It has been more than a week since SAG-AFTRA, the actors’ union, went on strike, shutting down production for numerous TV shows and movies. Even though I read about it on the news (CNN’s 5 Things and The Morning and The Evening from the New York Times!!), I always just assumed they were on strike to get higher wages. However, after reading that famous actors and actresses were also parading down the streets, I was curious as to why they wanted more money. So, I consoled my father about this debacle. I learned that it is not that they would like higher wages, it’s that they are trying to safeguard themselves from a future controlled by AI. But why are they afraid of artificial intelligence, because isn’t a key factor to being a good actor the ability to show raw emotion? How could a computer generate a human characteristic?
First of all, AI is unbelievably powerful. Recently I watched the live-action remake of The Little Mermaid. Although a few parts were a bit off (like the sound of bubbles while swimming), the hair, the tails, the light reflection, and many aspects of being underwater looked accurate and realistic. Because it’s hard to tell what the computer produced and what the creators actually filmed, imagine how simple it would be to increase the use of AI until it replaces background actors and animators and sound effect people, and half of the people who are needed to create movie magic.
Now, comes the part questioning what AI can actually do in the foreseeable future. One way that movies and TV shows gain popularity and make people enjoy watching the show is that the actor or actress’s face is enjoyable to look at. No casting director is going to take the average Joe off the street and put him as the star of the next big movie, one main reason being that Joe’s face won’t catch people’s attention. However, train an AI to analyze “pretty” people’s facial features and it can come up with the next Tom Cruise or Emma Watson. That will catch moviegoers’ attention, influencing them to watch the show.
It’s not just creating a face as the star of a show, AI can replace anyone who shows their face onscreen. Background actors, especially, can be easily substituted for an animated figure. However, it is conflicting in my mind. While my dad was explaining this to me, I felt unrest. It seems off that a computer would generate a person. If AI can perfect how a person acts, does that mean that it understands the human language, maybe even better than how we understand it ourselves?
Another contrary point is how Artificial intelligence gets its information. If Chat GPT is trained with Disney movie scripts, it creates a totally new story, but only through analyzing the past. It does not create a new idea inspired by Disney, it would only add in new characters and change the setting. Chat GPT would not think of a new philosophical argument based on human nature to add to the script. So, does that mean that if ChatGPT were to write an article, using information from past findings and not technically adding in anything new, it would be plagiarizing from its sources? If Chat GPT were to read articles on Medium and then create the script for an Oscar-winning movie, should the Medium writers get paid? I know that this is more about the Writers Guild of America strike rather than SAG-AFTRA, but they both are interconnected.
One safeguard for famous actors and actresses may be that people watch movies because they are in it. Although people always watch movies starring actors and actresses that they do not know, which can then be replaced with AI, those famous real-life people will still draw in crowds. However, with the new generation of people coming in and growing up with AI, sooner or later this may be our future: we sit on our couch, eyes glued to the TV; The end credits role, only showing a technology company, which created the show–nothing truly filmed, no person truly acting, everything in some ways, pure imagination. (By the way, Wonka comes out this December!)
