Fuck AI

Don't you have to star in something before you can become a film star?

The word "star" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that headline.

Unsurprisingly, she's pretty and so bland as to not offend anyone. For looks, I like actors and actresses that look a little off, think, Anna Taylor-Joy's wide-spaced eyes, or Sandra Bullock's strong nose. AI acting will have no quirks, no "oops" that makes a better scene, no ad libbing, no going off script, nothing human. At this point in AI development, there's an uncanny valley. Some still images of humans can work for me but those are rare, not sure how they make those.

These things will never age, never get better, explore other options in their "career". Remember when everyone shit bricks at Tom Cruise playing a bad guy in Collateral? While we're at it, everyone shit bricks at his superb version of the vampire LeStat. How interesting would Brad Pitt be is he had the same looks and skills as he had in the 90s?

Anyway, if you didn't read the article, this is not about what you think. She says. If this were merely the creator experimenting, that would count as creativity in my book. But FFS, she's shopping this thing around and then telling us it's not meant to replace actors. Bull. Shit.

What makes it a star? Has it 'starred' in any thing that did well?

“People are realizing that their creativity doesn’t need to be boxed in by a budget – there are no constraints creatively and that’s why AI can really be a positive,” continued Eline. “It’s just about changing people’s viewpoint.”

What does this even mean? Agreed, creativety doesn't haved to be limited by a budget, you can implement workarounds (Blair Witch Project), but those workarounds require creativity and not whatever this fellow is pitching.

Whatever happened to the "first cgi actress"!? Oh that's right, nothing...

https://finalfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Aki_Ross

"AI offers another way to imagine and build stories. I'm an actor myself, and nothing — certainly not an AI character — can take away the craft or joy of human performance," she added.

So, why are you trying to do just that...? You literally are taking away the human performance.

The next Scarlett Johansson? Is AI going to pull off a Marriage Story level performance?

I use ai tools to fix spreadsheets, make schedules, and help me solve technology problems. I find it useful.

This just seems demented. This is a twisted caricature of a person that is just what studios and producers want. This is born of greed. Now your favorite "celebrity" can be sold to everyone. They can do cat food commercials. They can speak at any function. They can be sold as a virtual ai friend in your phone and they won't ask for a penny. GREED.

I don't shed tears for rich celebrities, but if making shows and movies with fake actors becomes the norm, the performing arts will be reduced to a sad husk.

Some might argue that the player piano did not replace pianists, but they're not looking at the whole picture. Technology that created automated and recorded music did replace a whole lot of live music, and musicians.

I'm sure the studios and the jackwagon "actor" who stuck her name on this will say that this is a means of expression and that the artist is not the brush, but they instead control the brush.

Not buying it. This is one place that should not be encroached upon. Without performers who think, feel and emote, the performances will be hollow. Of course, once it takes over, most people won't know the difference.

Sorry I'm not into six fingered women