3 ms·

Why limit yourself to Tom Hanks when the AI can soon create better expression, with quirks and all. The recognizability advantage will fade away as new audience

• MisterBastahrd 3y ago
  But it can't, which is why star actors will continue to be star actors. It will take far more money and effort effort to get an AI actor right than just shooting multiple takes of an actual human being to begin with. These strikes are not for the stars. They're for the rank and file actors who make up the vast majority of the union. The ones who might appear in straight-to-video shows or maybe be a short-term character who doesn't even have a name. I know a guy who is an actor out in LA. He works at a Universal Studios theme park for his day job, but he's also appeared in the opening scene in 1923.... a character who was shot by one of the leads but who didn't even have a name. He was also a character in the Pam and Tommy Lee show, played a part in a short-lived live action Scooby Doo show (along with his wife), etc. People like that aren't rolling in the dough. They're not getting a ton of residual checks. And the power of unions say that people like that get a voice too. Besides, automation of this sort rarely makes lives better for anyone than at the top. Adding AI to this equation does not make the media cheaper for me. It just means fewer paychecks get cut for actors, and the money ends up getting deposited into the accounts of the executives who "saved the company money." Sorry, but I'd rather just not use AI if that's the case.