The reveal came as SAG-AFTRA actors confirmed they were going on strike.
You must log in or register to comment.
I wonder what the future is gonna hold for famous people. There’s gonna come a time when a rando dev can just press a button and a beautiful, funny, and any other-positive-quality-you-could-want person will be generated. This person will never commit a sex crime, will never say a racist remark, never do anything controversial. I imagine once that happens that’s just kinda it for famous people who represent a brand.
Soo Hatsune Miku?
You know I was once convinced Hatsune Miku was the primitive start of a huge shift in the entertainment industry.
No one believed me when I said AI would one day be seriously considered against flesh and blood entertainers.
Well whose laughing now, huh?!
Neuro-sama as well.
Hah, I only knew that name from Daisy 2.0, turns out is a whole rabbit hole!
Well, that’s an unexpected but correct answer
deleted by creator
I thought that said A.I. Pacino for a second…
Or Pixel Perfect, the classic Disney Channel Original Movie.
But it’s not that easy. If this rando dev’s creation never catches the public’s attention how can they love it, hate it, forgive it and love it again. So this positive-quality-creature can’t be a star.
And how about acting? You don’t think that acting is an art. That actors actually create a character, that’s either boring for the audience or catching it’s empathy. If there’s no actor creating this character, than the rando dev has to create them.
And to make a movie they have to create a lot of different characters and some will turn out to be better in creating characters than others. So they will be famous for doing it great. The public will admire them and they will have their moments on the red carpet and get the chance to make a racist remark or slap someone in the face.
You know, Mark Twain was such a rando dev. And he got a lot of fame. And now the fame will be coming back to the authors…
Once it’s been trained on the data of every movie ever made, won’t the AI be able to figure out what exactly makes a performance nuanced and captivating? We’re at the very start of this AI journey and it’s often indistinguishable from real life already.
Yeah I’m not sure why people think art is only creatable by humans.
Because we like to think we’re special.
Ding ding ding! The same reason we believe that our planet is more than an insignificant mote of dust in the vast dark void of chaos.
Because an AI is created by humans. If an AI can create art, that art is ultimately created by humans
Mark Twain was created by other humans… but his grand parents aren’t famous.
I see no reason the thousands of people who work on an AI will be any more famous than the thousands of non-acting artists who currently work on a movie.
Maybe directors (or the AI prompt writer) becomes more famous… but even that will self-automate pretty quickly
Mark twain was created by natural precesses such as evolution, by randomness and by education/environment. It is a different thing.
AI is tha peak product of the collaboration of many human beings across generations. Scientists, engineers, artists, common people, all have “worked” together to generate an amazing, extraordinary, artificial thing.
If such things can create art, that art is made by everyone, just like honey is the final product of the whole colony of bees.
We simply need to change our perspective on fame. No one deserves fame, we all deserve to be celebrated
So if you teach someone to paint all their art is created by you?
Don’t think that stands up really.
If I teach a neural network to draw with only my picture, the art is mine and of all people who contributed to creating the AI technology, including theory, software, hardware (because each of them contribute to the final result as much as the training data - even more in reality)…
If I teach someone to draw, and I am the only input he’s ever had in his life, art is his, but I contributed to it.
Computers are not people
People aren’t anything special. We are essentially pattern recognising computers. Our hardware is just very different.
Look at animated movies. They’re giant collaborations of hundreds of mostly anonymous people, basically large software development projects. They hire stars to do the voices, not because they’re all that great as voice actors (trained voice actors can often be had cheaper), but to be the face of the film in public and promote it.
That is, the skill of a Hollywood star is not really anything to do with the product, but simply being famous, recognizable, and likeable. They are a brand, like Mickey Mouse or Colonel Sanders (once an actual person!).
That is, the skill of a Hollywood star is not really anything to do with the product, but simply being famous, recognizable, and likeable.
I bet studio execs and agents hate having to deal with their stars’ erratic behavior off screen and their personal projects. AI stars voiced by unseen voice actors are much more easier to deal with and they can pay voice actors less. This is IT driven enshittification of the entertainment industry.
I don’t think the question is art vs not art. “Art” is an abstraction bestowed upon something by the viewer.
I think a lot of people are still struggling with this, but popular “art” is already largely devoid of humanity, and reduced to formulaic focus group fluff, and has been for a long, long time now. AI just streamlines the processes we already have.
Any additional debate on this will reduce to linguistics. You can - “I know it when I see it” - all you want, but that’s a cop out. The reality is that media which produces a specific neurochemical response in humans doesn’t, and never has required human input. A breathtaking landscape. A feeling of tranquility during snowfall. A kinship with an animal. An AI generated image. These are all the same process.
Really well said. The definition of art could be argued ad infinitum, and nobody will be any closer to an answer. What is a fact, is that at it’s core art requires a recipe, and each element can be interchangeable, whether it is colors, perspective, medium, tools, pressure, speed, shapes, etc etc, & with A.I., it is just a streamlined process like you said, of taking these elements and mixing them in novel ways. The argument that A.I. could never match human art is such bullocks since as we all know, there is nothing wholly new. It is all recycled content at this point, with variations and arguably, A.I., will be able to add and subtract for those variations a lot faster than humans ever could.
You know those AI programs making AI art… the content made is by definition art. It’s in the name.
True, anyone can call anything art if they want and the name can stick, just like anyone calling you a dumbass. ;)
True you can call someone a dumbass, but unless they’re actually a dumbass, like you, then you’re wrong.
There is no dumbass like me though.
deleted by creator
Yeah I think people are always going to be seeking out something that’s real, even if it’s just to hate. (Celebrity culture has taught me that people love to hate other people). Well, of course, you can have an AI-generated person be controversial and racist, too, if that’s what people want.
I suspect there’s going to be an arms race around generating/detecting what is real.
We’ll have social media celebrities which pretend to be real but are actually AI-generated. This will give Internet detectives plenty of material to work with to say “their hand looks a little weird in this one photo” or “notice how they’ve never posted a video? hmm suspicious” and expose them as being AI-generated. Then AI will get a bit better, and their hand won’t look weird in that one photo any more, and they will be in (short, to start with) videos, and the Twitter sleuths will have to work even harder. (But they will never admit to themselves that they actually like the detective work involved in exposing/cancelling people). And the arms race in the social media sphere will escalate.
And then on the Hollywood side, dead celebrities and non-existent people will start making cameos and bit parts, as extras and things. And that will generate some controversy and hate, but people will watch it anyway. And studios will push harder and harder to make bigger and bigger roles for AI actors, seeing how much controversy things will generate, testing the waters, and seeing how many of us will watch it anyway. Maybe at first there will be a lot of mocap and other stuff to help the audience still feel like it’s “real”, but as the envelope is pushed, we will get more forgiving in what we expect to be “real”.
Anyway, I think there will be a chase after people who are real, but I suspect eventually it’ll just get too tiring or too difficult for most of us to find real celebrities.
Isn’t animated content the precursor for this? Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse ‘live forever’. We might also take a little from recast characters over time like James Bond, The Doctor, Captain Kirk, Superman…
I guess if we mean actors separate from characters it’s a little different. Though I think wr still might take something from Bugs Bunny who’s been in various shows, movies etc. And the famous part is the character, you have to be a big Bugs Bunny nerd to know or car about who is doing the voice or animation or writing really. So that might well be where we go - the character is tied to the brand / company that owns it but no particular person.
I don’t think there’s gonna be a big backlash really. This may make actual actors in movies like the etsy handcrafted stuff vs the knock off brand on Amazon, but both have a market. The “more expensive” real market might well shrink a lot and if you want to be an actor you’re back to actual stage performance.
There’s already a smaller fandom of actual AI VTubers. VAs of VTubers don’t seem to care at all, and even being amazed by the tech.
Yes … interesting and on point! Only two thoughts to add …
Now’s a good time to pay attention to what industries come off as the most creepy and dystopian, as AI is sort of allowing them to reveal themselves as always that way
And, relatedly, something I keep thinking of with stories like this is that we should maybe try to realise how continuous the transition into dystopian behaviour is. Like, with your artificial celebrity … are we not somewhat headed that way already with the underlying real life person merely being the mold onto which an artificial celebrity is cast? From “photoshopped” images and footage, scripted and produced social media statements, ads everywhere, and branding driving everything … is it really a huge discrete step to simply digitise the likeness of someone ahead of time?
The lesson … fighting against small things can matter … a lot. Just like the parable of "First the came for X and I didn’t care … ". Once you let the line be moved a little in the wrong direction on something that matters, it can end up moving a lot!! And if we’re truly going through some late-stage-capitalism dystopia ATM, a lot of it, IMO, comes down to forgetting the importance of doing things on principle.
Give 'em an inch and they’ll take a mile.
Give em an inch and they’ll take your arm and your first born child.
But there’s the rub. Right now the “principle” here is basically being a luddite to me. I don’t see a big moral quandary - I see a contract dispute between 2 well funded groups regarding voluntary employment. And a demonstration of why Unions might be good for workers.
Stage theatre will make a come back.
Just like vinyl albums are now $50+ a piece
At what point does the AI just write the script, build actors and environments for it, “shoot”/render the movie, advertise it, and send it out without any human interaction? Will the movies of the future just all be animated? Would definitely be far cheaper than buying equipment, paying staff, and renting locations.
The AI is gonna huff it’s own farts eventually and start degrading in quality as more and more AI content is generated. AI creates a novel imitation of what’s been done before. It doesn’t make anything truly novel itself.
I think you’re overestimating what humans do
Well, we have a source of input that AIs don’t for the moment, and that’s our actual experiences in the world. Once we turn that into art or text or whatever, the AIs can train on it, but we’re like the photosynthesizing plants at the bottom of the content food chain.
This person will never commit a sex crime, will never say a racist remark, never do anything controversial.
But controversy is good, it generates attention. My fear is that the “optimized” artificial celebrity will be exactly that and it will be a whole new level of shitshow. When you think about it, there are already people who maintain “controversial” public personas for that exact reason (not naming any, since I don’t want to give them more attention), so it’s not even that far fetched.
I can’t wait to see all the Alex Jones, Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson A.I.-likes.
I really hope the trolls put those people’s (and others like them) likenesses in compromising positions using A.I. fuckery.
That assumes perfection. An AI is going to make mistakes. Maybe not the same mistakes a human will, but they will still make mistakes.
It doesn’t have to be perfect, just good enough to convince some corporate juggernaut to inflict it upon us.
AI is just going to be the next way that we’re all gonna get fucked over and exploited by the mega rich. What a future…
This is true. I work in a related field, and my company and almost all of its clients are falling over themselves trying to identify what can be already replaced with AI.
Systematically processes are being broken down to identify activities that are “cognitive” are can be done by AI, with the goal of eventually replacing the human workers with AI almost entirely for those tasks. All these companies, including mine, are super profitable for most part but that is apparently not enough, and everyone fears being left behind and their share price tanking if they don’t adopt AI too. So there’s a mad rush to get it done everywhere.
activities that are “cognitive” are can be done by AI
Management.
Ironically management could really be done by an ai well. AI is amazing at time management and keeping its feelings in check, bad managers tend to be poor at time management and have a hard time not letting their personal beliefs seep into their work.
I wish that I was that optimistic. The data AI:s are trained on can be just as faulty causing them to have “personal beliefs seep in”…
That’s why models exist. You don’t let the AI do whatever it wants
Replacing the cognitive activity of the CEO would save the most money.
You should expect this, and we’re all the problem.
Most humans are inherently lazy, and corporations exist to make as much profit as possible. If they don’t embrace AI, their competitor will, and their competitor will crush them because they will have lower costs and humans in general tend to care more about price than ethical concerns (see clothing production).
“Most humans are inherently lazy.” Do you have any scientific data to back up what appears to be a heroically sweeping generality?
Maybe a better way to say that would be to say “humans are inherently random” as that is more feared by corporations
All these companies, including mine, are super profitable for most part but that is apparently not enough
It can never be enough when you’re worshiping Mammon. Anything less than all and even all it self is too little for them.
Sigh… Guess we gotta copyright the human body and face. I fucking hate this timeline.
Personality rights are already a thing. They are a mess in the US though.
Portrait rights - i.e. the right the own one’s image - is a thing in some European jurisdictions. But of course this doesn’t exist in the US.
This is lawyers fuel
Like an onion or like a cake?
in her opening statement of the press conference, SAG-AFTRA president Fran Drescher said that “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.”
The Nanny, comin in hot! Fran Drescher has always been cool as hell, I didn’t realize shit was the president of SAG-AFTRA!
I can never in-hear her laugh on Friends.
That’s a different actor. The Friends character Janice is a parody on Fran’s character on The Nanny.
They did a great job because I always thought it was the same woman!
that one on Friends was not Fran Drescher, it was Maggie Wheeler
Don’t we already have pretty robust laws when it comes to person’s likeness?
I presume most contracts cover this aspect mainly for the purposes of marketing and future references. Of course the actors probably didn’t expect the extent the current technology could allow their likeness to be exploited.
It would probably make sense to require more specific contracts for this purpose, and have previously signed general contracts become insufficient for using actors’ likeness for this purpose.
They say they are expected to accept contracts that were designed for the old business model while the industry structure and technologies have changed. Here’s some video of the speeches & demonstrations.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=9jBBItLnxRc
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Good bot.
If a corporation puts their crimes inside a computer, they can get away with it for years before anybody figures out how to do anything about it.
It’s not really that complicated if there’s a will and resources to investigate. You can legally compel someone to produce evidence or show you how they do things whether it’s in an Excel file or in a paper ledger.
Conversely, you can burn a paper ledger just as easily as you can delete a computer file. In fact computer files might actually be more resilient since they can be recovered if not properly destroyed.
Creepy ass motherfuckers. You’d almost have to be a studio exec to think this is even something you should ask.
Hey, this is just like – (sees thumbnail image) never mind, I have nothing useful to add to this discussion, carry on
I like to think that this “strike” came about because an actor watched that black mirror episode, and thought “cool!”. Right up until their friend said “They can almost do that you know” and they were like “WHAT WHAT WHAAAAAT?”
Are we the same person? Lol.
Salma Hayek is gonna be piiiiisssseeddd!!
You had me poop in a church?!
sigh
No one saw “S1m0ne” 20 years ago because they thought it was too far fetched.
Go back even further to Looker from 1981.
I wonder who the last famous actor will be
deleted by creator
@Aurenkin @igalmarino Well we’ll still have soccer players
Please, I’ve seen AI robots that flop better.
I think a time will come in our dystopian future where it will be trendy to have a performance by a real actor or a traditional painting created by a real artist … that will be the gimmick, so to say.
As long as I can help it or afford it, I will always prefer human art over machines.
The reality is works produced by humans are going to be a luxury for the rich, while the poor have to setting for AI generated crap.
Hear, hear! If pop culture is gonna be a frothy cesspool of AI generated shit, I’m going all in on subculture.
I have everything related to AI art in my all feed blocked, if I’m going to have art in my feed it’s going to be made by a human dammit
As a furry I see so many small artists struggling, I’m not gonna contribute to their competition lol
As a furry art appreciator, I want to do what I can to make sure the community’s artists aren’t struggling.
As a non-furry artist seeing how much the furry community supports small artists is really making me consider doing furry art lol
I’m almost certain there was a movie like this. A guy create a AI celebrity and he fall in love with her. I believe he “kills” her in the end.
I don’t remember if the public end up knowing if she was fake or not.
S1mone?
How the hell do you pronounce that? No wonder they couldn’t remember the name.
I’m confident you’re correct. I over complicated it.
But it also alludes to “sim one”, as in the first simulated actor. It is a play on words.
Thank you for the context.
Episode 1 of Black Mirror Season 6
Man, this is reminding of horror comic book story from like 40 years ago. Actress signs away the rights to her own appearance, has to be disfigured or something because she’s no longer allowed to look like herself
“The congress” is coming closer.
https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/152795-the-congress
I understand why some people might not like this movie. But I think about it a few times a week. And one major part of the scenario is about a famous actor giving her digital copy to a studio and the unforeseen consequences.
Yeah these recent events really do start to look like The congress. I watched it only recently due to one of such events. Not sure I fully understand why people dont like it.
Anyway, the second half of it is just so eery, the reality distortion part, is sometimes both inspiring and uncomfortable. And I think there’s some potential parallel with generative AI.
With Dalle/ChatGPT, one may create virtually anything from already available data, just like people in the 2nd half can take on any form, which is inspiring to me.
But at some point, I guess both can lead to some loss in meanings, detached from reality. And eventually, instead of embracing beauty in diversity, people might turn to or get normalized to bias and conformity. Like how GAI may exacerbate unrealistic beauty standards, and how those people tend to choose only certain forms/figures to “be”.
First thing I thought of when reading the title. The movie is 10 years old!
These mfers watched “Joan is Awful” from season 6 of Black Mirror and said. LETS DO THAT!!
