News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Deming Paradox: Operationally Rigorous Companies Aren't N... by Retric on Monday April 24, 2023 @10:33PM (#35695923)
Some companies must treat their employees well in order to maximize profits, and others are better off doing the opposite. It’s more a question of the overall market than ‘core values’ or other such BS.

Even within companies you can see both approaches used. Disney animators are treated well even as they’re worked to the bone because they can’t get away with actually mistreating them. Other employees aren’t nearly as lucky.

Re:Deming Paradox: Operationally Rigorous Companies Aren't N... by dataangel on Monday April 24, 2023 @10:58PM (#35696067)
Was going to say they're clearly not thinking about monopolies and oligopolies. Oil spills are the classic example, deepwater horizon didn't kill BP.
Re:Deming Paradox: Operationally Rigorous Companies Aren't N... by Retric on Tuesday April 25, 2023 @07:18AM (#35698880)
Monopolies compete with workers outside of their industry/location.

People working on oil rigs take serious risks, but they also make a lot of money relative to their skill set because otherwise they couldn’t get anyone to do the job.

Re:Deming Paradox: Operationally Rigorous Companies Aren't N... by PragmaticPulp on Tuesday April 25, 2023 @01:13AM (#35696742)
> Even within companies you can see both approaches used.

Every company I’ve worked for has been a great place to work for some categories of people. If you weren’t in one of those preferred categories, your treatment could be anything from okay to grueling overwork depending on how easily they thought they could replace you.

As engineers we’re often lucky to be on the most generous end of this spectrum, especially in recent years. However, I made the mistake of joining a company where the CEO believed having engineers was an “unfortunate necessity” to run the business. It went about as well as you’d expect. Unreasonable expectations, demands, working hours, deadlines, and a constant groveling at our salaries.

IT admins are an example of chronically under-appreciated employees. They keep things running and supported in an office, but I’ve seen them treated as disposable in too many offices.

Re:Deming Paradox: Operationally Rigorous Companies Aren't N... by eschneider on Tuesday April 25, 2023 @11:31AM (#35701877)
If a company is a terrible place to work for _some_ class of employees, it will eventually get around to being a terrible place for your class of employee. It's just a matter of time.
Re:Deming Paradox: Operationally Rigorous Companies Aren't N... by heisenbit on Tuesday April 25, 2023 @01:48AM (#35696921)
Part of the rules of ‚the market‘ are set by the government in forms of regulation and laws.
Re:Deming Paradox: Operationally Rigorous Companies Aren't N... by version_five on Tuesday April 25, 2023 @05:14AM (#35698157)
For some firms, typically partnerships, it's actually a (unspoken) value proposition to the partners or higher-ups that the firms can attract and (to some extent retain) fresh talent while treating them very poorly. I'm thinking specifically of accounting, consulting, law, where big names (like big 4, mbb) ensure a steady stream of new people based on industry prestige. So there is no reason the firm has to treat them well, because there's always someone willing to take their job. It means leaders don't have to take employees into consideration when optimizing for output. And so becomes attractive as a leader (of a certain type) vs a small firm where you'd have to do people management and treat your subordinates with some respect.
Re:Deming Paradox: Operationally Rigorous Companies Aren't N... by p1esk on Tuesday April 25, 2023 @08:27AM (#35699516)
Disney animators are treated well even as they’re worked to the bone because they can’t get away with actually mistreating them.

I’m guessing that’s about to change with all the generative models being developed.

Re:Deming Paradox: Operationally Rigorous Companies Aren't N... by Retric on Tuesday April 25, 2023 @09:38AM (#35700277)
Training generative models for motion is much harder than independent static images. The training sets are smaller, and the output needs to be consistent over time.

These models might be useful for generating character concept art, but that’s a tiny fraction of the overall workflow.

Re:Deming Paradox: Operationally Rigorous Companies Aren't N... by p1esk on Tuesday April 25, 2023 @10:08AM (#35700706)
Re:Deming Paradox: Operationally Rigorous Companies Aren't N... by Retric on Tuesday April 25, 2023 @11:44AM (#35702069)
Yea, they used actors to maintain consistency while manually animating quite an bit, and it still looks janky.

It’s an interesting process but more trying to include X in a workflow than a significant advantage. Imagine trying to do a flight scene where characters are tossing fireballs at each other with that workflow.

That said, it’s very possible for this to be used on a specific movie. The pick a plot that works with the limitations and let the jank be part of the art stile…

Re:Deming Paradox: Operationally Rigorous Companies Aren't N... by p1esk on Tuesday April 25, 2023 @03:50PM (#35705729)
I admit I don't know much about that field. But I don't see why video generation methods not follow similar rate of improvement as image generation. There's almost infinite amount of training data (e.g. YouTube), and the hardware keeps improving. I can easily imagine - in a couple of years - typing "generate a 30 seconds video in style X where characters are tossing fireballs at each other (optional description of the characters and the scene)" and getting professional looking results. And in another couple of years generating entire movies.
Re:Deming Paradox: Operationally Rigorous Companies Aren't N... by Retric on Tuesday April 25, 2023 @04:54PM (#35706674)
It’s a question of internal consistency. The video you linked skipped that by starting with actual actors, but “generate a 30 second video” means no shortcuts.

There’s a common issue in AI generated still art for dynamic shots like someone dunking a basketball to have extra arms. This doesn’t show up in pictures of people standing still because the training set is completely dominated by people standing with their arms to the sides. But in dynamic shots either seems fine and it doesn’t understand the underlying limitations the way a human does.

I don’t think it quite needs AGI to “make a 30 second clip of a fireball fight” but it’s much much harder than a still image of a “wizard holding a fireball.”