Late Night with the Devil AI usage

Having been part of the horror community for a long time now i am a firm believer that no one hates horror as much as horror fans.

Boycotting or a “call to arms” against an indie horror film over its POSSIBLE use of AI in a cutaway sequence is the most cornball shit I have ever heard.

The people who are reviewing this on letterboxd and giving it one star having never seen the actual movie but bombing it with low scores as some sort of “protest”? That is the most Karen ass shit I can think of.

You all will be the same ones crying that we only ever get remakes and reboots.

in horrorby Swarhammer

1.7K

76%

2mo

View all comments

MrHorror01

709

2mo

Well it’s not the ‘possible’ use of AI. Director confirmed it is indeed AI in an interview with Variety.

skinnyminou

148

2mo

I feel like horror is the only genre I can let get away with using still image AI or even a few seconds of moving AI, only because of how inhuman and creepy AI can be.

That being said, I feel like a little bit is fine, but I personally have a line for AI use in film.

Tain101

212

2mo

(I think) most people who are anti-AI hold that position for moral reasons, not aesthetic ones.

There are two main arguments against AI:

AI removes jobs. Simply, as artists/workers fight for better working conditions, the people making movies can simply use AI to wait it out. And probably replace several jobs with AI entirely.
AI steals from artists. Depending on the AI used, most were trained on images that they didn't own. This is probably less of an issue in the movie industry, but a lot of their training data would come from artists who didn't consent to their content being used to train AI. (sign a contract saying the company can 'use' their artwork, before AI is a thing. Now 'use' has a very different meaning).

For me personally, I'm not sure there is an easy answer for what exists currently. But I would like to see people have the right to not allow AIs to train on their content, including content that was made before AI was as popular as it is today.

I don't think Hollywood will give up such an incredibly cheap way to get artwork, similar to the overuse of CGI we see today.

I can't say for sure what will happen, but I'm certainly not optimistic about the future of the WGA and SAG.

Thatboyscotty69

2mo

CGI is not incredibly cheap lol. It’s just logistically easier.

Tain101

2mo

I didn't say CGI was incredibly cheap, I said it was overused.

It is overused because VFX artists aren't unionized as strongly as other groups, so it is easier to exploit those workers compared to members of the WGA and SAG.

I'm not saying CGI is never the best option, but there have been plenty of times where CGI was used simply to save money; resulting in an overall worse scene.

The "logistically easier" argument, again is valid in some cases. But applying CGI to a costume vs making a realistic costume; logistically, making a better costume is obviously the more straightforward approach. Taking the time and money to have someone actually make a good costume, is a decision the movie makers have to make.

Here is a youtube video I found that I think does a decent job showing some of the overuse (or misuse) of CGI.

The channel also did a followup, after receiving messages from FVX artists.

Thatboyscotty69

2mo

I am not a fan of CGI in horror for the most part, but it’s absolutely logistically easier. It makes the shoot itself 10 times quicker. Having to rely on squibs and makeup and shit slows things down. It’s the right way to do it though

Tain101

2mo

The "logistically easier" argument, again is valid in some cases.

ChapterCurious809

2mo

So does automation in other industries and those are jobs people show up to every day, not work for hire artist jobs. SAG and the WGA want us to care about ai however they don't bat an eye over all the jobs lost to automation. The clown ceo running UPS just announced automating more of the company than she already has. So Hollywood can speak out about banning plastic bags and whatever but not ever about protecting jobs? Who do you think buys tickets to movies and pays for streaming channels?

RADICCHI0

1mo

Re point 2, artists are on other artists material. Pablo Picasso is rolling in his grave.

Tain101

1mo

artists are on other artists material.

im not sure what you mean by this.

RADICCHI0

1mo

Art is theft. At the end of the day is all just humans stealing ideas from earlier artists. Whether it be a human being studying art history, a human programming a machine, a master like Giotto or Verrocchio who ran large workshops full of assistants doing their work ... It's all theft

Tain101

1mo

an apprentice working under someone, i.e. the original artist is fully aware and consenting;

isn't comparable to someone legally stating that the use of their work is not allowed, and a stranger taking that work to use for profit while giving nothing to the origin artist.

If anyone did what the collectors of ai training data did, but on an individual, there wouldn't be any doubt that it was illegal.

the "art is [inherently] theft" argument is either semantic or philosophical, and irrelevant to the legal or moral issue I'm talking about. If you want to say any media following the hero's journey is theft, go ahead. I personally distinguish inspiration and theft very clearly.

RADICCHI0

1mo

And I say who cares about the "legal or moral issue" that's you attempting to push your framework onto the rest of the world.

Tain101

1mo

could you expand on that? I do think moral issues are important, but I don't think I was pushing my opinion. I tried to make it clear in my op that I was sharing opinion; and from there I've been defending my position from people who choose to engage with me.

LuchoSabeIngles

-4

2mo

From what I understand, it's not "copying" the art. Being trained on it just means it saw a bunch of it and learned from it, like how art students normally learn from looking at other people's art. If it were as simple as "AI copy-pastes other person's art and passes it off as original", that would obviously be bad, but there's a bit more nuance here. I'm not sure how else you'd have the AI learn, since having a huge dataset is exactly how you prevent it simply doing a one-to-one copy. The more examples it learns from, the more averaged-out it gets.

And I don't think you'll be able to straight-up ban AI. Other countries will be using it, and we'll be left behind. It's like the internet, or calculators, or automation. We have to teach people how to use it effectively to supplement what they already do. AI does a decent enough job, but it usually needs the human touch to get it in the right shape. (Just look at the code snippets it generates. You still have to debug the dang things.) Half the "AI art" has to be modified in Photoshop, or else you get the crappy artifacts and such. Plus you have to fine-tune the prompts; you're not going to get something great on the first try. You have to be really specific.

Prepared to be downvoted, but I genuinely think this is being overblown for the wrong reasons. You can't put the genie back, so figure out how to deal with it.

Tain101

2mo

From what I understand, it's not "copying" the art

What AI produces isn't a copy of someone else's work, but in order to produce anything at all, AI needs to use someone else's work.

like how art students normally learn from looking at other people's art.

This analogy really does not translate to how AIs work. AI is a tool, not a person. You could say a scanner doesn't copy images, it just looks at them and learns what to put on the sheet of paper.

I'm not sure how else you'd have the AI learn

Gain rights to your training data.

https://this-person-does-not-exist.com used exclusively public domain images for it's training data. Most modern image generators simply scraped images from the web, completely ignoring any sort of legality or ownership.

Nobody said anything about banning AI. And your arguments about needing a "human touch" are missing the point. human touch or not, Hollywood is using it to wait out the WGA and SAG strikes. human touch or not, training data has been commonly sourced from places the creators/users of the AI do not have the rights to; and pretty much nobody is being held accountable for where they get their data from.

LuchoSabeIngles

2mo

I'm not sure how the analogy doesn't translate. The AI isn't copying (if it were, you'd have a very cut-and-dry case). It's taking your input, then averaging everything it knows that relates to that input. The more it knows, the more it can average. If you've only got three images in a training set, it'll generate a weird mix of those three images. If you've got a few thousand, it's much less likely to look like a copy. And you're right, it is a tool. That means you have to have someone running it.

What is likely to happen is that some artists will be able to use this tool to improve efficiency, since they can get a rough sketch of what they'd like to use fairly quickly. The people who use the standard versions (with no post-processing) will get crappy image quality, but it will allow a lot of people (say, indie filmmakers) to get some cheap concept art out quickly. It's sort of like when digital cameras came out. How many people do you see now who are employed as film loaders, film developers, or something like that? Those people didn't just go away. They used the skills they'd learned to work with the new environment they were in, and kept going.

How would "gaining rights to training data" work in practice? They've already taught the models. You'd have to nuke everything and start from scratch. It sounds like they'll be litigating a lot of this (they're already working on it), so we'll have some standards and practices soon, but there is the case to be made that some of this could fall under fair use. I don't think AI is evil. It's a tool with a limited use case, and people are going to use it whether we like it or not.

Tain101

2mo

It's taking your input

Input that you do not have the right to use. The analogy doesn't translate because a person looking at something is different than a person inputting a copy of something into a tool.

if it were, you'd have a very cut-and-dry case

It's not that simple because training sets can be tens of millions of images, legally proving that one of those images is specifically yours is difficult. Along with the obvious that most people working in the legal system have no idea how AI works. And many people stealing art for AIs are based in a different country than a particular artist.

Consider CGI, we have extremely popular movies coming out now absolutely full of shitty AI.

I personally don't buy the argument that artists would use it as a reference when there are plenty of resources for that already, that are generally from real, physical, sources.

They've already taught the models. You'd have to nuke everything and start from scratch.

Yes, something that happens frequently in business. How AI has worked for years is you train it for a specific problem, and once you have a new problem, you give it a new set of training data.

How would "gaining rights to training data" work in practice?

Realistically? some company would buy images from artists, and sell either the training data or even the weights from training to people who want to use them. Similar to how stock images work now.

people are going to use it whether we like it or not.

Sure, but there is certainly a more moral way to use it than what we see commonly today. just because people are going to do bad things doesn't mean we should be okay with it.

KaladinxVin

-11

2mo

But it doesn't, anymore than an artist steals from their inspirations.

Tain101

2mo

Alice makes a photoshop brush, and sells it. Brian takes that brush without paying for it. Brian uses that brush to make a picture. Has Brian done anything wrong?

Caleb makes a font, David uses it without paying to make a logo.

Emily has portrait photos, Frank uses those photos, and edits them into a new picture.

Taking a 1:1 copy of someone else's protected work, and using it to create something else, is considered stealing.

AI very much takes direct copies of art they do not have rights to, and use it in the process of making their pictures.

ds117ftg

-16

2mo

And the use of it in this film didn’t violate either of those 2 things

Tain101

2mo

You know where the AI got it's training data? I'd be very curious to see that.

metal_stars

108

2mo

My line against AI is: if AI is used where otherwise a professional artist would have been paid for their work, then I won't support that project.

AI is great for hobby / personal / non commercial applications.

But once you use it in a professional project to replace human artists, fuck you.

Apart-Link-8449

2mo

Jurassic Park's CGI innovations replacing puppetry would like a word with this point, though

New tech does force out old tech in film production, it's just a question of where we draw the line

metal_stars

2mo

Draw the line where work for human beings disappears.

When CGI took over the special effects industry, there were still jobs for people to do. The demand for practical effects artists shrank drastically, and the demand for computer effects artists exploded.

With AI, there will be no counterbalancing explosion of opportunities for work in a particular sector.

When it comes to AI art, there may be a new job called "prompt engineer," but in actual reality the purpose of that job is to erase hundreds of working artists.

It won't be a 1:1 exchange, it won't be a 1:5 exchange, it will be more like a 1:100 exchange, and the economy cannot sustain itself if the future of work is one person replacing hundreds of workers across multiple sectors of employment.

Y'all need to think this through.

Valuable_Rip8783

1mo

Who programs the software around AI? Who trains the models? Who enters the prompts? Who will work to develop the technology for the foreseeable future?

User deleted comment

1mo

Valuable_Rip8783

1mo

You said you draw the line where humans "disappear", the ratios you give are irrelevant based on your own initial qualifier, the artistic and programming jobs continue to exist regardless. And It's just a stupid argument, you could argue the same for any technological advancement. None of them need your permission to exist, it's the free market. I don't see how what your saying matters in the first place to be honest.

User deleted comment

1mo

Valuable_Rip8783

1mo

Likewise ig

Valuable_Rip8783

1mo

That's a terrible logic, you could say that about any technological advancement. You know people get employed around AI technologies too?

timeaisis

2mo

You think 3 still images in a horror movie replaced human artists? Prod team probably chose to do it themselves to save time lol.

CrittyJJones

2mo

That’s unfortunate for you. I don’t disagree with your stance, but what great movie.

Sattorin

-2

2mo

But once you use it in a professional project to replace human artists, fuck you.

I think AI will eventually allow us all to make our own movies. It won't technically replace human artists, since you and I weren't going to hire an artist to make a movie for us, but it will replace a lot of the big corporate movies that would have hired artists.

metal_stars

2mo

You can make your own movies right now. And if you do, they will be the product of your own creative expression, and your own thoughts and feelings about the world.

Outsourcing creativity and artistic expression to software....

What a sadness that you think this is the only way that you might be able to create art.

Sattorin

-2

2mo

What a sadness that you think this is the only way that you might be able to create art.

I thought it was obvious that I didn't mean AI is "the only way" I could make art, but I should have specified. Let me rephrase:

AI will eventually allow us to make our own movies which have every bit as much freedom and production capability as big corporate movies have now.

I don't know about you, but I don't have millions of dollars to spend on bringing my movie vision to life. Before long though, AI will give you, and me, and literally everyone else on the planet that capacity. And even if you can't see the benefit of that now, those incredible creations of millions of new filmmakers will speak for themselves.

metal_stars

2mo

And when everyone can "make" their own AI sludge movies with minimal effort, the ubiquitous slurry of "movies" that will exist will have the approximate value of a doodle in the margins of a sixth-grader's notebook. What will we be impressed by, what will grab the public's attention, when there are hundreds of AI "movies" being released every week? Who will sort the wheat from the chaff?

Why would anyone watch movies that are largely created by software?

Right now, the barrier to making movies is lower than it has ever been. Phones are equipped with 4K cameras. You can get cinema-quality standalone cameras for a few thousand dollars. Steven Soderbergh is making movies and TV shows with an iphone.

There's high quality editing software that is free.

You can make a movie now.

Sattorin

2mo

when everyone can "make" their own AI sludge movies with minimal effort

You said yourself everyone can make their own crappy movies now with minimal effort, and I couldn't agree more.

The difference is that AI will eventually be able to take good ideas from people who are bad at making movies (or just don't have the resources to fulfill their vision, like having people to act in it for example) and make a good movie out of it. Whereas now whether the idea is bad or the filmmaking is bad (or both) the movie turns out as crap.

What will we be impressed by, what will grab the public's attention, when there are hundreds of AI "movies" being released every week? Who will sort the wheat from the chaff?

Hundreds of movies are released every week as it is, most of them made by indie filmmakers, and most of them not very good. But fortunately for us there are people who've dedicated themselves to identifying the best of them and singing their praises.

And in addition to the official film critics, as a timely example of crowdsorting, there was a decent AI horror video on the Reddit front page just today, and I saw that one because a bunch of random people on Reddit liked it enough to upvote it.

metal_stars

2mo

You said yourself everyone can make their own crappy movies now with minimal effort, and I couldn't agree more.

No, let me stop you right there. That is not what I said. I said people can make movies now because the financial and technological barrier of entry is low.

I did not say it would be minimal effort.

Hundreds of movies are released every week as it is

I mean, no, there is not currently a minimum of ten thousand movies released each year.

Sattorin

2mo

I said people can make movies now because the financial and technological barrier of entry is low.

Yes, and when a random person makes a movie with nothing but their I-Phone, it generally doesn't make it to the major film festivals, does it? In fact, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of things people record on their phone (even the scripted ones) end up being pretty bad. I sincerely doubt that AI is going to hurt that ratio much.

I mean, no, there is not currently a minimum of ten thousand movies released each year.

When you said "You can make a movie now." and you were talking directly to me, the movie that I can make would be one of the hundreds of "not promoted by actual production companies because it's not very good" movies that I'm referring to, and not one of the "actually released and promoted because it's worth watching". There are easily over 10,000 "movies" uploaded to youtube each year (and many more uploaded to porn sites), but there's already a system in place for, as you put it, sorting the wheat from the chaff.

Just as people are able to eventually rise to stardom from their first Youtube video, the movies (or whatever other media is created with the help of AI) that are actually worth watching will be promoted because the places making them available to see have a vested interest in getting more eyes on the good ones and fewer on the bad ones.

The guy who's work I linked before, voidstomper, is doing some great work with AI-assisted analog horror and getting some attention for it.

metal_stars

2mo

The point isn't that everyone can make a GOOD movie. That's where talent and craft come into play. The point is that if you are one of the ones who CAN make good movies, then that path is open to you.

This pessimism that you have ("I could make a movie, but the reason I don't is that if I made a movie it would be bad") is a really unfortunate thing.

AI won't magically make untalented people's movies be good.

AI won't be a talent-replacer because AI has no talent.

In the meantime, no, I won't be watching the work of someone making AI sludge. It's a novelty trick I'm deeply uninterested in.

Continue thread...

KOVID9tine

1mo

AI is a tool like any other advancement in technology. I can’t draw for shit but now I can make my own comic book or album artwork. I think you’re over reacting as a freight train of tech is coming full speed whether you like it or not.

ThreeDeadRobins

-10

2mo

im with you. putting production people out of work is unacceptable.

anyone shooting on digital film - fuck you. film developers, stock salesmen, etc are REAL HUMANS and your putting them out of a job

you follow this rule too, right? you're not just cherrypicking the newest (and easiest) talking point .... right?

metal_stars

2mo

That was amazingly stupid.

Technology will always change, technological advancements will come and go, jobs will disappear and new ones will arise.

Art -- whether it be writing, music, painting, photography, filmmaking -- creating art is something entirely different than the examples you gave.

The purpose of art is for human beings to express their feelings and ideas about the experience of being alive.

Software has nothing to say about being alive. Software has no thoughts or feelings to express.

A "stock salesman" or a "film developer" is not selling stock or developing film as an expression of some deep, weird human yearning. And, of course the development of digital cameras did not erase the need for sales. And there are trades that exist now that did not exist before the arrival of digital cameras. The person who developed film may now be color-grading digital film footage, for example...

But, in general, yes, I am concerned about automation and new technologies doing harm to labor, shrinking opportunities that we all need to exist in a capitalist society.

But the creation of art is something that cannot be replaced by software because replacing it with software steals the act of creativity from humanity, and if it's made by software it ceases to be "Art" at all.

This should be incredibly obvious to anyone who cares about art or is remotely familiar with creativity.

ThreeDeadRobins

2mo

so you only care about the financial wellbeing of people if they meet some artistic standard you've set? They, the poets and painters, are the only people worth kicking up a fuss about ensuring their jobs dont go obsolete? Not the ones that make the paper or the paints?

Funny, ill bet the folks who diligently worked all those longs hours in the darkrooms to create the films that built the industry - i'll bet their kids get just as hungry, even if their parent didnt "say something about being alive" to your liking

You only care about the cute animals who do the prettiest tricks for you

That is amazingly selfish.

metal_stars

2mo

so you only care about the financial wellbeing of people if they meet some artistic standard you've set?

Your reading comprehension needs work and your point is incomprehensible. You have no concern for the financial well-being of artists, and to make that point you're trying to scold other people because, in your mind, if they DO care about artists that means they don't care about everyone else?

...But your scolding is nonsensical because it relies on the moral argument that technology taking away opportunities from people is bad... which is also the principle that you're arguing against when it comes to artists.

You really might want to sit down and think this all through.

ThreeDeadRobins

2mo

because, in your mind, if they DO care about artists that means they don't care about everyone else?

didnt you say this?

A "stock salesman" or a "film developer" is not selling stock or developing film as an expression of some deep, weird human yearning.

why did you bother making the differentiation, if not to imply a higher value judgment on one or the other?

why do you not take a stand for analog industries the way you stand for artists?

I thought your bloviating speech about the human spirit or some shit was your explanation. it could be you were just ranting. do you do that often?

my "scolding" is a rhetorical device designed to point out how shallow and hypocritical your selective outrage is. Your double standards. Your sympathy towards one class of worker and apathy to others.

but if you want to get into argument analysis, you also said this

Technology will always change, technological advancements will come and go, jobs will disappear and new ones will arise.

lol ok. so artist is one of the jobs that will disappear or change. your words. youve now inexplicably taken every side of the issue.

You should get AI to write for you, you fucking suck at it.

metal_stars

2mo

There's nothing to say, here, really, except that your reading comprehension and understanding of the issue in general is about on par with most of the pro-AI weirdos we see around.

ThreeDeadRobins

2mo

a point unresponded to is a point conceded, so i'll accept your concession on all points.

really showing how you've got nothing but childish ad hominems "you cant read and youre weird" and regurgitated sentiment youve read elsewhere on reddit's outrage nitpick of the moment.

Good luck trying to hold back the floodgates of tech. I hear that always works out well.

Then again, im sure you were spending all your time moaning along with the mob about reddit third party access last year, so next year youll be just as done with this keyboard warrior cause-of-the-day.

metal_stars

2mo

a point unresponded to is a point conceded

LMAO

Continue thread...

pat3309

2mo

Why is that your line?

Key_Work_8283

2mo

I'd have liked to see them grab something from the public domain. Lots of creepy vintage images to work with.

I'd be for exactly this kind of use of AI if AI was a more ethical system. Right now it's stealing too much from indie artists to be used that way, but maybe we'll crack the code one day.

If we had ethical AI, which may be a dream but I'd dream it, I'd love to see them take a single image and run it deeper into itself every time we see it. I love to see an image of mashed potatoes become an eldrich horror when you overdo the processing.

djballistics0

2mo

How is this stealing?

They didn't create this, AI did.

It's just ai being better

GreatestOfAllTMilk

2mo

I'd agree w/ this. Thinkin' of this quickly, I can see some "lines" being 1) AI is not used to write script, e.g. dialogue, slug lines, etc., 2) AI is not used to do something that can replace a human entirely, I.e. it can contribute to a scene which was firstly created w/ human input, e.g. I whittle a lil' figurine but use wood polish to make some parts stand out. I imagine this is the capacity in which AI was used for this movie.

Seems like some of the still promo images for the late night show within the movie are AI made. I think this fits.

Guru_of_Spores_

-15

2mo

And that line will move.

Otherwise you're no different than boomers complaining about every other trend.

Slow-Instruction-580

2mo

No? The Boomer complaints we make fun of aren’t about trends that actually hurt artists.

S1mpinAintEZ

-4

2mo

But it's OK if trends hurt regular working class people? I don't understand why we need to boycott technology to save artists when that's never happened for any other industry, we didn't ban robots in warehouses even though the result is less staff required - do you also boycott those companies?

Slow-Instruction-580

2mo

They’ve done that my whole life. There’s no reversing it. And I think that many people are bothered that the concept of art - the only purely creative endeavor humans do - could just be replaced by automation.

S1mpinAintEZ

-4

2mo

I get it, but art isn't purely creative, it's a multi billion dollar industry now. The top grossing films bring in more money than any of us will make in our lifetime. So when we look at art as a commercial product I don't see what makes this any different from any of the other job replacing technology since the industrial revolution. From my perspective this is just another industry that will need to adapt just like manufacturing and farming.

Slow-Instruction-580

2mo

Manual labor still exists and pays.

Replacing human made art with AI made art means no paying jobs for most artists.

S1mpinAintEZ

-1

2mo

What? There are plenty of manual labor jobs that have been entirely replaced except for smaller shops who can't afford the technology required to replace humans, and even then there are some jobs that have been entirely replaced. There will still be jobs for artists, just less of them especially on large productions, that's the same with manual labor.

Slow-Instruction-580

2mo

This is a genuinely bad thing.

Like … why would you want fewer artists on creative projects?

S1mpinAintEZ

2mo

Why would you want fewer humans on any project? Because it saves money, it's more efficient, and that means cheaper products for consumers and more of them. As long as the final product is still good then it's worth it, and that's what the industry is going to figure out - how to use AI so that it's good enough to get the cost savings without sacrificing quality.

This is the same calculation businesses have been doing every time a new technology comes about, this has been happening to blue collar workers since the industrial revolution and I'm not gonna start crying now because it's happening to the creatives.

"How could this happen to me?? I'm not some mindless laborer, I'm an artist, you can't do this!"

That's the exact vibe I'm getting about this entire situation and it's downright shameful. Where are the calls for legislation for farm work? Medicine manufacturing? Warehouse labor? Loom spinners? Coal feeders on ships? Fax machine repair technicians? Why is it OK that we use computers to render art when we could be paying animators to do it all by hand? You can't pretend you care about human jobs when you've been fine with the millions of others being replaced, that's not how it works. If the AI art is bad then people will stop buying it until it reaches a point where it's good enough, that's just the reality.

Continue thread...

scarcuterie

2mo

I get it, but art isn't purely creative, it's a multi billion dollar industry now.

This doesn't make any sense. Yes art can be part of a wider industry, the same way that food is. But just like with food, art should be about creativity, practice and love for the craft rather than just a means to produce stolen overprocessed work that doesn't taste good.

S1mpinAintEZ

2mo

You can argue all day about what art should be but that's not what art is right now. You think every movie that gets made is a passion project? You think all of the low level staff artists are just super stoked to be working on concept art for an IP they don't give a shit about? You're right that art is like food but McDonald's is one of the most popular restaurants in the world, that's just reality. And just like how McDonald's has been steadily reducing staff due to technology, commercial art industries will do the same thing and that's totally fine, it's happened to nearly every other industry that's ever existed to the point where the common jobs of today and the common jobs 1000 years ago share almost no overlap.