That's not how AI will take over Hollywood. Most likely, it will be hybrid work, when good but broke actors will sign contracts that allow studios train and use their AI avatars in future movies and promotional materials.
Is there a name for the rhetorical device/fallacy where you portray your opposition as being mad, so as to weaken their argument by making it look emotional in nature?
Who knows if this is that, but this made me realize that pattern is a part of this era.
> A producer's film is endangered when his star walks off, so he decides to digitally create an actress to substitute for the star, becoming an overnight sensation that everyone thinks is a real person.
Aside from "AI is going to take my job" what is their complaint? The "quotes" from real actors don't really have any substance:
- “Wow … no thanks,”
- “I hope this backfires in every way humanly and well… Non humanly possible.”
- “F*k off.”
I guess this just fits under my general "Horse drivers mad that cars exist" categorization. These tools lower the bar of entry (just like they can lower the bar to entry of programming when used correctly) but I don't quite understand why we need to protect jobs from AI.
Maybe I'm completely out of touch but I look at LLMs and I'm not concerned for job (in tech). Sure, my job will/has changed but it's always changing, I've never understood people who expect to learn a job then never have to learn anything else ever again.
I'll apologize in advance if this sound callous, it's not meant to be that way. Technology comes for everyone/everything eventually, that's life and it's not like we can just stop the forward march of technology. If we do we will become irrelevant on the global stage.
Part of it is a cult of celebrity, when you have people who are often feted for being mindblowingly famous/rich/both for "what they can do", used to being worshipped for their "unique talent", not hearing "no", then... that will also affect this.
This whole thing reeks of a plant. I never heard a word about this, and I work in the entertainment industry, until this week. I'm going to assume this is manufactured attention trying to legitimize something that doesn't actually exist until proven otherwise.
10 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 25.7 ms ] threadWho knows if this is that, but this made me realize that pattern is a part of this era.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
S1m0ne ("Simone", or "Simulation One") https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258153
> A producer's film is endangered when his star walks off, so he decides to digitally create an actress to substitute for the star, becoming an overnight sensation that everyone thinks is a real person.
- “Wow … no thanks,”
- “I hope this backfires in every way humanly and well… Non humanly possible.”
- “F*k off.”
I guess this just fits under my general "Horse drivers mad that cars exist" categorization. These tools lower the bar of entry (just like they can lower the bar to entry of programming when used correctly) but I don't quite understand why we need to protect jobs from AI.
Maybe I'm completely out of touch but I look at LLMs and I'm not concerned for job (in tech). Sure, my job will/has changed but it's always changing, I've never understood people who expect to learn a job then never have to learn anything else ever again.
I'll apologize in advance if this sound callous, it's not meant to be that way. Technology comes for everyone/everything eventually, that's life and it's not like we can just stop the forward march of technology. If we do we will become irrelevant on the global stage.