Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AI

BBC Will Stop Using AI For 'Doctor Who' Promotion After Receiving Complaints 79

Posted by BeauHD from the cease-and-desist dept.
The BBC says it has stopped using AI to promote Doctor Who after receiving complaints from viewers. Deadline reports: The BBC's marketing teams used the tech "as part of a small trial" to help draft some text for two promotional emails and mobile notifications, according to its complaints website, which was intended to highlight Doctor Who programming on the BBC. But the corporation received complaints over the reports that it was using generative AI, it added. "We followed all BBC editorial compliance processes and the final text was verified and signed-off by a member of the marketing team before it was sent," the BBC said. "We have no plans to do this again to promote Doctor Who."

The decision to stop promoting via generative AI represents a u-turn from the BBC, who said at the time of announcement that "generative AI offers a great opportunity to speed up making the extra assets to get more experiments live for more content that we are trying to promote." At the time, the BBC didn't mention that this would be the only time it uses the technology for Doctor Who promotion. Doctor Who will launch in May on the BBC and, for the first time, Disney+. A new trailer was unveiled last week.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BBC Will Stop Using AI For 'Doctor Who' Promotion After Receiving Complaints More

BBC Will Stop Using AI For 'Doctor Who' Promotion After Receiving Complaints

Comments Filter:

  • This explains a lot (Score:3, Funny)

    by cstacy ( 534252 ) on Tuesday March 26, 2024 @03:21AM (#64345143)

    Sp the BBC has been using an AI for the past few years to develop the most recent Doctor and storylines? And an AI invented the latest current incarnation and concepts? This explains a lot, but I wonder how the BBC got such early access to generative AI. Most of all, I wonder what the input prompts were. Although I assume they all ended with the command "Run!" to get the model to start computing.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      No, it was just to write some short promotional messages. They have always used humans to write Doctor Who.

      I'm looking forward to this year's episodes. RTD's return started well.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Njovich ( 553857 )

      but I wonder how the BBC got such early access to generative AI.

      The OpenAI davinci-002 models were pretty good 2 years ago, especially for like generating a piece of text to some instructions.

  • I grew up on Tom Baker although I did some a fair number of earlier episodes, for me Dr. Who was synonymous with Tom.

    I watched the next 2-3 desperately hoping the magic would come back... for me, it did not.

    For those of you who kept on with the show, was there ever a Doctor as good as Tom?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by rossdee ( 243626 )

      "was there ever a Doctor as good as Tom?"

      David Tennant

      • David Tennant

        Seconded, though Tom Baker will always be my favorite.

        • For me, I can't remember which of the Classic Doctors I saw first, but my favorite among them has always been Pertwee. Partly because of how he played the role and partly because of his flamboyant costumes. That, of course, came from him being the first Doctor broadcast in color.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It's a lot like Trek. For some people, what they grew up with is the only true Trek, and everything else is a pale imitation, or worse retroactively ruins their childhood by merely existing.

      For others, they can take each iteration as it comes, enjoy the differences, engage with the new ideas and stories.

      Who has always had its ups and downs, even during the Tom Baker era. Revenge of the Cybermen is widely regarded as one of the worst Who episodes ever, for example, along with The Horns of Nimon.

      • Re:Post Tom Baker... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Tuesday March 26, 2024 @07:41AM (#64345479)

        Frankly, for me, the first cracks started to appear with the addition of Nardole. I just didn't click with the character. Reluctant heroes are one thing, but he actually came across as someone who just didn't want to be there, but for all the wrong reasons.

        The scripts Whittaker got were, frankly, rubbish. Sorry. She really did what she could with it, but the heavy-handedness of the point they tried to make really didn't appeal to me. Doctor Who always had a pretty direct point, but it was handed with a lot of subtlety and care. And they managed to make you care, about the characters, about their fate and about the things they tried to accomplish, and that simply didn't work for me with the stories here.

        I have pretty high hopes for Gatwa, though. He was brilliant in Sex Education and I hope he can carry that energy over. And PLEASE, give that guy better scripts!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          They certainly had an issue with the writing. I wasn't a massive fan of a lot of what RTD did, and some of the best episodes from that era were written by Moffat. But then when Moffat took over running the show, it became apparent that he couldn't write more than one episode where he was forced to tell a complete story with a payoff at the end.

          Hopefully RTD has matured a bit, or they can get some writers in to help him. My worry is that, like last time, he runs out of really good ideas after the first seaso

        • Jodi Whitaker was terrible as the doctor and so were the stories. Like the episode about India and Pakistan fighting had absolutely nothing to do with the show or scifi in general.

          • I don't think she's to blame, you just can't polish a turd of a script, no matter what actor you are.

            • You're right about the scripts, but it seemed to me a lot of Whittaker's acting consisted of keeping her arms by her side, turning her palms toward the camera and walking in a weird, stiff-legged way toward whatever the Peril of the Moment happened to be. She just didn't impress me. Also, I saw her interviewed on one of the Brit talk shows. Having insisted earlier she had studied Dr. Who and couldn't wait to be the next Doctor, she proved in the interview that she knew next to nothing about the back story

              • She sure was no Tennant, but she also was no Davison.

                Of the new batch... well, maybe she indeed was the worst. But then again, I still blame the scripts they gave her rather than herself. With Davison... yeah, that was him, not the scripts.

                • I guess we'll see. I've been unimpressed with the show, but I'm not done with it yet. And regardless of anything else I add, I agree with you 100% about the scripts. If they don't show some improvement in the new season, I'll just find somewhere else to invest my time.

      • You had me until "new ideas and stories"

        It *is* Dr. Who after all. It's Cybermen, Daleks, Sontarans and Zygons all the way down.

        • I'm ok with adding new angles and villains, after all we wouldn't have gotten The Silence or the Papal Mainframe if they didn't dare to go outside the tried Cybermen/Daleks/Master plots.

          Let's be honest here, after a while, it would have gotten boring because we already knew what to expect from the old villains. A bit of a new angle spices up the life of the show.

          What bothered me in the last few seasons is the exact lack of such a recurring villain that gets built up. It was monster of the week over and over

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by BigZee ( 769371 )
        I've been a fan of Doctor Who since I was a child, hiding behind the sofa. My first Doctor was Jon Pertwee so you can infer my age. I've enjoyed the series more at some times than others but have remained a fan right up to now. I'm glad to say that I'm able to enjoy the classics and appreciate what they are doing that's new. Even with the missteps from Chibnall there is something to enjoy.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Like a lot of shows, it's what you make of it. I'm again reminded of Trek, where there are some dire episodes, but you can still appreciate them on some level if you are minded to.

  • You need to pay the BBC tax (euphemistically called a "tv licence") even if you only want to watch non BBC content. Political opinions of the BBC aside, the fact that they use underhanded enforcement tactics. Thanks to smart tvs becoming the norm it's no longer sufficient to not just plug an aerial in to the tv anymore, any computing device that can decode video can be reasonably be considered a TV by licensing authorities, leaving people no choice to pay the £13 a month tax or face constant harassmen

    • Living in a country with a similar model, I wouldn't actually be so much against paying for quality TV... if I at least got quality TV in return. But what I get is essentially the same braindead kibble that the private TV stations offer. Same scripted reality, same gameshows, same soaps.

      If they could justify their "TV Tax" by saying "look, high-class, high-quality programming costs money and those lowbrow idiots don't care about it, so you have to pay to get it because advertising (which we get on top of th

      • Is BBC full of ads?

        • I honestly don't know. But our "public funded" TV is.

        • no

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by UpnAtom ( 551727 )

          Zero ads. The Vote.Leave Govt scum have hijacked it and want to privatise it before they leave because it's truthful and thus opposes them.

          The license fee limits Govt interfererence though it can't survive like this and the current license is increasingly stupid -- the BBC can't even sell its programmes overseas via iPlayer.

          • And that's what I'd be fine with. I pay for it, so I don't get to sit through ads. Ok, fair deal.

            What bugs me to no end is that I pay for our public TV and they still have the audacity to cut ads into their movies. "Oh, but it's less than at private TV". Yeah, so what? You want me to be happy to get the same shitty shows I get over there just with only 2/3 of the ads but paying for it?

            Netflix is losing subbers from that practice. Take note.

      • We used to have a similar model, until they did away with the license nonsense and simply started funding public television from general taxes. The 5 people with no TV set complained for a while. But the savings were massive as there was no longer a need for an expensive enforcement agency.

        • Funny that we can without a problem see the benefits of a universal basic expense for something but somehow the same idea eludes us when it comes to income...

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Rinnon ( 1474161 )

            Funny that we can without a problem see the benefits of a universal basic expense for something but somehow the same idea eludes us when it comes to income...

            If ten million people chip in the $5 price of a coffee, you've got $50,000,000 you can spend on capital projects, social programs, etc. Alternatively, you can gut $50,000,000 worth of social programs and buy ten million people a coffee. The real issue with UBI isn't that people don't see the benefit, it's actually finding the money to implement it. Using some quick and dirty math, just take any dollar value you think is a reasonable UBI, multiply it by the number of eligible adults living in a country, and

    • While their enforcement can be a pain in the arse, if you actually know the law and are willing to stand up to them it's not difficult. They lie of course, and try to trick you into admitting something. They even transposed my signature once onto a different document to the one I'd signed. But the courts are aware of their nonsense and it doesn't work if you actually defend yourself.

      In my 40ish years of adult life I have never owned a television and never watch TV as it's broadcast. Twice in those 40 years

      • To be clear about this, they actually have to prove that you have watched live TV at the same time it was broadcast or anything on iPlayer without a license, beyond reasonable doubt. So on a TV they have to either see you doing so (or be prepared to lie under oath that they have) or get you to admit to doing so. On a computer they can use the logs for iPlayer from your history, and possibly get logs from your ISP if you've been streaming something as it was broadcast, but they would need a warrant for that

    • I stopped paying the licence fee a few years ago when I realised I hadn't watched live broadcast TV for a good two years. The law is that you have to pay the licence fee to watch live broadcast TV, or use the BBC iPlayer. I do neither. So all I had to do was submit one form to the BBC to say that I do not require a TV licence and that's it - in around seven years I've never received a single letter nor visit. Maybe that's because I'm at work in the daytime... but I've been told that "the goons" visit in the

      • There never were any enforcement goons. The BBC never had vans that drove around with detection equipment to look for unlicensed televisions. It was an effective rumor and nothing more.

        • Nobody had that kind of vans. How the hell would you detect a receiver that doesn't transmit? That scare tactics were employed by all of them, and everyone laughed at them for trying it.

          But yes, those "triangulation vans" existed. Back when it was illegal to operate a TV broadcaster and some pirate stations did.

          • Because receivers have an IF oscillator in them. The IF leaks out and can be detected remotely. This is most likely what they are looking for

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Gilmoure ( 18428 )

          Now the Cat Detector Vans, those are legit!

      • Just watch out, when our public extortion broadcaster noticed that people not only cut the cord but them, too, because nobody watched live-TV anymore, they went and turned their "Live TV broadcasting fee" into a "household fee". In other words, it doesn't matter anymore if you watch any TV, you pay.

    • the BBC tax (euphemistically called a "tv licence")

      It's not called a tax because it's not a tax. Systems vary by country, so it's difficult to be specific. But in general, a tax is 1) applied on a monetary transaction, 2) does not correspond to a service but 3) corresponds to a specific department.

      In the TV case, 1) there is no monetary transaction to tax upon, 2) there is no specific service (you pay whether you watch or not). It's not a tax because two criteria are not met. How to call it? You acquire the licence rights to view copyrighted contents. It's

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by UpnAtom ( 551727 )

      They spend too much on 'stars' and sports and they've been hijacked by the Tory scum. It looks like the BBC Chairman got his job for getting Boris Johnson a loan. Vote Leave are as corrupt AF and aren't satisfied with destroying the economy and the NHS.

      The new Labour Govt is coming in soon and need to fix this sh*t. I don't have high hopes.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Hadlock ( 143607 )

      BBC is worlds better than Fox News and all other cable news. Stop complaining.

  • Was AI used to generate the statement from BBC? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by naturjunge ( 1279888 ) on Tuesday March 26, 2024 @05:19AM (#64345291)
    "generative AI offers a great opportunity to speed up making the extra assets to get more experiments live for more content that we are trying to promote."

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mccalli ( 323026 )
      Shocking isn't it. And revealing too - shows aren't stories to tell, they are "assets" and "content". Can't imagine Sidney Newman or Veronica Lambert (original creators) thinking this way.

    • "generative AI offers a great opportunity to speed up making the extra assets to get more experiments live for more content that we are trying to promote."

      Perhaps it's all part of a plan to gaslight us into accepting AI. When we can't tell the difference between the gibberish that an AI writes and and that of today's "journalists", they will have won.

  • Seems like they generative AI isn’t quite there, the doctor will have to wait for regenerative AI :)

    • Seems like they generative AI isn’t quite there, the doctor will have to wait for regenerative AI :)

      But they can only use it a dozen times, right?

  • I suspect it's pretty widespread throughout the bbc already.
    I've been reading them for more than 4 decades daily, and their stories writhing the last 2 years have grown increasingly insipid. I originally thought it was the influence of hiring policies and failing education of gen z, but while those may still be issues I'm suspecting more use of ai:

    "When I go viral, the trolling increases" https://t.co/pYSd7EzecV [t.co]

    Or this one that sounds interesting but is really "sometimes I react before I think!":

    "Interocep

  • Whenever companies talk about 'speeding things up' or 'making cost savings', what they really mean is they don't need as many humans to do the work, if any. It needs to be called out - to businesses it's a saving but to society it's a problem. If even a public service like the BBC is delegating creative work to AI then nobody is safe
    • Well hasn't BBC been outsourcing a bunch of things out of the UK to Eastern Europe for a long time? I recall being there more than a decade ago and many programs with music said they were recorded in The Czech Republic/Slovakia/etc....I could be mis-remembering, but I do remember thinking "Shouldn't British taxes for the TV shows be paid to people who live in the UK to do things specifically for programs produced for the UK?"

  • Then I can't be bothered to read it.

    • This is maybe the most terse and sensible statement about AI generated content I have read in the past couple months.

  • They have pretty much killed off the series. The heck is this? https://deadline.com/wp-conten... [deadline.com] In the article they wrote "Doctor Who" under it so nobody is left hanging with that question.

  • "We followed all BBC editorial compliance processes and the final text was verified and signed-off by a member of the marketing team before it was sent."

    This is anti-AI hysteria. Having a human proofread and approve AI-generated content is exactly the proper way to use generative AI. It is no different than having a junior writer create something that is proofread and approved by a human editor.

  • K-9 could not be reached for comment

  • What were the complaints? (Score:3)

    by Chelloveck ( 14643 ) on Tuesday March 26, 2024 @02:40PM (#64346471)

    I read the article and it doesn't tell me any more than the summary. What were the complaints about? If they're complaining about something offensive in the content, sure, I understand that. But it sounds like they were just complaints that AI was involved in any way.

    Who the fuck cares? AI is a tool. Think of it as a tool of the person who ultimately signed off on the work. Would anyone care if the copywriter used a pencil or typewriter or word processor or even just threw a box of magnetic poetry at the fridge? No? They why worry that the name of the tool is (very misleadingly) called "AI"?

    "But it's putting people out of work!" I hear you cry. Oh, boo hoo. Every technology advance ever has done that. You used to have transcriptionists who would type up a hand-written manuscript. They're gone. Or typesetters who would painstakingly arrange actual bits of lead to be inked to put words on a page. It's just the next verse of the same song we've been singing since the invention of the wheel.

  • It's not a meme. He's not a hacker. That is not what "literally" means. It's not "I," it's probably "me." Anthrax is not a white powder. The 21st century did not start in 2000. Microsoft is a monopoly, Apple is not. Vince McMahan, Vladimir Putin, and Donald Trump ARE best friends. Hiring a black man is not racism. Using "they" instead of "he" is not going to end the world. There is no Constitutional Right to own a gun. Daniel Boone was a criminal real estate scammer. Billionaires do not even car

Slashdot Top Deals

Make sure your code does nothing gracefully.

Close