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
“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
Source: www.theguardian.com
