Hollywood is fuming over a new 'AI actress' | Hacker News Reader

Hollywood is fuming over a new 'AI actress'

cnn.com

20 pointsBender20 comments

This headline reminds me of a great movie made on this exact subject:

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.

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.

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.

"u mad bro?" has been a staple of internet vernacular for over 20 years.

14 years, but that doesn't invalidate your point.

0: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=u...

No, it goes back to Cam'ron, here's an Urban Dictionary entry from 2004. [0]

I've been on the internet for a while. "u mad bro" is a variation of "u mad" which was coined basically immediately after and used throughout message boards and IRC for years prior to when Google Trends tracks it. Google Trends can be a nice tool, but it's not a primary source of early internet history.

[0] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=u%20mad&defi...

Also curious myself, because it does seem an exceptionally common framing device.

Supposedly that is why Obama was so demure, he never wanted to be dismissed as just an angry black man. Which is also what made the Anger Translator skit land home.

Poisoning the well?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

We're almost at the point where AI can generate a better Star Wars Episode 9 that actually makes sense.

A handful of Star Wars nerds could have written a better Episode 9 than the one that was released, no AI needed.

Timothy Zahn has proved what you're saying for years already. Turning that writing into a consumable 2.5 hour feature is the part I'm referring to.

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.

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.

That's unlikely to happen unless the studios offered the actor enough money to retire immediately.

We know this because the studios have already tried to do this and even Z-list actors expect 6-figure payments for the loss of control of their own image in perpetuity.

Yeah but forget about that.

Why do people watch movies? Theres a whole lot more going on than just someones image.

Trust me, there will be plenty of actors who will agree to that for $10K now plus something like 0.05% of box office later for every movie, just because they are broke.

I guess studios won't even need to do that, they will crank different versions of movies and A/B test them until perfection, with completely artificial characters, for different audiences.

[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45424840

I mean... we already have fake actors in every movie or TV show that is animated.

Nonsense. You know full well there are humans behind the production. Even in an animated movie, there is a human voice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com