Since ChatGPT has somehow entered this conversation, I wonder if you could share with us exactly what question prompted that bizarre response. I just asked ChatGPT, literally, “tell me about getting up in the morning”, and just got some common-sense advice about how to best prepare for the day. Nothing at all like what you posted. Are you doing something you’re not telling us here in the way you might be intentionally skewing the question?
…of course!
So in regards to step 7: was there anything else you needed clearing up? Or are we good?
Sorry, neither the “joke” nor the basis of the original alleged ChatGPT post makes any sense. Your response here was presented as a genuine response from ChatGPT. If it was just something you made up as an attempt at sarcasm, at the very least it violated board ethics about intentional misrepresentation.
…it was a genuine response from ChatGPT.
It wasn’t something I made up as an attempt at sarcasm. Any other questions?
Novelty_Bobble took a sentence that I wrote and claimed “If that isn’t treating the process like a production line then I don’t know what is.”
My point, is that you can make anything look like it is part of a production line if you want. Even getting up in the morning, washing teeth, and having breakfast.
That single sentence of mine they quoted doesn’t indicate that I think the writers room is “just a production line.” I’ve written at length what value I think the writer’s room adds to a production.
If you think I’ve violated board ethics about intentional misrepresentation then report me. But it was a straight copy-and-paste from ChatGPT. I clearly labeled it so. I followed all of the standard operating procedures including
That’s fair. But then I reiterate my previous question:
I wonder if you could share with us exactly what question prompted that bizarre response. I just asked ChatGPT, literally, “tell me about getting up in the morning”, and just got some common-sense advice about how to best prepare for the day. Nothing at all like what you posted.
It now sounds like you were prompting ChatGPT to produce a particular style of scripted response in order to prove whatever point you were arguing. As I said, this is not the type of response it would normally produce.
…yes! I just said that! I even posted a lengthy explanation from ChatGPT that went step-by-step explaining exactly what I did!!!
And it demonstrates a larger point. Because I did the exact same thing you did earlier in the thread where you cited chatGPT but you also didn’t include your prompt. The response you posted didn’t contain accurate information. And the reason why it wasn’t accurate was because you were asking it the wrong question. It’s why chatGPT isn’t really good for anything except light entertainment.
It certainly shouldn’t be used as an authoritative cite.
This is completely wrong and stems entirely from your imagination.
I fortunately still have that original ChatGPT conversation, and here it is complete with my prompt and the initial part of the response:
Are script writers usually on the sets of TV and film productions?
ChatGPT:
Scriptwriters are not typically on the sets of TV and film productions once the script has been finalized and shooting begins. The scriptwriting process usually involves multiple stages, including concept development, writing, revisions, and approval. Once the script is approved and shooting begins, the scriptwriter’s role is often finished, and the responsibility for bringing the script to life falls on the director, actors, and the production team.
…
It seems that ChatGPT didn’t have an understanding of the nuance between TV and film, much as I and some others lacked that appreciation. But the error in the response wasn’t due to any dishonesty on my part. I just asked a straightforward question. And I acknowledged long ago (here and in other threads) that ChatGPT can indeed get things wrong and doesn’t have any confidence filters (like, for instance, IBM’s DeepQA does) to mitigate potential mistakes.
But I might add that it’s bullshit to suggest that it’s in no way a search engine, as some have said, because that exact same technology is being used in real-time internet Bing search. It just needs a lot of safeguards and refinement to be a reliable search engine.
…I never implied dishonesty. You obviously posted in good faith.
And as a person who builds websites now, the encroachment of AI into search engines and the SEO space is causing me headaches.
But we are getting off-topic. 
No-one is talking about being bad at a job (which is wholly subjective in this case anyway).
But it is ludicrous to suggest that I deserve to be employed in any job, whatever my competence level. There simply may not be the need for those positions.
Are we going to force companies to take on more people than they actually need? (The writers union of course are saying “yes” to that)
Once I am employed then it is perfectly reasonable to expect a living wage.
If I had to guess I’d Maher is agreeing with both those positions.
I think you’ll find that a company’s idea of how many people they “need” is almost universally at odds with what their customers and employees know that they need, and that applies to writers just as much as it does to fast food companies who think they can replace cashiers and grill crew with a touchscreen attached to a card reader and a robot that flips patties.
why did you do that? What possible relevance does that have to your simplistic interpretation of the creative process?
I looked back thinking that there was never a time when such requirements were in place, I had no specific shows in mind and never expected to find any. Lo and behold I couldn’t find any. I couldn’t find any evidence that any such rules were used. Yet with full freedom to choose the numbers of writers needed we still see a long history of popular and high quality work.
You were the one making the tenous implication that old series of “Suits” are somehow superior to current shows and that it has something to do with having a number of writers above what you consider to be a necessary minumum.
I don’t find that convincing.
So you trust the company not to exploit the workers through workplace practices and feel no need to have rules in place against it, but in the same breath think that the company cannot be trusted to not exploit the workers through undermanning and therefore have to put rules in place to guard against it?
I’ve already given examples of those upthread.
Because, as has been explained to you, only one of those approaches actually gives legal power to prevent exploitation. If you have the former there is no need to implement the latter.
My simple point was that you cannot treat the productivity of a creative process as if it were a production line. With known rates of production, resource levels and simplistic output calculations.
Which is what you were doing.
You can rarely make such predictions for even any purely physical manufacturing process beyond the extremely simple. For someone who claims knowledge of the creative world I’m surprised you’d think that approach applies there.
Your introduction of ChatGPT is distracting and irrelevant to the point.
The only people suggesting that are people, such as Bill Maher, making bad faith arguments against the writers guild’s actual position.
I’m sure it is at odds. As customers I’m sure we’d all like immediate service of the highest possible standard in exactly the way we demand.
Is it a good idea to force companies to employee people just to accommodate those demands?
Or do we allow them freedom to employ what they need in order to maintain a level of service that keeps customers satisfied enough to retain them as customers?
Smapti said
Which is what I (and apparently you) disagree with and where my comment was directed.
No, I agree entirely with Smapti, and disagree emphatically with your characterization of his meaning.
Why, it’s almost as if you’re ignoring a key word.
In general, yes, I’d say it is a good idea for companies to do things that make their customers happy.
I’m ignoring a key word by specifically using it? That’s one interpetation I guess.
but I see where my wording may leave room for interpretation. Where I say “whatever my competence level” I thought I was clearly referring to your expressed level of “competent” or even higher. But it could be clearer so…
Let me re-state exactly what I mean
The key word is “force” here. Would you suggest we do that?
That’s the general principle I’m interested in. Mandated staffing levels.
Yes, I would.