters and scenery (both of which could conceivably be 'taught' from physical equivalents).
For what it's worth, having seen some AI "photos", there's some hope this might even work. IMHO photos tend to come out a bit "too perfect"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And this is the thing, AI can not be creative. It lacks any human experience to be able to write something human relatable. Likewise with Art generators, all it's done is learn what existing artwork looks like, it has no ability to generate anything new.
I completely disagree with the notion AI art generators are not "creative". They are insanely creative.
You drop some hints in the form of a a few words, walk away for a while and come back to some crazy shit. Most of it will be complete garbage but some of the things it comes up with by chance is fucking amazing.
After all these systems work on a feedback loop of random noise influenced by learned context so what they generate will be both unique and hopefully still make enough sense to be useful. Sure th
Re: (Score:2)
You can use a cloud service and fine tune a pretrained model. You don't have to train an in-house model from a scratch.
Re: Seriously? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think AI is over-hyped for what it is.
I'm not sure it is. Given Netflix productions as of late, where very other episode of anything is directed by a different person, written by a different person, and all these people collectively don't share a braincell between them I don't think AI could possibly do a worse job of Netflix's content creation than they are doing now.
I'm not being funny here. Netflix was given props for giving outsiders and unknowns a go at developing content and they have shown only one thing: the importance of hiring actual
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I read the job posting [netflix.com]. Its not specifically for content generation. Its for machine learning platform engineering that would presumably be used in all parts of the company.
It says 300k-900k total compensation, which for a big tech company high level engineering manager is actually pretty normal.
Google has a listing right now for a manager for FitBit that says "$185,000-$283,000 + bonus + equity + benefits".
The author of the article didn't include a link to the job posting. Maybe it was written by
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix is offering as much as $900,000 for a single AI product manager.
No PM is worth even 1/5 of that. FFS, managers are so clueless when it comes to judging value.
Re: (Score:2)
And I think this job offering is overpaid for what it will create for Netflix.
Is it?
If Netflix can attract the best talent to create a great AI content management system, it is worth billions.
Re: (Score:2)
>So Netflix wants to pay a human being, I assume, up to $900,000
no. where did you get *that* idea???
Humans up to $120k; the $900,000 is for an AI with at least ten years experience . . . :)
$900k for possibly unlimited shows,maybe on demand (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
ELIZA: By the way, please understand that I can't always give you an attuned response. -- But, please go on.
YOU: I want you to create a movie for me.
ELIZA: Why do you want me to create a movie for you ?
YOU: Because you're an AI.
ELIZA: What makes you think I am an AI ?
This stuff just writes itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually when computers get powerful enough they will be able to generate content on demand.... Netflix, make me a comedy movie about dinosaurs who run a home cleaning business.. Ok got it, I will let you know when your dinosaur home cleaning movie is available to view.
Dude, this is the absolute best spinoff of the Dinosaurs sitcom I've ever heard of. Concept alone is more creative than anything we've seen on Netflix.
Re: (Score:2)
Taken to an extreme:
All this happens on-the-fly. Like how MP'3 are decoded as you play them.
Start with a small archive of storyline-generating templates. Add parameters to describe general idea, and presto! There's your storyline (generated as you watch, possibly even incorporating various types of feedback on-the-go).
Same thing for virtual actors: small set of templates, add parameters -> virtual actor / actress, skinned, clothed & supplied with personality as appropiate for the job.
Same th
I see a interesting similarities here (Score:5, Funny)
ElectroBOOM used AI for content creation (Score:2)
If it works as well as their recomendations it (Score:3)
will be a flop. I no longer scroll the page past what's new since everything that it recommends I'm not interested in.
I always feels that Netflix has very little content. Search is mostly miss since it's seldom available.
So far my experience with AI is mostly a miss.
Re:If it works as well as their recomendations it (Score:4, Funny)
Streamberry (Score:2)
I can't help but chuckle a bit.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm still cringing at the episode where the British prime minister fucks a pig on live TV. What were the writers thinking?! Or maybe they weren't.
Re: (Score:2)
They were probably thinking of of the claims that David Cameron inserted his penis and/or testicles into a dead pig's mouth [wikipedia.org].
See the 80's movie "Looker" (Score:1)
I wonder if Netflix plans to control everyone's mind with "perfect" AI actors.
It was a crap movie but I have a thing for trashy dystopian 70s and 80s flicks.
Oh no, people losing their jobs. Shock. (Score:1)
As Hollywood executives insist it is "just not realistic" to pay actors -- 87 percent of whom earn less than $26,000 -- more, they are spending lavishly on AI programs.
I think I'm more surprised that anyone would be surprised at this point. Yes, Hollywood is full of greedy as fuck executives and water is wet. Wow. Breaking news, all companies see you as a cog. None of this should surprise anyone.
We're not there yet, but holy fuck we're getting close to basically Walmart checkout for movie making. The movies aren't going to make themselves (ever), but you aren't going to need the man power to make movies like you used to need the man power to make a movie.
But for all
we need Universal Health Care in the usa! (Score:2)
we need Universal Health Care in the usa!
Or the very least fully remove it from the work place.
I Can Doo Eeeet. (Score:1)
All of my A is I.
up to! (Score:2)
they will just that Hollywood accounting to not pay you the full amount and then say that 900K is the max payout that you can get in this role.
What, to create something like... (Score:2)
I'm available (Score:2)
It isn't 900k/yr (Score:3)
So this is something Netflix is doing with all their tech jobs now. Because they're REQUIRED by law in many states to list salary expectations up front on job listings, they've taking the bullshit approach of listing highly unrealistic ranges, such as this job being 300k-900k, and another I saw that was 100k-700k. They just make up numbers, absolutely violating the spirit of the law while technically staying within the letter of the law.
Well well well (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If the tech is so good that it can replace actors, let's abolish copyright on all AI generated content.
Interesting. If I deepfake an AI actor, is it who sues me, or what? If companies are "people" then pulling the AI power cord or infecting the actor with a virus would be akin to felony/premeditated...?
Yeah. Lawyers are gonna make it fuckin' weird. Because it's highly profitable.
Re: (Score:2)
May as well remove the financial reward for the companies if no one else is getting compensated.
I suspect you believe AI just magics its way into existence and doesn't involve things such as ... insane amounts of computational power and model creation?
AI will result in genocide eventually (Score:2)
Re: AI will result in genocide eventually (Score:1)
AI reads Mein Kampf and then desides about jews (Score:2)
AI reads Mein Kampf and then desides about jews
They're hastening their own downfall (Score:2)
Publishing conglomerates are salivating at the prospect of pumping out AI-written novels 'in the style of' with AI-generated book covers.
News organisations are leaping at the chance to generate all their articles automatically.
But eventually that capability will move to web browsers and phone apps, where end users will be perfectly capable of pushing that sam
Literally an episode of Black Mirror (Score:2)
Clearly some exec watched the new season of Black Mirror and thought, "that's a great idea!" because this the exact same concept.
Re: Literally an episode of Black Mirror (Score:4, Funny)
I suggest AI moviegoers (Score:5, Insightful)
Most TV shows and movies are dreadful. Someone should create an AI to watch them and free us poor humans from all that mediocrity.
Re: (Score:2)
Most TV shows and movies are dreadful. Someone should create an AI to watch them and free us poor humans from all that mediocrity.
Pretty much this.
The risk averse, design by committee nature of broadcast TV lead most shows to be slight variations of the same boring theme, I.E. Ethnic mismatch "comedy" no. 19387 or Generic Superhero Movie 7287.
Streaming, for a little while was more experimental with content, it was hit and miss but as streaming became more mainstream the same attitudes that pervaded broadcast TV sunk into streaming services and now they're not willing to risk spending on something that might not be popular.
Machinima is the end game (Score:2)
AI script writing, AI environments, AI character design, AI animation, AI score, AI sound effects.
It is only a matter of time before a 'movie' is a series of instructions you plug into the equivalent of Unreal Engine.
We're not there yet, but we're a lot closer than you might think.
Musicians (Score:2)
Actors are about to go through what musicians went through about 20 or so years ago. Good luck getting by selling merch.
Essay (Score:1)
A verification step is needed (Score:1)
The low pay of actors and the high salary of this job posting can't be compared. Why? Because these pay structures are comparable to historical mean salaries and, also, to what other companies and companies in other countries are paying. This is the equivalent of comparing a doctor's mean salary to a bus driver's and asking if this reflects on the profit structure of the respective company who employs them. In other words, characteristics of the respective jobs, such as the amount of education required to b
Which suck... (Score:2)
"AI goes beyond just the algorithms that determine what shows are recommended to users"
You would imagine that recommending content/products/whatever is an easier problem than writing a screenplay. Yet those engines remain almost completely useless for me. Netflix is constantly suggesting crap I have absolutely no interest in.
I do not have high hopes that this will improve much, and even less that AI content will.
this is crazy (Score:1)