• SGG@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    131
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sadly, I think they will get them, one way or another.

    All it will take is a handful of people desperate for money agreeing to be 3d scanned, and maybe a few months of interns saying yes/no to particular faces, and bam, hundreds of extras ready to be used and abused for decades to cover.

    • hoodatninja@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      116
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Which is why these union negotiations are so important. Sure, that will probably happen. But if SAG-AFTRA says they can’t be used on union shows, well, they won’t be lol

      When I first started in film any time I had a SAG actor there were requirements I had to adhere to for their pay and hours, no exceptions. And I live in a right to work state!

      • Kichae@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        And I live in a right to work state!

        Right-to-work is the work-for-welfare program. I would imagine it would have no impact on people who aren’t applying for social services.

        I’m assuming the overlap between right-to-work and at-will-empmloyment states is a near perfect circle, though. And the fun thing about at-will employment is that it’s totally nullified by an actual, mutually negoatiated employment contract, with, like, responsibilities laid on the employer and consequences for failing to perform them. You know, like what you get with a strong union.

      • bioemerl@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        44
        ·
        1 year ago

        But if SAG-AFTRA says they can’t be used on union shows, well, they won’t be lol

        Union shows immidiately get outcompeted by AI generation and all studios doing business with them go out of business.

        AI is the future here guys. Union won’t stop it. They’ll just drag Hollywood down with them.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          1 year ago

          Only if Hollywood wants to go completely non-union. Good luck with that. IATSE isn’t going to crow a movie if SAG-AFTRA and the WGA aren’t involved. Maybe they’ll find enough non-union crew to do a big time movie, but they’ll be making it in the Philippines.

          • bioemerl@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            16
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Or in America.

            In the long term, AI is going to be such a massive force multiplier that you’ll be able to get away with non union writers and actors.

            If all goes well you will be able to produce a film in your basement and have it rival the quantity of the current big boys. That will be a long while, but in the meantime any industry that loses a 2x productivity boost will die to its competition.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              18
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Maybe years down the road, but we’re talking about today. Making a non-union movie and expecting it to be something like a Marvel movie- it won’t. It will be a movie that will end up on Mystery Science Theater 3000 because it will suck.

              • bioemerl@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                A deal made today will still be in effect in a decade, and the use of AI is already in effect in smaller ways, especially with the deage tech.

        • hoodatninja@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          There’s a difference between “no AI allowed” (not what the unions are calling for) and “contracts need stipulations about AI usage” (reasonable).

          If you are not familiar with what is actually being negotiated over, then please don’t weigh in. WGA/SAG-AFTRA are not calling for an AI ban. Every time these debates come up armchair AI “advocates” swarm like cryptobros to call everyone backwards/ignorant/resistant to change regardless of the context.

          • bioemerl@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            There’s a difference between “no AI allowed” (not what the unions are calling for) and “contracts need stipulations about AI usage”

            If those contacts include paying actors as much as they would have needed to act and restricting it’s usage when writing scripts the difference is moot. If your erase all benefit to using AI it becomes worthless.

              • bioemerl@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                They 100 percent want to reduce AI usage so that writers can’t be automated away.

                Mr. August, a screenwriter for movies like “Charlie’s Angels” and “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” said that while artificial intelligence had taken a back seat to compensation in the Writers Guild negotiation, the union was making two key demands on the subject of automation.

                It wants to ensure that no literary material — scripts, treatments, outlines or even discrete scenes — can be written or rewritten by chatbots. “A terrible case of like, ‘Oh, I read through your scripts, I didn’t like the scene, so I had ChatGPT rewrite the scene’ — that’s the nightmare scenario,” Mr. August said.

                The guild also wants to ensure that studios can’t use chatbots to generate source material that is adapted to the screen by humans, the way they might adapt a novel or a magazine story.

                https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/29/business/media/writers-guild-hollywood-ai-chatgpt.html

                • hoodatninja@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  They 100 percent want to reduce AI usage

                  Yes I agree. That is what I’ve been saying this entire time.

                  I don’t see the problem. Want to use AI to fart out cheap written content or highjack someone’s script? Don’t use the studio system. It’s never been easier to shoot and distribute without Hollywood/unions.

                  Either way, AI isn’t banned from Hollywood. They are calling for regulation on specific use cases involving union writers.

          • bioemerl@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I use it every day. I didn’t say it was as that level. I said it would get there in the future.

    • zalack@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Crowd extensions are already pretty common with traditional VFX techniques.

      I worked in Hollywood editorial for a bit and, IMO, the producers are playing up the AI stuff so that said stuff can be given to the writers and actors as a “victory” instead of the real spectres in the room:

      • streaming residuals need to get the same payout and transparency as home video and syndication did

      • streaming numbers need to be made available to creators to facilitate the above.

      • the ‘mini-room’ system that totally disconnects writers from the productions they are writing for needs to be broken down.

      • Smoogy@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah I’m a bit confused why suddenly ‘being scanned’ is news. Digidoubles have Been commonly used for well over a decade now in film.

        • zalack@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s because the producers want their counterparts spending time, energy, and perceived social capital negotiating over it rather than the things the Producers actually worry about having to give up.

          IMO it’s pretty transparent, but creative people are pretty scared of AI right now so it might be a good bargaining tactic if they can get rank and file Union members to tie up the negotiatiors by reacting.

      • Toribor@corndog.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think a combination of 3d animation and ‘ai postprocessing’ is probably the most effective result.

        As much as I respect the rights of extras, they are expensive and easier to replace than lead actors. Disney already has things setup so extras never have to be on set with your lead actors, although you get a lot of backgrounds with ‘people just walking back and forth with no purpose’, but a bit more effort will mean those prefilmed backgrounds wont even require human actors, they barely do already.

      • sadreality@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yep, union can hardly stop that with a union contract and people will do it since they are not invested.

        Funny that studios did not bother avoid this easily avoidable fight but it does show you how they think if of their slave… I mean work force.

        They behave like they own you lol

    • RangerAndTheCat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hopefully people end up owning their likeness regardless if it’s a lengthy contract and are made to be paid fairly and compensated for streaming rights as well. I feel like we are approaching same time frame as non compete clauses becoming illegal in comparison to AI generated images/actors. They are already working to make their likeness illegal to be used for pornography. IMHO I think the actors and the writers s tricking together signifies a united front and could force change as long as the powers to be don’t bleed them out beforehand, but I’m hopeful with suck a strong backing social media wise and industry (the workers not the owners).

    • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Eventually the cg tech will get good enough that digital people can be used cheaply without even scanning anyone

    • foggy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Who needs a body scan or LIDAR data? Just use an LLM to make one up

    • Shadesto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t really see a problem with this. Is it so much different from making a good 3D model?

      We’re talking about assets that will be used for generating massive crowds. That’s already done with CGI. These scans aren’t even “AI”… they’re just like metahumans in Cryengine.

      This guy just put the term AI on it because it freaks everyone out.

      If you take the $200 for a motion and body scan and you sign your rights away, that’s what you get. This isn’t a change to how Hollywood already operations. Fear-mongering for nothing.

      • grandfunk@lemmy.fmhy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not what’s happening here. These extras are being paid the same to act in the background of a shot, just like always, but the studio expects them to give up the rights to their likeness forever after so they can try to replace them.

        The studio expects the extras to participate in the destruction of this job with nothing in return.

      • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem is that Hollywood could make it a requirement to work. All actors might be forced to get scanned and sign their likeness away.

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          And this is why unions are important. If it’s a single desperate person, then the big corporation gets its way. But if it’s a union, the corporation has to negotiate.

  • degrix@lemmy.hqueue.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I find it hard to believe that an industry that uses the Wilhelm scream repeatedly, everywhere, for over 70 years would suddenly want to reuse AI generated extras…

  • Yewb@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You know what? Make a new hollywood with real writers and real actors, lets see how long an AI trained on stale old stuff is going to be at creating a cohesive story with genuine emotion.

    I understand what bard, chatgpt, the image one can do but these are not going to break new frontiers anytime soon - the free market will sort it out im tired or the same old shit regurgitated in new formats because fucking execs are too scared to try anything new.

    Uncanny vally is going to make this fun.

    • Smoogy@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They’ll take ‘saving money’ up front over the fear of creeping out an audience and losing more money in the long run. The producers wasn’t fiction. it was a documentary.

    • Granite@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      As an indie writer/producer, shit is hard to get made and distributed. It is expensive af, kind of like weddings. Once you mention film, the price shoots through the roof. Even daily insurance on a film set is 800/day on the lower end, not including stunts. And after Rust, if you’ve got real guns on set, good luck even getting insurance (work comp specifically).

      FYI: even real guns are called prop guns on set

  • spaduf@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    Note that what they’re really interested in here is a fundamental change in how extras work. They want to turn it from an industry that hires early/struggling actors and turns it into the sort of thing that a college student can get one-time emergency money from. Akin to selling blood or eggs.

    • clutchmatic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also akin to Uber drivers, door dash delivery people, Airbnb hosts (back in the beginning)

  • Sparking@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    “We can’t figure out a way to make money without owning your body,” - Rugged entrepreneurs

  • nandeEbisu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    At that point, why license the likeness of real people instead of just using an AI generated face?

  • Tyler_Zoro@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Note that though AI is the new hotness and grabs headlines, this a) doesn’t actually apply only to AI and b) has been done for at least a decade.

    Many actors have refused such clauses (I know Sam Jackson is one of them) but many have not.

    Putting actor’s faces on CGI bodies has been something Hollywood has been working on for a long time, and AI is just a tool that improves on what we’ve been doing for a while.

  • magnetosphere@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Remember that commercial where Fred Astaire danced with a fucking vacuum cleaner?

    The idea of someone using “me” in that way would, by itself, be enough for me to strongly oppose the idea.

  • aricene@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s wonderful that Netflix is one of the corporations pushing to own a person’s AI likeness forever.

  • Smoogy@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Fran is saying we’re all going to be replaced by machines as if it’s the future but it’s being going on for a lot longer than now. Digidoubles replacing main actors a has been a mainstay in action movies for well over a decade.

    When it comes to AI, It’s been tearing at the base of art (in general) for years before now. One of the more recent cases https://news.artnet.com/art-world/class-action-lawsuit-ai-generators-deviantart-midjourney-stable-diffusion-2246770

    One of the reasons I’m excited about the fediverse is it means we can potentially have a server that artists can share their work safe away from the trawling AI machine.

  • chickenwing@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is why Jet Li turned down the Matrix. He didn’t want his Kung Fu skills to be scanned and preserved in the WB archive.