Would you watch AI actors?

[HollowSage]

It does to me.

I’m sure you are not alone. That will result in mass market AI created entertainment for the mainstream with a secondary “organic” and more expensive entertainment product aimed at consumers who don’t want the AI product.

The real trick will be verifying that the “organic” product isn’t just AI with a fancy label slapped on it.

[Totoro Man]

I understood the OP as the A.I. being a purely artificial entity generated by computer programming from start to finish.

I think my underlying problem is this.

an "actor" is a person who portrays a character in a story that is typically NOT themselves. they interact with people at every step of the process. there is indirect human interaction when they read the script. they create a new version of the character in their mind and build a performance based on that. there is direct human interaction when they audition for the part with a dramatic performance. during the actual filming or performance, they are interacting with people and objects for an audience. the performances are generated by real-time physical interactions.

since my experience with A.I. revolves mostly around gaming I'll explain it this way: A.I. generates a response based on instructions. these instructions are governed by the world rules, game play mechanics, and data/scenario input. it will generate this response as a basic response. there is no theatrical performance involved for the sake of an audience. the A.I. will do this because this is how it is programmed behave.

the fact that A.I. has no agency and can't interact with real people or objects is a pretty huge obstacle from a storytelling perspective.

the references to "Deep Fake Luke Skywalker" are telling - since they had to hire an actor to be a physical stand-in/body double for those scenes. they used AI and programming to help transform this real person into a more convincing likeness of Luke Skywalker from earlier films. in both cases, for the performance to succeed they needed REAL actors interacting with other actors and objects to make those scenes work.

now, if the entire scene is being rendered with CGI and digital processes, this is far less of a concern. then it is possible to generate performances that allow the AI to interact with their artificially constructed world.

if we're talking about some "pure" AI construct being used as a performance - I don't think will ever happen in Hollywood with the average film. too much time, money, and labor are required to create the artificial performance. it would be cheaper to simply hire another actor that is "close enough".

now, if a major franchise with a loyal fanbase wanted to start generating A.I.-based content for video games based on an existing game engine... that would be different. I could very easily imagine Resident Evil MCMXXIX being created by A.I. at some point in the future.

the difference here is that A.I. is already an integral part of the video game industry.

I could see Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Transformers, or the MCU moving in the direction of AI created material. they have clearly defined worlds, characters, and basic interactions to work with. they have, in their own sense, a working "game engine" to develop further material. (not surprisingly, all of them also have video games based on these worlds)

A.I. is an 'actor' in the philosophical sense... but it can never be a dramatic performer that engages with other performers for the sake of entertaining an audience. it is purely input-output oriented.

if the point of this thread is really "would you watch a Deep Fake character performance? " then this is a very different sort of question.

[Frobisher]

I think this question is mostly referring to Deepfake type reconstructions of dead actors, which have been a thing at least since Orson Welles in Sky Captain The World Of Tomorrow, and I can’t say I’ve really enjoyed any of them as performances. There’s just a lifelessness and uncanny valley about it, no matter how good they get the tech.

LLM content generation I’m starting to sour on already. It makes sense in a world where only content generation matters, as they basically built an auto-plagiariser with access to peta-bytes of media to rob and reconfigure. There are six billion or something people living today - human creativity was the last thing that needed automating.

[thwhtGuardian]

I understood the OP as the A.I. being a purely artificial entity generated by computer programming from start to finish.

I think my underlying problem is this.

an "actor" is a person who portrays a character in a story that is typically NOT themselves. they interact with people at every step of the process. there is indirect human interaction when they read the script. they create a new version of the character in their mind and build a performance based on that. there is direct human interaction when they audition for the part with a dramatic performance. during the actual filming or performance, they are interacting with people and objects for an audience. the performances are generated by real-time physical interactions.

since my experience with A.I. revolves mostly around gaming I'll explain it this way: A.I. generates a response based on instructions. these instructions are governed by the world rules, game play mechanics, and data/scenario input. it will generate this response as a basic response. there is no theatrical performance involved for the sake of an audience. the A.I. will do this because this is how it is programmed behave.

the fact that A.I. has no agency and can't interact with real people or objects is a pretty huge obstacle from a storytelling perspective.

the references to "Deep Fake Luke Skywalker" are telling - since they had to hire an actor to be a physical stand-in/body double for those scenes. they used AI and programming to help transform this real person into a more convincing likeness of Luke Skywalker from earlier films. in both cases, for the performance to succeed they needed REAL actors interacting with other actors and objects to make those scenes work.

now, if the entire scene is being rendered with CGI and digital processes, this is far less of a concern. then it is possible to generate performances that allow the AI to interact with their artificially constructed world.

if we're talking about some "pure" AI construct being used as a performance - I don't think will ever happen in Hollywood with the average film. too much time, money, and labor are required to create the artificial performance. it would be cheaper to simply hire another actor that is "close enough".

now, if a major franchise with a loyal fanbase wanted to start generating A.I.-based content for video games based on an existing game engine... that would be different. I could very easily imagine Resident Evil MCMXXIX being created by A.I. at some point in the future.

the difference here is that A.I. is already an integral part of the video game industry.

I could see Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Transformers, or the MCU moving in the direction of AI created material. they have clearly defined worlds, characters, and basic interactions to work with. they have, in their own sense, a working "game engine" to develop further material. (not surprisingly, all of them also have video games based on these worlds)

A.I. is an 'actor' in the philosophical sense... but it can never be a dramatic performer that engages with other performers for the sake of entertaining an audience. it is purely input-output oriented.

if the point of this thread is really "would you watch a Deep Fake character performance? " then this is a very different sort of question.

In the Mandalorian there was a body double but not in Book of Boba Fett.

[Mister Mets]

If you were to imagine the best comic book movie or something, you don't think anyone else would like it? I honestly don't think people in general are that niche or particular in their thinking - it's why Hollywood blockbusters exist now. And the question about moral lessons, or challenging films v. crowd pleasers has been going on for decades. (most recently about Marvel)

I don't think AI would be capable of making something excellent with broad appeal.

But it could zero in on very narrow interests.

Look at how the Youtube algorithms go to very specific material catered to the user, rather than promoting material with wide appeal. The increase in options for available product generally (which wil skyrocket if AI makes it possible for a hobbyist to "make" a movie) leads to people being more splintered into niches, with a major decline in shared frames of reference.

[AndrewCrossett]

...if it literally gets to the point where it's advanced enough that there is no discernable difference, and it's being ethically done as proposed in the opening post, then why does it matter to you?

I want art, not product. Only people produce art.

AI as a tool is OK, as long as the creative decisions are made by a human. If humans are no longer needed to produce art, then there is no longer any need for humans.

I used to be a pretty enthusiastic adopter of new technologies. But the 21st century has turned me into a true luddite. We are using technology for the wrong things.

[HollowSage]

I want art, not product. Only people produce art.

AI as a tool is OK, as long as the creative decisions are made by a human. If humans are no longer needed to produce art, then there is no longer any need for humans.

I used to be a pretty enthusiastic adopter of new technologies. But the 21st century has turned me into a true luddite. We are using technology for the wrong things.

What is art? That is not so easily defined. People have been trying for centuries.

I have also seen animals create what many would call works of art so it’s not only produced by humans. Almost anything can be art depending on who you ask.

[j9ac9k]

I want art, not product. Only people produce art.

AI as a tool is OK, as long as the creative decisions are made by a human. If humans are no longer needed to produce art, then there is no longer any need for humans.

I used to be a pretty enthusiastic adopter of new technologies. But the 21st century has turned me into a true luddite. We are using technology for the wrong things.

What if the director was still the director - they just had total control over their AI actors. It would be the human director "creating" the film. Would that still fit your conception of art?

[phonogram12]

I want art, not product. Only people produce art.

More and more these days, it seems as if more and more people are just interested in product. This is especially evident when said people feel that they're more qualified than the people making the art.

I used to be a pretty enthusiastic adopter of new technologies. But the 21st century has turned me into a true luddite. We are using technology for the wrong things.

Remember when we thought all future tech would take care of all the things we hated doing (like chores) and give us more time to do the things that we enjoy (like art?)?

[hyped78]

I was reading this thread, especially the opening post by The Cool Thatguy and I was thinking of something. On one of the floors at work there are several art paintings and there is a sign there saying “Give money to living artists. The dead ones don’t need it”

This is one of the reasons why I think I wouldn’t be interested in AI actors (I am referring specifically to dead ones) becoming a norm in the industry.

[AndrewCrossett]

What if the director was still the director - they just had total control over their AI actors. It would be the human director "creating" the film. Would that still fit your conception of art?

In a sense, probably. But I would boycott such a movie because its purpose would be to put humans out of work in favor of machines.

This is the true "Great Replacement"... trying to create a world in which human endeavor and creativity is irrelevant.

[AndrewCrossett]

Remember when we thought all future tech would take care of all the things we hated doing (like chores) and give us more time to do the things that we enjoy (like art?)?

Yep... and those predictions always conveniently glossed over how we'd make a living if we weren't doing any work.

What it comes down to for me is: Human minds produce art; machine minds produce code.

If machines can produce art, then we should give them citizenship and full human rights.

[j9ac9k]

Tech has already been replacing people and artists. We stopped needing professional photographers with their darkrooms - were people crying about them? Our phones can replace an entire film crew. Are they less worthy of respect as the actors or do we only care about the actors because we can see them? Or has the tech offered new opportunities for human expression? Will more people simply shift focus and take on jobs creating AI rather than develop painting or acting skills? Or maybe it's like anything else - it will find a place alongside what's come before, even if they all have to share. Things will change, but humanity will hold onto what it values. Theater didn't wipe out literature, movies didn't wipe out theater, tv didn't wipe out movies, the computer hasn't wiped out tv, etc. I mean, who knows? Maybe AI actors onscreen will lead to a resurgence of theater for people wanting something more real.

All new tech encounters pushback. People weren't initially onboard with "that fancy math with the numbers" at first either replacing their own prenumerate methods. This step along the advancement of technology is certainly a more attention-grabbing one, but it's been happening all along. I haven't drawn any lines in the sand yet in terms of my morals regarding this issue, (the sand is still shifting) but it's been an interesting topic of discussion.

[hyped78]

Tech has already been replacing people and artists. We stopped needing professional photographers with their darkrooms - were people crying about them? Our phones can replace an entire film crew. Are they less worthy of respect as the actors or do we only care about the actors because we can see them? Or has the tech offered new opportunities for human expression? Will more people simply shift focus and take on jobs creating AI rather than develop painting or acting skills? Or maybe it's like anything else - it will find a place alongside what's come before, even if they all have to share. Things will change, but humanity will hold onto what it values. Theater didn't wipe out literature, movies didn't wipe out theater, tv didn't wipe out movies, the computer hasn't wiped out tv, etc. I mean, who knows? Maybe AI actors onscreen will lead to a resurgence of theater for people wanting something more real.

All new tech encounters pushback. People weren't initially onboard with "that fancy math with the numbers" at first either replacing their own prenumerate methods. This step along the advancement of technology is certainly a more attention-grabbing one, but it's been happening all along. I haven't drawn any lines in the sand yet in terms of my morals regarding this issue, (the sand is still shifting) but it's been an interesting topic of discussion.

You are entirely correct, but I think the potential impact of AI will be larger than some of the other tech innovations that we've witnessed. And I don't mean "just" for movies and TV.

But you make an excellent point and it's clear that people are resistant to change, including disrupting tech changes.

[j9ac9k]

But you make an excellent point and it's clear that people are resistant to change, including disrupting tech changes.

I think it's good that we as a people have these conversations that question technology and its implications as we move forward. Better to move cautiously than go in blind and let it run amok.