2 hours ago
4
The unveiling of AI ‘actor’ Tilly Norwood – touted as the next Scarlett Johansson – was met with swift backlash in Hollywood. Here’s what Guardian readers have to say about the controversial rise of AI actors.
‘Of course they will do it’
You have to think about filmed entertainment in economic terms, not artistic. Because AI isn’t about great art, but reducing costs by removing human talent and speeding up processes. Netflix is topping out at 300 million subscribers, delivering $40bn revenue against $17bn content expense. The fastest way for Netflix to increase profit is to make that content cheaper via computerised processes. They are already using AI to decide what to make, fulfilling every possible human wish with a slice of bingeable nonsense, from high art to low-brow dating. The Power of the Dog isn’t there because Netflix is committed to telling powerful stories, but merely to ensure high-end subscribers don’t quit the service. And exactly the same is true for Love is Blind in a hundred languages, it is there to ensure fans of dating shows don’t quit. If AI helps these tech companies masquerading as studios to churn out more, faster, and cheaper, of course they will do it. Stak2000
‘It doesn’t understand humour’
Comedy. That’ll be the step change, if it ever comes. Right now, AI can’t make us laugh. It doesn’t understand humour, timing, what makes something funny, or not. Witness the technically astonishing, but utterly soulless dialogue and delivery above. We watched because we thought we would be amazed, but it was dull beyond words. mattllo
‘I’m not saying it’s impossible, just not there yet’
Ninety-nine percent of what we have seen from AI films is just a mid-close up shot of a single person, usually directly addressing the camera, spokesperson style.
What we haven’t seen is a convincing scene of drama between two or more AI generated characters. Dialogue is always cross-cut. AI doesn’t seem to be able to generate multiple unique characters at once who interact and impact each other. I’m not saying its impossible, just not there yet. Cornish_Hen
‘Will come back to bite them’
Hollywood execs might bank on a few Tilly Noorwoods to cut costs and increase their profits. But AI will come back to bite them when AI-proficient movie fans prefer to use gen-AI to create their own productions. Meanwhile, I hope those investing in humans are the ones who win out, separate from this pointless, overhyped AI race that’s eroding craft. Dataday
‘The genie is not going back in the bottle’
It is incredible to see how far the technology has come in such a short time.
There’s no doubt that, even if it stops short of on-screen leads, AI generated content will find a place on the big screen. It is a tool like anything else and a gamechanger for some aspects of media.
Those whose jobs it will affect (and it absolutely will) need to calm down and consider what they do next in their career. The genie is not going back in the bottle. I’m sure ostlers and bridlemakers were furious with Gottlieb Daimler and Henry Ford but if AI content proves to be useful and cost-effective then it cannot be stopped. abbathehorse
‘My primary concern is the lack of education’
Anyone working in AI is doing everything they can to push the envelope. It is up to the rest of us (and especially government/regulators) to rein them in when they go too far. My primary concern is the lack of education, both on the utility of AI and its dangers. Most people who are not directly affected by AI taking someone’s livelihood do not see the threat. DasInternaut
‘I doubt I could root for a character that is completely AI’
I hope movies will be marked as AI, so us lot, the actual paying audience, can make a choice upfront, based upon the pictures production process. I can’t see any potential production savings being passed on to the consumer. I doubt I could root for a character that is completely AI (apart from a Pixar movie maybe). We like actors and movie stars too much, we invest in them, we are attracted to them on some level. It might take a few generations to push it to its limit, but look at the fetishization of vinyl, back from the dead and costing way more than ever before. Matt08
‘Like something out of a Ballard short story’
Reading this. I found myself thinking about all the people required to facilitate this AI ‘star’. The coders, the people who write or prompt the scripts, who create the social media posts, the marketing and finance teams, etc. A network of humans applying their industry in the service of advancing the career of something that simply does not exist. I suppose you could say the same for the teams who support, I dunno, MS Word or an animated series. But when the programme in question is attempting to pass as human, it feels somehow stranger. Like something out of a Ballard short story. Glider
‘It’s too late to be scared’
It’s too late to be scared.
Hollywood is not about making art, it’s about making money.
Give us one good reason why studios should pay for cameramen, makeup artists, set designers, lighting, catering and of course actors when AI can do the job and make money.
Films made with real people – actors as well as all the other innumerable people listed in the end credits – will soon be something like ballet or opera: enjoyed by a few cinéastes who are willing to pay all the money for this art form.
But why would a fan of the, say, Fast and Furious franchise or the Marvel universe or whatever it is called do that? All they care about are visual and aural stimuli, and AI can deliver that perfectly. AshMordant
‘Just a bunch of dudes sat around a computer’
The creepy thing to me about this, is that it was obviously created by presumably a committee of people who all decided how attractive she should be. Skin not smooth enough? Do another iteration. Boobs not quite the right shape? Run it again.
Not only does that feel a bit iffy, there’s also decisions being made about what constitutes “being attractive” that will feed back into the views of actual people. Obviously attractive actors generally make more successful actors, but at least nature/God had a hand in that. Not just a bunch of dudes sat around a computer. bearvsshark
‘A meaningless concept’
This is effectively meaningless though. Acting is a group endeavour. An AI “actor” would have to have a real stand-in and someone reading in their dialogue. You could make an entire AI film – effectively a CGI movie – or you make a human film with AI characters, similar to the green-screen stuff they do now. But an “AI actor” is a meaningless concept. Pyeshot
‘The masses don’t attend or appreciate actual art’
To those saying “this will be reason live theater comes roaring back,” you clearly need to step outside whatever bubble you live in. The masses don’t attend or appreciate actual art … they just want pretty, shiny things whether in the form of pop songs or superhero movies. And they will have zero issue with AI “art” as long as it feeds those desires. The true arts (with actual trained human artists) still rely on at least some income to exist, and with less pooled resources to support it, the arts will continue to shrivel on the vine. Yes some standouts will continue to exist, but I fear they will be fewer and fewer … until maybe one day the aforementioned masses actually become more educated and learn to appreciate actual art. Londonamerican2014
‘AI slop is what happens when idea goes straight to execution’
One day, hopefully soon, people will work out that the “friction” of the back and forth between ideas and execution is where 9/10ths of the creativity lies.
So, good painting comes from having made good preparatory studies, great acting comes from rehearsals, etc. Taking your time, feeling frustrated, getting it “wrong” a few times, all that is part of coming up with good ideas.
Not just for art, but any idea. Even boring business ones need the friction.
AI slop is what happens when idea goes straight to execution. Superficially the ideas might seem good as the execution can be slick. But the ideas are still shite, ‘cos they haven’t been put through the mill. ShakeyDave
