It's just absolutely disgusting and infuriating.
I hate ai just in principal alone, but how it can be used, misused and abused will be a nightmare. Let alone the sheer amount of environmental damage it'll do.
Hell no to it.
Will AI character such as Tilly Norwood replaces TV shows and movies to AI only and replaces all human actors?
- Thread starter Happy Hopping
- Start date
It's just absolutely disgusting and infuriating.
I hate ai just in principal alone, but how it can be used, misused and abused will be a nightmare. Let alone the sheer amount of environmental damage it'll do.
Hell no to it.
I actually would have preferred an AI principal, that guy sucked!
That's the truly terrible part. Bad enough we're destroying the planet so we could have nice cars and foreign holidays and all the meat we can eat, now we're destroying the planet just so we can all make funny videos or some Hollywood producer can save a few hundred thousand dollars.
I despise AI. I turn it off as much as I can on my devices and my browser (Duck Duck Go).
There's already plenty of thin, beautiful young women performing in smut videos and doing all kinds of degrading stuff, so I don't see why any particular CG puppet would catch on over any others. The "Tilly Norwood" avatar is attractive, sure, but is she more attractive than, say, these real amateur/small-time porn performers, who have real personalities, real quirks, and shag for real?
If anything, those who don't mind watching CG smut performers over real ones will probably want said avatars to be deepfakes of real celebrities, which obviously won't be monetized, so I doubt there'll be much dough to be made from it. And those who do get off on videos of women doing degrading stuff will probably always prefer videos of real women, because what's special about degrading an algorithm?
Also, anyone remember that 2014 chocolate commercial featuring a CG Audrey Hepburn? It sparked a very similar alarm to what we're hearing over this Tilly Norwood business. But most people who had an opinion on the commercial disliked its use of Hepburn's likeness, and most people overall didn't notice or care. Turned out there was no actual benefit to fake-resurrecting a long-departed celebrity, so no one else has bothered to do so since, AFAIK.
I suspect this Tilly Norwood story will end much the same way. Many people will viscerally dislike anything the avatar is used in, many won't notice or care, and pretty much nobody will go out of their way to see whatever product because of a CG avatar. And it'll turn out that hiring a real young and beautiful aspiring actress won't just be economical, it'll make better business sense, because she'll have an actual social media following, and it'll be a far better long-run bet on the off chance she does become famous, and the project gets retroactive recognition and play.
The primary CG danger to real performers is avatars taking the work of extras, which is probably inevitable. But nobody seeks out or buys a particular movie or show because of a background extra.
If anything, those who don't mind watching CG smut performers over real ones will probably want said avatars to be deepfakes of real celebrities, which obviously won't be monetized, so I doubt there'll be much dough to be made from it. And those who do get off on videos of women doing degrading stuff will probably always prefer videos of real women, because what's special about degrading an algorithm?
Also, anyone remember that 2014 chocolate commercial featuring a CG Audrey Hepburn? It sparked a very similar alarm to what we're hearing over this Tilly Norwood business. But most people who had an opinion on the commercial disliked its use of Hepburn's likeness, and most people overall didn't notice or care. Turned out there was no actual benefit to fake-resurrecting a long-departed celebrity, so no one else has bothered to do so since, AFAIK.
I suspect this Tilly Norwood story will end much the same way. Many people will viscerally dislike anything the avatar is used in, many won't notice or care, and pretty much nobody will go out of their way to see whatever product because of a CG avatar. And it'll turn out that hiring a real young and beautiful aspiring actress won't just be economical, it'll make better business sense, because she'll have an actual social media following, and it'll be a far better long-run bet on the off chance she does become famous, and the project gets retroactive recognition and play.
The primary CG danger to real performers is avatars taking the work of extras, which is probably inevitable. But nobody seeks out or buys a particular movie or show because of a background extra.
This is a Turkish animated film made with AI.
Moreover:
In addition to these, it has been noticed by the Turkish TV series viewers that some Turkish shows have started to produce AI scenes in which the producers of Turkish TV series shot with real actors say, "We can only do this camera movement with CGI, we would have to spend a lot of money, so forget about it, let's not do it."
This is like saying typewriter technician complaining you people using wordprocessor s/w so they are out of a job. The world technology changes thru time, eventually if it's a lot cheaper to use AI to generate a movie, surely it would make sense to do so than to pay $50M per actor to do a movie
Yeah. Sure it is.
What movies are you watching that have multiple actors getting paid fifty million?
The Avenger: End Game
Welcome to the future, where being a real person is no longer a requirement.
I also think we will see more and more projects featuring deceased actors and other entertainers in the future as well. While many estates will say no to AI celebrity resurrects, there will be some estates that will say yes, IMO, especially if the money is right.
I also think we will see more and more projects featuring deceased actors and other entertainers in the future as well. While many estates will say no to AI celebrity resurrects, there will be some estates that will say yes, IMO, especially if the money is right.
That had one actor who earned over fifty million, and that was partially thanks to the back-end.
Even if that were true, that movie has gone on to become the highest grossing movie ever, so I'd say the gamble paid off for them. Which is another thing to consider, 50 million might seem like a lot to pay an actor, in comparison to cheap AI, but if that actor puts butts in theatre seats, that more than justifies the cost. Do you have the same guarantees with an AI generated movie?
Its already here and its nearly indistinguishable from resl people in film. In a couple yesrs it will be more perfected. You cant put the genie back in the bottle everyone. A.I. is here to stay and as it gets more advanced the world will use it more. Unless its outlawed(it won't be) this is the world now. Enjoy these last couple yesrs before it truly permeates everything. Yup.
Last edited:
Max Headroom has joined the chat.
Except that you're misunderstanding the complaint here. Whether someone was writing their novel by hand, or on a typewriter, or on a word processor or computer, there's still a human being thinking up the plot and characters and themes. Visual effects evolved from stop-motion to motion control to CGI, but there are still humans using their artistic skills to create those effects. If you take that creative element away from people and replace it with AI-generated drivel, then what is the point of being human, other than to perform labor and buy things?
For background extras or digital stunt people, maybe. But for those giving actual performances? Not even close.
This sounds like a threat. Or, rather, it sounds like something someone who's disappointed with their life, and who feels their thoughts or creativity aren't valued by anyone, would say.