He’d sent an article about CGI artists in quite famous films recreating dead actors, so the specific job and description referenced did feel important to nail down. But yes in terms of ‘is this humanly possible before, yes, but I think we were having an apples an oranges convo ultimately.
I disagree. I also think you misunderstand what an editor does, unless you’re implying they could chop up existing performances to deliver infinite outcomes. They would not have been able to convincingly place any actor in a porn or force them to perform any dialogue w/o AI.
@zeldawilliams I understand the ethical concerns of power consumption and data stealing that come with AI, but I never got the “identity stealing” angle of it, because the AI can’t do anything someone who’s really good at editing couldn’t already do, it’s just easier now.
Drawing fan art can absolutely cross lines too, dont get me wrong, but its not usually crossing the line where people are fooled into believing the person/people pictured did that thing or believed something they did not. If we cross into lands of recreation where defamation of character or removal of their ability to consent come into play, CGI and AI should be punished similarly for fooling people. Its why I stated that in universe continuity approved by the actor or estate in the article you previously sent fall into a different category.
CGI recreation (w/ permission) is not the battle I’m waging, in the same way I have no issue with the artists who create prosthetics. Random people puppeteering a celebrity to fulfill their weird wishes is different than in universe performance continuity.
I cant tell if you’re posting a highlighted article by someone else or your own thoughts, highlighted for emphasis? Sorry haha can you clarify? I also think the basis of this entire debate is consent/permission, as the CGI artists you mentioned wouldve been punished for the lack of it and I would’ve opposed similarly, so not sure if there is anything else to say.
@JayKay1sMyName And there have been repercussions for abuses of those previous methods. They should apply here too, especially as tech becomes widely available and abused by laymen. Most of the talented artists you refer to knew they could make money by not abusing their subjects or abilities.
@JayKay1sMyName So you meant VFX artist. Got it. In that instance, were they do misuse their power in that way, they would’ve lost their job and likely been barred from many others. Because they understood they had responsibility to the scans of actors who consented to very specific usage.
If an actor doesn’t want to do a role, they turn it down. Who are any of us to make them perform whatever we want? Especially as themselves. If you cannot see the difference between an actor playing the role of Marilyn and using the woman herself as an avatar, I cannot help you.
@zeldawilliams I feel like I should agree with you. But then again, isn't that what actors have been doing for a long time? Creating and puppeteering fake and real people with costumes/CGI/motion-capture etc. Aren't we just talking about degree?
I stand by that no estate should have the power to give permission for this either. With the exception of living wills, the deceased who this would be used on could never have conceived of its uses or limits. Why would the living know their beliefs on a tech they never saw?
I don’t care how much you believe you ‘revere’ or love an actor- if you use tech to put words in their mouths or move them at your whim, things they never said or did, you were never actually a fan. You wanted to own them. They never ‘belonged’ to you. Grotesque.
The dehumanizing element of these various tech ‘advancements’ cannot be overstated. The second you are creating fake people or worse, puppeteering real ones with technology, you remove consent from the equation in a way that is absolutely harmful to all forms of performance.
The fact the below example uses a real woman who cannot consent to what is being put in her mouth or done with/to her body should clue you in on the dark future ahead. Absolutely obscene to believe you should get to control Marilyn like an avatar. She remains a human, even gone.
RIP Motion Capture.
China's ByteDance just dropped DreamActor-M1.
This AI turns any image into realistic, full-body human animations 🤯
10 wild examples:
1. Marilyn Monroe comes alive
Ive said it before, I’ll say it again: actors, start adding clauses to your contracts that fight dialogue you did not sign off on being put in your mouth. They’ll make it seem innocuous, even helpful in vids like this, but it can be used maliciously. You’re more than avatars.
Our software harnesses the power of generative AI to change filmed dialogue.
TrueSync opens a new world of possibilities from fast and efficient AI reshoots to the creation of immersive, visual translations, for any language around the world.
#GenerativeAI#Hollywood
As I dive into post on Lisa Frankenstein, I just wanna say how grateful I am to have worked with every single person in this photo. To have crossed the (production) finish line on my first film with all of you will remain one of the most joyful adventures of my life ❤️ thank you
“And once the storm is over, you won’t remember how you made it through, how you managed to survive. You won’t even be sure, whether the storm is really over. But one thing is certain. When you come out of the storm, you won’t be the same person who walked in.” - Haruki Murakami