AI acting (split from On Child Pornography)

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

I wonder if AI will replace live actors in regular movies as well. 

Any studio that does this (where CGI is not required) had better quickly transition to doing it 100%, because I think they will be boycotted by the SAG, and possibly other unions. I don’t see them passively watch as AI eats into their livelihoods 

[StringJunky]

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Any studio that does this (where CGI is not required) had better quickly transition to doing it 100%, because I think they will be boycotted by the SAG, and possibly other unions. I don’t see them passively watch as AI eats into their livelihoods 

Is this not another Luddite-like, ultimately futile protest? It's going the way of film cameras, to use an example from the last 25-30 years?

Edited September 23 by StringJunky

[swansont]

6 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Is this not another Luddite-like, ultimately futile protest? It's going the way of film cameras, to use an example from the last 25-30 years?

Not futile for the actors, film crew and possibly writers who would currently be displaced from work.

I think it will happen via an independent movie maker. The big studios will only go that way after it has seen success 

[MSC]

Tech advancement in the entertainment industry isn't like tech advancement in other industries, because you have to cater to an audience.

What this means for AI in film and tv, is that there will always be movies and tv shows that use real actors and actresses because there will always be an audience for it. How things are marketed may change slightly, you may see studios that development purely AI portrayed narratives and some that never use it, then you'll have studios that combine elements of both, saving money on extras while keeping real actors in for the crowds they draw. Each of these studio types are going to be mindful of their audience types. 

There will also be times where AI will potentially be able to save the planned narrative of a show.

Exhibit A: Helen Mcrory, playing Aunt Polly in Peaky Blinders, died before the 6th season and death caused the trajectory of the shows narrative to change out of necessity. There will come a time when it may be possible for AI to continue an actors path after death or other instances that may warrant an AI replacement. 

There will also probably be many different forms of AI and ways it can go about being involved in a movie or tv show. You'll have AIs able to either generate complete cinematography and all the characters and you'll have AIs who are avatars of individual characters in mixed cast sets. 

There will be an audience who loves AI movies and others who prefer real actors and some who don't mind either way so long as what they are waching is entertaining. 

You're absolutely going to have studios that overuse AI just to cut costs and not have to pay actors, but what you'll probablu find is that the creators of these AI are going to demand a piece of the pie the actors would normally get and since it's the entertainment industry they are going to want pay levels near what actors themselves expect. 

When actors themselves go up in arms over AI stealing their jobs, that will be around the time where a savy studio will realise it can make it's mark as the studio of traditional acting and cater to the audience that demands that. 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Not futile for the actors, film crew and possibly writers who would currently be displaced from work.

I think it will happen via an independent movie maker. The big studios will only go that way after it has seen success 

On reflection, they can't stop the wave, but they can redirect it more in their favour with negotiations locking them down in labour law.

Edited September 23 by StringJunky

[swansont]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

On reflection, they can't stop the wave, but they can redirect it more in their favour with negotiations locking them down in labour law.

If a big studio gambles on this and the movie tanks, they’re in trouble if nobody is willing to work for them. The movie industry has some pretty strong unions.

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

If a big studio gambles on this and the movie tanks, they’re in trouble if nobody is willing to work for them. The movie industry has some pretty strong unions.

That's true, but future movie stars could be pure AI creations that are composites of many images and modelled behaviour patterns. Something like Al Pacino's 'SimOne', if you've seen that.

Edited September 23 by StringJunky

[Moontanman]

An older actor/actress might allow the use of a young version of themselves in their prime and do the voice over for the younger version of themselves or just straight up license their young image to a movie and AI can do the voice but the older actor or thier estate gets paid.   

Imagine John Wayne rides again, lol 

 

 

[swansont]

10 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

An older actor/actress might allow the use of a young version of themselves in their prime and do the voice over for the younger version of themselves or just straight up license their young image to a movie and AI can do the voice but the older actor or thier estate gets paid.   

Imagine John Wayne rides again, lol 

Fred Astaire’s widow licensed his likeness for a vacuum cleaner commercial but they were paid, so that’s not the same thing as using AI as a replacement; AI purveyors are notorious for scraping content without regard for copyright (or other rights) and have admitted they can’t be profitable if they have to pay for content. LLMs degrade pretty quickly if they are cannibalizing generated content.

[Night FM]

I don't think that pure CGI films will garner the public interest that live-action films do, due to the fandom that follows celebrity actors. Sure, animated characters (e.x. video game characters) do develop fan followings, but, to me, it isn't the same as the culture which develops around celebrities and their personal lives.

Edited September 24 by Night FM

[KJW]

There is also the uncanny valley to consider.

 

[swansont]

It occurs to me that the way they do this now is with animated movies and voice actors. But animation often involves some kind of element not easily replicated with live action, and there’s a suspension of disbelief- animated action can get away with things that look weird in a live action scenario, and I don’t think AI would look real enough (which is uncanny valley-related)

[Moontanman]

On 9/24/2024 at 12:06 PM, swansont said:

It occurs to me that the way they do this now is with animated movies and voice actors. But animation often involves some kind of element not easily replicated with live action, and there’s a suspension of disbelief- animated action can get away with things that look weird in a live action scenario, and I don’t think AI would look real enough (which is uncanny valley-related)

AI keeps getting better and better, unless there is some  actual limit I see no reason that AI animation couldn't be as good as Current AI generated still images which can fool even the discerning eye.   My main problem with them is that the AI images are often too good.