4 ms·

> audiences aren’t interested in watching computer-generated content untethered from the human experience. Then what are they worried about? If this is true th

> audiences aren’t interested in watching computer-generated content untethered from the human experience. Then what are they worried about? If this is true then it is not a job threat to human actors. But Pixar proved that it isn't true for their actors made of pixels, so why would it become true when the pixels are arranged with the help of AI?

Cthulhu_ 1y ago
That companies send a LOT of money to the "owners" of this animation instead of people linked to their union. Which is valid, but also, it's not a new thing - some years ago there was an AI generated model already that was huge on Instagram, or video game characters (Lightning from FFXIII was a Louis Vuitton model), animated characters (Hatsune Miku is decades old by now), there's thousands if not more influencers/personalities with generated appearances (vtubers), etc. I don't think it's as big as the media makes it out to be, but there's rumours that people are willing to send money to the company behind the character, if that hasn't happened already, which is of course triggering outrage.
- dylan604 1y ago
  Just you wait until the unions decide they need more members to collect dues from, and decide it is worth their while to represent AI talent.
  - nar001 1y ago
    How? They're not actual people, companies don't need a union to represent AI characters because AI characters don't need any breaks or good worn conditions, because they're not real
    - falcor84 1y ago
      I've seen unions do many things that don't seem to make sense at first sight (and often not subsequently either). But in this case, it does make perfect sense to me - unions like SAG-AFTRA could claim that AI-generated "actors" used for speaking roles unfairly displace their own members while not paying union fees. So as part of their negotiations with the studios, they could demand that such "AI actors" would be registered in SAG-AFTRA as due paying actors [0]. [0] (For human actors) These are currently set at an initiation fee of $3,060, annual dues of $241.32 plus work dues of 1.575% of covered earnings up to $1M - https://www.sagaftra.org/membership-benefits/membership-costs https://www.sagaftra.org/membership-benefits/membership-cost...
rtkwe 1y ago
Animated movies are still moved and voiced by humans with individual choices. AI models take a lot of that out and smear it down to a lowest common denominator kabuki of whatever 'personality' it's been tweaked/prompted to approximate.
- petercooper 1y ago
  OK, but if "audiences aren’t interested in watching computer-generated content untethered from the human experience" then the AI versions won't steal business from the actors.. Yes, I'm being facetious, the reality is that audiences will watch that stuff, just like audiences will use AI generated apps or listen to AI generated music, and SAG-AFTRA knows that.
slightwinder 1y ago
> Then what are they worried about? Maybe that the industry is getting destroyed by greedy managers, before they figure out that it's harmful? > But Pixar proved that it isn't true for their actors made of pixels, so why would it become true when the pixels are arranged with the help of AI? Animated Characters are obviously fake, while still having real humans creating them. AI-Chars are somewhere in the uncanny valley, unreal, orchestrated.

Cthulhu_ 1y ago

That companies send a LOT of money to the "owners" of this animation instead of people linked to their union. Which is valid, but also, it's not a new thing - some years ago there was an AI generated model already that was huge on Instagram, or video game characters (Lightning from FFXIII was a Louis Vuitton model), animated characters (Hatsune Miku is decades old by now), there's thousands if not more influencers/personalities with generated appearances (vtubers), etc. I don't think it's as big as the media makes it out to be, but there's rumours that people are willing to send money to the company behind the character, if that hasn't happened already, which is of course triggering outrage.

dylan604 1y ago
Just you wait until the unions decide they need more members to collect dues from, and decide it is worth their while to represent AI talent.
- nar001 1y ago
  How? They're not actual people, companies don't need a union to represent AI characters because AI characters don't need any breaks or good worn conditions, because they're not real
  - falcor84 1y ago
    I've seen unions do many things that don't seem to make sense at first sight (and often not subsequently either). But in this case, it does make perfect sense to me - unions like SAG-AFTRA could claim that AI-generated "actors" used for speaking roles unfairly displace their own members while not paying union fees. So as part of their negotiations with the studios, they could demand that such "AI actors" would be registered in SAG-AFTRA as due paying actors [0]. [0] (For human actors) These are currently set at an initiation fee of $3,060, annual dues of $241.32 plus work dues of 1.575% of covered earnings up to $1M - https://www.sagaftra.org/membership-benefits/membership-costs https://www.sagaftra.org/membership-benefits/membership-cost...

rtkwe 1y ago

Animated movies are still moved and voiced by humans with individual choices. AI models take a lot of that out and smear it down to a lowest common denominator kabuki of whatever 'personality' it's been tweaked/prompted to approximate.

petercooper 1y ago
OK, but if "audiences aren’t interested in watching computer-generated content untethered from the human experience" then the AI versions won't steal business from the actors.. Yes, I'm being facetious, the reality is that audiences will watch that stuff, just like audiences will use AI generated apps or listen to AI generated music, and SAG-AFTRA knows that.

slightwinder 1y ago

> Then what are they worried about? Maybe that the industry is getting destroyed by greedy managers, before they figure out that it's harmful? > But Pixar proved that it isn't true for their actors made of pixels, so why would it become true when the pixels are arranged with the help of AI? Animated Characters are obviously fake, while still having real humans creating them. AI-Chars are somewhere in the uncanny valley, unreal, orchestrated.