The growing opposition in Hollywood to AI generated "actors" is in many ways similar to the growing feminist fury over AI girlfriends: If you're a good actor (or a good woman), then you should have no fear of being replaced. If you can't compete with a robot or software for the affections of the masses, then perhaps you deserve to lose your exalted position in society.
AI design is not particularly impressive (at least not yet). Characters are graphically realistic but the Uncanny Valley effect is ever present; the human mind processes them as off-putting in most cases and making an entire film using them would require extensive input from human CG artists. Still images and short clips are effective enough, but this is not film making.
By extension, AI fiction writing is not improving and is truly terrible. Storytelling requires an intuitive grasp of plot beats, a deep understanding of the nuances of human psychology and interactions, as well as a creative ability to surprise the audience with something unexpected while still (in most cases) wrapping up the plot in a way that is satisfying.
Anything more than a basic synopsis and AI scripts turn into a rambling, confusing mish-mash of ideas copied from more intelligent creators and slopped onto the page. In other words, AI writes scripts much like the typical woke leftist screenwriters now infesting the film industry.
And this is why Hollywood is scared - They have been getting away with mediocrity for so long they have forgotten how to make a good movie. They are so bad at their job that they could actually be swapped for software.
In terms of acting, it's unlikely that solid performers will ever be retired to the dustbin or unable to get work because of AI. Movie goers will always know in the back of their minds that they are watching CG people with no capacity for real emotion. However, if film companies continue to fill their actor stables with soulless, robotic or narcissistic egomaniacs, then the public may welcome the robot overlords as the new standard for cinematic entertainment.
The Screen Actors Guild (SAG) is very unhappy with the recent release of an AI acting model called "Tilly Norwood". The union condemned reports that talent agents are looking to sign the artificial intelligence "actor" for representation. They argued in a statement that Tilly Norwood "is not an actor, it’s a character generated by a computer program that was trained on the work of countless professional performers."
SAG is highly aggressive in its tactics, including intimidation tactics against actors that don't support their strikes, which helps to explain why they are up in arms about AI generated characters. A computer created actor can't be controlled by a union. It can't be censured or blacklisted or threatened. Film studios facing a long term SAG strike could simply replace the actors with AI models for a time, forcing the unions to settle negotiations.
"It has no life experience to draw from, no emotion and, from what we’ve seen, audiences aren’t interested in watching computer-generated content untethered from the human experience," the union said.
To be frank, this is what most of the movie watching populace has been saying about Hollywood for the past several years. They really have no room to criticize.
Maybe more concerning is OpenAI's new Sora 2 tool which allows users to put real people and characters into AI-generated videos, sparking immediate backlash from Hollywood studios and talent agencies. The dispute centers on who controls copyrighted images and likenesses, with the actors asserting that OpenAI cannot use content without explicit permission or compensation.
There is a legitimate danger of AI products being used to exploit a person's likeness for nefarious purposes. A face and voice can be stolen and repurposed to draw undeserved revenues, or it can be used in an attempt to fake an event, destroy a person's reputation, turn the person's "essence" into a marketing mascot, etc.
For now, the only thing AI seems to be good for is making memes which almost no one mistakes as real.
“We’re engaging directly with studios and rightsholders, listening to feedback, and learning from how people are using Sora 2,” Varun Shetty, OpenAI’s vice president of media partnerships, said in a statement. “Many are creating original videos and excited about interacting with their favorite characters, which we see as an opportunity for rightsholders to connect with fans and share in that creativity.”
AI in entertainment is an inevitability. The most at-risk sectors are, of course, animation, effects and CG programming. If the average person with minimal software or animation experience can use AI to formulate Pixar-like characters and place them in scripted scenarios, then that person will only be limited by their imagination and ability to write great stories. At the very least, CG animators will face considerable competition and will be forced to up their game as job opportunities decline.
Movies studios, by extension, will no longer have a monopoly on film production and distribution. They won't disappear, but the tools for regular people making movies and shows at home will cut into Hollywood's already diminishing profits. Just as online content on platforms like YouTube is crushing legacy media, online independent entertainment content is going to punish Hollywood for its lack of talent.
Ultimately, the ideologically progressive industry brought this doom on itself. The public is longing for meaningful and creative escape, and Hollywood refuses to give it to them. Instead, Tinsel Town has become the bullhorn for the woke agenda, forever browbeating the population with insipid propaganda no one wants. Eventually, the free market is going to replace these ideologues, and if AI helps, then people will welcome it.