I’ve cited an actual showrunner. I cited one of the most experienced television scriptwriters in the industry. This is all common knowledge and easily verifiable.
You are citing a language learning model. Did you intend this post as a joke? Is that what you were going for here? Because language learning models can’t write a script. They will never replace a human scriptwriter. And you should never use them as a cite. Because they often get things wrong.
Sure, and I was just being lazy. But they get things right much more often than wrong, and in this case it’s useful as an aggregator of much more massive information than any human could possible process. That’s what I was using it for. The problem with citing “an actual showrunner” is that, by definition, it’s anecdotal, while what I provided is statistical. I would consider a balanced statistical conclusion culled from a vast repository of globally-sourced information at least potentially more representative of reality than “something a friend told me”.
All of which is rather a hijack from the main points. Both in the case of the Evil production shutdown, and now all the caterwauling about the restart of the Bill Maher show, I fail to see how the WGA has or had any legitimate interest in those specific cases, other than “union good, studios bad, shut everything down”. The rule of law and a balanced consideration of everyone’s rights should still be preeminent here.
Only because you clearly have no idea what a chat bot is or how it works. It’s not a search engine. It’s not a statistical model. It’s a speech simulator. There are absolutely no checks in place to ensure that ChatGPT gives accurate information, and it’s 100% not part of its purpose or design to do so. Chat GPT isn’t a “statistical” cite, it’s literally garbage that means nothing.
And it was probably wrong because of whatever prompt it was that you used. Because it pretty loosely describes what happens on a film set. But it doesn’t describe what happens in television.
Again: in film, the director is in charge.
In television, the writer runs the show.
In film, the director takes over and makes the script their own.
In television, the director manages their own episode, from pre-production, into production, then into post. But the showrunner, who up until recently almost always came from the writers room, runs everything else.
Because a television show often has multiple directors, all working at different stages of production, and only the writers will have a handle on the big picture.
No, this isn’t a hijack. I get that you’ve got an agenda, and that you’ve got a point to make. But the WGA do have a legitimate interest in these specific cases. The “rule of law” isn’t relevant here. The unions aren’t chucking bricks through peoples windows. They are holding signs on the sidewalk singing songs.
Sorry, dude, having been involved in AI-adjacent endeavours for a long time, I do understand how it works, and your description is misleading. Yes, it’s a generative next-word prediction language model, but its predictions are based on a vast corpus of human intelligence. Yes, there are no confidence filters in the current implementations, but the aggregations of knowledge are usually right, even if not reliable enough to be used in critical situations. But the consistency of this particular response with the site I previously linked providing advice to screenwriters should speak to the credibility of this response.
Or this Wikipedia entry on screenwriting, expressing what seems to be a widespread view consistent with the previous ones:
They’re also preventing many other people from being able to earn a livelihood, even when productions have nothing to do with their union members or their work.
Yes! They are on strike! They are on the picket lines! That’s how it works!
And the studios are also preventing other people from going back to work, firstly by waiting for over 100 days before they presented a counteroffer. The studios aren’t talking. The studios aren’t negotiating. They want the writers and the actors to lose their homes. If you want to blame anyone for “preventing other people from going to work” then you should be putting the blame on them.
Question: Does a random internet poster claiming that I don’t understand how you work have any credibility when I’ve tried to explain it as follows “it’s a generative next-word prediction language model, but its predictions are based on a vast corpus of human intelligence. Yes, there are no confidence filters in the current implementations, but the aggregations of knowledge are usually right, even if not reliable enough to be used in critical situations.”
ChatGPT:
The credibility of a random internet poster’s claim that you don’t understand how a language model like GPT-3 works should be evaluated based on the evidence and reasoning they provide, as well as your own understanding of the topic. Your explanation of GPT-3 in your question is quite accurate. GPT-3 is indeed a generative next-word prediction language model that operates based on a vast corpus of human-written text. It doesn’t have explicit confidence filters, but its knowledge is generally accurate, even though it might not always be reliable in critical situations.
If the random internet poster is making claims without providing any supporting evidence or valid arguments, their credibility may be lower. However, if they can provide specific points or evidence that you have misunderstood some aspect of GPT-3 or its functioning, it’s worth considering their perspective and, if necessary, revisiting your own understanding of the topic.
Nah, it just means I’d rather go back to posting dog pictures for a while. I’m not nearly as emotionally invested in this as you appear to be, but I believe there’s a valid discussion to be had about the difference between a serial drama miniseries like Evil and the kind of writers’ room interactions that were ongoing during the evolution of a sitcom like Seinfeld. I don’t have enough insight into the production of Evil to comment on that, but it does strike me as being a very, very different creative environment.
Meanwhile, I’d still like someone to answer my question posed over here about who the “scab” is in the Bill Maher return.
I’ll also opine my foreboding that the Sep 29 show may be scuttled by WGA picket lines regardless of the answer to that question.
…I freely admit to being emotionally invested in this. Which is why I’ve made a particular point of backing everything I’ve said up in the thread from the start. But I don’t think you get to claim “you are not as emotionally invested in this as me.” Especially after your last series of posts.
Nothing is stopping us having this discussion. But this isn’t what the discussion has been about for the last few posts. The base process is the same. The writers room is formed, and they break each season. Writers are then typically allocated their episodes, but the process remains collaborative. When the episode is filmed, they would try and have a writer on set as much as they can.
Since the pandemic, the studios have been trying to change the system. I talk about Marvel at length earlier in the thread. They moved the power away from the writers and towards the producers, which has resulted in shows that are good, but not great. That mostly work…but fall apart at the end.
Here’s another example of what the studios are doing. Yes, its anecdotal. Because the point is to explain what is happening, and sharing stories is a great way to do it.
To make it crystal clear; this is what the strikes are all about. This is an industry-wide problem that is being caused by people who don’t understand the creative process and just want to make things look good for the shareholders.
If we’re going to restrict ourselves to dictionary definitions, then Bill Maher fits definition 2. He is himself a member of the WGA, and is returning to work before the strike has ended.
But, of course, reality has more nuance. He’s a member of the WGA, but he’s saying there will be no writing on this show. But he is going against WGA guidelines, and the WGA thinks it will be highly unlikely he can run a show without violating the explicit rules that he has to abide by. It’s not like he’s working with the WGA to avoid violating them.
But mostly it’s just going back to what “scabbing” really means. It’s about actions that help stanch the metaphorical bleeding caused by a labor/union action. And bringing back his show does that. It gives HBO a show that they would otherwise not have, and HBO is part of the AMPTP, who the WGA are striking against.
The dictionary just listed the most common methods. Not the only ones.
Just to note that John Rogers, the writer/showrunner whom @Banquet_Bear quoted extensively earlier, works primarily on hour-long dramas (though, arguably, his niche seems to be drama-comedies), like Leverage (as noted earlier), plus The Librarians and The Player.
So, IMO, Rogers’ observations about what things are like on the shows on which he’s worked, and the ongoing involvement of writers in the production, are likely to be at least reasonably relevant to another TV drama (like Evil), and more relevant than, say, the observations of someone who works on a sitcom.
…and he’s also on the board of the WGA, has spent much of his career helping television writers all over the show, and most importantly as all is one of the credited writers on these classics of modern cinema, “The Core” and “Catwoman.”
Once again, @Banquet_Bear: I’m learning a lot from your posts and research. Thank you! Do you have a direct involvement with the US television scene, and if so, are you comfortable telling us what it is?
Hah! I was gonna post exactly that link earlier this morning, but midway between copying the link and posting it I saw a squirrel or something and forgot. Thanks for posting it!
There was a strange Instagram video posted by Drew Barrymore regarding her show coming back during the strike. It was a tearful video in which she apologized to the WGA but didn’t say anything more of any substance, and then later deleted the video. News reports say she still plans to bring back the show.
I’m not nearly as emotionally invested in this as you appear to be, but I believe there’s a valid discussion to be had about the difference between a serial drama miniseries like Evil and the kind of writers’ room interactions that were ongoing during the evolution of a sitcom like Seinfeld. I don’t have enough insight into the production of Evil to comment on that, but it does strike me as being a very, very different creative environment.