Seriously though, practically I just don't understand how this would work unless the entire movie was just CGI, AI Generated, whatever to begin with if real actors are supposed to work with a fake thing like this.
So if the technical challenges are solved and the AI acting is quite good, that changes your view of it?
> I just don't understand how this would work unless the entire movie was just CGI... if real actors are supposed to work with a fake thing like this.
Actors have worked alongside CGI characters for many decades, I remember watching Who Framed Roger Rabbit in the late 80s.
I find it easy to imagine some disabled, or disfigured, otherwise blocked-from-stardom person using tech like this to transform themselves and be able to express their truth without being unfairly judged by the physical form they were born into.
But that's not what we're talking about, is it? Be honest.
If you want to impress me, well, I'm a techie nerd. Make a furry celebrity actress, that's the expression of a person. Like a Hollywood-grade implementation of a VTuber. Let 'em be driven by a person that I can get to know and recognize. In this day and age I'm not wedded to forcing everybody to be trapped in the form they're born in, still less so in art.
But this is NOT what we're talking about. You're going to have an AI by committee, drawn from a pandering mass of popular reactions, producing problems not unlike modern-day movies that try so hard to pander to the audience at any given moment that there's no weight to them and no point to any of it.
Here's hoping we also get the other thing. Sort of 'T-pain autotune turned into a style' but for acting. And again, I'm down with it if it's letting artists execute on realities they are otherwise completely unable to reach. But that's not what we're going to get, is it?
Outside of a select number of A-list actors, are there situations where the other 85-90% of actors are able to express their truth today?
One of the common problems with creative industries (and the primary reason I switched away from pursuing game development) was that you're not expressing your truth; you're expressing someone else's truth in exchange for money. And unless you have lots of other intangible and often uncontrollable qualities, and are willing to play politics, you will probably never end up in a position to express your truth (with any degree of notoriety) through your own or other people's work.
I am not disabled or disfigured, and while I'm blocked-from-stardom that's just because I have a fairly uninteresting existence overall that wouldn't warrant it on it's own. So I can only guess at this stuff from an outside perspective, but from where I sit, I don't see AI as a sea-change enabler for the people you're referring to.
Reminds me of a James Tiptree Jr. novella although in this case it's a remote-controlled artificial body instead of a remote-controlled digital avatar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Girl_Who_Was_Plugged_In . Avoiding spoilers, it doesn't exactly make one think that such avatarism would be a particularly good idea by the end of the story.
That "if" seems to be the running thing with everything AI right now. "If" we can fix hallucinations. "If" we can make it actually think and reason. "If" we can make a general AI system. And so on.
"IF" we actually hit that point that these systems can create truly creative genuine work instead of being nothing more than predictive engines than maybe we can revisit this conversation. But the fact is we are not there and we are nowhere near there considering we are still just iterating on the fundamental problem of these just being predictive engines.
> Actors have worked alongside CGI characters for many decades, I remember watching Who Framed Roger Rabbit in the late 80s.
Yes you are right, but there is a pretty massive difference between knowing what the fake thing will do that is already scripted, storyboarded, etc (ultimately controlled by a human the entire time) vs an AI thing that will be an unknown.
2. Your issue on the "how do actors work alongside AI characters" is that actors won't be able to do a good job themselves because it's not storyboarded enough for them? That AI characters aren't rigid enough?
Do you have any studies or data to back this up other than "trust us" from the companies pushing the models?
And how much "reduced". It is still a fundamental issue that is just being pushed under the rug since it is inconvenient for them to talk about anymore.
> There are, in fact, reasoning models.
Simulated (fake) reasoning models. They are still fundamentally LLM's talking to itself which goes back to the fundamental issue of hallucination and a complete inability for anything original.
Also this "reasoning" has been shown in multiple studies to fall flat on its face with complex issues because it is not true reasoning. There is no intelligence or "thinking" behind it.
> The "ifs" are not as theoretical as you imply.
My reason for saying it is because it always seems when someone is critical of claims being made the response is 1 of 2 things.
1. Trying to ignore the concerns and just say that it can already do X, its magic, its whatever.
Or 2. It is all about the promise. All about what it may supposedly one day be able to do "if" we can just fix this one thing that isn't somehow a huge fundamental issue.