2 ms·

I think it's mainly hitching on to a pop culture moral outrage, vs an actual pressing issue.

• anigbrowl 3y ago
  I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you think that because you don't know any professional actors. It's hard work but it used to be possible to make a living as a working actor without necessarily being famous. That looks increasingly difficult. There's a lot of skill required to do the job well and those skills aren't just transferable to other work contexts.
  • gedy 3y ago
    I am replying to: > Am I the only one who genuinely doesn't "get" the AI component of the actor strike? and that blaming "AI" for not being able to make a living as a working actor is kind of a red herring.
    • anigbrowl 3y ago
      I know, and it's already been clearly stated in the thread that the objection is background actors being paid for a day, scanned, and the AI-generated figure being used for the equivalent of many days' work.
  • Turing_Machine 3y ago
    It used to be possible to make a living shoeing horses, which also requires a lot of non-transferable skills. There are still people who shoe horses, of course, but not as many by probably a couple of orders of magnitude. I don't want to seem callous toward actors in particular, but why are they more important than farriers? Hand weavers? People whose job was to pick up buckets of raw sewage from the backs of houses?