Hacker News Reader

Comment by MrThoughtful | Hacker News Reader

This article has no information about the deal at all.

Was it upvoted 14 times because others hoped for someone to read it and post the terms of the deal in a comment?

If so: Here is the answer. The terms are not in the article :)

So, as far as I can see, there is absolutely no new information in this article except for "Hollywood Actors Strike Ends With a Deal". Even the second part of the title "That Will Impact AI and Streaming for Decades" seems pure fantasy considering the deal is not disclosed.

So from my perspective, the whole article could have been:

    The Hollywood actors strike ends with a deal.
    The terms have not been disclosed.
    For more info about the strike, check our
    previous coverage: [some links]

Or am I missing something? If nothing - why isn't this kind of "to the point" journalism a thing? Could one make a news website which works that way? Would there be demand for this?

View on HN

That's what journalism was, back when print media had more reliable sources of funding.

ClariNet was awesome; it was articles like you describe, delivered over a lean protocol (NNTP) designed to do exactly that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClariNet

"the actor's strike has ended" is news. it is a data point.

"Here are the terms of the deal" would also be news, it would be a data set. I hope to read about it soon.

But whatever the terms of the deal _are_, it is undeniable that they "Will Impact AI and Streaming" for better or worse, for some time to come.

i felt the same way, so i googled "sag aftra agreement" and ended up at https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/sag...

>The union is so far providing some details of the agreement, more of which will likely emerge in the next few days

so it's not in the article because they haven't allowed those details to be public yet. dare i say, that's ominous to announce "we agree" but to keep the terms secret till it's inked, but we'll see i guess

https://www.wgacontract2023.org/wgacontract/files/wga-negoti...

Edit: actually, that the Writers Guild's one, so wrong one... sorry...

TENTATIVE AGREEMENT (9/25/2023)

Regulate use of artificial intelligence on MBA- covered projects: AI-generated written material is not considered literary material, source material or assigned material under the MBA.

AI is not a writer under the MBA.

Writer can elect to use AI when performing writing services, if Company consents and provided writer follows applicable company policies. Company cannot require writer to use AI software (e.g., ChatGPT) when performing writing services.

Company must disclose to writer if any material given to writer has been generated by AI or incorporates AI-generated material.

Guild reserves right to assert that exploitation of writers’ material to train AI is prohibited by MBA or other law.

----------------------------

Notably, the demand "MBA-covered material can’t be used to train AI" appears not to be part of the tentative agreement.

> Writer can elect to use AI when performing writing services, if Company consents and provided writer follows applicable company policies. Company cannot require writer to use AI software (e.g., ChatGPT) when performing writing services.

Seems like a loophole: a company could increase the workload to the point GPT tools are needed and claim a writer is not performing (when compared to a writer that does use GPT).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com