The idea doesn't even make sense. Scarlett Johansson is Scarlett Johansson because there's one of her. You can make infinite copies of an AI "actress", so there's no scarcity that actually makes...
The idea doesn't even make sense. Scarlett Johansson is Scarlett Johansson because there's one of her. You can make infinite copies of an AI "actress", so there's no scarcity that actually makes its inclusion in a movie valuable.
Sure, you can copyright it, but there nothing stopping someone else from making another "actress" that basically looks and sounds just like it.
To me the idea seems absurd less because of scarcity and more because it feels like it ignores the whole reason that big names are thrown front and center on posters to sell movies: lots of people...
To me the idea seems absurd less because of scarcity and more because it feels like it ignores the whole reason that big names are thrown front and center on posters to sell movies: lots of people think "I like this person's work" and go to see it. I don't personally foresee enough people ever having that thought about any AI character to make those projects make any sense.
To pick just a random movie, take Bob Odenkirk off the poster of Nobody and now the name is also the list of all the people that would bother to see it.
Eh think you’re underestimating the potential value. Brand images are insanely valuable even though there’s no “Betty Crocker” and theres certainly no Master Chief but both move sales.
Eh think you’re underestimating the potential value.
Brand images are insanely valuable even though there’s no “Betty Crocker” and theres certainly no Master Chief but both move sales.
But Betty Crocker is famous because of the baked goods, not the other way around. There's hundreds of mascots who are completely forgotten. Which is not to say that memorable ones aren't valuable,...
But Betty Crocker is famous because of the baked goods, not the other way around. There's hundreds of mascots who are completely forgotten. Which is not to say that memorable ones aren't valuable, but it's not automatic.
I mean, when the mascot is the product, such as an AI actor, i'm assuming that will not be the case. Again you've got plenty of animations with characters who are "linked" to their voice actors,...
I mean, when the mascot is the product, such as an AI actor, i'm assuming that will not be the case.
Again you've got plenty of animations with characters who are "linked" to their voice actors, and this is just one step farther. And that's before you get into the weirder stuff like "Fake relationships" and what not that are found in a variety of scenes.
The only real point of failure to this, which I think is huge, is getting something that is actually anywhere near that good. The parasocial relationships thing we've got piles and piles of evidence people are fine with. It's just the uncanny valley and making it worth the hassle(since now you're replacing one actor and their team with a literal team of people and software that make the actor) that's the stumbling block I see.
To be clear I don't see this panning out any time soon because of those issues, just don't think the OP's take maps to the many many examples we've seen otherwise. Hell vtubers are already basically this.
I think it is shocking to see how close VFX are at replacing humans, that most people don't realize. I have been binging Corridor Crew on YouTube recently and it is shocking to see how much of...
The only real point of failure to this, which I think is huge, is getting something that is actually anywhere near that good. The parasocial relationships thing we've got piles and piles of evidence people are fine with. It's just the uncanny valley and making it worth the hassle(since now you're replacing one actor and their team with a literal team of people and software that make the actor) that's the stumbling block I see.
I think it is shocking to see how close VFX are at replacing humans, that most people don't realize. I have been binging Corridor Crew on YouTube recently and it is shocking to see how much of movies are subtle VFX that people do not realize. A prime example is when they are talking with Weta FX and this shot they replaced Will Smith's face convincingly. They talk about how they are rendering pores stretching and simulating melanin to get convincing skin and facial expressions. So I think a strong enough team could escape the uncanny valley. The problem becomes, is it cost effective vs. hiring an actor? Then you have logistics of one person being artificially replaced and then the other human actors would have to act around a CGI character (doable, but does add complexity) or scaling up the cost significantly and doing AI for every character
Yeah that's, to me, where the real discussion lies. At the end of the day, an actor can show up and shoot the scene. Yes the set and crew has to be ready, but you can do a LOT with a little...
Yeah that's, to me, where the real discussion lies.
At the end of the day, an actor can show up and shoot the scene. Yes the set and crew has to be ready, but you can do a LOT with a little depending on budgets and needs.
Taking an existing actor and adjusting things in post vs just straight up fabricating one for every scene strikes me as something that's a lot of work when you can just put a person in a green suit and have them move around, but then do you get the chemistry and the unplanned reactions that can make some scenes?
Obviously animation has been planning out scene by scene since forever and there's no improv to make the scene there, but animation is notoriously expensive for that exact reason. I do see the cost of the next generation of actors mostly going down, as AI can be used to smooth things out or fix scheduling conflicts/stuff in post, but I'm also not sure it's ever going to be worth all the effort it's going to take compared to "hey show up on set and read your lines".
Yes. And they take one step farther without realizing why that mascot became iconic to begin with. You need to make people resonate with the character before you proceed to have them sell out....
The only real point of failure to this, which I think is huge, is getting something that is actually anywhere near that good.
Yes. And they take one step farther without realizing why that mascot became iconic to begin with. You need to make people resonate with the character before you proceed to have them sell out. There is no Master Chief if Halo 2 didn't become a household name and the face of online gaming. There is no Pikachu if the Pokemon games and anime didn't proceed to define an entire cultural movement.
I simply don't see the next AI mascot because the people trying to push this initiative don't understand the art they strive to replicate. And they clearly aren't trying to recruit artists into their pipeline (that runs counter to their marketing).
This strikes me as kinda naive. Had AI been around pikachu would’ve been designed with it. Same with just about any other example. Massive corporations stumble on gold all the time because they...
This strikes me as kinda naive.
Had AI been around pikachu would’ve been designed with it. Same with just about any other example. Massive corporations stumble on gold all the time because they pay the people who create it. Shit someone came up with baby yoda and printed Disney millions.
The only reason this is even a question is because it’s an AI being used to replace a person and I think we’ve covered that.
Also I take great issue implying Halo wasn’t always a house hold name after the (much better) Halo 1.
This seems highly presumptuous of the creative process. The feedback from the artist community clearly does not suggest this. As well as Nintendo's own "wait and see" stance when asked at board...
Had AI been around pikachu would’ve been designed with it.
This seems highly presumptuous of the creative process. The feedback from the artist community clearly does not suggest this. As well as Nintendo's own "wait and see" stance when asked at board meetings. I do not think Nintendo would jump on it immediately 30 years prior.
Now Halo with Microsoft? Probably. Would it succeed with it? I'm not too confident. Reading the hell to get Halo 2 out the door makes me think any other monkey wrench thrown in would ruin that very critical moment. Also, consider that console development 20 years ago didn't leave room for bugs to fix on a day one patch. They had one real shot and any miss could change the entire course of history.
The only reason this is even a question is because it’s an AI being used to replace a person and I think we’ve covered that.
The question is a question because the post asks it in the title, yes. A tautology indeed.
Calling me naive because you have a different opinion on the main question being asked and only arguing against my examples under this assumption that there's wide acceptance of AI to begin with really doesn't give me much of an impression that we "covered" anything. We just made assumptions and are speculating more. Very bad speculation in the case of one example, in my eyes.
I think the question is whether a character can become enough of a draw to appear in different video games or movies that had nothing to do with the original story. Suppose someone writes a story...
I think the question is whether a character can become enough of a draw to appear in different video games or movies that had nothing to do with the original story.
Suppose someone writes a story where there's a fictional character in a story, and another (similar-looking) fictional character who is the actor in that story?
Of course it's all fiction, but it could get pretty meta.
I see nothing stopping it. We have universes with characters interacting when they're outside the spotlight, and we have collabs across different universes. Likewise, we've had VA's and other...
I see nothing stopping it. We have universes with characters interacting when they're outside the spotlight, and we have collabs across different universes. Likewise, we've had VA's and other creatives behind the creations do live touring and commenting.
Now, would there be any mass appeal having some AI character appear "in real life"? Hard to say, but I sure do know that making an AI version of a dead person to attract an audience is about as dystopian as you can get.
If that's our timeline, I'd rather they experiment with tarnishing the creations rahter than the creator.
Hatsune Miku and the entire Vocaloid genre prove that virtual stars can be exceptionally profitable when their image is curated and, most of all, well marketed. This is a natural and healthy...
Hatsune Miku and the entire Vocaloid genre prove that virtual stars can be exceptionally profitable when their image is curated and, most of all, well marketed.
In the same vein, the AI vtuber Neuro-sama also has a following. Given how willing humans are to form attachments even to LLMs (see also all the recent stories of people confiding in and taking...
In the same vein, the AI vtuber Neuro-sama also has a following.
Given how willing humans are to form attachments even to LLMs (see also all the recent stories of people confiding in and taking advice from ChatGPT), it definitely feels too early to rule out an AI actor also taking off.
Let’s not forget all the AI music that flooded Spotify the past few years that most people couldn’t even differentiate. Not that I think all this is healthy whatsoever. It’s bleak if anything.
Let’s not forget all the AI music that flooded Spotify the past few years that most people couldn’t even differentiate.
Not that I think all this is healthy whatsoever. It’s bleak if anything.
Neuro-sama's human creator interacts with her on-stream on a regular basis and is a major part of the draw of her character. I would not use Neuro-sama as supporting evidence for the viability of...
Neuro-sama's human creator interacts with her on-stream on a regular basis and is a major part of the draw of her character. I would not use Neuro-sama as supporting evidence for the viability of a fully AI actress.
Telling stories generally requires multiple people in a scene, but I think actors tend to become popular based on their own individual performances or their irl personality etc. Neuro-sama is...
Telling stories generally requires multiple people in a scene, but I think actors tend to become popular based on their own individual performances or their irl personality etc. Neuro-sama is never giving just an individual performance, so I don't think she's a good precedent in this case.
I would argue Miku and voice synth characters aren't comparable and not really "virtual stars". It seems to me like a "virtual star" is more of a controlled image, like an idol. A fictional...
I would argue Miku and voice synth characters aren't comparable and not really "virtual stars". It seems to me like a "virtual star" is more of a controlled image, like an idol. A fictional character that's meant to imitate a real celebrity; one with an unique pleasant personality, talented, maybe someone with an inspiring backstory that makes them endearing to the public. See Kizuna Ai, Gorillaz, wrestlers. Or actual idols, even.
Miku isn't that. She's a mascot for a company and for the community of people that make songs using her. She has no background, no personality associated with her beyond a couple lines; any semblance of that is something that her fans have projected on her as a creative endeavour. Same goes for almost any voicebank character. Even though Crypton makes massive bucks off of selling her image, her image doesn't actually convey anything. Even if the holographic concerts might suggest otherwise, Miku was never presented under any pretense that she was akin to a virtual person.
I would say the same about Neuro-sama, to answer @well_known_bear's comment; although Neuro-sama is a bit closer to being sold as a virtual person, there's no keyfabe there nor any pretense of her being a virtual star; she is very clearly presented as a guy's tech project being used for entertainment on his stream.
Tilly Norwood isn't that, from my understanding. Their goal definitely seems to make her into a 'virtual star' who you're supposed to idolize and like as if she were another celebrity, or even a person not so far from you and me. This is more dangerous and also less likely to work.
Specific fictional characters can be copyrighted. Try cloning Disney's version of Snow White and see how far it gets you. But the question is what it takes to build a brand. Apparently, appearing...
Specific fictional characters can be copyrighted. Try cloning Disney's version of Snow White and see how far it gets you.
But the question is what it takes to build a brand. Apparently, appearing in a hit movie would do it?
I suppose one difference is that actors can play multiple roles, but then again so do Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny, to some extent. They don't have a lot of range, but...
I feel crazy that I need to even say this, but I am sincerely hoping we don't see AI actors becoming mainstream in film productions. I think that there are some inherent innate human desires that...
I feel crazy that I need to even say this, but I am sincerely hoping we don't see AI actors becoming mainstream in film productions.
I think that there are some inherent innate human desires that will cause pushback on this. Under a framework of Feminist Aesthetics, I think the human desire for a modicum of reality in mimesis is stronger than AI companies realize. In any other era, this would be super cynical, but I think most people are unable to fully detach the parasocial feelings that come with any public figure, especially movie stars. There are entire industries dedicated to feed off of celebrity parasocial relationships. I think that the entire concept that makes a "a famous actress/actor" needs the additional feelings that exist off of the silver screen. It's what adds interest and intrigue to them. Quite humanly, I don't think that can't exist for a famous celebrity. Even if it's as minor as "oh, I liked them in film XYZ, so I'm going to see them in ABC," there's a human element there. This isn't even getting into tabloids, celebrity culture (i.e. online fan groups for actresses), caring about the opinions that they post online, conventions, signed photos, etc. etc.
I think that ultimately, people want their celebrities to be someone they could theoretically interact with in the real world. I think that human beings are too inherently wired for this to accept an AI generated replacement.
But also, one can weigh the economic 'weight' of a certain star appearing in a movie. Given that movies take time and effort to shoot, there's a certain 'quantity' of an actor/actress that can exist in movie releases for a set time. Not everyone is Nicholas Cage in the 2000s. The limited quantity drives up value.
Then there's the issue of a character who's a digital model, that can/will almost immediately be used in the most depraved content imaginable. I don't think any company would want their actor or actress participating in certain types of content. Not only is there the risk of brand damage, but also the secondary immediate issue of a character being shown in content so horrifying it becomes associated with the character. (I am just imagining the potential Streisand Effect of a Snuff Film, staring Tilly Norwood as both victim(s) and perpetrator(s))
I think there's a risk for commercials and other minor unimportant acting to be done with AI, and that's definitely another messed up thing to add to the pile, but I don't think the fame of celebrity can be achieved with AI.
This AI image has an Instagram dedicated to it; there's no reason that it can't be making (carefully tailored) hot takes and selfies on a daily basis. Almost no parasocial attachment depends on...
This AI image has an Instagram dedicated to it; there's no reason that it can't be making (carefully tailored) hot takes and selfies on a daily basis. Almost no parasocial attachment depends on the person's physical presence.
Beyond that, you've never seen AI smut of an actual actress? Anyone of any fame at all gets an AI model made of them that's used for smut. This "actress" will be like every other actress that way.
And like every other famous person, she'll have a shelf life for a given kind of media. At some point the company who owns this model might decide that a snuff film actually will make the most money as they replace it with another model. There's no reason to assume eternal value for a given style of model.
Luce has been in plenty of supremely depraved depictions and is doing fine. For anyone not in the know, Luce is the anime mascot of the Vatican City and Roman Catholic church. People are fine with...
Luce has been in plenty of supremely depraved depictions and is doing fine. For anyone not in the know, Luce is the anime mascot of the Vatican City and Roman Catholic church.
People are fine with separating the image of the two when it's a mascot versus rule34.
Besides, Disney will still slap the highlights out of your hair with lawyers if you monetize their AI creation.
I appreciated a take I saw on Reddit about this: it's hardly surprising that the first prominent AI "actress" is called an adult, looks 16, and will do whatever a skeevy director tells her to. The...
I appreciated a take I saw on Reddit about this: it's hardly surprising that the first prominent AI "actress" is called an adult, looks 16, and will do whatever a skeevy director tells her to.
At the very least she'll only do what the skeevy director tells her to do on the screen, as opposed to the varied concerning things that actual teenagers have been enticed or forced to do...
At the very least she'll only do what the skeevy director tells her to do on the screen, as opposed to the varied concerning things that actual teenagers have been enticed or forced to do offscreen. To that end, it's not a bad tradeoff.
Extra layer of gross: AI isn't capable of stealing acting jobs yet, but it's already effective at spooking greedy agents/guardians of real flesh and blood children into signing unfavourable...
Extra layer of gross: AI isn't capable of stealing acting jobs yet, but it's already effective at spooking greedy agents/guardians of real flesh and blood children into signing unfavourable contracts in race to the absolute bottom.
I must be getting old. What is that video trying to say? Is it just a fan compilation of shots of her looking pretty? I hate that most TikTok and Instagram videos leave me feeling more bewildered...
I must be getting old. What is that video trying to say? Is it just a fan compilation of shots of her looking pretty?
I hate that most TikTok and Instagram videos leave me feeling more bewildered than clued in... the aging is REAL y'all
Yeah it’s called an edit. Theres ones that have different tones and editing styles, this one is more “thirsting” but it can take other forms like say a darker toned edit for a villain character in...
Yeah it’s called an edit. Theres ones that have different tones and editing styles, this one is more “thirsting” but it can take other forms like say a darker toned edit for a villain character in a movie.
Edits have been a thing since the 2010s, originating from tumblr but were super rough and posted on YouTube. 2018/2019 is when the modern edit was born thanks to TikTok. One of the first ones I ever saw was on Twitter and it was of AOC.
Nah man I relate to that. I came to TikTok kind of late, only installing it in 2023 as opposed to when most people did in 2020. Seeing the way a lot of these videos are stylized hurt my brain in...
Nah man I relate to that. I came to TikTok kind of late, only installing it in 2023 as opposed to when most people did in 2020. Seeing the way a lot of these videos are stylized hurt my brain in the beginning. So there was a time when it didn’t make sense to my virgin eyes.
There used to be AMVs (Anime Music Video) and FMVs (Fan Music Video) on early YouTube, which seem similar. Plus compilations and tributes. The term "edit" has replaced all those older terms it seems?
There used to be AMVs (Anime Music Video) and FMVs (Fan Music Video) on early YouTube, which seem similar. Plus compilations and tributes. The term "edit" has replaced all those older terms it seems?
Now that I had to search on YouTube, I think those would fall under the term edit. This is more in line with what I was talking about in terms of the tumblr era stuff. If you want to see how far...
I don't really see this working until the tech gets a lot better, but I also don't really see it as this huge deal that everyone needs to be upset about.
I don't really see this working until the tech gets a lot better, but I also don't really see it as this huge deal that everyone needs to be upset about.
The idea doesn't even make sense. Scarlett Johansson is Scarlett Johansson because there's one of her. You can make infinite copies of an AI "actress", so there's no scarcity that actually makes its inclusion in a movie valuable.
Sure, you can copyright it, but there nothing stopping someone else from making another "actress" that basically looks and sounds just like it.
To me the idea seems absurd less because of scarcity and more because it feels like it ignores the whole reason that big names are thrown front and center on posters to sell movies: lots of people think "I like this person's work" and go to see it. I don't personally foresee enough people ever having that thought about any AI character to make those projects make any sense.
To pick just a random movie, take Bob Odenkirk off the poster of Nobody and now the name is also the list of all the people that would bother to see it.
Eh think you’re underestimating the potential value.
Brand images are insanely valuable even though there’s no “Betty Crocker” and theres certainly no Master Chief but both move sales.
But Betty Crocker is famous because of the baked goods, not the other way around. There's hundreds of mascots who are completely forgotten. Which is not to say that memorable ones aren't valuable, but it's not automatic.
I mean, when the mascot is the product, such as an AI actor, i'm assuming that will not be the case.
Again you've got plenty of animations with characters who are "linked" to their voice actors, and this is just one step farther. And that's before you get into the weirder stuff like "Fake relationships" and what not that are found in a variety of scenes.
The only real point of failure to this, which I think is huge, is getting something that is actually anywhere near that good. The parasocial relationships thing we've got piles and piles of evidence people are fine with. It's just the uncanny valley and making it worth the hassle(since now you're replacing one actor and their team with a literal team of people and software that make the actor) that's the stumbling block I see.
To be clear I don't see this panning out any time soon because of those issues, just don't think the OP's take maps to the many many examples we've seen otherwise. Hell vtubers are already basically this.
I think it is shocking to see how close VFX are at replacing humans, that most people don't realize. I have been binging Corridor Crew on YouTube recently and it is shocking to see how much of movies are subtle VFX that people do not realize. A prime example is when they are talking with Weta FX and this shot they replaced Will Smith's face convincingly. They talk about how they are rendering pores stretching and simulating melanin to get convincing skin and facial expressions. So I think a strong enough team could escape the uncanny valley. The problem becomes, is it cost effective vs. hiring an actor? Then you have logistics of one person being artificially replaced and then the other human actors would have to act around a CGI character (doable, but does add complexity) or scaling up the cost significantly and doing AI for every character
Yeah that's, to me, where the real discussion lies.
At the end of the day, an actor can show up and shoot the scene. Yes the set and crew has to be ready, but you can do a LOT with a little depending on budgets and needs.
Taking an existing actor and adjusting things in post vs just straight up fabricating one for every scene strikes me as something that's a lot of work when you can just put a person in a green suit and have them move around, but then do you get the chemistry and the unplanned reactions that can make some scenes?
Obviously animation has been planning out scene by scene since forever and there's no improv to make the scene there, but animation is notoriously expensive for that exact reason. I do see the cost of the next generation of actors mostly going down, as AI can be used to smooth things out or fix scheduling conflicts/stuff in post, but I'm also not sure it's ever going to be worth all the effort it's going to take compared to "hey show up on set and read your lines".
Yes. And they take one step farther without realizing why that mascot became iconic to begin with. You need to make people resonate with the character before you proceed to have them sell out. There is no Master Chief if Halo 2 didn't become a household name and the face of online gaming. There is no Pikachu if the Pokemon games and anime didn't proceed to define an entire cultural movement.
I simply don't see the next AI mascot because the people trying to push this initiative don't understand the art they strive to replicate. And they clearly aren't trying to recruit artists into their pipeline (that runs counter to their marketing).
This strikes me as kinda naive.
Had AI been around pikachu would’ve been designed with it. Same with just about any other example. Massive corporations stumble on gold all the time because they pay the people who create it. Shit someone came up with baby yoda and printed Disney millions.
The only reason this is even a question is because it’s an AI being used to replace a person and I think we’ve covered that.
Also I take great issue implying Halo wasn’t always a house hold name after the (much better) Halo 1.
This seems highly presumptuous of the creative process. The feedback from the artist community clearly does not suggest this. As well as Nintendo's own "wait and see" stance when asked at board meetings. I do not think Nintendo would jump on it immediately 30 years prior.
Now Halo with Microsoft? Probably. Would it succeed with it? I'm not too confident. Reading the hell to get Halo 2 out the door makes me think any other monkey wrench thrown in would ruin that very critical moment. Also, consider that console development 20 years ago didn't leave room for bugs to fix on a day one patch. They had one real shot and any miss could change the entire course of history.
The question is a question because the post asks it in the title, yes. A tautology indeed.
Calling me naive because you have a different opinion on the main question being asked and only arguing against my examples under this assumption that there's wide acceptance of AI to begin with really doesn't give me much of an impression that we "covered" anything. We just made assumptions and are speculating more. Very bad speculation in the case of one example, in my eyes.
I think the question is whether a character can become enough of a draw to appear in different video games or movies that had nothing to do with the original story.
Suppose someone writes a story where there's a fictional character in a story, and another (similar-looking) fictional character who is the actor in that story?
Of course it's all fiction, but it could get pretty meta.
I see nothing stopping it. We have universes with characters interacting when they're outside the spotlight, and we have collabs across different universes. Likewise, we've had VA's and other creatives behind the creations do live touring and commenting.
Now, would there be any mass appeal having some AI character appear "in real life"? Hard to say, but I sure do know that making an AI version of a dead person to attract an audience is about as dystopian as you can get.
If that's our timeline, I'd rather they experiment with tarnishing the creations rahter than the creator.
Hatsune Miku and the entire Vocaloid genre prove that virtual stars can be exceptionally profitable when their image is curated and, most of all, well marketed.
This is a natural and healthy evolution.
In the same vein, the AI vtuber Neuro-sama also has a following.
Given how willing humans are to form attachments even to LLMs (see also all the recent stories of people confiding in and taking advice from ChatGPT), it definitely feels too early to rule out an AI actor also taking off.
Let’s not forget all the AI music that flooded Spotify the past few years that most people couldn’t even differentiate.
Not that I think all this is healthy whatsoever. It’s bleak if anything.
Neuro-sama's human creator interacts with her on-stream on a regular basis and is a major part of the draw of her character. I would not use Neuro-sama as supporting evidence for the viability of a fully AI actress.
Isn't that better? Actors play off each other and you'd want the AI and human actors to be able to play together.
Telling stories generally requires multiple people in a scene, but I think actors tend to become popular based on their own individual performances or their irl personality etc. Neuro-sama is never giving just an individual performance, so I don't think she's a good precedent in this case.
I would argue Miku and voice synth characters aren't comparable and not really "virtual stars". It seems to me like a "virtual star" is more of a controlled image, like an idol. A fictional character that's meant to imitate a real celebrity; one with an unique pleasant personality, talented, maybe someone with an inspiring backstory that makes them endearing to the public. See Kizuna Ai, Gorillaz, wrestlers. Or actual idols, even.
Miku isn't that. She's a mascot for a company and for the community of people that make songs using her. She has no background, no personality associated with her beyond a couple lines; any semblance of that is something that her fans have projected on her as a creative endeavour. Same goes for almost any voicebank character. Even though Crypton makes massive bucks off of selling her image, her image doesn't actually convey anything. Even if the holographic concerts might suggest otherwise, Miku was never presented under any pretense that she was akin to a virtual person.
I would say the same about Neuro-sama, to answer @well_known_bear's comment; although Neuro-sama is a bit closer to being sold as a virtual person, there's no keyfabe there nor any pretense of her being a virtual star; she is very clearly presented as a guy's tech project being used for entertainment on his stream.
Tilly Norwood isn't that, from my understanding. Their goal definitely seems to make her into a 'virtual star' who you're supposed to idolize and like as if she were another celebrity, or even a person not so far from you and me. This is more dangerous and also less likely to work.
Specific fictional characters can be copyrighted. Try cloning Disney's version of Snow White and see how far it gets you.
But the question is what it takes to build a brand. Apparently, appearing in a hit movie would do it?
I suppose one difference is that actors can play multiple roles, but then again so do Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny, to some extent. They don't have a lot of range, but...
Interest copyright question.
Currently I thought you could not copyright AI generated content.
I feel crazy that I need to even say this, but I am sincerely hoping we don't see AI actors becoming mainstream in film productions.
I think that there are some inherent innate human desires that will cause pushback on this. Under a framework of Feminist Aesthetics, I think the human desire for a modicum of reality in mimesis is stronger than AI companies realize. In any other era, this would be super cynical, but I think most people are unable to fully detach the parasocial feelings that come with any public figure, especially movie stars. There are entire industries dedicated to feed off of celebrity parasocial relationships. I think that the entire concept that makes a "a famous actress/actor" needs the additional feelings that exist off of the silver screen. It's what adds interest and intrigue to them. Quite humanly, I don't think that can't exist for a famous celebrity. Even if it's as minor as "oh, I liked them in film XYZ, so I'm going to see them in ABC," there's a human element there. This isn't even getting into tabloids, celebrity culture (i.e. online fan groups for actresses), caring about the opinions that they post online, conventions, signed photos, etc. etc.
I think that ultimately, people want their celebrities to be someone they could theoretically interact with in the real world. I think that human beings are too inherently wired for this to accept an AI generated replacement.
But also, one can weigh the economic 'weight' of a certain star appearing in a movie. Given that movies take time and effort to shoot, there's a certain 'quantity' of an actor/actress that can exist in movie releases for a set time. Not everyone is Nicholas Cage in the 2000s. The limited quantity drives up value.
Then there's the issue of a character who's a digital model, that can/will almost immediately be used in the most depraved content imaginable. I don't think any company would want their actor or actress participating in certain types of content. Not only is there the risk of brand damage, but also the secondary immediate issue of a character being shown in content so horrifying it becomes associated with the character. (I am just imagining the potential Streisand Effect of a Snuff Film, staring Tilly Norwood as both victim(s) and perpetrator(s))
I think there's a risk for commercials and other minor unimportant acting to be done with AI, and that's definitely another messed up thing to add to the pile, but I don't think the fame of celebrity can be achieved with AI.
This AI image has an Instagram dedicated to it; there's no reason that it can't be making (carefully tailored) hot takes and selfies on a daily basis. Almost no parasocial attachment depends on the person's physical presence.
Beyond that, you've never seen AI smut of an actual actress? Anyone of any fame at all gets an AI model made of them that's used for smut. This "actress" will be like every other actress that way.
And like every other famous person, she'll have a shelf life for a given kind of media. At some point the company who owns this model might decide that a snuff film actually will make the most money as they replace it with another model. There's no reason to assume eternal value for a given style of model.
Luce has been in plenty of supremely depraved depictions and is doing fine. For anyone not in the know, Luce is the anime mascot of the Vatican City and Roman Catholic church.
People are fine with separating the image of the two when it's a mascot versus rule34.
Besides, Disney will still slap the highlights out of your hair with lawyers if you monetize their AI creation.
I appreciated a take I saw on Reddit about this: it's hardly surprising that the first prominent AI "actress" is called an adult, looks 16, and will do whatever a skeevy director tells her to.
The future is gross.
At the very least she'll only do what the skeevy director tells her to do on the screen, as opposed to the varied concerning things that actual teenagers have been enticed or forced to do offscreen. To that end, it's not a bad tradeoff.
Extra layer of gross: AI isn't capable of stealing acting jobs yet, but it's already effective at spooking greedy agents/guardians of real flesh and blood children into signing unfavourable contracts in race to the absolute bottom.
Related links:
https://www.tillynorwood.com/
https://www.instagram.com/tillynorwood/
I think Betteridge's law of headlines applies here.
Why do AI grifters keep going after Scarlett Johansson?
Generational face card
I must be getting old. What is that video trying to say? Is it just a fan compilation of shots of her looking pretty?
I hate that most TikTok and Instagram videos leave me feeling more bewildered than clued in... the aging is REAL y'all
Yeah it’s called an edit. Theres ones that have different tones and editing styles, this one is more “thirsting” but it can take other forms like say a darker toned edit for a villain character in a movie.
Edits have been a thing since the 2010s, originating from tumblr but were super rough and posted on YouTube. 2018/2019 is when the modern edit was born thanks to TikTok. One of the first ones I ever saw was on Twitter and it was of AOC.
Thanks for the context. I still don't get it but at least I have vocabulary for it now, haha.
Nah man I relate to that. I came to TikTok kind of late, only installing it in 2023 as opposed to when most people did in 2020. Seeing the way a lot of these videos are stylized hurt my brain in the beginning. So there was a time when it didn’t make sense to my virgin eyes.
There used to be AMVs (Anime Music Video) and FMVs (Fan Music Video) on early YouTube, which seem similar. Plus compilations and tributes. The term "edit" has replaced all those older terms it seems?
Now that I had to search on YouTube, I think those would fall under the term edit. This is more in line with what I was talking about in terms of the tumblr era stuff.
If you want to see how far this stuff has evolved here's an edit for the movie Baby Driver, a random Anime edit I found, and an edit of Jenna Ortega and one of Ariana Grande
I don't really see this working until the tech gets a lot better, but I also don't really see it as this huge deal that everyone needs to be upset about.
if S1m0ne (2002) is any reflection of this, it’ll be terrible.