Film and TV stations are offering AI positions at $200,000 to $1 million annually while Hollywood writers have been on strike for more than three months.
Is it just me or is the article super misleading? None of the roles are for generative AI for making movies. It looks like the roles are for either research or generic product personalization stuff, none of which is necessarily generative AI. I’m not quite sure why they juxtaposed those AI roles with the ongoing strikes in Hollywood, because they have nothing to do with each other.
Quite frankly, I think the current crop of AI products have yet to take away from the real creative process.
The problem I have heard is you get paid less to rewrite a script even though sometimes the rewriting is doing the whole thing over again.
So have AI generate the script then have some writer “rewrite” it for lower pay.
The problem I have personally is not the AI, and I agree that headline emphasizes it but don’t agree it should, it’s the high-paying jobs when they claim they can’t pay their writers and actors more. That’s utter bullshit if they’re offering $1 million salaries.
The $1M salary is really typical of California tech job postings, and it is essentially meaningless. Under the new transparency law, employers have to list the salary range on job advertisements. For many of these speculative or open-application type roles, it’s common to list $90k-$900k as the range.
It makes great headlines, but nobody in that job is actually going to make 900k.
This comment is way too far down, if you look at the actual job descriptions you are completely right that none of them are related to the generative AI focused ML that the article is afraid of.
I find it somewhat funny how disconnected the tone of the article is to the actually (very average) job postings that have read this way for many years.
Is it just me or is the article super misleading? None of the roles are for generative AI for making movies. It looks like the roles are for either research or generic product personalization stuff, none of which is necessarily generative AI. I’m not quite sure why they juxtaposed those AI roles with the ongoing strikes in Hollywood, because they have nothing to do with each other.
Quite frankly, I think the current crop of AI products have yet to take away from the real creative process.
The problem I have heard is you get paid less to rewrite a script even though sometimes the rewriting is doing the whole thing over again. So have AI generate the script then have some writer “rewrite” it for lower pay.
The problem I have personally is not the AI, and I agree that headline emphasizes it but don’t agree it should, it’s the high-paying jobs when they claim they can’t pay their writers and actors more. That’s utter bullshit if they’re offering $1 million salaries.
The $1M salary is really typical of California tech job postings, and it is essentially meaningless. Under the new transparency law, employers have to list the salary range on job advertisements. For many of these speculative or open-application type roles, it’s common to list $90k-$900k as the range.
It makes great headlines, but nobody in that job is actually going to make 900k.
This comment is way too far down, if you look at the actual job descriptions you are completely right that none of them are related to the generative AI focused ML that the article is afraid of.
I find it somewhat funny how disconnected the tone of the article is to the actually (very average) job postings that have read this way for many years.