Hollywood urges Trump to protect film, TV from AI

Likely to be as successful as consumer protection organizations urging Trump to protect people from crypto-scams.

As long as Trump can benefit personally more from the AI companies than from TV and film companies that is what is going to be allowed, supported or maybe even forced.

"As long as Trump can benefit personally more from the AI companies than from TV and film companies that is what is going to be allowed, supported or maybe even forced."

Do you realize that, during his first term President DJT worked for free or zero wages?

Do you realize that, during his first term President DJT worked for free or zero wages?

Do you realize that wages are the tiniest, least significative source of income for someone that can cause the market to go down and up, make dinners that cost millions of dollars to be invited and that can receive uncountable amount of money from billionaires if he does as instructed?

virusrex,

"Do you realize that wages are the tiniest, least significative source of income for someone that can cause the market to go down and up, make dinners that cost millions of dollars to be invited and that can receive uncountable amount of money from billionaires if he does as instructed."

No, but I do realize people should be judged by the context of their character, no other President I know has ever worked for free or as a volunteer. That's good enough for me as indicator of someone who really cares about the Nation.

No, but I do realize people should be judged by the context of their character, no other President I know has ever worked for free or as a volunteer. That's good enough for me as indicator of someone who really cares about the Nation.

That's right and I know first hand, almost none of these people in Hollywood would ever work for free.

Not sure why the Hollywood crowd thinks Trump will go out of his way to help them. For the most part, they are rather critical of him and his policies. Would be funny to see Trump tell them to go pound sand.

bass4funk

That's right and I know first hand, almost none of these people in Hollywood would ever work for free.

Would you work for free? I don't think so. Many 'Hollywood people' work for the UN or charities. There are tens of thousands of 'Hollywood workers' who are not the stars and whose employment has been affected by the LA fires.

Would you work for free? I don't think so.

For my country, I would.

Many 'Hollywood people' work for the UN or charities. There are tens of thousands of 'Hollywood workers' who are not the stars and whose employment has been affected by the LA fires.

I know how Hollywood works all too well, and I can tell you, the vast majority of them are intolerable

No, but I do realize people should be judged by the context of their character

Which would put him in even worse light, you readily conceded that wages have no importance when you can make several orders of magnitude more money by political influence, that means it is not volunteer work but something that is done looking at much higher sources of income, not ethically acceptable but since that is not a problem for him (nor for you) that explains doing it without wages.

bass4funk

Would you work for free? I don't think so.

For my country, I would.

What is stopping you? Location maybe? There are plenty of volunteers needed.

Many 'Hollywood people' work for the UN or charities. There are tens of thousands of 'Hollywood workers' who are not the stars and whose employment has been affected by the LA fires.

I know how Hollywood works all too well, and I can tell you, the vast majority of them are intolerable

Even the daily workers? Good, you don't live in the US then.

What is stopping you? Location maybe? There are plenty of volunteers needed.

I have work, so need.

Even the daily workers? Good, you don't live in the US then.

??

Protectionism is good and necessary for the Hollywood elite.

But when it's a tariff to protect blue collar factory jobs, the narrative is it drives up prices.

AI is a scourge on civilization. (ChatGpt answers question: "What is AI's role in civilization?")

Protectionism is good and necessary for the Hollywood elite. 

But when it's a tariff to protect blue collar factory jobs, the narrative is it drives up prices

Do you believe in protecting both?

I can’t find any hints or spoiler alerts here.

That picture of Cate Blanchett above looks a bit like AI.

virusrex,

"Which would put him in even worse light, you readily conceded that wages have no importance when you can make several orders of magnitude more money by political influence, that means it is not volunteer work but something that is done looking at much higher sources of income, not ethically acceptable but since that is not a problem for him (nor for you) that explains doing it without wages."

Is it too hard for you to sit and talk straight? Always beating about the bush!

Is it too hard for you to sit and talk straight? Always beating about the bush!

What part of the comment did you have trouble understanding? it is perfectly clear.

I can make even simpler examples.

Lets say someone accepts a job to guard a bank, but uses his position to steal a huge lot of money from that bank. Now, he accepted to do his job for free in order to be hired instead of other people, according to you this would make this person worth admiring because of the "context of his character" since he is doing his job as a volunteer.

It should be very simple to see how there is nothing admirable about the situation, making immense amount of money by sacrificing a tiny fraction in salary is still thinking first on personal profit.

It is very difficult to be more direct, but this shows why there is no point in "urging" someone that moves exclusively thinking about personal gain.

virusrex,

"I can make even simpler examples.

Lets say someone accepts a job to guard a bank."

You just started your argument with a fallacy of reasoning and here is the reason why. There is great difference between "accepting a job" and "running in an election for the job"

"should be very simple to see how there is nothing admirable about the situation, making immense amount of money by sacrificing a tiny fraction in salary is still thinking first on personal profit."

Hasty generalization without shred of proof except Maddow dog whisting.

You just started your argument with a fallacy of reasoning and here is the reason why. There is great difference between "accepting a job" and "running in an election for the job"

This has absolutely no relevance. You can replace "accepting" with "trying to convince someone he is the best candidate for a job" and the importance of the analogy remains the same. If anything it becomes closer since the "volunteer" work becomes just a tool to have an advantage over better candidates for the position simply because those other candidates are not looking forward to making illegal actions to actually profit, so they expect a fair salary for a job done ethically.

Hasty generalization without shred of proof except Maddow dog whisting.

This is an argument, that clearly disproves your claim that working for free automatically makes a person admirable, it was very easy to demonstrate how this can be done with extremely negative intentions, something that you could not refute with any argument on your own. This does not require proof just a logic demonstration of being a valid reasoning.

You also are using dog whistling completely wrong, since its meaning is about expressions explicitly meant to avoid getting any opposition, it should be obvious that saying that Trump can get so much personal gain from unethical or even illegal actions that working for free does not represent any disadvantage would inspire a lot of animosity.

As always running in circles never get tired?

So, no argument against the clear and explicit analogy that demonstrate your claim is wrong? that is a very roundabout way to say you accept being wrong.

It was easy to prove the claims and arguments I made were correct, that the difference you claimed made the analogy wrong had absolutely no relevance and that "dog whistling" meant something very different than what you thought it meant.

No running in circles, that would apply much more to avoid addressing all these arguments when you have none of your own to refute them.