Actors say Hollywood studios want their AI replicas – for free, forever(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Actors say Hollywood studios want their AI replicas – for free, forever
https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/13/23794224/sag-aftra-actors-strike-ai-image-rights
184 comments
Came here just to say The Congress!
This movie blew my mind, it goes so forward in time. Should be talked more.
The title is semi-misleading: there aren't any royalties, but instead there's a upfront cost of one day's pay.
The fact that they actually offered that low of an amount for biometric AI data in perpetuity makes it clear they are operating in bad faith (more than usual)
The fact that they actually offered that low of an amount for biometric AI data in perpetuity makes it clear they are operating in bad faith (more than usual)
Using the likeness in perpetuity is insane.
I think this could be fair for background actors _if_ it was scoped to a single project.
Come in, get scanned, maybe do some mannerism mocap and then get the negotiated day rate. The rate for a single day should be higher than it is currently, but still less than the studio currently pays for multiple days of background work.
This would be closer to a win-win: the background actor gets paid more money for fewer hours of work, and the studio spends less money overall on background actors.
I think this could be fair for background actors _if_ it was scoped to a single project.
Come in, get scanned, maybe do some mannerism mocap and then get the negotiated day rate. The rate for a single day should be higher than it is currently, but still less than the studio currently pays for multiple days of background work.
This would be closer to a win-win: the background actor gets paid more money for fewer hours of work, and the studio spends less money overall on background actors.
> I think this could be fair for background actors _if_ it was scoped to a single project.
That’s how it’s been done, more or less, as far back as The Scorpion King. Digitally inserted extras have been a thing for awhile, but it still required the actors to do mocap and be scanned in costume.
That’s how it’s been done, more or less, as far back as The Scorpion King. Digitally inserted extras have been a thing for awhile, but it still required the actors to do mocap and be scanned in costume.
If you don't want to sell your data, don't.
Well yes. That's why SAG-AFTRA is going on strike.
Doesn't the definition of background actor preclude being in SAG though? I thought extras had to be in three or four productions in a year before they got their SAG cards.
Isn't the strike to prevent other people from selling their data? You don't have to go on strike to not sell your own data.
They are a union. They negotiate as a collective. And its members voted to the tune of 98% in favor of the strike.
I often see anti-union sentiment in tech circles which is hilarious considering how companies like Apple and Microsoft have already tried to fuck us with non-competes.
You misinterpret my message. It's union irrelevant. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36717457 where I flesh out what I'm saying.
These unions are in danger of becoming irrelevant.
These unions are in danger of becoming irrelevant.
But you know 100x hyper-libertarian-48lawsofpower-dude can definitely negotiate better than a dirty liberal... Union!
(I swear, I've had that exact conversation here, with nearly that same tone. And of course, verbal contortions that they are somehow better individuals with 'special skills'. They're just more meat for the grinder.)
(I swear, I've had that exact conversation here, with nearly that same tone. And of course, verbal contortions that they are somehow better individuals with 'special skills'. They're just more meat for the grinder.)
Honestly hoping AI destroys programming first because we absolutely deserve to get hoisted by our own petard here.
Until union tries to force people to become members or force companies to only hire members, it's a completely valid libertarian concept. It’s essentially a cartel of employees. The only people who should have something against it are those who think that monopolies should be broken down.
The NLRB forces unions to also negotiate for non-union members.
When the NLRB no longer requires negotiating for free-loaders, sure. But if I'm part of a union, you damn straight if you're getting the benefits and getting negotiation, I want you to pay your share.
When the NLRB no longer requires negotiating for free-loaders, sure. But if I'm part of a union, you damn straight if you're getting the benefits and getting negotiation, I want you to pay your share.
Got a source for that? That seems counter to the fact that the NLRB has allowed different benefits and pay for union vs. non-union employees.
Gladly!
https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em...
I would have to dig for the exact USC codes that construct the below paragraph taken from said website. I don't have that on hand.
"Your union has the duty to represent all employees - whether members of the union or not-fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination. This duty applies to virtually every action that a union may take in dealing with an employer as your representative, including collective bargaining, handling grievances, and operating exclusive hiring halls. For example, a union which represents you cannot refuse to process a grievance because you have criticized union officials or because you are not a member of the union. But the duty does not ordinarily apply to rights a worker can enforce independently - such as filing a workers' compensation claim - or to internal union affairs - such as the union's right to discipline members for violating its own rules."
https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em...
I would have to dig for the exact USC codes that construct the below paragraph taken from said website. I don't have that on hand.
"Your union has the duty to represent all employees - whether members of the union or not-fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination. This duty applies to virtually every action that a union may take in dealing with an employer as your representative, including collective bargaining, handling grievances, and operating exclusive hiring halls. For example, a union which represents you cannot refuse to process a grievance because you have criticized union officials or because you are not a member of the union. But the duty does not ordinarily apply to rights a worker can enforce independently - such as filing a workers' compensation claim - or to internal union affairs - such as the union's right to discipline members for violating its own rules."
Surely that's all employees in the bargaining unit, not literally all employees. Executives are employees too after all.
Though certainly non-members should not be forced into bargaining units and in turn, unions for those bargaining units should not have to represent them. It would allow a lot more micro-unions, but eh.
Though certainly non-members should not be forced into bargaining units and in turn, unions for those bargaining units should not have to represent them. It would allow a lot more micro-unions, but eh.
> It’s essentially a cartel of employees.
Yes that's the entire fucking point of collective action.
Yes that's the entire fucking point of collective action.
Judging by aggressiveness of your comment, it seems that you think that I have something against it. You may have thought so because I used the term "cartel", which has a negative connotation, so I don't blame you for getting angry.
However, I'm not against it, ambivalent about it. What's more important to me is hypocricy of people who oppose the thing in one context and then support it in another, whereas it's exactly the same thing.
Why am I ambivalent about it? Well, it's a screenwriter who earn $120k and barely survive in LA against midwestern school teacher who earns $50k and whose pension fund invested in another fund who invested in a Disney. I don't think either side is morally superior to another.
However, I'm not against it, ambivalent about it. What's more important to me is hypocricy of people who oppose the thing in one context and then support it in another, whereas it's exactly the same thing.
Why am I ambivalent about it? Well, it's a screenwriter who earn $120k and barely survive in LA against midwestern school teacher who earns $50k and whose pension fund invested in another fund who invested in a Disney. I don't think either side is morally superior to another.
[deleted]
strikes are to bargain collectively. The individual formula will only work for some employees and gradually erode as more are sucked into the void.
The choice in this case eventually becomes one between paying or not paying at all which is a completely hilarious deal. You won't have to do any work tho, you will be working elsewhere
The choice in this case eventually becomes one between paying or not paying at all which is a completely hilarious deal. You won't have to do any work tho, you will be working elsewhere
But enough other actors will and it will be much cheaper to use their replica than hiring real actors so even those who didn't sell their data are going to see their income heavily reduced thanks to this antics.
No actors will be able to do this unless SAG-AFTRA negotiates it. SAG-AFTRA does not just represent household names, it's all actors, 160,000 people whether you're the star of feature films or the guy with one line in one episode of a streaming series nobody knows about. This is the point of a union and collective bargaining. Actors aren't able to work outside the bounds of the agreements even if they were willing to.
do they even need actors for this? they need personalities. they scan the personality of thousands of people, and let AI do the acting.
the skill of an actor is that they can act out different personalities as needed for the film, but if they create a database of whatever personalities you can think of, you only need to find a person to have that personality scan them and add to the database.
so anyone can do this job for a day. acting skills are no longer needed, much less acting experience.
that means anyone needing a bit of money will be game to be exploited like this. basically we can expect that anything but major roles will be replaced if this is allowed to go through.
the actors guild will have to negotiate to somehow disallow or limit the use of AI generated characters. however if you want to create scenes with thousands of people (like the battle scenes in lord of the rings or the hobbit, which were embellished with the help of AI) disallowing AI characters would be too limiting
the skill of an actor is that they can act out different personalities as needed for the film, but if they create a database of whatever personalities you can think of, you only need to find a person to have that personality scan them and add to the database.
so anyone can do this job for a day. acting skills are no longer needed, much less acting experience.
that means anyone needing a bit of money will be game to be exploited like this. basically we can expect that anything but major roles will be replaced if this is allowed to go through.
the actors guild will have to negotiate to somehow disallow or limit the use of AI generated characters. however if you want to create scenes with thousands of people (like the battle scenes in lord of the rings or the hobbit, which were embellished with the help of AI) disallowing AI characters would be too limiting
One of the most fundamental elements of a movie or show is that characters will be thrown into conflict that will challenge them and will come out on the other side (or not) changed in one way or another. That's at the macro level -- at the micro level, you may need to portray a wide range of emotion in a single scene. Nobody is just "one personality" throughout a show. Or a scene.
If they can successfully map a thousand different emotions to the same A.I. model believably, then okay, but we are some distance from that yet, and it will be fought heavily when we get there, because a couple hundred thousand people aren't going to roll over and accept that their jobs don't exist anymore
If they can successfully map a thousand different emotions to the same A.I. model believably, then okay, but we are some distance from that yet, and it will be fought heavily when we get there, because a couple hundred thousand people aren't going to roll over and accept that their jobs don't exist anymore
i certainly hope so. but we are not talking about lead actors here but extras. those are already being generated in scenes where hundreds or thousands of them are needed because such scenes would otherwise not even be possible. what scanning personalities will do is give movie makers a wider variety of extras to choose from without the extra cost. that's what they want and what the actors guild needs to fight.
i am not talking about speaking roles. we don't quite have the technology for those yet, but we are not that far either. we already have animated and computer generated 3d models of people that are getting more realistic by the day. just look at the final fantasy movies. they are still human controlled of course, but there are no more full actors. and the same is happening with voice actors too.
i fear this is where the industry is heading, and it's going to be hard to stop them.
i am not talking about speaking roles. we don't quite have the technology for those yet, but we are not that far either. we already have animated and computer generated 3d models of people that are getting more realistic by the day. just look at the final fantasy movies. they are still human controlled of course, but there are no more full actors. and the same is happening with voice actors too.
i fear this is where the industry is heading, and it's going to be hard to stop them.
I could literally see a future where films and tv become more like extended video game cut scenes. The studios are already struggling to make the next generation of Hollywood stars. People like Tom Holland and Timothee Chalomet just don't seem to cut it compared to the 80s and 90s stars. I could see them doing away with them all together and then just hiring less expensive actors to do motion capture work. The director would then have an application which is a hybrid between an AI and the character creation screen of a video game. They put in a brief description of what they want into the AI and it then creates a photo realistic 3d model which the director can tweak to their liking. The director then applies the skin to the motion capture and boom - movie. The bankable big name actor dies and the cgi character rises in its wake. Even the voice acting work could be handled by AI. Leaves the professional actor with no other choice but to go back to the origins of the profession with theatre work.
Scary stuff if true.
Scary stuff if true.
> People like Tom Holland and Timothee Chalomet just don't seem to cut it compared to the 80s and 90s stars.
Who is the next Tom Cruise? No one in Hollywood or British Film is like him. He is a relic from the early days of film, such as Burt Lancaster or Steve McQueen
Who is the next Tom Cruise? No one in Hollywood or British Film is like him. He is a relic from the early days of film, such as Burt Lancaster or Steve McQueen
The Rock was the next Tom Cruise.
The better question is who’s the next The Rock, since he’s not exactly box office gold these days either.
The better question is who’s the next The Rock, since he’s not exactly box office gold these days either.
The Rock was more of an Arnold or Stallone replacement from the 80s-2000s. A muscle bound, action star.
Maybe the next Rock is Kumail Nanjiani? He has been getting pumped for more Marvel Universe movies.
Tom Cruise is more like Steve McQueen - a normal looking movie star. The only actor like him is maybe Leonardo DiCaprio?
Maybe the next Rock is Kumail Nanjiani? He has been getting pumped for more Marvel Universe movies.
Tom Cruise is more like Steve McQueen - a normal looking movie star. The only actor like him is maybe Leonardo DiCaprio?
Ryan Reynolds and Leonardo DiCaprio come to mind.
Chris Pratt a bit.
Chris Pratt a bit.
If there ever is an example of Hollywood trying to force feed audiences actors who have little talent or range Chris Pratt is one of them. Nothing against the guy, but the guy has no acting range at all.
Ditto for the guy from the Office now in all those tom clancy type shows or movies.
Plus we're talking about the younger generation. The only actor that has exhibited the range and raw talent that could cover Joaquin Pheonix/Tom Cruise/Keanu Reeves roles is Ezra Miller.
Christian Bale proved he could do all of that if he gave a shit. Ezra Miller could too. If they gave a shit.
Ditto for the guy from the Office now in all those tom clancy type shows or movies.
Plus we're talking about the younger generation. The only actor that has exhibited the range and raw talent that could cover Joaquin Pheonix/Tom Cruise/Keanu Reeves roles is Ezra Miller.
Christian Bale proved he could do all of that if he gave a shit. Ezra Miller could too. If they gave a shit.
Chris Pratt's "short" career has more or less been Parks and Rec -> Guardians of the Galaxy -> Jurassic Park. I thought he was pretty great for the first two but the scale of jurassic world being generic trash has managed to completely undermine any interest I had in him. I'm not clear where he stands on public opinion.
I also think Office Jim being Jack Ryan is strange. But I don't think people care about the amazon shows. His news thing and production of a Quiet Place was interesting. People fucking love Office Jim if they could put him in something that was not action man.
I find it kind of hilarious to highlight keanu reeves as an actor with range, as someone who loves reeves movies good or bad. Or tom cruise for that matter. The titles that made most of the "big actors" big were not things showing range. It's shit like top gun. Actors showing range are not doing big movies because big movies mostly don't ask for range.
Young actors don't tend to have that much star power either. That comes after a career. I feel like I can't agree on your entire framework here. But I guess if we had to target actors under... 35 that people want to see I would say it's probably shifted a fair bit to women. Perhaps Margot Robbie. Anya Taylor Joy. Jenna Ortega. Emma Stone.
off picks for men: Michael B. Jordan largely for the Black community. Harry Styles perhaps.
I also think Office Jim being Jack Ryan is strange. But I don't think people care about the amazon shows. His news thing and production of a Quiet Place was interesting. People fucking love Office Jim if they could put him in something that was not action man.
I find it kind of hilarious to highlight keanu reeves as an actor with range, as someone who loves reeves movies good or bad. Or tom cruise for that matter. The titles that made most of the "big actors" big were not things showing range. It's shit like top gun. Actors showing range are not doing big movies because big movies mostly don't ask for range.
Young actors don't tend to have that much star power either. That comes after a career. I feel like I can't agree on your entire framework here. But I guess if we had to target actors under... 35 that people want to see I would say it's probably shifted a fair bit to women. Perhaps Margot Robbie. Anya Taylor Joy. Jenna Ortega. Emma Stone.
off picks for men: Michael B. Jordan largely for the Black community. Harry Styles perhaps.
>I find it kind of hilarious to highlight keanu reeves as an actor with range, as someone who loves reeves movies good or bad. Or tom cruise for that matter.
You misunderstood what I wrote. I said he could cover Phoenix/Tom Cruise/Keanu Reeves "roles", meaning Ezra Miller could play the characters they play if he wanted to, I wasn't comparing Miller's range to theirs.
I was comparing Miller's range to Christian Bale's, in the sense that Bale has proven he can cover those character ranges.
You misunderstood what I wrote. I said he could cover Phoenix/Tom Cruise/Keanu Reeves "roles", meaning Ezra Miller could play the characters they play if he wanted to, I wasn't comparing Miller's range to theirs.
I was comparing Miller's range to Christian Bale's, in the sense that Bale has proven he can cover those character ranges.
Have you got any Ezra Miller films you recommend? From what I've seen I don't rate him at all and his off screen antics make him sound like a complete tool. If you've got any recommendations of movies where you think he excels I wouldn't mind checking them out to see if they change my mind.
>Actors showing range are not doing big movies because big movies mostly don't ask for range.
They don't explicitly ask for it but I think it's a little more subtle than that.
Taking an example you gave, I don't think Michael B Jordan will ever reach the star power of peak Will Smith simply because I don't think he's as talented an actor frankly.
Willis in Die Hard, Smith in Independence Day, Cruise in Top Gun-- they all exhibit more depth to me than Jordan in Creed or the Rock in whatever.
They don't explicitly ask for it but I think it's a little more subtle than that.
Taking an example you gave, I don't think Michael B Jordan will ever reach the star power of peak Will Smith simply because I don't think he's as talented an actor frankly.
Willis in Die Hard, Smith in Independence Day, Cruise in Top Gun-- they all exhibit more depth to me than Jordan in Creed or the Rock in whatever.
> Willis in Die Hard, Smith in Independence Day, Cruise in Top Gun-- they all exhibit more depth to me than Jordan in Creed or the Rock in whatever.
Idk man I think you've got some seriously rose tinted glasses. Most everyone I know who was born after that time thinks Top Gun is a formulaic piece of trash. It's very hard for me to think of this film as something that gives an actor a good opportunity show off their acting talent. There are plenty of good films from the 90s but Top Gun was like a generic DC superhero spectacle film.
Die Hard holds up. Jeff Goldblum is enough to salvage independence day but its largely dropped from popular consciousness among young people.
Idk man I think you've got some seriously rose tinted glasses. Most everyone I know who was born after that time thinks Top Gun is a formulaic piece of trash. It's very hard for me to think of this film as something that gives an actor a good opportunity show off their acting talent. There are plenty of good films from the 90s but Top Gun was like a generic DC superhero spectacle film.
Die Hard holds up. Jeff Goldblum is enough to salvage independence day but its largely dropped from popular consciousness among young people.
He's not been in anything that I know of other than The Bear but from what I've seen of him in that, Jeremy Allen White has some massive potential. If he landed an action blockbuster and picked his projects carefully I could see him becoming the next big star. I think both his vibe and his looks are probably closer to Steve McQueen than Cruise though.
I'd also add Jodie Comer and Florence Pugh to your list of top tier females.
I'd also add Jodie Comer and Florence Pugh to your list of top tier females.
The issue is that all the modern actors have emerged from the tongue-in-cheek Marvel franchise or similar. Tom Cruise almost exclusively plays dramatic roles (the only comedic role I can think of is the one where he's in Harvey Weinstein-esque prosthetics for Tropic Thunder) and he picks his roles very carefully. He dedicates 100% of his life not just to the movie he's in but to the role and mystique of the movie star which is at complete odds with social media marketing and trying to be a relatable person to get the public to like you.
Compare Cruise with Chris Hemsworth who's probably the closest thing to a bankable action star we've got right now (The Rock doesn't count because he essentially isn't acting, but is just playing the Rock in every movie). Chris Hemsworth makes some good movies but he doesn't choose the directors and projects he works on carefully the way Cruise did with Kubrick, Paul Thomas Anderson etc. Hemsworth is also out there hawking his fitness app, he's doing comedic bit roles and he relies quite heavily on his physique in a way that's closer to Stallone and Arnie. Cruise doesn't do any of these things because he knows that the more you see behind the curtain the less mystique there is. Hemsworth or an actor like him might raise his net worth by creating and selling his own whiskey but his value as a movie star declines when he does it - it cheapens him and his work, which have now become a vehicle to sell things outside of the movie. In contrast, Tom Cruise cares, above all else, in being a movie star. He dedicates himself to it not just inside the movies, but with his entire life outside of it too.
She's since changed, but there was a good interview with Lady Gaga on Johnathan Ross' talk show just after her first album came out. She was sat on the sofa in one of her extravagant costumes and Ross was trying to get her to admit that she went home afterwards and stuck her jogging bottoms on and her takeout stained t shirts and just chilled like the rest of us. Obviously it's true - you'll even see her in her casual attire around the house in her documentary. But at this point in time, pre-social media, Gaga refused to cave. She didn't want her fans to associate her with that - she wanted to be an embodiment, a symbol, an archetype, whatever you want to call it, of the elevated, mysterious pop star. Because that is what feeds the fanatic energy - people want their heroes to be bigger than them, to be above the drudgery of normal life, because that is what inspires them to dream bigger themselves. Tom Cruise is basically the last actor in the lineage of the mysterious movie star, dating right back to the early days of Hollywood with Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton and later, Clark Gable, Cary Grant etc where movies and moviemaking themselves were both novel, mysterious and glamorous.
Until Hollywood stops making every leading role an ironic tongue in cheek comedian and also stops with the relentless "we're just like you" YouTube video press machine, you won't get another Tom Cruise because Tom Cruise is the embodiment of the movie star archetype. Between the current crop of actors and the studios, none of them seem interested in going to the lengths necessary to craft the mystery, spectacle and otherness necessary for a movie star anymore.
Compare Cruise with Chris Hemsworth who's probably the closest thing to a bankable action star we've got right now (The Rock doesn't count because he essentially isn't acting, but is just playing the Rock in every movie). Chris Hemsworth makes some good movies but he doesn't choose the directors and projects he works on carefully the way Cruise did with Kubrick, Paul Thomas Anderson etc. Hemsworth is also out there hawking his fitness app, he's doing comedic bit roles and he relies quite heavily on his physique in a way that's closer to Stallone and Arnie. Cruise doesn't do any of these things because he knows that the more you see behind the curtain the less mystique there is. Hemsworth or an actor like him might raise his net worth by creating and selling his own whiskey but his value as a movie star declines when he does it - it cheapens him and his work, which have now become a vehicle to sell things outside of the movie. In contrast, Tom Cruise cares, above all else, in being a movie star. He dedicates himself to it not just inside the movies, but with his entire life outside of it too.
She's since changed, but there was a good interview with Lady Gaga on Johnathan Ross' talk show just after her first album came out. She was sat on the sofa in one of her extravagant costumes and Ross was trying to get her to admit that she went home afterwards and stuck her jogging bottoms on and her takeout stained t shirts and just chilled like the rest of us. Obviously it's true - you'll even see her in her casual attire around the house in her documentary. But at this point in time, pre-social media, Gaga refused to cave. She didn't want her fans to associate her with that - she wanted to be an embodiment, a symbol, an archetype, whatever you want to call it, of the elevated, mysterious pop star. Because that is what feeds the fanatic energy - people want their heroes to be bigger than them, to be above the drudgery of normal life, because that is what inspires them to dream bigger themselves. Tom Cruise is basically the last actor in the lineage of the mysterious movie star, dating right back to the early days of Hollywood with Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton and later, Clark Gable, Cary Grant etc where movies and moviemaking themselves were both novel, mysterious and glamorous.
Until Hollywood stops making every leading role an ironic tongue in cheek comedian and also stops with the relentless "we're just like you" YouTube video press machine, you won't get another Tom Cruise because Tom Cruise is the embodiment of the movie star archetype. Between the current crop of actors and the studios, none of them seem interested in going to the lengths necessary to craft the mystery, spectacle and otherness necessary for a movie star anymore.
Cruise basically single handedly getting Top Gun II made, and it actually turning into one of the best movies of the year, is what sold me on Cruise. He cares about making good movies. Top Gun being largely focused on tight acting and practical effects over CG is also a good indication of how people may feel about this ai stuff.
> tight acting and practical effects over CG is also a good indication of how people may feel about this ai stuff.
This is kind of what I was trying to get at with the word spectacle. When Tom Cruise base jumps off a motorcycle, he is literally putting his life on the line, solely for your entertainment. This is impressive, just as Buster Keatons' many death defying stunts were. When we go to the movies we want to be impressed. Nowadays, everything is CGI, nothing is practical and almost all of the danger, skill or challenge is removed. It's not impressive. It's not even that impressive from a technical artistic standpoint because the artists are relying on all manner of computer tools and now AI to do their job, whereas before the effects would depend solely on the skill of the artists and craftsman working on the production.
Watching a modern day movie is like turning up to an arena expecting to watch a boxing match between world class fighters and then discovering that you'll be watching two amateurs in sumo suits hitting each other with inflatable tubes. It might be entertaining for five minutes but it soon wears thin. There's no risk involved, there's not much skill, there's no consequences, there's no overcoming adversity. There's not much of anything.
AI has no skin in the game of life. The math and science behind these tools might be impressive but that doesn't stir emotions in us, the same way we don't really look at our lightbulbs or cars or computers and feel impressed. Technology is just tools and tools are mundane. We want to see real people using those tools and conquering difficult situations.
This is kind of what I was trying to get at with the word spectacle. When Tom Cruise base jumps off a motorcycle, he is literally putting his life on the line, solely for your entertainment. This is impressive, just as Buster Keatons' many death defying stunts were. When we go to the movies we want to be impressed. Nowadays, everything is CGI, nothing is practical and almost all of the danger, skill or challenge is removed. It's not impressive. It's not even that impressive from a technical artistic standpoint because the artists are relying on all manner of computer tools and now AI to do their job, whereas before the effects would depend solely on the skill of the artists and craftsman working on the production.
Watching a modern day movie is like turning up to an arena expecting to watch a boxing match between world class fighters and then discovering that you'll be watching two amateurs in sumo suits hitting each other with inflatable tubes. It might be entertaining for five minutes but it soon wears thin. There's no risk involved, there's not much skill, there's no consequences, there's no overcoming adversity. There's not much of anything.
AI has no skin in the game of life. The math and science behind these tools might be impressive but that doesn't stir emotions in us, the same way we don't really look at our lightbulbs or cars or computers and feel impressed. Technology is just tools and tools are mundane. We want to see real people using those tools and conquering difficult situations.
You've just explained the attention economy. I agree with you, and I think the people expecting to waltz into fields they previously had no experience with and use AI to produce "compelling" work are in for a rude surprise when they realize how competitive it already is and how much the people involved in these industries hate them.
We're going to get to a point where ML will just dynamically generate entire movies custom tailored to each person's taste; all you do is pay for the compute time (plus a small fee) to generate the movie.
A shared culture is valuable to society. With social media vs. old school television, we don't have nearly the same shared reality with media/news/life. We walk around with headphones listening to nothing but our custom playlists and watching our custom shit. Now, we're going to have customized movies and content that we can't explore with society at large?
I'll cash out.
I'll cash out.
I think this is a very close-minded view. "old school television" is also a very new invention, we went most of history without all watching the same thing.
People will still share the things they find interesting with the people they care about.
People will still share the things they find interesting with the people they care about.
> we went most of history without all watching the same thing.
Kinda true? Before movies, there was the shared experiences of books, magazines, plays, etc.
Kinda true? Before movies, there was the shared experiences of books, magazines, plays, etc.
It’s the next Tower of Babel
That shared culture is already gone. We are a land populated by cultures in the strict sense intermingling, and moreso subcultures.
Sounds completely awful.
Sounds amazing to be honest. I can have limitless worlds to explore. Those who don't want this might simply be limited in their imagination.
I have less than zero interest in such a thing, personally.
Then nobody will understand each other's memes.
That's not scary. That's actually fantastic for movies.
"Movie stars" were created as a concept by Hollywood to enable people who otherwise wouldn't be able to suspend disbelief to watch a guy they've seen play 10 characters already play another. This was capitalized on by good actors who knew their worth and made a lot of money. Now you don't go watch a movie and expect a unique person for every role, you actively seek out films with the same face in them.
Imagine every movie you watch is not a recycled face with a cult of personality, it's just a story with people in it. I think movies without celebrities would be much better.
"Movie stars" were created as a concept by Hollywood to enable people who otherwise wouldn't be able to suspend disbelief to watch a guy they've seen play 10 characters already play another. This was capitalized on by good actors who knew their worth and made a lot of money. Now you don't go watch a movie and expect a unique person for every role, you actively seek out films with the same face in them.
Imagine every movie you watch is not a recycled face with a cult of personality, it's just a story with people in it. I think movies without celebrities would be much better.
What you're describing is literally Netflix. I can go on Netflix and watch unlimited shows with completely unknown actors from across the globe.
When I was 19, I decided to make my way through the entirety of the imdb top 250 (which actually meant something at the time) as well as a few other big movie lists. To this day, I can remember many of those films and they influence how I see the world. I'm not convinced the Netflix shows I've watched carry such clout.
The cult of personality emerges when the rare talent warrants it. The face may be the same but the character transformation sure isn't. If they haven't got it then the cult soon flounders with all but the Kool-Aid drinkers which seems to be what we're witnessing with the current crop of actors. Try telling me Christian Bale's Batman is the same as his Machinist performance or Jake Gyllenhaal's Nightcrawler is the same as his Jarhead. These two are literally next level at their craft, and watching a top performer in any craft is immensely satisfying. If we lose that to CGI it will be a massive shame.
When I was 19, I decided to make my way through the entirety of the imdb top 250 (which actually meant something at the time) as well as a few other big movie lists. To this day, I can remember many of those films and they influence how I see the world. I'm not convinced the Netflix shows I've watched carry such clout.
The cult of personality emerges when the rare talent warrants it. The face may be the same but the character transformation sure isn't. If they haven't got it then the cult soon flounders with all but the Kool-Aid drinkers which seems to be what we're witnessing with the current crop of actors. Try telling me Christian Bale's Batman is the same as his Machinist performance or Jake Gyllenhaal's Nightcrawler is the same as his Jarhead. These two are literally next level at their craft, and watching a top performer in any craft is immensely satisfying. If we lose that to CGI it will be a massive shame.
It feels almost like Hollywood is trying very hard to make Timothee Chalomet's career take off and it just... I don't know, I might be out of touch, but it just isn't?
I recently saw the Wonka trailer that he stars in, and I just don't buy him as Wonka. He doesn't pull off the "weird" or "eccentric" correctly for me. Also, the moment when they are flying in the trailer and he meets an Oompa-Loompa, despite the realism and visual detail elsewhere, made the whole thing look tonally confused.
I recently saw the Wonka trailer that he stars in, and I just don't buy him as Wonka. He doesn't pull off the "weird" or "eccentric" correctly for me. Also, the moment when they are flying in the trailer and he meets an Oompa-Loompa, despite the realism and visual detail elsewhere, made the whole thing look tonally confused.
but also, why the heck are they making another wonka?
I don't think that the big studios are worth watching anymore - they're attempting to maximize expected ROI, not make a great movie (which is understandable in their position). Luckily there are many other smaller studios that will continue making much better movies for the sake of making art.
I don't think that the big studios are worth watching anymore - they're attempting to maximize expected ROI, not make a great movie (which is understandable in their position). Luckily there are many other smaller studios that will continue making much better movies for the sake of making art.
I honestly don’t know what people are getting out of seeing the same movies getting remade again and again. Wonka isn’t even the worst, how many Spider/Batmen have there been this century alone?
They're not really the same. Many of them are not good. You may not like them. But they're clearly different stories tackling different ideas.
Personally I think Spiderman 1 and 2 were solid, genre defining films. Amazing Spiderman 1 & 2 were ruined by Sony but the art direction was honestly super good. and the MCU Spiderman 1 and 2 were pretty neat.
Personally I think Spiderman 1 and 2 were solid, genre defining films. Amazing Spiderman 1 & 2 were ruined by Sony but the art direction was honestly super good. and the MCU Spiderman 1 and 2 were pretty neat.
Don't forget about spider verse 1 & 2.
>but also, why the heck are they making another wonka?
Because they are in the mindset of protecting existing incomes with minimal risk, rather than a mindset of innovating and challenging the market because the only income is the one you can dig out and grasp with a death grip.
Willy Wonka sold once upon a time, so clearly it will sell again right? Instead of a completely new thing that may or may not sell.
Because they are in the mindset of protecting existing incomes with minimal risk, rather than a mindset of innovating and challenging the market because the only income is the one you can dig out and grasp with a death grip.
Willy Wonka sold once upon a time, so clearly it will sell again right? Instead of a completely new thing that may or may not sell.
Before him, they were trying to launch Shia LaBeef the same way; then Sam Worthington...this is an ongoing project for agents, publicists, studios...like Hollywood's version of a new SpaceX rocket. There will be explosions and failures, and then back to the drawing-board.
...and yeah, Willy Wonka is a tough role, mostly because Gene Wilder's version has become the standard that you'd be held to.
...and yeah, Willy Wonka is a tough role, mostly because Gene Wilder's version has become the standard that you'd be held to.
It's because they're nepo babies. Really forgettable people installed from parental connections.
Why is it scary?
It would become like books: A single author creates the entire work, except it's audiovisual instead of written. You can already do that now with written text, audio (if you have a talent for voices), and animation (if you can draw), why does adding realistic video make it "scary"?
Why is that bad? It seems great to me - way way way more stuff will be available, and it will be open to anyone (the cost is high now, but it will go down of course).
It would become like books: A single author creates the entire work, except it's audiovisual instead of written. You can already do that now with written text, audio (if you have a talent for voices), and animation (if you can draw), why does adding realistic video make it "scary"?
Why is that bad? It seems great to me - way way way more stuff will be available, and it will be open to anyone (the cost is high now, but it will go down of course).
I find it disconcerting because it represents the death of a unique form of art. A movie is much more than just the story. The actors interpret the roles and therefore add add an additional dimension/layer to the piece. That's one of the things that makes movies special.
A movie is not just a book with visuals. They're completely different art forms.
Although, personally, I tend to prefer live theater over modern movies, so am less attached to the movie as an art form. But it does threaten to be a loss of an art form, and that's rarely a good thing.
A movie is not just a book with visuals. They're completely different art forms.
Although, personally, I tend to prefer live theater over modern movies, so am less attached to the movie as an art form. But it does threaten to be a loss of an art form, and that's rarely a good thing.
Live story telling still exists. No artform is lost, there are just more types that exist. This will be another one.
I'm certainly not claiming that it would be the end of art itself. I'm just claiming it would be the end of this specific kind of art.
If actors end up being replaced with simulacra in movies, then that particular form of art is indeed lost, in my view, because there will be no more actors in movies.
If actors end up being replaced with simulacra in movies, then that particular form of art is indeed lost, in my view, because there will be no more actors in movies.
People don't make paintings anymore because now we have cameras, right?
Indeed, it democratizes the storytelling experience. I'm not sure why, if I want to make a feature length film, and I have access to AI, I should also hire people just to even act in my film, much less produce and edit it. If I can make everything myself via AI, imagine the explosion in creativity by people all making their ideas come to life without having excess costs like productions currently take.
>It would become like books: A single author creates the entire work,
The writers are also on strike.
The writers are also on strike.
On strike against the studios - they can still write for themselves.
The model here is a writer writes a movies, hires a non-union digital model (since union models are not allowed), and then produces a movie by guiding an AI until it has the look the write likes.
The entire thing is non-union by people working for themselves.
Both the Studios and the actors union are essentially writing themselves out of relevance. And if the writers union prohibits personal AI writing (unclear if they want that) then they too will be left out.
Actors could have a role here those - if they want it. Instead of providing the digital model (those would be easily made from anyone good looking) a new job for an actor would be AI guide, guiding the AI into a nice performance.
This is the model of the future, the only question is if the current unions want to be part of it.
The model here is a writer writes a movies, hires a non-union digital model (since union models are not allowed), and then produces a movie by guiding an AI until it has the look the write likes.
The entire thing is non-union by people working for themselves.
Both the Studios and the actors union are essentially writing themselves out of relevance. And if the writers union prohibits personal AI writing (unclear if they want that) then they too will be left out.
Actors could have a role here those - if they want it. Instead of providing the digital model (those would be easily made from anyone good looking) a new job for an actor would be AI guide, guiding the AI into a nice performance.
This is the model of the future, the only question is if the current unions want to be part of it.
__loam(2)
It's "scary" for present-day actors who will likely see their entire occupation erased by the end of the century. It's also "scary" for consumers today who, justifiably, don't want the temporary but inevitable drop in quality that the switch over to "AI" will create.
But on the grander scale, I agree with you. It isn't scary. "AI" is poised to democratize art like we've never seen before, and if "AI" can replace human artists that points more to the brutal reality that art actually isn't as valuable as some of us want it to be.
But on the grander scale, I agree with you. It isn't scary. "AI" is poised to democratize art like we've never seen before, and if "AI" can replace human artists that points more to the brutal reality that art actually isn't as valuable as some of us want it to be.
I disagree I think it is pretty scary that we're handing over the generation of cultural artifacts to algorithms. It's also pretty funny to see people like you talk about democratizing art, then in the next breath talk about art as if it has no value, despite that art being extremely valuable to the training of these models in the first place. Hell, this might even make human art more valuable as the price of autogenerated, samey, computer generated sludge goes to zero as the supply explodes.
>I think it is pretty scary that we're handing over the generation of cultural artifacts to algorithms.
Art has always been based on algorithms, the appeal of art is determined purely by the whims of society and the beholders without any regard for the process.
Art that does not suit the algorithms of its time do not survive the test of time.
>It's also pretty funny to see people like you talk about democratizing art, then in the next breath talk about art as if it has no value, despite that art being extremely valuable to the training of these models in the first place.
When everyone can create art, art has no value. Value is always determined by supply against demand, and art is currently poised to see an absolute oversupply in the coming century.
This is also discounting the fact that the real value of art has always been low, "Artists are destitute." isn't a stereotype for no reason. The brutal reality is art really isn't valuable in the first place (it is after all an unnecessary and inefficient luxury) and "AI" is only going to make that fact even further apparent.
>Hell, this might even make human art more valuable as the price of autogenerated, samey, computer generated sludge goes to zero as the supply explodes.
That assumes human art is somehow more valuable than "AI" art, but I don't necessarily believe that could be a constant forever.
Photographs were considered inferior to illustrations when it was first invented, likewise the invention of block printing and then typewriting to calligraphy, and look where we are now.
Art has always been based on algorithms, the appeal of art is determined purely by the whims of society and the beholders without any regard for the process.
Art that does not suit the algorithms of its time do not survive the test of time.
>It's also pretty funny to see people like you talk about democratizing art, then in the next breath talk about art as if it has no value, despite that art being extremely valuable to the training of these models in the first place.
When everyone can create art, art has no value. Value is always determined by supply against demand, and art is currently poised to see an absolute oversupply in the coming century.
This is also discounting the fact that the real value of art has always been low, "Artists are destitute." isn't a stereotype for no reason. The brutal reality is art really isn't valuable in the first place (it is after all an unnecessary and inefficient luxury) and "AI" is only going to make that fact even further apparent.
>Hell, this might even make human art more valuable as the price of autogenerated, samey, computer generated sludge goes to zero as the supply explodes.
That assumes human art is somehow more valuable than "AI" art, but I don't necessarily believe that could be a constant forever.
Photographs were considered inferior to illustrations when it was first invented, likewise the invention of block printing and then typewriting to calligraphy, and look where we are now.
Absolute tech bro hell comment. Art has always been based on algorithms? How absolutely conceited.
Am I wrong, though? Artists who left their names in history did so because they successfully created art suitable for the algorithms of their time.
I don't actually know what you mean by "algorithm" in this context. Do you mean it as the unique constraints that define a particular kind of art?
An algorithm is an algorithm. A problem to be solved, whether by human hands or computers.
In this case, art that succeeds is whatever art is in demand from the people at the time and which the process involved best reflects the ultimate valuation of that art. It's a problem to be solved, aka an algorithm.
Just like how the printing press and the typewriter democratized all forms of writing, where before writing was the sole domain of trained scribes and clerics (hence the terms "inscribing", "clerical error", etc.), so too will "AI" democratize whatever art forms it can satisfactorily produce.
If "AI" ends up replacing artists and creators wholesale, that means the art products thereof were not particularly valuable in the first place. A prominent example would be tabloid and newspaper articles, which have actually been written by "AI"s for quite a long while now.
Is any of this scary? Unless you have money or fame to lose in the shifting sands of time, no it is not. If you are such a person, well you certainly have my sympathy (unless you're a journalist; that occupation is a cancer upon society), but time waits for absolutely noone.
In this case, art that succeeds is whatever art is in demand from the people at the time and which the process involved best reflects the ultimate valuation of that art. It's a problem to be solved, aka an algorithm.
Just like how the printing press and the typewriter democratized all forms of writing, where before writing was the sole domain of trained scribes and clerics (hence the terms "inscribing", "clerical error", etc.), so too will "AI" democratize whatever art forms it can satisfactorily produce.
If "AI" ends up replacing artists and creators wholesale, that means the art products thereof were not particularly valuable in the first place. A prominent example would be tabloid and newspaper articles, which have actually been written by "AI"s for quite a long while now.
Is any of this scary? Unless you have money or fame to lose in the shifting sands of time, no it is not. If you are such a person, well you certainly have my sympathy (unless you're a journalist; that occupation is a cancer upon society), but time waits for absolutely noone.
Impressionism, cubism, neoclassical art, these are all the "algorithms" of the time, people made art like that, otherwise they were shunned (at least, until society caught up to their artistic style, like Van Gogh).
So yes, you mean the unique constraints that define a particular kind of art. But that's not really the same thing as an algorithm.
You can certainly come up with algorithms that can result in stuff that conforms to the given restraints, but within the set of those restraints is a large amount of creativity that is no more amenable to algorithmic computation than any other creativity.
You can certainly come up with algorithms that can result in stuff that conforms to the given restraints, but within the set of those restraints is a large amount of creativity that is no more amenable to algorithmic computation than any other creativity.
You're right if we simplify all of human culture as just a mere algorithm. Frankly I think that view is disgusting.
Human brains work on algorithms. There is nothing special about humanity on a physical level, we are all simply biological machines. It's not "disgusting," it's the realistic view of humanity.
> Art has always been based on algorithms
it really hasn't. the art that you see in museums are all examples of ideas and forms that broke the mold.
> When everyone can create art, art has no value
everyone _can_ create art today. art still has value.
> Value is always determined by supply against demand
if you view art as a purely capitalist enterprise. most people don't.
> The brutal reality is art really isn't valuable in the first place (it is after all an unnecessary and inefficient luxury)
art is both an expression and driver of human culture. much of our understanding of our species, our ancestors, and our lives comes from art.
it really hasn't. the art that you see in museums are all examples of ideas and forms that broke the mold.
> When everyone can create art, art has no value
everyone _can_ create art today. art still has value.
> Value is always determined by supply against demand
if you view art as a purely capitalist enterprise. most people don't.
> The brutal reality is art really isn't valuable in the first place (it is after all an unnecessary and inefficient luxury)
art is both an expression and driver of human culture. much of our understanding of our species, our ancestors, and our lives comes from art.
> everyone _can_ create art today. art still has value.
It's still hilarious to me that the AI side of this argument thinks artists are gatekeeping when all you need to learn is some pens and ream of printer paper, plus a computer with an internet connection. There are literally thousands of videos on youtube from artists teaching you about art. It's maybe the most accessible it has ever been.
I _also_ think he gets the supply and demand argument very wrong. Even viewing it in terms of purely capitalistic impulse, the attention economy is a winner take all kind of deal. Some random ass holes making some trite, meaningless art using the same model will quickly drive the price of the outputs of that model to zero. There's still going to be a huge market for original work that has something to say.
It's still hilarious to me that the AI side of this argument thinks artists are gatekeeping when all you need to learn is some pens and ream of printer paper, plus a computer with an internet connection. There are literally thousands of videos on youtube from artists teaching you about art. It's maybe the most accessible it has ever been.
I _also_ think he gets the supply and demand argument very wrong. Even viewing it in terms of purely capitalistic impulse, the attention economy is a winner take all kind of deal. Some random ass holes making some trite, meaningless art using the same model will quickly drive the price of the outputs of that model to zero. There's still going to be a huge market for original work that has something to say.
> It's still hilarious to me that the AI side of this argument thinks artists are gatekeeping when all you need to learn is some pens and ream of printer paper, plus a computer with an internet connection. There are literally thousands of videos on youtube from artists teaching you about art. It's maybe the most accessible it has ever been.
Or I could use a tool like Stable Diffusion and create whatever image I want. That's what they mean by supply and demand, when it's this easy, the value of each subsequent image that's created decreases, simply because people will have already seen this type of image.
Or I could use a tool like Stable Diffusion and create whatever image I want. That's what they mean by supply and demand, when it's this easy, the value of each subsequent image that's created decreases, simply because people will have already seen this type of image.
> I disagree I think it is pretty scary that we're handing over the generation of cultural artifacts to algorithms.
The algorithms don't work for themselves, they are prompted, controlled, and guided by humans, who choose which output lives, which is lost, and which is modified.
Nothing is handed over, it's just another tool.
The algorithms don't work for themselves, they are prompted, controlled, and guided by humans, who choose which output lives, which is lost, and which is modified.
Nothing is handed over, it's just another tool.
It's because they're nepo babies. Nepo babies are the logical actor extension of sequels churning and critical viewers are tired of recycled content. I think movies are becoming more like packaged goods, not just in stories but also the actors, and studios are fine with becoming more like McDonalds because McD's makes a fuckton of money.
The Last Action Heroes by Nick de Semlyen, editor of Empire magazine, goes into the 'why' of the 80's action movie stars. Great book, well worth a summer read.
TL;DR: Unique factors of the stars themselves mostly growing up in poverty, the Cold War, and the film industry coming out of 'funks' in the 70s lead to this hyper-masculine juiced to the gils ur-hero of relatively 'cheap' films. Stalone really isn't like the others but was kinda forced into it by all the money he was making (guy's more of a tender-soul/starving artist in reality). Schwarzenegger is his own beast, as many will attest to. Segal is just woah ... looney tunes. Norris is also a strange duck that was super comfortable doing TV movies for some reason. ETC.
Again, great book, well worth the read!
TL;DR: Unique factors of the stars themselves mostly growing up in poverty, the Cold War, and the film industry coming out of 'funks' in the 70s lead to this hyper-masculine juiced to the gils ur-hero of relatively 'cheap' films. Stalone really isn't like the others but was kinda forced into it by all the money he was making (guy's more of a tender-soul/starving artist in reality). Schwarzenegger is his own beast, as many will attest to. Segal is just woah ... looney tunes. Norris is also a strange duck that was super comfortable doing TV movies for some reason. ETC.
Again, great book, well worth the read!
By and large the boomers won't vote for someone younger than them (notice our politicians are the oldest they've ever been and have been getting older since the boomers started voting).
I bet their other preferences have a lot to do with the decrease in new 80s-type movie stars, because the other thing that we've seen is the retention of stars well past their prime. I mean, they brought back Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher for the new Star Wars.
I bet their other preferences have a lot to do with the decrease in new 80s-type movie stars, because the other thing that we've seen is the retention of stars well past their prime. I mean, they brought back Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher for the new Star Wars.
As of 2022, boomers only make up 20.58% of the US population, though.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/296974/us-population-sha...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/296974/us-population-sha...
Do they go to the movies at a higher rate though? My gut says yes, the young people I know generally never go and older folk who grew up with less entertainment options still do.
This 2019 study found that
Anecdotally, I am an older gen-X, not a boomer, but going to the movies is not a frequent thing (anymore) amongst my social group. For whatever that's worth.
https://www.digitalcinemareport.com/news/new-study-tracks-ag...
On a whole, the study showed that 35.2 percent of
U.S. moviegoers are above the age of 50; and 33.8
percent under the age of 25.
Anecdotally, I am an older gen-X, not a boomer, but going to the movies is not a frequent thing (anymore) amongst my social group. For whatever that's worth.
https://www.digitalcinemareport.com/news/new-study-tracks-ag...
A bunch of my peers go to the movies pretty frequently and, though perhaps we're not precisely "young people" anymore, boomers are decades older.
hybrid actors
picture for example stalone and schwarzenegger combined into one person.
I don't know if "sorry" is what I'd feel for Hollywood stars like Tom Holland. I'm not sure what I will feel, if at all, but it is probably not close to empathy.
BTW, this is not a new issue. Crispin Glover sued Zemeckis for using his likeness in Back to the future II. Glover hated the ending of part I so much that he refused to take part in the sequels (well, he also thought he was underpaid). Back then, they used prosthetics on another actor and used old, unused footage from part I, and he successfully sued the producers for 750k... Since then, the SAG includes a clause in their contracts which explicitly forbids this kind of fakery.
Basically that's the movie Simone
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258153/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258153/
The beginning of the new Indiana Jones movie has an extended sequence of Harrison Ford de-aged, he basically looks like how he did in The Last Crusade.
It really weirded me out. It looked fine on the surface, but I couldn’t help but be distracted by what it represents for film as an art form.
It’s very possible that we’ll be watching some version of Harrison Ford in movies for hundreds of years, and that is an unsettling thought.
Modern technology has a way dehumanizing people, extracting just what is valuable and discarding the rest. Maybe the luddites were on to something when they rebelled against the shoe-making machines.
It really weirded me out. It looked fine on the surface, but I couldn’t help but be distracted by what it represents for film as an art form.
It’s very possible that we’ll be watching some version of Harrison Ford in movies for hundreds of years, and that is an unsettling thought.
Modern technology has a way dehumanizing people, extracting just what is valuable and discarding the rest. Maybe the luddites were on to something when they rebelled against the shoe-making machines.
Only if people want to be watching Harrison Ford movies for that long.
You forget how much power people have as consumers. Studios keep making unoriginal movies with old actors because people keep going to see them. If Star Wars sequels didn't make billions of dollars, Disney wouldn't keep making them.
You forget how much power people have as consumers. Studios keep making unoriginal movies with old actors because people keep going to see them. If Star Wars sequels didn't make billions of dollars, Disney wouldn't keep making them.
> It’s very possible that we’ll be watching some version of Harrison Ford in movies for hundreds of years, and that is an unsettling thought.
Well, it's really weirder than that. Think about having a Harrison Ford that can actually act. That would be super weird.
I suspect that the the end state of all of this is that it uses technology to split performing into "acting well" and "being attractive" as separate things. And the "being attractive" will get scanned, archived and used over and over and over and ...
Yeah, Hollywood actors should definitely fear this.
Well, it's really weirder than that. Think about having a Harrison Ford that can actually act. That would be super weird.
I suspect that the the end state of all of this is that it uses technology to split performing into "acting well" and "being attractive" as separate things. And the "being attractive" will get scanned, archived and used over and over and over and ...
Yeah, Hollywood actors should definitely fear this.
You’re not watching Harrison Ford, you’re watching Indiana Jones in a purer form than today’s Harrison Ford is able to play him. In a universe without digital trickery they would have recast the character and rebooted the series. For an actor being asked to be the face of a character for all time should be the high mark of their career, and what a way to honor them after they pass away.
I'm watching Indiana Jones as interpreted by Harrison Ford. The actor's interpretation of the role is an important part. I'm less interested in some "purer form" of the character, because that's effectively a different character.
But, for now, "Indiana Jones as interpreted by Harrison Ford" is Indiana Jones. His is really the only interpretation of Indiana Jones as an adult. By contrast, there are a handful of interpretations of James Bond.
River Phoenix played Indiana Jones as a teen in the third film, while Sean Patrick Flanery played the teen Jones in the TV series/movies. (Corey Carrier played a younger version in some episodes.) Add a little of George Hall as a 90-year-old Indiana Jones; but, all he does is introduce the stories of the young Indiana Jones.
River Phoenix played Indiana Jones as a teen in the third film, while Sean Patrick Flanery played the teen Jones in the TV series/movies. (Corey Carrier played a younger version in some episodes.) Add a little of George Hall as a 90-year-old Indiana Jones; but, all he does is introduce the stories of the young Indiana Jones.
All of which I'd bring up to support my opinion, too!
All of those are characters as interpreted through the actors. That interpretation is, in my opinion, a very important part of the art form. Without it, it's a different thing entirely.
All of those are characters as interpreted through the actors. That interpretation is, in my opinion, a very important part of the art form. Without it, it's a different thing entirely.
Yeah, this business with de-aging actors or even including dead actors in new productions is way over the line for me. I can't watch it.
Sounds like outright class warfare.
Within a five years it will be possible to create realistic AI virtual actors and sets that generate the entire video sequence including the performance. We can already do simplistic and less realistic versions of this.
Within a five years it will be possible to create realistic AI virtual actors and sets that generate the entire video sequence including the performance. We can already do simplistic and less realistic versions of this.
So basically we’re inventing the holodeck, and people are freaking out as if it is the end of acting. The holodeck does characters better than humans, but they still go to plays on the enterprise.
There will always be humans willing to act and humans willing to watch them. Maybe there won’t be 10 million dollar wages for a single role, but so what?
There will always be humans willing to act and humans willing to watch them. Maybe there won’t be 10 million dollar wages for a single role, but so what?
This ultimately misses the point of art
It's fascinating how this has exposed two different fundamental outlooks on art. One that doesn't care if art comes from an algorithm, as long as it's "good" enough on some linear measure. And another that considers the context/subtext of the creator's intent, process, etc. so much as to render art empty or pointless or meaningless if that dimension isn't there.
One sees it only as a commodity to be consumed and the other actually gives a shit about art.
Have you missed the whole explosion of terrible movies that make tons of money(Marvel, Avatar, etc)?
Apparently, the masses don't care about art.
Apparently, the masses don't care about art.
Studio executives have never made art, nor cared about it for the most part.
I'm way more pessimistic here. One of the weaknesses of LLM and the current state of AI is it's forgetful.
Sure, you can ask it to draw a beach, but can you ask it to draw the SAME beach with a character interacting with items on that beach?
The current simplistic versions of this have very tightly bound environments for the characters to interact (I'm thinking endless Seinfeld).
Sure, you can ask it to draw a beach, but can you ask it to draw the SAME beach with a character interacting with items on that beach?
The current simplistic versions of this have very tightly bound environments for the characters to interact (I'm thinking endless Seinfeld).
This isn't about the current state of AI, this is about laying the foundations for the legal framework and infrastructure for AI in the future, when all of this stuff is feasible.
> Within a five years it will be possible to create realistic AI virtual actors and sets that generate the entire video sequence including the performance.
That to me means we are talking about the current state of AI.
I don't disagree with setting a legal framework around ownership of AI derived art. However, I don't think this is a pressing issue. AI art, outside of maybe simple picture generation, is bad. AI books are terrible. And I don't see it getting any better.
I'd be shocked if in the next 5 years there's any hit AI art generated. Heck, I'd be shocked if it happens within the next 20 years.
That to me means we are talking about the current state of AI.
I don't disagree with setting a legal framework around ownership of AI derived art. However, I don't think this is a pressing issue. AI art, outside of maybe simple picture generation, is bad. AI books are terrible. And I don't see it getting any better.
I'd be shocked if in the next 5 years there's any hit AI art generated. Heck, I'd be shocked if it happens within the next 20 years.
Over the last year the LLM state of the art which might be used to create scripts has gained at least 20 IQ points.
The Claude 2 LLM just released has 100,000 token context and is fairly intelligent.
Take a look at the output of Stable Diffusion XL 0.9 versus Stable Diffusion 1.5. It's a massive improvement.
Metahumans is on an early version and already fairly realistic. Look at the realism of a game like Unrecord.
AI is getting much better very rapidly.
The Claude 2 LLM just released has 100,000 token context and is fairly intelligent.
Take a look at the output of Stable Diffusion XL 0.9 versus Stable Diffusion 1.5. It's a massive improvement.
Metahumans is on an early version and already fairly realistic. Look at the realism of a game like Unrecord.
AI is getting much better very rapidly.
> Over the last year the LLM state of the art which might be used to create scripts has gained at least 20 IQ points.
Citation needed. How is IQ being measured? What was it previously?
Citation needed. How is IQ being measured? What was it previously?
It's funny that you focused on that instead of the rest of their comment. By "20 IQ points" they clearly mean it in a metaphorical or analogous way to humans, of course they are not literally measuring the IQ of an LLM.
Because the rest of their comment was basically "it's so good because look at how good it is!".
OP equates number of tokens with intelligence, I do not.
OP then mentions a hyper realistic video game. Cool, but also not exactly evidence that AI could be plopped on top of that to make Jerry Springer.
OP equates number of tokens with intelligence, I do not.
OP then mentions a hyper realistic video game. Cool, but also not exactly evidence that AI could be plopped on top of that to make Jerry Springer.
It's not class warfare. The endgame here isn't "Hollywood execs fire all the actors and make billions for themselves", it's "an app on your phone makes whatever movie you want for free, and the Hollywood execs don't get anything either".
Sure, it's both sides trying to survive a little longer than the other, but the studios are also better positioned to create or run this hypothetical app.
Throughout the years, the one thing that has remained unchanged is that the power ultimately lies in controlling distribution.
Throughout the years, the one thing that has remained unchanged is that the power ultimately lies in controlling distribution.
If we support open source AI enough, there really won't be anyone able to control said distribution. Now, if we shoot ourselves in the foot and have some sort of regulatory capture based legislation where only the rich can afford to have an "AI license" then it truly would be ironic when only studios can create AI pieces while both actors/writers and the common user suffer.
[deleted]
I find it interesting that the Director's Guild agreement (which was agreed to by the studios in about five minutes) included the acknowledgement that A.I. is not a person and cannot/will not be used in place of humans for any jobs covered by the DGA (directors, production managers, stage managers, etc.).
The studios had no trouble agreeing to that very quickly, yet seem determined to negotiate the ability to replace actors as they see fit, using human actors to do it. They acknowledge that some jobs are too important for A.I. to be allowed anywhere near, just that acting is not among them.
The studios had no trouble agreeing to that very quickly, yet seem determined to negotiate the ability to replace actors as they see fit, using human actors to do it. They acknowledge that some jobs are too important for A.I. to be allowed anywhere near, just that acting is not among them.
Honestly it’s easy because a directors job is harder to replace than an actors job. The studios weren’t losing much.
So far, in the last couple of years we’ve already seen what are basically CGI actors - current actors de-aged in three major movies - Samuel Jackson in Captain Marvel, Will Smith in Gemini Man and Harrison Ford in the latest Indiana Jones.
Not to mention Mark Hamil in the Mandalorian.
How are you going to replace Steven Spielberg, Kevin Feige, etc?
So far, in the last couple of years we’ve already seen what are basically CGI actors - current actors de-aged in three major movies - Samuel Jackson in Captain Marvel, Will Smith in Gemini Man and Harrison Ford in the latest Indiana Jones.
Not to mention Mark Hamil in the Mandalorian.
How are you going to replace Steven Spielberg, Kevin Feige, etc?
This should obviously be illegal if it's not already. Hopefully case law directs the legal system towards the correct conclusion.
AI actors seems like a good thing. Generative AI will allow small groups of creatives to stick to their vision and create truly unique art. The massive staff required for movies today seems like a major cause of the blockbusterfication of hollywood where every movie is trying as hard as possible to play it safe.
I think you're going to have to come up with a better explanation for why destroying acting as a profession is somehow good for "creatives".
It'll be a revolution for indie filmmakers. $0 budget movies with top-notch visuals.
When movies take $100 million each to make, you need execs and investors to make it happen, and they want safe returns. When they cost $0, anybody with an idea can turn it into a film - the kind of stuff studios would never have greenlit.
When movies take $100 million each to make, you need execs and investors to make it happen, and they want safe returns. When they cost $0, anybody with an idea can turn it into a film - the kind of stuff studios would never have greenlit.
I don't think you guys understand the media market (or art for that matter) at all.
The "AI is going to destroy creative work" view requires either 1) wild optimism about the future of AI, a belief that it will quickly become orders of magnitude better than anything we can do today, or 2) a lack of understanding and appreciation for good art.
Like yeah you'll probably be able to churn out some hideously mediocre content slop with AI. I'm extremely skeptical that we're anywhere near producing anything good with AI.
Like yeah you'll probably be able to churn out some hideously mediocre content slop with AI. I'm extremely skeptical that we're anywhere near producing anything good with AI.
One of my all time favorite films is It's such a Beautiful Day, an animated film painstakingly created by a single visionary. If generative AI allows creatives to create similar projects in unique ways, which I believe it will, then I'm all for it.
> a belief that it will quickly become orders of magnitude better than anything we can do today
I don't think this is true, all we need is a belief that generative AI will quickly become a tool that allows small groups or individuals to create projects that are better than they can create today. If my theory that small groups are better able to create artistic statements than large groups is true then the small group + AI will be better than the current massive group paradigm.
> a belief that it will quickly become orders of magnitude better than anything we can do today
I don't think this is true, all we need is a belief that generative AI will quickly become a tool that allows small groups or individuals to create projects that are better than they can create today. If my theory that small groups are better able to create artistic statements than large groups is true then the small group + AI will be better than the current massive group paradigm.
it's a matter of perspective.
obviously AI won't be able to compete with traditional movies for some time, but for amateur film makers who don't have a budget for sets and actors, AI is going to help them make their work better.
i don't know if that is good or bad though. one side effect of AI helping to make movies is that there will be so many more of them. think about all that cheap content on youtube. imagine a bunch of that enhanced with AI. it will still be cheap content, but it will look better, which means we will have a harder time to detect it and dismiss it.
obviously AI won't be able to compete with traditional movies for some time, but for amateur film makers who don't have a budget for sets and actors, AI is going to help them make their work better.
i don't know if that is good or bad though. one side effect of AI helping to make movies is that there will be so many more of them. think about all that cheap content on youtube. imagine a bunch of that enhanced with AI. it will still be cheap content, but it will look better, which means we will have a harder time to detect it and dismiss it.
Enlighten us, then, on what you understand art to be. If art in your view is simply defined as something humans make and that computers will never be able to do regardless of how much quality the final product has (or, imagine if I were to blind watch two movies, one human made of excellent quality and an AI one of an even better quality, and I choose the AI one), then honestly we (and likely many of us on this forum) disagree on such a fundamental level that it is not worth elaborating.
It's a poor analogy, but maybe they imagine something like a composer being able to release their classical music without requiring a conductor and orchestra to convert it to sound.
The odd bit to me is how such tools open up a spectrum of possibilities with poorly defined roles or boundaries. When is someone a musician with electronic instruments, versus a DJ, versus a consumer? And what are the equivalents for film synthesis...?
The odd bit to me is how such tools open up a spectrum of possibilities with poorly defined roles or boundaries. When is someone a musician with electronic instruments, versus a DJ, versus a consumer? And what are the equivalents for film synthesis...?
Indeed, imagine if people cried the same way when electronic music or synthesizers were getting started (well, some people did). It is just that now when it is coming for their profession, they are panicking.
It should be illegal for me to make a digital version of myself if I want to?
Why?
Why?
The parent comment was most likely referring to the idea that someone else should compel you to give away the replica to an organization, in perpetuity, without compensation or rights. I don't think anybody is against a digital replica used privately where you can be sure you control the data and any derived income.
no, it should be illegal to pay you only a pittance of a lump sum to be able to use your digital version in a movie. for example maybe you should have the right to get paid for every minute that your digital version appears on screen, like actors are paid today.
Isn't that just a contract negociation? Why does it have to be a law?
because this is a negotiation between weak individuals and a very strong movie companies. as the movie companies have shown that they won't hesitate to exploit people working for them, laws are needed to protect the individuals.
Models who pose for digital animation are not weaker than other humans, who don't require specialized laws to protect them.
People have agency and can decide for themselves if a job offer is worth it.
Do clothing models have special laws? Do the people who pose for stock photos have special laws?
People have agency and can decide for themselves if a job offer is worth it.
Do clothing models have special laws? Do the people who pose for stock photos have special laws?
you don't get the point. every individual is weak in the face of a large corporation seeking to exploit them. that's why we have laws to protect employees.
People have agency and can decide for themselves if a job offer is worth it
if they desperately need a job then they don't.
the pandemic actually demonstrated that. many more people than before are refusing to work when a job forces them to be in an office. that means previously they accepted that work even though they would have preferred not to. but they didn't have the agency to voice that preference. only the demonstrated evidence that work from home is possible and the collective awareness of that gave them that agency.
likewise, most people are uninformed as to the consequences for signing away the right of a digital version of themselves. at a minimum they are not aware of its value.
that is a power imbalance the film industry seeks to exploit, and that power imbalance must be corrected by giving individuals more protection.
it is similar to copyright. i know the US doesn't recognize this but at least in europe copyright includes the inalienable right for a creator to be associated with their work even if they sold away the right to profit from it financially.
Do the people who pose for stock photos have special laws?
yes, they have the right to control how their image is used.
in a similar manner, at a minimum it must be recognized that an individual should always have the right to use their own digital version as they wish and to control how their digital version is used by others and that selling the rights to someone else must not prevent them from doing so.
where there large likelihood of individuals being exploited, the law must step in to reduce the risk for that exploitation.
that's why we have minimum wage laws. that's why in europe health insurance is mandatory for any job and even available if you don't have one. that's why in many countries you can't dismiss an employee without proper justification, or you can't evict tenants unless they egregiously violate their tenant agreement (and failing to pay rent on time is not such a violation).
there are plenty of examples of how the law protects individuals from being exploited. to suggest that such laws are unnecessary is completely missing the power imbalance that exists here, or worse willfully ignoring it.
People have agency and can decide for themselves if a job offer is worth it
if they desperately need a job then they don't.
the pandemic actually demonstrated that. many more people than before are refusing to work when a job forces them to be in an office. that means previously they accepted that work even though they would have preferred not to. but they didn't have the agency to voice that preference. only the demonstrated evidence that work from home is possible and the collective awareness of that gave them that agency.
likewise, most people are uninformed as to the consequences for signing away the right of a digital version of themselves. at a minimum they are not aware of its value.
that is a power imbalance the film industry seeks to exploit, and that power imbalance must be corrected by giving individuals more protection.
it is similar to copyright. i know the US doesn't recognize this but at least in europe copyright includes the inalienable right for a creator to be associated with their work even if they sold away the right to profit from it financially.
Do the people who pose for stock photos have special laws?
yes, they have the right to control how their image is used.
in a similar manner, at a minimum it must be recognized that an individual should always have the right to use their own digital version as they wish and to control how their digital version is used by others and that selling the rights to someone else must not prevent them from doing so.
where there large likelihood of individuals being exploited, the law must step in to reduce the risk for that exploitation.
that's why we have minimum wage laws. that's why in europe health insurance is mandatory for any job and even available if you don't have one. that's why in many countries you can't dismiss an employee without proper justification, or you can't evict tenants unless they egregiously violate their tenant agreement (and failing to pay rent on time is not such a violation).
there are plenty of examples of how the law protects individuals from being exploited. to suggest that such laws are unnecessary is completely missing the power imbalance that exists here, or worse willfully ignoring it.
“If we don’t stand tall right now, we are all going to be in trouble, we are all going to be in jeopardy of being replaced by machines.”
Welcome to the real world's job market right now.
Welcome to the real world's job market right now.
Of course they do, but does it really matter when AI ownership is contingent on data ownership? Ideally people would own their own data and image, but we actually have the opposite situation. The data is too freely available, they couldnt monopolize it if they tried. There's already plenty of open source deep fake voice and image models. Fighting this fire is just a proxy for the deeper issue of universal individual rights to data ownership.
Such a large amount of scenes in many big movies are CGI now, I don't see what the difference is. I'm convinced that the Avengers movies, the actors weren't even filming on the same set. They all did their parts green screened individually.
Yeah it doesn't matter what happens to Marvel content. But we don't want all media to gravitate to becoming Marvel content.
Good on the actors for not being pushovers on this issue. One way or another, we'll look back in twenty years and now that the arrangements made now were very consequential.
I'm not on their side here. Imagine if we were still weaving our clothes by hand because the weavers union signed a contract in 1846.
Anything that stops technology from replacing human workers is a bad thing.
Anything that stops technology from replacing human workers is a bad thing.
Wasn't the whole point of making the technology to free up time to let people do things they love doing? Acting, drawing, prosthetics, set making, costume design - these are all dream jobs for many, many people. They're the embodiment of "do what you love for a living and you'll never work a day in your life".
To a lot of people it seems like technology is replacing the wrong jobs. People want robots that can clear out the sewers or replace the mind numbing factory job and educational AI that can up-skill those replaced workers into engineers. Not a lot of people want to take another person's dreams away like this is doing.
To a lot of people it seems like technology is replacing the wrong jobs. People want robots that can clear out the sewers or replace the mind numbing factory job and educational AI that can up-skill those replaced workers into engineers. Not a lot of people want to take another person's dreams away like this is doing.
> Wasn't the whole point of making the technology to free up time to let people do things they love doing?
Who keeps repeating this? No, there was never a "point" to making technology, technology is invented and it's up to users to find a use case for it. Same thing with nuclear energy versus atomic bombs.
Who keeps repeating this? No, there was never a "point" to making technology, technology is invented and it's up to users to find a use case for it. Same thing with nuclear energy versus atomic bombs.
Well yes if you’re taking an existentialist perspective, life has no meaning so we create our own. The invention or discovery has no meaning in itself other than what humans ascribe to it. But I’d still wager that the majority of inventors are inventing with the aim of adding net value to humanity. Even weapons are made with the aim of winning a war so there can be peace at the end of it. It could be argued that the atom bomb has brought more peace and leisure time than any other invention on the planet. It could also destroy the planet at any moment if things got out of hand.
AI is the non-physical equivalent of the atom bomb. It could bring all kinds of benefits if used correctly. But if it ends up decimating the livelihoods of half the planet it could end up destroying everything.
AI is the non-physical equivalent of the atom bomb. It could bring all kinds of benefits if used correctly. But if it ends up decimating the livelihoods of half the planet it could end up destroying everything.
Not to start arguments but rather to provide anecdotal example why it’s not total absolute.
Cluster bombs replaced archery as weapon. Not exactly a good thing
Cluster bombs replaced archery as weapon. Not exactly a good thing
Right now they are not trying to replace human workers, they are trying to replace human artists.
Happy April Fools Day everyone .... err, everyone? hello?
more discussion over here
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36715052
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36715052
The verge cookie warning is cool. Stare at her eyes for 10 seconds, then press back.. An imaginary pink box appears.
[deleted]
[dupe]
Ah yes, the total ossification of our culture. Amazing.
Why wouldn't studios use a LLM for biometrics instead of using an individual's attributes? They could churn out new unique virtual actors continuously.
A LLM cannot output a likeness.
Deepfaking is still a manual process that cannot be automated, and the legal rights there are very up-in-the-air.
Deepfaking is still a manual process that cannot be automated, and the legal rights there are very up-in-the-air.
An LLM can't, but StableDiffusion can. Deepfakes are very much automated for still images, and it's really just a matter of time until it's automated for video and 3D.
Even with modern tricks for Stable Diffusion to focus on a specific subject (e.g. Dreambooth LoRAs/Textual Inversion) it is not anywhere close to the level of replacing actors.
Unreal Engine's MetaHumans is getting quite good. I assume in 20 years it will be on par or surpass the quality of actor likenesses in current movies.
The studios don't want a unique virtual actor. They want the one someone else has proven as successful. They aren't driving down Sunset Blvd asking to scan in unknowns. They want the big name stars.
Robin Wright: What will you do with this... thing ? That you call Robin Wright?
Jeff: We'll do all the things that your Robin Wright wouldn't do.
The Congress https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1821641/