Then again, the Oscars are surely almost entirely vibes based anyway. So it's hardly some internally consistent system of merit in the first place.
Just because something is hard or even impossible to enforce, doesn't mean you don't state that it is not allowed and that there are consequences for being caught. That's a common fallacy that overly engineering-minded people fall into.
We're humans. We care about things. There is nothing strange about me asking you not to do something that I can't stop you from doing.
Moreover, why stop here? There are many great rules that are impossible to enforce. Why not a rule that the author isn't allowed to have any racist thoughts when writing the material?
We can't read minds, but it sure is a nice thing to care about, don't you think?
It breaks down when assholes join, or the overly self-interested. This mindset permeates America today, but there are still many collective organizations that don’t need punitive measures. These are less common but when you find them, it’s often a positive signal.
If you consider low-stakes crimes, typically to get to a steady state of effectiveness you need at least some sort of bootstrapped period of ubiquitous enforcement. If that's impossible then I'm not sure you ever get to effectiveness.
If we're talking high-stakes, death-penalty-lottery-if-you-break-the-rules type stuff, then I think actually detection rate (i.e. consistent enforcement) is the biggest predictor of reduced rates, not severity of punishment.
Even at worst, it expresses intent, which has meaning to humans. We are humans. I can't force you to do anything, but I can ask you to. Don't disparage what it means to be humans talking to each other - it's one of the few things we have left on Earth.
Isn't that what... signalling is?
Laws that are enforced and more importantly are enforceable have a much higher rate of making a difference. The same works here.
Let's also acknowledge that you're straying further and further from the central point of this particular discussion. This is not simply about "intermittent" enforcement. Enforcement of this rule will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, as the technology gets more sophisticated.
Laws, per se, are not meaningless. How effective they are is utterly irrelevant in this context; it's another question altogether.
> "The issue is whether [...] it will have real consequences in terms of determining this technology's implementation."
It certainly has consequences regarding this technology's implementation at the Academy.
Also, "truth" is a thing that exists, and just because you can't always tell if somebody cheated the rules or not, does not mean the rules are "performative signalling".
If they ever get that good, I would just say you can't really fight the market. If AI content is good enough that people want it, then the Oscars just get left behind after a while. But that's fine, and up to them.
> Also, "truth" is a thing that exists, and just because you can't always tell if somebody cheated the rules or not, does not mean the rules are "performative signalling".
I don't really understand. If you can't hope to discover the truth, in what way is it not performative or signalling?
It might be "good enough" that you can't see the difference, which is not equivalent to "people want it". Maybe if people knew that "it"'s not the real thing, they'd assign lower value to "it".
Our startup works in video editing. It's not that difficult to foresee that you might be a true fan of [insert your favorite podcaster or content creator], and maybe some AI models would enable $podcaster to duplicate themselves "perfectly", but as a true fan you'd still feel betrayed to learn you just listened to 2 hours of slop that $podcaster was not involved in.
"Ha! You say you're vegan but I just tricked you into eating meat-disguised-as-veggies" isn't the most convincing gotcha.
A one shot prompt can only get an estimation of what you asked for, no matter how descriptive you are. To get what you actually intended, what you imagined, the process looks quite a lot more like smarter versions of.the traditional workflows for digital effects. (Remove a background, add this thing, paint out that thing, etc.)
Isn't that true of all creative outputs, even of 'legacy' provenance?
Edit: funny to see the anti-AI crowd showing up again, how predictable... you can downvote but you can't stop the truth! Legacy entertainment is dying, and will soon become irrelevant.
> I have always heard that dopers are consistently ahead of testing regimes
I don't know about that, even the very biggest names with the most funding quite often get dinged for it. I suppose I'm not really saying that the detection rate for doping is high, though, just that it's much higher than AI detection in high-quality content (which I would suggest is approximately zero).