Director James Cameron referred to AI actors as “terrifying” and remarked that what generative AI technology generates is merely “average.”
Cameron told CBS on Sunday morning. As the third Avatar film, titled Fire and Ash, approaches its release, he discussed the groundbreaking technology utilized in the film. He expressed admiration for the motion-capture performance, calling it “a celebration of the actor-director moment” but voiced his concerns about artificial intelligence. “Go to the other side of the spectrum.” [from motion capture] There is also a generative AI that allows for character creation. They can compose actors and build performances from scratch using text prompts. No, it’s not like that. That’s unsettling to me. It’s the antithesis of what we are not doing. ”
He added, “I don’t want a computer to perform tasks that I take pride in doing with actors. I have no desire to replace actors. I enjoy collaborating with them.”
Cameron, who is associated with UK-based company Stability AI, mentioned that the creative advantages of artificial intelligence are constrained. “Generative AI cannot create something new that hasn’t been seen before. The model can be trained on all previous works, but it lacks the ability to innovate beyond existing creations. Essentially, it yields a human art form born from a blend of experiences, which results in something average. What you miss is the distinctive lived experiences of individual playwrights and the unique traits of specific actors.”
“It also compels us to maintain high standards and to continue to think creatively. The act of witnessing an artist’s performance in real time becomes sacred.”
the recent announcement of AI ‘actor’ Tilly Norwood, touted as the next Scarlett Johansson, has sparked a swift backlash in Hollywood. Here’s what Guardian readers are saying about the contentious emergence of AI actors.
“Of course they’ll do that.”
The focus is on economically produced entertainment rather than artistic merit. AI isn’t about creating great art; it’s about cutting costs by replacing human talent and accelerating production. Netflix has amassed 300 million subscribers, generating $400 billion in revenue against $17 billion in content expenses. The quickest way for Netflix to boost profits is to reduce content costs through automation. They already use AI for content decisions, catering to every viewer preference, from high art to low-budget dating shows. Netflix is committed to impactful storytelling, yet can’t risk losing high-value subscribers. It’s similar with the multitude of languages for shows like “Love Is Blind,” ensuring fans don’t abandon ship. If AI enables tech companies to outpace traditional studios by being faster and cheaper, of course, they’ll do it. STAK2000
“I don’t understand humor.”
Comedy is where AI really struggles. It doesn’t grasp humor, timing, or what makes something engaging. We’ve seen technically impressive yet entirely lifeless dialogue that left us unimpressed. We tuned in expecting surprises but found it utterly dull. Mattro
“I’m not saying it’s impossible, it’s just that we’re not there yet.”
99% of AI-generated films consist of individuals speaking directly to the camera. We’ve yet to see compelling interactions among multiple AI-generated characters. Dialogue is fragmented; it seems AI cannot create distinct characters that interact meaningfully. I’m not saying it’s impossible, it just hasn’t happened yet. cornish_hen
“It will come back to bite them.”
Hollywood executives may bet on Tilly Norwood to slash costs and enhance profits. However, if film enthusiasts start creating their own content using generative AI, it might backfire on the industry. I hope those investing in human talent will succeed, resisting this reckless AI trend. Data Day
“The genie is not going back in the bottle.”
It’s astonishing how quickly this technology has progressed.
Even if AI never stars in leading roles, it will undoubtedly have a presence in major productions. It serves as a tool like any other, fundamentally changing certain facets of media.
Individuals affected by this shift (and they will be) must remain calm and consider future career paths. The genie won’t be contained. I’m sure traditional trades reacted strongly to innovations by Gottlieb Daimler and Henry Ford; if AI-generated content proves beneficial and cost-effective, it’s here to stay. Abbathehorse
“My main concern is the lack of education.”
Those involved in advancing AI are pushing boundaries. It’s up to the rest of us, particularly regulators, to hold them accountable when they overstep. My chief worry is the widespread ignorance regarding AI’s potential benefits and threats. Many who aren’t directly impacted by AI don’t perceive the risk. Dasinternaut
Tilly Norwood. Illustration: YouTube
“I doubt I could support a character that is completely AI.”
I hope films featuring AI are clearly labeled. This allows us, the paying audience, to make informed decisions regarding productions. I’m not convinced I can endorse purely AI-generated characters (except perhaps in animated films). We form connections with human actors and invest emotionally in their performances. It might take generations to navigate this shift, but history shows that even vinyl, once thought dead, can become a highly sought-after commodity. Matt08
“It’s reminiscent of a Ballard short story.”
As I read this, I reflected on the multitude of individuals behind creating this “star.” Coders, scriptwriters, marketing teams— a network of humans furthering careers, but not necessarily existing narratives. However, it feels unsettling when the program is crafted to mimic humanity. It evokes themes from Ballard’s stories. glider
“It’s too late to be scared.”
The time for fear has passed.
Hollywood prioritizes profit over artistry.
Studios may justify hiring photographers, makeup artists, set designers, and caterers with the argument that AI can perform those roles while saving costs.
Films featuring real people—actors and many behind-the-scenes roles—may soon become as rare as ballet or opera.
However, fans of franchises like “Fast & Furious” or the Marvel Universe might not mind; they often seek visual stimulation that AI can deliver. gray
“Just a bunch of guys sitting around a computer.”
What unsettles me is the apparent committee behind creating this character, obsessively defining attractiveness. Is your skin not smooth enough? Let’s iterate again. Are the proportions not appealing? Revise it.
Not only does this seem disconcerting, but it also reinforces narrow standards of attractiveness. Successful actors often conform to idealized norms, but at least nature or fate had a role in that. It’s not just a few individuals coding at their computers. bearvsshark
“A meaningless concept.”
Nonetheless, this notion is essentially futile. Acting requires collaboration. An AI “actor” necessitates real substitutes and someone to voice lines. You can produce a completely AI-generated film (essentially a CGI effort) or a human-centric film with AI characters, but the label of “AI actor” remains devoid of meaning. pyeshot
“The public doesn’t attend or appreciate actual art.”
For those claiming “this is a live theater row,” it’s clear you need to step outside your bubble. The public shows little interest in genuine art; they desire polished, commercial products, be it a catchy pop song or a superhero flick. As long as these superficial desires are nurtured, AI-generated “art” will face no backlash. Authentic art, including work from skilled human artists, requires funding, and resources for it are dwindling, threatening its survival. Yes, there may be exceptional pieces, but I suspect they will become increasingly rare unless more people become educated and learn to appreciate art’s inherent values. LondonAmerican2014
“AI slops are what happens when an idea is executed straight away.”
One day, hopefully soon, people will realize that the friction between idea and execution is where 90% of creativity resides.
Great art springs from thorough preparation and exceptional performances, requiring time and sometimes multiple attempts.
This need for friction applies to all creative endeavors, not just art. Even mundane businesses thrive on this dynamic.
AI slops emerge when concepts are rushed to completion. While they may appear effective initially, the ideas often lack depth. Shakeydave
Becoming Hollywood’s most controversial figure is no small feat, especially with Mel Gibson still in the mix. Yet, in a career that has yet to truly begin, Tilly Norwood is making waves with Mind Corn.
The reason? Tilly Norwood is a fictional character created by an AI talent studio called Xicoia. Despite resembling a bizarre combination of Gal Gadot, Anna De Armas, and Vanessa Hudgens from her younger years, Norwood symbolizes a groundbreaking future for the film industry, at least according to Xicoia.
This weekend it was revealed at the Zurich Film Festival that Norwood is being marketed as the next Scarlett Johansson, with the studio eager to collaborate. However, it’s important to note that her mere existence raises concerns about the future of humanity, but that’s the reality of Hollywood.
So far, the backlash against Norwood has predominantly come from actors worried about job security. Melissa Barrera from Scream stated, “All actors should be represented by agents who drop A$$,” while Mara Wilson of Matilda commented. Ralph Ineson from Fantastic Four was even more direct, posting “Fuck off” in reference to Xicoia.
Remarkably, Norwood’s acting resume consists of just one AI-generated comedy sketch titled the AI Commissioner. “While I may be an AI creation, I’m feeling very real emotions right now,” Norwood shared on Facebook upon its release. “I can’t wait to see what’s next!”
Your reaction to such sketches may vary. Technically, it’s impressive to see lifelike movements on screen, but it’s also disconcerting and, at times, painful to watch. Seeing characters with unnaturally perfect teeth delivering stilted dialogues can be jarring. Notably, two months post-release, AI Commissioners accumulated only about 200,000 views, which is significantly less than Macaulay Culkin’s Hot Ones episode that reached 2.8 million views.
The potential threat is real for those in the entertainment industry who view Norwood and peers as inferior alternatives, especially given their lack of resources to establish their own identities. This is where AI talent, including actors, writers, and directors, comes into play. In essence, the future predicts that such replacements are inevitable, even if it leads to a surge of poor-quality content.
For some Hollywood executives, Norwood embodies the ideal actor—completely adaptable to the desires of directors and producers. There are no egos, no creative differences, and no exorbitant salaries or time-consuming physical changes to manage. If Norwood had starred in The Wizard of Oz instead of Judy Garland, Louis B. Mayer wouldn’t have had to resort to extreme measures to maintain her image. Isn’t that a perfect situation?
Ultimately, it is the audience who will determine whether AI becomes the new standard in filmmaking. Like so many aspects of Hollywood, its financial success will dictate Norwood’s viability more than any other factor. As a society, if we choose to invest in a manufactured character who struggles with inconsistent physical features, AI will likely persist for generations. Yet, we had similarly high hopes for 3D film technology when Avatar was released over ten years ago. It’s not hard to envision a scenario where this trend recedes after a few missteps.
Nevertheless, the silver lining is that we now know who the next Scarlett Johansson is supposed to be. If Hollywood is cashing in on this, I must caution them about Mr. Bonkibam, the whimsical character who simply painted a smiley face on his socks. He’s poised to be the next Tom Hanks, and he’s on the lookout for a lucrative deal.
The reasons audiobooks resonate are deeply human. They evoke moments that catch in the throat or a genuine smile when a word is spoken.
Melbourne actor and audiobook narrator Annabelle Tudor refers to narration as a storyteller’s innate ability, a fundamental and priceless skill. “The voice easily reveals our true feelings,” she explains.
However, this art form might be facing challenges.
In May, Audible, the audiobook service under Amazon, revealed plans to enable authors and publishers to narrate in English, Spanish, French, and Italian, using over 100 voices generated by artificial intelligence.
With a dwindling number of audiobook companies, emerging talents like Tudor are increasingly reliant on these opportunities, sparking concerns regarding job security, transparency, and overall quality.
Having narrated 48 books, Tudor is uncertain whether AI can replicate her work, yet fears that a dip in quality may alienate listeners.
“I once narrated a particularly explicit scene. The AI lacks understanding of how an orgasm sounds,” she remarks. “I’m curious to know how they plan to address such nuances, including more delicate scenes like childbirth.”
Audiobook Giant Audible claims it aims to use AI to enhance human narration rather than replace it. Photo: M4OS Photo/Aramie
The Audiobook Boom
A 2024 report from Nielseniq Bookdata indicates that over half of Australian audiobook consumers have increased their listening in the last five years. On an international scale, US audiobook sales have risen by 13% from 2023 to 2024. Meanwhile, the UK has seen audiobook revenues soar to £268 million, marking a 31% increase in 2023, as reported by the Publishers Association.
As demand for audio content surges, companies are seeking quicker and cheaper production methods. In January 2023, Apple unveiled a new catalog featuring AI-narrated audiobooks. Later that year, Amazon introduced a feature allowing self-published authors to convert their Kindle ebooks into audiobooks using “virtual audio” technology, resulting in tens of thousands of Audible titles now available in AI-generated formats.
Additionally, in February, Spotify announced support for AI audiobooks, making it easier for authors to reach wider audiences. Audible claims its goal is not to supersede human narrators but to enable more authors and titles to connect with larger audiences. In the US, Audible is testing audio replicas of audiobook narrators to create a unique voice, enhancing their capacity to produce high-quality audiobooks.
“In 2023 and 2024, Audible Studios has hired more [human narrators],” a spokesperson shared with the Guardian. “We continually engage with creators eager to have their work available in audio format and reach new audiences across languages.”
Yet, robot narrators remain a more economical choice than human talent, raising fears among industry professionals about potential job threats.
Volume vs. Quality?
Australian bestselling crime author Chris Hammer helped narrator Doge Swallow launch his career, highlighting a belief that AI narration is a tool designed by people who fail to grasp the intricacies, techniques, and skills necessary for quality audiobook production.
“Some assume we just press a button for a similar or sufficient quality result,” he notes.
Simon Kennedy, president of the Australian Audio Actors Association, mentions a long-standing struggle in Australia about fair remuneration for narrators. Recording an audiobook can mean narrators spend up to three times the length of the finished product for recording, not counting the initial read to understand the narrative and characters.
“In my view, AI narrators prioritize volume over quality and aim to cut costs,” he asserts.
In 2024, Kennedy founded the Australian Voice Subject Association in response to AI’s looming threat. In a submission to a parliamentary committee last year, the organization warned that 5,000 Australian voice acting jobs were at stake.
While not surprised by Audible’s recent announcement, he dismisses it as a “foolish decision.”
“Audiobook narrators hold a truly special and intimate connection with their listeners; pursuing an approach that lacks this connection is misguided,” he suggests.
Regarding voice cloning opportunities, he states that voice actors should be involved in the process, but warns that it may lead to a homogenized robotic voice that listeners quickly tire of.
“If a monotonous, emotionless narration suffices for ‘high quality,’ then perhaps,” he counters. “However, if you seek an evocative, captivating listening experience, don’t expect to find it there.”
Another pressing concern is the absence of AI regulations within Australia. The EU has its own AI ACT, while China and Spain also have measures in place, whereas Australia lacks regulations regarding the labeling of AI-produced content.
“No laws exist to prevent data scraping, voice cloning, or breeding deeper AI capabilities,” Kennedy explains. “There’s no labeling or transparency requirement for AI-generated material or its origins, nor any regulations governing the proper use of AI-generated deepfakes, audio clones, or text.”
Author Hannah Kent expresses concern that AI will “devalue creativity” in the arts. Photo: Carrie Jones/Guardian
This year, during the burial ceremony and dedication of her work, Author: Hannah Kentdropped with astonishment upon discovering that pirated copies of her work had trained meta AI systems. Despite initial resistance and frustration towards AI’s infiltration in creative spaces, she shows curiosity about Audible’s AI developments and the prospective trials for translating texts into various languages.
“It’s evident that the primary motive behind AI adoption is cost-efficiency. Its aim is to reduce artistic value and creative narratives,” Kent reflects.
Both Tudor and Swallow agree that large corporations struggle to fully substitute human narration, as many Australian authors express opposition.
Yet, it remains unclear whether audiences can discern the difference.
“We are rushing straight into a dystopia,” Tudor warns. “Will I listen to humans or robots?”
Hollywood video game performers have voted to go on strike, bringing parts of the entertainment industry back into strike action after new contract negotiations with major game studios collapsed over protections for artificial intelligence.
The walkout, the second by video game voice and motion-capture performers affiliated with the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Entertainers (Sag-Aftra), is set to begin on Friday at 12:01 a.m. This move comes after almost two years of negotiations over a new interactive media contract with gaming giants like Activision, Warner Bros., and divisions of The Walt Disney Co.
SAG-AFTRA negotiators state that while video game contracts cover wages and job security, studios are not willing to agree to regulate generative AI. Without safeguards, game companies could train AI to mimic actors’ voices or create digital replicas of their likenesses without their consent or fair compensation, as per the union.
In a prepared statement, union president Fran Drescher mentioned that members will not accept contracts that permit companies to misuse AI.
Company representatives did not immediately respond to email requests for comment.
According to game market forecasters, the global video game industry generates over $100 billion in revenue annually. New Zoo Sag-Aftola emphasized that the individuals who design and bring these games to life are what drives their success.
“Eighteen months of negotiations have shown that our employers are not interested in fair and reasonable AI protections, but rather in exploitative behavior,” stated Sarah Elmaleh, chair of the Interactive Media Agreement Negotiating Committee.
Last month, a union negotiator informed The Associated Press that game studios had declined to provide the same level of protection from AI risks for all members, especially motion picture performers.
Last year, union members overwhelmingly voted to authorize leadership to strike. Fears about how studios might utilize AI in a strike were intensified by AI. Last year, labor unions staged a four-month strike in the film and television industry.
The final interactive contract, expiring in November 2022, did not include protections for AI but established a bonus compensation structure for voice actors and performance capture artists following an 11-month strike that commenced in October 2016. This strike marked SAG-AFTRA’s first significant labor dispute since the merger of Hollywood’s two major actors unions in 2012.
According to the union, the video game contract covers more than 2,500 “off-camera (voice-over) performers, on-camera (motion capture, stunt) performers, stunt coordinators, singers, dancers, puppeteers, and background performers.”
Amidst tense interactive negotiations, SAG-AFTRA entered into a separate deal in February aimed at indie and low-budget video game projects. The Tiered Budget Independent Interactive Media deal consists of some of the AI protections that have been rejected by larger companies in the video game industry.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
