But it's icky because the issue of remuneration for legacy actors remains the unspoken part here. Actors train for their whole lives and these models have the potential to undermine the value of these actors.
this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2025
41 points (84.7% liked)
Technology
69154 readers
3041 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Why would they change? The AI tools in movie industry have been doing miracles for decades. Especially when it comes to tracking and replacing things in footage, which jumpstarted the new era of CGI. OP, do you also want to ban movies like Avatar?
Yes! The CG on Avatar took away jobs from real Navi that could have played the part. But they had to get them to look exactly like the human actors. Pathetic.
Its probably better this way.
Otherwise you end up with people accusing movies of using AI when they didn't.
And then there's the question of how you decide where to draw the line for what's considered AI as well as how much of it was used to help with the end result.
Did you use AI for storyboarding, but no diffusion tools were used in the end product?
Did one of the writers use ChatGPT for brainstorming some ideas but nothing was copy/pasted from directly?
Did they use a speech to text model to help create the subtitles in different languages, but then double checked all the work with translators?
Etc.
Otherwise you end up with people accusing movies of using AI when they didn’t.
Or worse, all movies lying into everyone's face that they don't use AI much like they have been doing with the 'No CGI' lies in recent years.
Those rules actually seemed pretty reasonable to me. Shitty, obvious uses of AI will obviously not win Oscars.
Ahh the great hivemind pendulum where if something is hyped and has some notable cons, it’s time to throw it away completely and resist it without prejudice.
This is happening with crypto too. To me, it just signals that a person is highly receptive to adopting whatever the hivemind tells them to think without question.
Obviously crypto and AI have some properties that make them utterly horrible (especially in the hands of bad people). But they also have some properties that have the capability to revolutionize or accomplish certain things like no other technology can.
No one seems to acknowledge this dichotomy when they’re unflinchingly under the influence of the hivemind. For example, I’m ~~100% positive that this comment will get downvoted heavily~~ pretty sure I’d be ratioed for saying this on Mastodon.
I’m 100% positive that this comment will get downvoted heavily
Don't worry, buddy, I'll get you started. 🫡
I don't have a problem with AI in filmmaking but I'd have a problem if AI actors were suddenly winning awards in the acting category.