Making films with human actors versus AI actors is a monumental question.
getty
In today’s column, I examine the ongoing job struggles facing human actors when it comes to the increasing use of AI-generated synthetic actors. AI is getting so good at devising human-like video actors that it is nearly impossible to discern whether the movie screen contains real actors or fake actors. Thus, anxious debates are taking place about requiring a kind of special tax on machine-produced “actors” so that the costs of employing AI will be equal to the cost of using living, breathing human actors.
There is already a fervent clamor globally that AI is going to take away jobs across a wide swath of industries and occupations. News headlines blare this sobering message each day. Acting is on that same chopping block. Economics makes this a near inevitability.
The mainstay question is whether it is feasible to stop the mass replacement of human actors by adding an “AI usage tax” when it comes to filmmakers considering using AI actors.
Let’s talk about it.
This analysis of AI breakthroughs is part of my ongoing Forbes column coverage on the latest in AI, including identifying and explaining various impactful AI complexities (see the link here).
Human actors are the lifeblood of movies and TV. You go to watch a film or video and anticipate that the actors will take you into another world altogether. Human expression and human emotion are the hallmarks of great actors. We instinctively feel their pain and joy, and believe in it, even though it’s all just a big pretend as part of making a film.
Most actors toil away at trying to break into the movie business. The number of actors that emerge as notable stars is actually a tiny proportion of the many that simply get bit parts and do so exasperatingly on a haphazard basis. Anyone aiming to make a career as an actor in the movie realm is facing extremely rough odds. Nonetheless, the glamour and potential fame continue to be alluring. People still strive mightily to become a star.
The bad news for on-screen actors is that their career aspirations are getting even harder for them.
Why so?
Because of the incessant advances in AI. Actors, sadly, for thee the bell tolls. AI is coming to take your jobs. Period, end of story.
It used to be that AI was technologically incapable of crafting believable human-like synthetic actors that would appear seamlessly in video and film. The AI-generated actors looked completely fake. You knew instantly that the portrayed actor was created by AI. This was entirely disruptive while watching a film or show. You were mentally taken right out of the plot and reflexively focused your attention on the unrealistic appearance and awkward mannerisms of the AI-generated portrayals (a kind of so-called uncanny valley).
Even if a savvy filmmaker could somehow manage to get AI to generate a human-like portrayal, the cost was exorbitant. Only the largest “big bucks” studios could afford this. It took huge amounts of very expensive computer servers. It required highly specialized software that cost a ton to code and maintain. Directors and producers would only take a chance on this heightened cost if they believed that the film was going to be a massive blockbuster.
Well, the world is quite a different place now.
AI can produce videos containing human-looking actors without breaking a sweat. The cost is a fraction of what it once was. The quality has gone up immensely, while the price tag dropped like a rock. The customary assumption that actual human actors must be used when making a film is fractured. Switching over to the use of AI is viable, sensible, affordable, and exceedingly practical.
At a 30,000-foot level, let’s categorize AI-generated synthetic actors into two major types:
In the first instance, an AI synthetic actor is crafted based on an actual real-world human being. When you see this type of AI actor on the big screen, you recognize that the facial features, speaking voice, body shape, mannerisms, or other characteristics are the same or quite similar to those of a particular person. This is generally construed as a recognizable digital replica.
The general sense of the acting world is that if AI generates a synthetic actor that, by design or happenstance, is recognizable as that of a specific human, the specific human ought to be justly compensated. Their likeness is being used to foster the newly devised AI-synthesized actor.
Filmmakers presumably should contract for that usage. The filmmaker might get permission beforehand or be pursued after-the-fact based on a claim that the synthetic actor is akin to a human that deserves their piece of the pie. Worries are that human actors will be exploited by unscrupulous filmmakers who copy their appearance or other properties and essentially rip off the human actor accordingly.
The second type of an AI synthetic actor is an original or non-replica formulation.
When you see this type of synthetic AI actor in a video or film, you do not readily observe any distinctive aspect that matches a particular person. Sure, the synthetic actor does things that humans do, walking, jumping, waving their arms, smiling, frowning, and so on, but this is a generic formulation. It isn’t seemingly reflective of one person in particular.
I want to clarify a crucial facet. Some argue or insist that an original or non-replica synthetic actor must be so generic that there isn’t any human anywhere that has any semblance of overlap. That’s a debatable contention. How could any realistically looking portrayal of humans avoid entirely any resemblance to all humans? This seems an impossibility.
As you might imagine, a morass of legal complications is arising amid synthetic AI actors gaining traction. It goes like this. A filmmaker makes a video or movie that has an AI-generated synthetic actor, doing so under the belief that it is an original formulation. Once the film gets released to public viewing, someone comes forward and claims that there are resemblances to them. Even if the filmmakers didn’t deliberately pattern the synthetic actor on that person, there is still a knotty legal issue at hand about whether the person should be compensated.
It can be a gray area, and the rules of the road are still being figured out.
I want to set aside for the rest of this discussion the nuances associated with the Replica type of a synthetic AI actor. As noted, it is already a bumpy road that entails dealing with the idea that the AI actor is in some demonstrative fashion reflective of a particular person.
Let’s shift our attention to the synthetic AI actor that is inarguably distinct from any particular human. Assume that we can craft an AI actor that does not veer into anyone’s space. It is a human-like portrayal all its own, and no one is claiming otherwise.
I have been walking you step-by-step toward the arduous dilemma at hand. Hang in there. I mentioned that AI usage can technologically achieve this. I indicated that the cost has come down tremendously.
I want you to put on your filmmaker hat and contemplate an earthshattering consideration:
Grab a glass of fine wine and think this through. I’ll give you a moment to mull this over and weigh the convoluted tradeoffs.
One factor is the money. There are all sorts of industry standards and rules associated with the hiring and use of human actors. The Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) is well-known in the movie world for negotiating on the contractual arrangements that involve human talent and labor.
If you pencil out the costs of using human actors in your film, and then do likewise to estimate the cost of crafting an AI-synthetic actor, the numbers lean toward AI being the less expensive option. Not always. But increasingly coming out that way for a notable preponderance of the time. And this is a trend that is going to get decidedly worse for human actors.
This stark realization that AI actors can, at times, be less costly than human actors has spurred suggestions on what to do about this imbalance.
Suppose we forced the costs to be the same. Yes, one proposition is that if Hollywood had to pay the same amount in compensation for the use of AI-generated actors as it does for human actors, the playing field would even out. By placing a type of “AI usage tax” on filmmakers considering using AI-generated actors, the hope is that human actors would not be forsaken.
In the parlance of the movie industry, some refer to this AI usage tax as the Tilly tax. This name is due to the emergence and popularity of an AI-generated synthetic actor labeled Tilly Norwood. Last year, a division of a production company crafted this synthetic actor (Xicoia, the AI division of Particle6 Group), which sparked controversy, consternation, condemnation, and the like.
There are plenty of mind-bending difficulties associated with trying to establish an equal parity of cost between a human actor and an AI actor. You must look beyond the obvious or apparent costs. A robust macroscopic viewpoint requires calculating the total expected value. It isn’t just wages or royalties. Many additional risks and business dimensions need to be given their due.
Let’s do a breezy tally of what can happen when using human actors. I will provide a hodgepodge of the trials and tribulations when making a movie. It is a generalized scenario.
A human actor shows up to the set and doesn’t feel ready to shoot. They had a rough night. They need time to get into their acting mode. Once filming gets underway, the actor gets into a battle with the director. The director wants the actor to do this or that, but the actor believes those directions are not in keeping with the nature of the character they are playing.
During a physical scene, the actor accidentally falls and gets hurt. The production shuts down for a few weeks to allow time for the actor to heal. The actor lets their hair grow. As filming gets back underway, this creates a continuity problem since the actor doesn’t look like they did when the earlier part of the scene was shot. The actor refuses to make any changes to their hair.
I realize that this scenario seems to portray human actors in a rather unflattering light. Not all actors get into those binds. Also, a cogent case can be made that human actors are working toward perfecting their portrayal. A director might not realize that the spats or discord with an actor is ultimately improving what will be fruitfully gotten on film.
I’d like to showcase the risks and business dimensions that are embedded in that scenario regarding the use of a human actor and see how it compares to an AI actor.
Consider these key facets:
A synthetic AI actor won’t ever show up to work late or be in a foul mood. There aren’t any delays in filming due to the AI actor disagreeing with the director of the movie. No reshoots are needed to deal with aging or changes in appearance.
There aren’t any scandals by an AI actor. Compare this to a human actor who, after a film is released, gets embroiled in some political entanglement or some personally stoked outrage. That can readily harm the reception of the film, especially dampening the box office take.
An AI actor will readily promote the movie. No pushbacks at all. The AI actor can speak in any natural language of interest. You don’t have to hire someone to dub the lines. You can easily make versions for any international market.
Another huge element is scalability. The synthetic AI actor can be used again and again. Human actors might balk at making a remake. They might want to pursue other projects. An AI actor can be reused in a myriad of ways, doing so for sequels, marketing, brand usage, and so on.
The bottom line is that if you consider only the traditional costs of hiring a human actor and opt to create an AI usage tax to ramp up the cost of the AI to be on par with the human actor, you would be missing those additional risks and business dimensions.
Think of it this way. A human actor wants compensation of some amount R. An AI actor that could do the same role costs you a lesser amount of Z. To try and make them equal in cost, you compose a tax we’ll refer to as T.
We have this equation:
Thus, we then have this situation:
Pretend that the human actor for a movie is asking for $5 million. The filmmaker figures out that the AI synthetic actor will cost $3 million. This means that the tax will have to be $2 million to push the cost of the AI actor up to the same as the human actor cost.
Voila, we seem to be done with our calculations and can let the filmmaker decide whether to spend $5 million on the human actor or do so with the AI actor.
Imagine that we also try to estimate the cost of the risks associated with the human actor. We might review the past efforts of the human actor. How often did they incur delays? Were they willing to promote the movie? Etc.
After sifting through the matter, an estimate is made that the risk adjustment factor is about $10 million. This human actor could sink the film. The risk is high, and the risk adjustment is set accordingly.
Human actor in this example:
AI actor in this example:
You can plainly see that the expected value of the AI actor is enormously better at $5M versus the human actor at $15M.
There would have to be an overwhelmingly compelling case to proceed with the human actor in this scenario. For example, if the human actor was already a box office success, you would certainly give added weight to using the human actor.
I’m sure your first thought would be that the AI usage tax must include the expected value of the risks and business dimensions. If so, the AI usage tax in this example would need to be $10M to ensure that the human actor and the AI actor are equalized in cost.
This starts to get dicey because trying to quantify the risks and business dimensions is not easily agreed upon. A director who wants full control over their actors is going to be desirous of the AI synthetic actors. A studio that is risk-averse when it comes to human actors doing wild things will also steer toward the AI actors.
When a tax gets too high, filmmakers might decide that avoiding the tax is their preferred strategy. Perhaps they shift production to a jurisdiction that escapes the tax. Maybe they lobby to get regulations that limit the tax. And so on.
Wait for a second, some might be bellowing, you cannot reasonably compare human actors to AI actors. Human actors bring humanity to a role. The public wants to see human actors. They will summarily reject AI actors. Furthermore, directors are better when they have the give-and-take and creativity of human actors while making a movie. No movie made with AI actors will ever match that of one made with AI actors.
Those are pretty tall words. Time will tell.
Overall, the new math, whatever it comes out to be, is unlikely to tilt human acting jobs back into the big picture. AI is coming. AI is inevitably going to prevail. Sure, human actors will still be utilized. There will be AI actors that are replicas of human actors, and keep human actors gainfully employed. Also, films won’t be exclusively AI actors; a mix of human and AI actors is more likely to land. On an upbeat note, human actors will still prevail in live theatre and other such venues.
Let’s recall the famous words of William Wallace in Braveheart: “They may take our lives, but they’ll never take our freedom!” Human actors will still have their freedoms. That’s the good thing about being human and an actor. There just might not be as many gigs available anymore.
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。