Would you watch AI actors?

[DrNewGod]

I suspect I would be more likely to watch a pure AI production if it the images weren't trying to look live action.

[The Gold Stream]

sure if the quality is there (natural sounding/looking voice/animation)

[Totoro Man]

Alan2099 covered a lot of the points I wanted to make. part of the thing that makes humanity interesting is that people can be very unpredictable.

any A.I. performance will necessarily be ANIMATED based on existing performances and reference material. this stuff is guaranteed to be copyrighted (or public domain, if it is old enough).

the sheer amount of time, money, and hard work it would take to "generate" an A.I. performance would make it prohibitively expensive. it would be cheaper to get a good actor to emulate the effects that you are looking for.

the CGI rendering of Grand Moff Tarkin in "Rogue One" doesn't count. Guy Henry did the vocal performance. presumably the CGI renders came next. then you've got to 'skin' the models. then they had to integrate it into the existing film footage to interact with live-action actors. Tarkin mostly worked - but Leia felt weirdly out of place.

a photo-realistic person requires a lot of work. getting believable animated performance is even more work. to make matters worse: once they start moving and performing complex tasks the 'gears' start showing. people can intuitively sense when something is completely artificial. (it's part of why motion capture is still used so prominently in CGI animation).

A.I. can certainly speed up the process of C.G.I. animated renderings. but it would still be cheaper to hire a human being and have them deliver a performance.

as Alan2099 already indicated, A.I. will not act against the code used to dictate its performance. it's never going to improvise or deviate from the material in an interesting way.

I don't see A.I. replacing human beings during my lifetime.

[HollowSage]

I think the hypothetical question posed assumes AI getting to the point where it is possible. The question is would you watch it, not is it possible.

[DanMad1977]

Would an AI win an Oscar for best Performance? Can we say then, that the AI was really good acting in that movie? Sounds weird.

I am old (45) and I want to drive my car and park my car for myself. My car is able to do it, but I just won't do it. I couldn't even stand watching The Irishman, because DeNiro and Al Pacino were looking so inhuman in them.

So, no. I won't watch AI movies.

I even try to avoid bad CGI. If I hear that the CGI of a movie isn't good, I will not pay to see it.

[achilles]

No, I would not. I object to the very concept. I want real, living people.

[HollowSage]

No, I would not. I object to the very concept. I want real, living people.

So you don’t watch animated movies?

[AndrewCrossett]

Only people make art. AI makes fake art.

So no.

I wonder how long before Humans Only starts to become an organized movement.

[Jim Kelly]

I think the hypothetical question posed assumes AI getting to the point where it is possible. The question is would you watch it, not is it possible.

Technology creeps on cat's paws. We are already watching movies that use some of the technology that may become artificial intelligence in the future. We won't be able to distinguish when that technology has become true artificial intelligence--it will just gradually dawn upon us, by which time we will be so immersed in it that we won't be able to go on without it.

[Mister Mets]

Assuming it's good, sure.

It doesn't necessarily have to be realistic. There are plenty of acting modes that don't go for realism.

I doubt it'll be that good, though.

[HollowSage]

Only people make art. AI makes fake art.

So no.

I wonder how long before Humans Only starts to become an organized movement.

I would bet money that most people won’t be able to tell the difference once it’s good enough. People are already being fooled by AI created deepfakes online. If you can’t tell the difference between fake art and real art does it matter?

[Jim Kelly]

I can't see humans never being involved in the creative process at some stage. Either at the beginning--turning on the machine. Or at the end--looking at the result. Maybe there's some job potential here, at the service industry level, where Joe and Jill Average are hired as quality control agents. They look at the result and sign off on it. They give it a stamp which says this product was made with human involvement and is therefore a legally "ethical" product.

[HollowSage]

I can't see humans never being involved in the creative process at some stage. Either at the beginning--turning on the machine. Or at the end--looking at the result. Maybe there's some job potential here, at the service industry level, where Joe and Jill Average are hired as quality control agents. They look at the result and sign off on it. They give it a stamp which says this product was made with human involvement and is therefore a legally "ethical" product.

One positive take would be a creator who has a great idea for a story but instead of taking that idea to a studio they use AI to bring that story to life. There has been a lot of focus on big corporations using AI to cut creatives out of the process. However those same creatives will also be able to use AI to cut out the big corporations.

[achilles]

So you don’t watch animated movies?

Heh, got me. No, I meant for live action movies.

[j9ac9k]

Assuming it's good, sure.

It doesn't necessarily have to be realistic. There are plenty of acting modes that don't go for realism.

I doubt it'll be that good, though.

How good would it really need to be? Look at some of the biggest movie franchises in the world and tell me how good are they?

"They drink the sand because they don't know the difference." -- President Andrew Shepherd