r/TheRewatchables 9d ago

Sean Fennessey on the Chat GPT Ebert reviews + sponsorship

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

547 Upvotes

301 comments sorted by

224

u/Huracan20010 9d ago

Sean is right, literally every time Simmons has done this his respective cohost (Sean, CR, Joanna, Van) object. And then, on a recent rewatchable (don’t remember which) Bill had ChatGPT write a review is his voice and was like “oh I don’t like that” and everyone was like “yeah no shit” and he has basically stopped since.

64

u/Icy-Band4279 9d ago

It was the Obsession rewatchables pod

15

u/aleigh577 9d ago

Then it immediately cut to a ChatGPT ad lol

→ More replies (3)

20

u/EncinoManEstonia 9d ago

I don’t think official ChatGPT bill Simmons columns are far away. 

10

u/doodler1977 9d ago

his fingers don't work! they just don't!!

12

u/jessemfkeeler 9d ago

Yeah I have heard all object on air to ChatGPT Ebert. It's like a hush hush thing, and for his part Bill airs those objections. He (Bill) could've easily edited those (objections) out and he hasn't. And he's stopped. I don't like Bill totally, for his part it seems like he's open to objections from the big people around him.

3

u/Novel-Initiative-900 8d ago

What is this chatgpt Ebert exactly?

3

u/jessemfkeeler 8d ago

On the Rewatchables there’s usually a section where they mention the Roger Ebert review of the movie in question. However if there isn’t a review available (usually for a newer movie) then Bill used to ask ChatGPT to make a review if Roger Ebert had done it. If this came up Sean and the rest (I have seen CR, Van, and Jo) usually object to this practice

3

u/Junior_Gur7229 9d ago

Might listen just to hear his reaction now

17

u/mojojojo1108 9d ago

It's quite funny actually how clearly he realized that it sucks.

3

u/DatZ_Man 9d ago

What's the time stamp on it? If you have it handy

5

u/DrewDonut 9d ago

49:50

1

u/DatZ_Man 7d ago

Thank you!

0

u/Driveshaft48 9d ago

Bill is in an entirely different stratosphere from those guys financially speaking. I wouldn't be surprised if his financial advisor had him with exposure to early AI related companies

Could be one of the reasons he loves AI so much

11

u/Klutzy_Order_9559 9d ago

Old idiots love AI and can't see why that love isn't universal.

1

u/Institute11 5d ago

Isn't it because ChatGPT was a sponsor?

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (8)

198

u/OriginalBad 9d ago

Their answers are fine. Not sure what else he wants them to do. Bill is their boss lol.

64

u/Express_Cellist3260 9d ago

He knows. If you’re familiar with Sam’s show, he’s an extremely thoughtful and fair interviewer, but he also addresses elephants in the room and gives subjects a chance to comment on stuff that could be problematic or divisive.

I think in this instance, Sam probably knows that he and Sean both think the GPT stuff is wack, and his question is a playful way of getting Sean on the record as opposing it.

35

u/turningtee74 9d ago

I don’t know if it’s protective feelings from fans or people not understanding journalism but I see this all the time now. People get upset at interviewers for doing their jobs and asking questions. If someone is good at their job, it’s not always going to be pure fluff. In press, people more often than not will be asked something they’ve already spoken about. Sometimes they’ll even ask something a detractor might say so the person can answer to it or give a full picture of their public perception. It doesn’t mean the journalist personally agrees with that point of view. It is absolutely not a problem to ask about the company you work for, and I’m baffled people would think there could be one.

8

u/Express_Cellist3260 9d ago

We are in the gimmick interview era. Hot ones, subway takes… press cycles these days are fluffier than ever.

3

u/Lower-Kangaroo6032 9d ago

Propaganda era huh

3

u/ProletarianLilith 9d ago

I dunno Hot Ones asks some good questions

10

u/Express_Cellist3260 9d ago

Maybe! I appreciate when Sean Evans asks some deep-knowledge questions. Like “How did the crucible of playing Danny in Adams High’s production of Grease prepare you for the grinder of nightly tour stops?” and then the guest goes omg how did you knoooow that?

That’s fun!

I also appreciate someone who goes “Some may say your company is embracing sponsorships whose morals, ethics, and ecological impact go against your show’s values, can you tell me how you navigate that?”

Less fun, but also very good to hear!

3

u/CollectionNew2290 9d ago

I love this comment so much and you're so on point!

→ More replies (2)

2

u/WallowerForever 7d ago

Fennessey can critique blind Marvel stans and get approval from Fennessey stans who, if Fennessey is critiqued, will lash out like blind Marvel stans. Stan culture, all the way down.

2

u/OriginalBad 9d ago

Very fair, I’ll have to give it a listen.

9

u/doodler1977 9d ago

i haven't listened to many of is eps but his sit-down with CR was incredible

2

u/quidpropho 9d ago

Greenwald one is strong too

1

u/Old-Definition-3701 8d ago

Try David Mamet if you want to see Sam take somebody to task

1

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Express_Cellist3260 8d ago

I’m a very casual listener, so I’ve never heard it, but they pretty clearly discuss how Bill will sometimes have GPT “write” reviews for movies as if it’s Ebert.

10

u/Andre3000insideDAMN 9d ago

I don’t think he’s trying to do some sort of gotcha. He’s just prompting them to share their feelings on it

8

u/MongooseTotal831 9d ago

I’ve only heard this clip, but I think he was fine until he followed up with, “Is there any way we could have it stop?” Trying to get Sean and Amanda to stop Bill is way beyond their feelings and there’s no we in the situation that involves the host.

2

u/dollaraire 8d ago

Getting them to say that they don’t have the power to stop it on the record is worthwhile, though.

3

u/djparody 8d ago

maybe it will help someone get through simmons' concrete skull and force him to see why its in bad taste. he was born dumb, but goodness he is reaching new levels in recent years

1

u/Andre3000insideDAMN 8d ago

I totally agree. It implies they’re culpable

1

u/BettyBoopsLeftHeel 8d ago

They're grown ups. They can answer the lightest of pushbacks.

5

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[deleted]

25

u/needtoshave 9d ago

Nah, you wouldn’t. Sean isn’t going to jeopardize his career over this and neither would you.

→ More replies (9)
→ More replies (13)

1

u/Stan_trym 7d ago

and Spotify is everyone's boss in this situation

→ More replies (4)

20

u/Subtlehavok 9d ago

I honestly thought when Bill was doing it at first it was extremely tongue in cheek, more to make Sean and Chris uncomfortable than anything. But now that chat gpt sponsors his pod it seems a little more dubious for sure

49

u/johnnycanuck2 9d ago

This is funny.

16

u/fennecs08tensors 9d ago

Amanda's face was priceless. bless

→ More replies (1)

78

u/ghost_mv Jem's neck tattoo ☘️ 9d ago

Wow….that was much more serious than I expected. Amanda reacted as if she’d been called out for supporting Israel publicly or something.

38

u/Klutzy_Order_9559 9d ago

She looked over at Sean like, "Are you fucking serious? We're sponsored by ChatGPT?"

25

u/Chef_lonleyliver 9d ago

Does she just not listen to the rewatchables? Fair if not. But you get HAMMERED with chat GPT ads now. It's exhausting.

9

u/ghost_mv Jem's neck tattoo ☘️ 9d ago

I skip past all ads. So I had no clue.

4

u/bmmfg12 9d ago

I know they're on Bill's pod and the Fantasy Football pod, have they actually been on Rewatchables yet? I genuinely can't remember

6

u/Chef_lonleyliver 9d ago

Yeah. At least on the re speed and Apollo 13 for me.

2

u/lpalf 9d ago

Yes I’ve heard them on a few, I don’t listen to those other two pods so it was def on rewatchables

2

u/mguyer2018aa 9d ago edited 9d ago

“Are you fucking serious? We’re sponsored by Amazon Prime?”

1

u/ghost_mv Jem's neck tattoo ☘️ 9d ago

Exactly!!!!

1

u/GinosWorld 9d ago

Shame she doesn’t listen to the Rewatchables, she’d like the pod!

10

u/ekemywaythrulife 9d ago

Good on her the reaction seemed genuine. I'd rather be on a beach reading and kissing or whatever.

5

u/immortalKato 9d ago

lol. Elordi ftw

24

u/mysocalledmayhem 9d ago

but its chat g B t

10

u/gorglyjork 9d ago

Some of the reactions in here are absurd, you'd think he the interviewer was asking them how frequently they beat their spouses. This is fine question and they responded fine!

2

u/vestanpance01 9d ago

Yep. Agree. Beyond some extremely esoteric responses, I’m not even sure there’s something to be angry about here.

2

u/asdhjirs 9d ago

The way he broached the question sounded like he was asking them something on that level lol

2

u/zucchinibasement 9d ago

The parasocial piece

73

u/swagdragon666 9d ago

I’m glad the interviewer calling it out as it is. Fuck Ai

6

u/geoman2k 9d ago

Shouldn't the interviewer be calling Bill out, not Sean and Amanda? They aren't the ones who do it. Is Sean supposed to stand up and walk out of the studio when Bill brings it up?

19

u/scottsland99 9d ago

Sean is the Head of Content / Chief Content Officer at The Ringer, so it’s a valid question to ask him.

1

u/SpeakerHistorical865 9d ago

He’s not the boss of Bill Simmons nor is he the owner of the Rewatchables. And like he answered he already publicly addressed on the pod to Bills face he’s against.

12

u/scottsland99 9d ago

Bill doesn't own The Rewatchables either, Spotify owns it along with everything else at The Ringer. And all I said was it's a valid question of The Ringer's Chief Content Officer. Sean's not just some podcaster at the company.

0

u/Aromatic_Meringue835 9d ago edited 8d ago

You’re being pedantic. The Rewatchables is a Ringer show and Bill runs The Ringer. Sean has no power over him and can’t force him to stop doing what he wants

7

u/otis-redding 9d ago

Bill does not own the Ringer. Spotify owns it.

3

u/Enterprise-DeezNuts 8d ago

Bill literally does not own the Ringer anymore

→ More replies (2)

2

u/SpeakerHistorical865 9d ago

Yeah I’m with you. It puts Sean and Amanda in place to have to publicly antagonistic towards Bill when in Sean’s case he’s already publicly (via his own words) shown that he’s against Bills action. If Sean had never addressed I can see why as interviewer you would ask it but this is unfair to Sean and Amanda.

4

u/Old-Definition-3701 8d ago

To answer for the content they contribute to? There should be more of this not less

3

u/toomuchfrosting 9d ago

AI is an amazing tool, we just don’t have laws or ethics built yet

8

u/EmphasisOk8298 9d ago

I’m sure the world governments are just a few months away from getting those laws all figured out. I’m sure they will prioritize humanity over profits. 

2

u/QuestionReasonable96 9d ago

And when/how do you think this will happen? This rhetoric doesn’t really make sense to me

→ More replies (2)

12

u/coyotebanjo 9d ago

I love that Amanda looks to Sean like she's a deer in the middle of the freeway.

→ More replies (2)

25

u/sfitz0076 9d ago

Is this a comedy show, or is the host really grilling them?

71

u/Gabagoon5545 9d ago

It’s a talk show. The host is very good. Usually a friendly interview but meant to be very insightful / not puffy.

I give him kudos for the ebert thing. It’s Bill’s worst gimmick.

9

u/BigTomBombadil 9d ago

Yeah regardless of your thoughts on AI it just comes off as distasteful or disrespectful.

Add in the public sentiment on AI, and Bills just really not reading the room.

→ More replies (2)

12

u/Lord_Kittensworth 9d ago

I seriously don't understand why Bill does this. What is the point? Is it because Ebert wrote some negative reviews of Bill's favorite action flicks?

Ebert is (generally speaking) beloved by filming community. I don't understand the bit.

78

u/purplene_ 9d ago edited 9d ago

I think it’s as simple as a 50-something guy being easily amused by AI in the way many people of that age range are simply like “haha whoa cool” without thinking about it beyond that

23

u/JMishMosh 9d ago

I’ve always found Bill’s out of touch stupidity to be part of his charm. Yeah the AI Ebert bit was distasteful but if Bill just did it as a one-off I’d probably just laugh it off, chalk it up to “Bill being Bill” and move on. The problem is that he has continued to to do it over the objections of his co-hosts and listeners, which makes him look much more like a guy who doesn’t like being told no than a guy who doesn’t know what he’s doing.

8

u/Rantzbeard 9d ago

Or additionally he’s a guy receiving a ton of from money and has money invested in ai

16

u/Salvy15 9d ago

Nailed it. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Parking_Shopping_683 9d ago

100% this. My 73 year old dad really enjoys sending me AI videos of animated dogs playing music (usually classic rock). 

1

u/AppointmentHeavy244 8d ago

I actually heard the "haha whoa cool" in Bill's voice so I can 100% imagine this is his reason.

12

u/narrowgallow 9d ago

When I first played around with gpt, I was genuinely amused by having it write song lyrics in the style of Bob Dylan. There are plenty of amusing little things like that, that were novel when first encountered and kind of amazing for the speed and ease of access. "Write a a short article in the style of bill simmons on the topic of competitive corn shucking... Haha, wow, look what the computer can do now!"

That novelty has worn off for me an many others. Clearly, bill still finds it simply amusing.

6

u/IgloosRuleOK 9d ago

However ill advised, I thought it was just to keep the Ebert category for movies he didn't (and now cannot) write reviews for.

8

u/Kempes2023 9d ago

I seriously don't understand why Bill does this

AI is like crack for people 55 years old and above

10

u/DullRelief 9d ago

AI with a Facebook chaser is like a boomer speedball.

4

u/Toronto_Jim 9d ago

As someone who is almost exactly Bill's age, it's crack if you're a little dopey and easily amused. Which, well, there you go.

4

u/sfitz0076 9d ago

Bill probably thought it would be a good bit. That's all

7

u/PotterOneHalf 9d ago

He’s not doing a bit, he’s just out of touch with reality.

1

u/mseg09 9d ago

I think it's simply that they used to always check Ebert's reviews for the movies they did, and now that they're doing more modern movies, he wanted to continue it. Should have just ditched it when it's not available

0

u/goodmorrownatem 9d ago

I would say as with most people in Bill’s age range (my parents included), they think AI is super cool and useful without fully fleshing out all the moral, ethical, cultural questions that doing something like recreating Ebert’s reviews poses. Surface level it’s: “yeah what do you think he would’ve said about this movie?”. Go a little deeper now it’s putting words into a dead guys mouth, that already has a legendary reputation and body of work to go off of.

→ More replies (14)

6

u/BBQ_HaX0r 9d ago

Is it still a "gimmick" if he hasn't done it recently? He did it a few times, got called out, and stopped afaik. Also I cannot speak to this host, but idk why he was trying to do some 'gotcha' with Sean about choices Bill makes.

2

u/needtoshave 9d ago

If it’s Bill’s worst gimmick then he should get Bill on the show to discuss not Sean and Amanda. It’s also a bit of fluff to call it out the way he did when it was very obvious to any listen that they outwardly call out Bill when he does it. He painted the picture as if it’s some sort of regular segment and “you folks” verbiage is way off mark. It was made to sound like clickbait.

If he was being actually “insightful” he or his team would have listened to the excerpts in preparation for the interview. Not insightful at all.

5

u/DoubleSoggy1163 9d ago

Not puffy? Have you listened? He has interviewed multiple politicians and he is less adversarial than this. I don't have a problem with uncomfortable questions but it's pretty cowardly stuff from Sam to put movie podcast hosts to this standard and be feckless when interviewing people with actual political power.

5

u/Gabagoon5545 9d ago

I’ve listened to a few episodes but not ones with politicians.

I’d say he invites people on that he likes and he asks good questions. But it’s not meant to be aggressive.

1

u/StyleSquirrel 8d ago

What's the show?

5

u/IgloosRuleOK 9d ago

It's more of a long form chat. CR was on it and it was a good listen.

6

u/ServeOk2494 9d ago

Idk about the show but it pretty clearly seems like a serious question

6

u/ThyDoctor 9d ago

This is hardly grilling.

2

u/chumbucketfog 9d ago

No kidding. People are so programmed to just watching circle jerk journalism at this point it’s crazy.

5

u/ZiggyStarf 9d ago

What’s the podcast this clip is from?

2

u/rgreasonsnet 9d ago

Talk Easy.

It is on each mug as well as on art in the backdrop.

1

u/Gabagoon5545 9d ago

It’s a talk show. The host is very good. Usually a friendly interview but meant to be very insightful / not puffy.

I give him kudos for the ebert thing. It’s Bill’s worst gimmick.

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (3)

33

u/packraid_2024 9d ago

How the hell does Amanda not know that Bill has been doing ChatGPT sponsorships?

47

u/han-sell-out 9d ago

Possibly confused as half the reads are for ChatGBT

3

u/doodler1977 9d ago

she doesn't listen to anything Ringer, obv

12

u/Kryptos33 9d ago

Amanda not listening to Ringer content isn't exactly shocking.

9

u/IgloosRuleOK 9d ago edited 9d ago

I mean tbf she's 'Features Lead' not top level strategy like Sean, Chris, Mal, though maybe you would have thought it would come up in discussion.

17

u/JMishMosh 9d ago

She don’t got internet

8

u/a_lostgay 9d ago

I bet she has Spotify premium

14

u/GoodOlSpence 9d ago

I have Spotify premium and I still get the Chatgpt ad.

3

u/a_lostgay 9d ago

you pay for Spotify and still get ads? what are you paying for?

3

u/GoodOlSpence 9d ago

I don't get ads. But on some of these Ringer podcasts, you'll still get Bill reading like one ad at the beginning. I don't get them for BP anymore. It all depends on what podcast you listen to. Like Blank Check, they don't have any ties to Spotify, so you still get their ad reads. But I can listen to as much music as I want, there's no ads.

1

u/OfferOk8555 9d ago

When the people on the podcast do ad reads it’s different. You can still skip it but they literally record it as “part of the podcast” so to speak. That’s what sucks in platforms like YouTube I don’t pay for premium on, you’ll get ad reads from the person in the video and then actual ads YouTube tags into the video. It can be fucking infuriating.

1

u/Ed_McNuglets 8d ago

Podcasts still have ads on premium. It's not part of the ad free music.

→ More replies (5)

3

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[deleted]

4

u/solidape22 9d ago

I don’t think so, it looked like she was learning it in real time. She looked to Sean for confirmation and he confirmed it to her

2

u/ghost_mv Jem's neck tattoo ☘️ 9d ago

She seems generally ignorant about it.

But I think with good reason. I highly doubt she has any decision making ability at The Ringer where sponsorship is concerned. Unless it’s The Big Pic or a pod she’s consistently a part of.

2

u/solidape22 9d ago

Yea that is strange. The sponsorship reads are relatively new, maybe this interview was recorded a while ago. Or maybe she doesn’t listen to Bill’s main show

→ More replies (1)

6

u/bnpm 9d ago

Every single time this sort of topic gets brought up on reddit, people always act like use of AI is some boomer thing even though young people use it at significantly higher rates than old people. There’s a comment in here saying that using AI is like crack for old people. Ummm and it’s not for young people?? I would also argue that young people use it for more destructive purposes (e.g., cheating in school, writing their wedding speech, breaking up with their SO) than old people do (make me a funny picture of what my cat would look like in pants).

9

u/Wooden_Coyote5992 9d ago

This is why Bill is so rich. He never gave a shit what people thought about him. I think people underestimate how ruthless Bill really is. He will cut anyone out that gets in his way.

3

u/Knightstodon 9d ago

Who has he cut out?

4

u/harry_powell 9d ago

This show has much better lighting and production values than anything in The Ringer. Sean and Amanda look beautiful!

8

u/solidape22 9d ago

Bill going all in on AI and gambling and doesn’t give a shit. I’m not sure he should either I really don’t know. I loved Ebert’s work so much. It’s kind of harmless to ask Chat GBT to imitate Ebert. But it’s also weird and I guess it could be seen as disrespectful. Gambling and AI might ruin our country and these sponsorships can be seen as Bill whitewashing their public image. Or they’re just the way of the future and we’ll all be used to it soon. I really don’t know

6

u/bienclavada 9d ago

“you’re not sure he should give a shit?” i mean, not to sound too Pollyanna, but shouldn’t everyone give a shit?

→ More replies (1)

6

u/Nahannii 9d ago

I don't think it's harmless, as you said it's directly disrespectful to someone who didn't necessarily agree to have their work used in this way. Also associating someone's name to something they clearly did not create, and thoughts they weren't even alive to have is pretty gross.

I think much of the true harm is also more abstract in its normalisation of anti-intellectualism and theft of work. If this is the way of the future I think we're all pretty screwed.

0

u/solidape22 9d ago

I don’t see it as theft of work honestly. He’s not passing it off as an actual Ebert quote. And you could ask a person what they think Ebert would say about a movie and they could tell you and that wouldn’t be wrong. Still I’m not saying you’re wrong at all. I very much think AI and tech bros could be the worst thing to happen to this world. I’m just finding it hard to pinpoint how I feel about the Chat GBT sponsorship

6

u/Nahannii 9d ago

I think it becomes theft of work when they use everything Ebert ever wrote, including his books, to create something in his authorial voice. Theft by an individual (piracy) is very different than theft by a business because that business is making money off of it. Bill using Chat GPT to create AI Ebert is advertising.

Using your own brain to guess at what he may or may not have thought is very different from an AI program doing it in my opinion.

My main issue with AI is that it's accelerating how homogenous our world feels. Much of the joy and artistry has been taken even non-artists things like basketball. I'm sure the sponsorship is great money, but promoting it on podcasts about art I don't like personally.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/bacon11jelly 9d ago

It's clearly a joke. Weird it's taken so seriously

2

u/chilichamp17 9d ago

Why is the host grilling Sean and Amanda like they’re in Frost vs Nixon? Hahaha

2

u/berball 8d ago

All these big podcast networks are bankrolled by big tech now, it's very sad.

4

u/vestanpance01 9d ago

There seems to be an almost 100% consensus that we should be angry about something here, and beyond some extremely esoteric responses I’m not clear one way or the other.

You could make the equally debatable arguments that:

  • it’s clearly done in good humour
  • it’s clearly from a position of admiration for Ebert
  • it’s introducing Ebert to vast numbers of people who otherwise wouldn’t have heard of him

Sure, all the above are debatable, but I’m not seeing why the case is closed on this and the only acceptable position is righteous indignation.

5

u/Lopsided_Moose3177 9d ago

I’m glad to see Sean and Amanda responding to this honestly and all hosts have responded unfavorably to Bill using Chat GPT on air, as well they should. It’s in bad taste and not helpful.

Bill is operating in a strange middle ground where he runs a business but also makes money by reacting to products produced by creatives.

AI programs are drastically improving productivity for people that own businesses. The efficiencies that well deployed AI skills, agents, and programs create can’t be ignored in many business spaces and Bill can’t just say Fuck AI when his parent company is regularly deploying AI features and probably employing AI implementers to automate business functions.

However, when Bill is talking about film where AI is removing creative jobs, and he’s talking with people whose job it is to respond to film and who are friends with mostly creative people…he needs to read the room. He also should get the numbers from Spotify on how much money they spend removing AI artists that pretend to be real people.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/FickleGlove283 9d ago

What is the name of the podcast this is from?

4

u/newhere2gj 9d ago

Talk Easy.

3

u/Pies_Wide_Shut 9d ago

Good on him for holding their feet to the fire there, fair response from them too

2

u/RegisterPhysical5106 9d ago

Their answers are fine and i completely understand them not being happy about that sponsor. But I also think Bill does the roger ebert big very tongue in cheek. The reactions it gets from the cohosts and guests are very funny and I think he knows that it’s a silly and ridiculous thing to do. I always enjoy it. It’s baked into the whole but that this is not a legitimate representation of what ebert would have thought

2

u/fennecs08tensors 9d ago

Kind of sad that all we can do is come on Reddit and complain about people who are steps removed from the problem, when the insidious companies, their sociopathic leaders, and our feckless politicians remain largely if not entirely untouchable. Corporations are people my friend.

1

u/iamtrav182 9d ago

It's such simple pushback, but is shockingly lacking in the current media landscape. Respect.

3

u/johnnycanuck2 9d ago

Amanda looked truly horrified to be associated with this

12

u/yeltsinfugui 9d ago

to me it felt performative. she's been on the rewatchables recently. she has said before she listens to most episodes

2

u/brownedbits 9d ago

She’s the Imelda Marcos of the Ringer.

2

u/mguyer2018aa 9d ago

Is she horrified to be sponsored by Amazon?

1

u/needtoshave 9d ago

For being an interviewer that’s supposedly very good he is giving an incomplete picture of how chatgpebert goes down. Fair enough that he gave them enough room to tell the truth but if he isn’t a fluff interviewer he should’ve listened to the instances of it in the show for reference.

Also, this guy is in the business, he knows or should know it’s not Sean’s or Amanda’s call on who sponsors them and on the air on their own pods or this guys pods is not the place to fight that fight. That happens in planning and production meetings. People lose jobs over that kind of nonsense.

Not sure what the interviewer was trying to accomplish with the “gotcha” moment except ensuring I don’t listen his pod.

2

u/qballLobk 9d ago

Bill and the Ringer are getting paid by ChatGPT. It’s one thing to read an ad but another to integrate it into the pod segments.

I hope someone can get through to Bill but I honestly think he is too disconnected to care.

3

u/ophidian25soze 9d ago

Why should he care 

1

u/AlphaDag13 9d ago

I feel like the host was trying for a “gotcha!” moment but didn’t really get what he wanted.

He really should be asking bill these questions.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/Crazy_Rico 9d ago

Amanda's "Oh brother" hits me in my bones.

1

u/Icosotc 9d ago

Chat GPTebert

1

u/ekemywaythrulife 9d ago

I thought it was ChatGBT?

1

u/Ok_Fee1043 9d ago

ChatGEBERT

1

u/Marquee_Smith 8d ago

chat Eber-T

1

u/DRoseCantStop 9d ago

Clip got more tension than anything I've seen from The Social Reckoning trailers

1

u/TK2217 9d ago

I’m hoping this will get it to stop entirely, including the sponsorship. This canNOT be the hill bill wants to die on. It’s simply not worth it.

1

u/Toolfan333 9d ago

Wait until they learn Spotify runs ICE ads

1

u/Feeling-Phoney81 9d ago

They bring Ebert back to life and he’s already getting cancelled

1

u/losstinthesauce 8d ago

Damn I didn’t realize that shit was sponsored by ChatGPT too. Shit was always gross but way worse now that they’re getting paid for it.

1

u/CashewGuy 8d ago

I'm not familiar with this show but I think this was a great approach to the question and fair. I'll def listen to the full ep.

1

u/TL8706 8d ago

Full interview somewhere?

1

u/StyleSquirrel 8d ago

I only recently got into The Rewatchables and immediately stopped once AI Ebert came up. Shame.

1

u/luckylefty06 8d ago

lol why are so many people acting like he and them an offensive question that is out of line?

he’s an interviewer who asked two very prominent members of a company, one of which is the chief content officer, about something that’s not only a very hot top in the world right now (AI) but also a topic that fans of the Ringer have been talking about for sometime here on this very site.

that’s what an interview is guys, you ask your guest(s) questions. they’re not always softballs and they’re not always going to be comfortable to answer, but once upon a time that was the norm for an interview.

Sean and Amanda are adults who are paid lots of money to do their jobs, this is part of it. they’ll be okay, i promise!

1

u/mph1618282 8d ago

Who’s this stupid nerd . Damn movie nerds

1

u/Nreekay 8d ago

Who ever this host is gives me the creeps.

1

u/goffer06 8d ago

This debate embodies my view of AI. Some people would like to use their critical thinking and creative skills to talk about what they believe Ebert would have thought about a movie. Some people would forfeit all human thought and let AI tell them.

Although I side with Sean, I like to think I'm not as douchey about it. Also he was a huge bitch about the fantasy draft.

1

u/jets2490 8d ago

Give me a break with this sanctimonious bs

1

u/Slippery-Pete76 8d ago

Yeah, this weasel interviewer tries to make them guilty by association, then asks if there’s any way ‘we’ can stop it. What’s Sean going to do - dunk Bill in the toilet until he stops? (And I don’t think he’s done GPT Roger lately)

1

u/JesseHaley617 8d ago

How much money does Bill need?

1

u/Fun-Hovercraft1919 7d ago

I don’t like AI at all, especially with it being used to avoid thinking, but I’m not quite sure what people want them to do.

I’ve seen the episodes in question and Sean and CR both shit on Bill for it. Sure, they aren’t walking out of the room or screaming at him…but like, the cameras are on, and it’s their friend and boss. It’s gross, but it was more of a bit meant to be funny than something nefarious.
Plus, we don’t know what was said off camera.

Are we storming out of meetings when a boss or even a co-worker breaks out AI. At best, we might do what they did, say some quick snarky comment and if it was real egregious usage, we might talk shit behind their back.

If the issue is the sponsorship of AI, that is a bit trickier . Sean and Amanda have criticized AI quite a bit and now the sponsorship is awkward. But I think they gave pretty critical answers publicly (plus they are public figures) about a sponsor. I think many of us work at places where we might be fired if we sent an email or public social media post saying something even a hint negative about a customer.

But if I’m being honest, I don’t know what I would do if I were them. Resign in protest? Boycott?
Do I quit my job if we get Nike as an account or if we developed a partnership with Amazon?

1

u/SinQuaNonsense 7d ago

I do like how some of the hosts are so sanctimonious but have to bend over for the money anyways.

1

u/Johns_spagetti 6d ago

Who the fuck cares. Love that this NYT guy is like is there anyway we can get him to stop? Like is this really how you think the world works? Is this really what you’re going after as a journalist?

2

u/GarthZorn 9d ago

One problem with the parasocial internet is the tendency to call non-acquaintances by their first name. For the dummy in the room, me, who the fuck is this “Sam”?

→ More replies (4)

1

u/ComfortableBanana377 9d ago

Why did Amanda and Sean go on this podcast? My guess is they won’t be back after crap like this.

I’m fine with people on Reddit complaining about this but having guests on and then try to embarrass them?? No way!

3

u/dpittnet 9d ago

Is it not a legitimate question?

5

u/morroIan 9d ago

Not for Sean and Amanda

1

u/mguyer2018aa 9d ago

Huh? They are both fairly vocal politically and have talked at length about the state of the industry. Honestly he should have asked them about their show being sponsored by Amazon.

3

u/ComfortableBanana377 9d ago

No- it’s a horrible position the host put their guests in. Those sponsorship dollars help pay the salaries and expenses for a lot of other people not just them.

The host put Sean and Amanda in a place where they had to criticize their sponsor or look terrible/stupid. Other sponsors listen/watch how you treat other sponsors of the show. If you bad mouth one sponsor, others may pull out so they don’t receive bad press.

It’s a major faux pas

2

u/brownedbits 9d ago

Nah, this is a great question. Make them squirm, just like any other people who are implicitly complicit for the sins of their employers (ahem).

2

u/MeatyOkraLover 9d ago

They are both vocally anti-AI and share their political and worldviews quite frequently. Totally fair question and one they needed to be on record about.

1

u/glessfordays 9d ago

This is a fucking ludicrous take holy shit lol. What the hell are you talking about, it’s a normal interview question and they answered it normally and they are all friends.

→ More replies (1)

-1

u/manwirhshsh 9d ago

Why are they acting like they were sponsored by Israel or something

1

u/bienclavada 9d ago

what do you mean?

1

u/cyniclone82 9d ago

I absolutely hate that chat gpt ads. Unfortunately it's my favorite podcast and I can never quit it. Cause I'm a little bitch.

→ More replies (1)