Hollywood stars are speaking out in protest after an “AI actress” named Tilly Norwood attracted agency interest.
Norwood is an entirely virtual creation owned by Xicoia, a talent studio attached to the AI production company Particle6.
Deadline reported yesterday that several Hollywood talent agents are interested in signing Norwood.
No AI star got any “agency interest” these headlines are purposelly crafted to create the impression that there was interest. This is free publicity for an AI avatar nobody gives a shit about.
Yeah, how is Harvey Weinstein supposed to molest an AI?
Won’t anybody think of the children?
After only a second of thought, AI child actors seems like an alternative to exploiting real children, but im sure thats being generous and theres a million reasons why it would suck
VR headset and a fleshlight.
Considering what his allegedly looks like, maybe he should’ve washed his toys more —or, at all. 🤢
The real Turing test
This feels like an archaic system clinging to life.
Why would middlemen like agencies, talent studios and ‘AI production companies’ be needed for what is essentially CG?
For the same reason they are “needed” for flesh and blood humans.
Studios need to know who is and isn’t worth even spending the time for an interview on, let alone filming. For a human this might be avoiding complete flakes that waste casting time or, theoretically, avoiding something like Joaquin Phoenix pulling out of a movie at the very last minute because it was too gay (allegedly).
For an AI? That is a model that has been vetted that it won’t lead to immediate law suits because it is just Tom Cruise or that can be programmed to do what is needed. Sometimes you want a model that is like Keanu and became a gun nut after The Matrix and shoots 3 gun in his spare time. And sometimes you want that Korean Boy Band actor who is going to flinch every time a blank goes off because that is the character.
On the talent side? What role you “choose” can completely derail your career. We all love industry darlings like the Twilight kids or Jennifer Lawrence who can do both big budget leading roles AND pick some of the quirkiest and most interesting indie films. But pick the wrong quirky role and you are “that chick who sucked a guy off” or get typecast into action movies and so forth.
And that is doubly true for AI models and their handlers/trainers. Everyone pretends they can spot generative AI because there are six fingers on that hand. But the reality is that different underlying algorithms/models will have characteristics in terms of what training data they weight and so forth. So two “actresses” generated with the same toolset WILL have similarities if you obsess over it enough. And… it won’t end well if Aki Ross 2.0’s underlying model was also used to train Project Melodee 2.0 and people realize her face when she is eating that cake that represents the last vestiges of her innocence is REALLY similar to the face that Melodee make when she is doing DVDA.
At which point the agency helps to avoid situations where “Well… you are contracted and mr tarantino wants you to drive that car while he jacks it to your feet. And you wouldn’t want to be problematic, would you?”.
And the last part being, funny enough, collective bargaining. An individual is gonna have a hard time saying no to that rock star director. Whereas said director is going to think twice about taking advantage of someone if it means they might get blocklisted by the same org that represents Thom Cruz.
There are obviously a LOT of issues with “AI Actors” and… I wish I believed it wasn’t going to be a thing within the next 5 years. But the idea of having talent agencies to act as intermediaries still makes a LOT of sense.
That is a model that has been vetted that it won’t lead to immediate law suits because it is just Tom Cruise or that can be programmed to do what is needed. Sometimes you want a model that is like Keanu and became a gun nut after The Matrix and shoots 3 gun in his spare time. And sometimes you want that Korean Boy Band actor who is going to flinch every time a blank goes off because that is the character.
We are talking about a completely different ecosystem here.
These generative ‘models’ either fall into the buckets of:
-
A very small basket of completely closed, relatively inflexible corporate APIs.
-
Or a still-small basket of open models folks build these skeletal frameworks around, or maybe loras or adapters.
All these AI startups like to pretend they’re doing something special when, underneath, they’re really just prompting ChatGPT with a wrapper, or hosting a Flux finetune or whatever.
In other words, they are NOT pretraining Thom Cruz from scratch. The pool of usable frontier models is very small.
And… it won’t end well if Aki Ross 2.0’s underlying model was also used to train Project Melodee 2.0 and people realize her face when she is eating that cake that represents the last vestiges of her innocence is REALLY similar to the face that Melodee make when she is doing DVDA.
At which point the agency helps to avoid situations where “Well… you are contracted and mr tarantino wants you to drive that car while he jacks it to your feet. And you wouldn’t want to be problematic, would you?”.
Again, you’re treating these ‘models’ like a diverse group of humanity, and like every company’s training from scratch, when that’s not how the software’s set up.
It makes no economic sense to treat them like people with their associated complications. They’re software suites, they’re tools, more like different flavors Davinci Resolve or whatever studios use these days, that can each produce an infinite spectrum of humans depictions, basically for free. A closer analog would be video game development, with the cost of voice acting and animation stripped out; the only thing that makes The Master Chief, Commander Shepard, or a particular incarnation of Lara Croft ‘unique’ is the copyright, recognition, and software suite they built them into.
EDIT:
To add to this, I think its extremely dangerous and unhealthy to anthropomorphize them.
In fact, this might be what the agencies are trying to do. ‘Humanizing’ them like theyre individual, sentient things makes them appear less like Lara Croft selling a Snickers bar. It may be optics for the customers (like ad makers hiring actors/actresses) more than anything.
-
For an AI? That is a model that has been vetted that it won’t lead to immediate law suits because it is just Tom Cruise or that can be programmed to do what is needed. Sometimes you want a model that is like Keanu and became a gun nut after The Matrix and shoots 3 gun in his spare time. And sometimes you want that Korean Boy Band actor who is going to flinch every time a blank goes off because that is the character.
Okay, but there’s no real evidence that what they’re selling does any of this. It’s a bland digital photocopy of human behavior, not a curious and complex human talent, with interests beyond following the commands of an experienced prompt engineer.
There are obviously a LOT of issues with “AI Actors” and… I wish I believed it wasn’t going to be a thing within the next 5 years. But the idea of having talent agencies to act as intermediaries still makes a LOT of sense.
On these terms, its not really a “talent agency” so much as an “IP management firm”. And the product they’re selling is just a very high end NFT with all the associated problems.
-
“I love your actress, can I take a closer look at her?”
-
click-copy / click-paste
-
“Thanks, you’re fired.”
-
Nothing you said has anything to do with reality, I’m sorry to say.
An AI “actor” isn’t a unique piece of software. It’s the result of putting a prompt through one of maybe three or four AI video generation models, or one of the few dozen remixes of one of them, with perhaps a few Loras thrown in. Rather than comparing them to humans, it’s much more accurate to compare them to a particular collection of plug-ins for your favorite music editing software. A billion different people can have the exact same plug-ins and create virtually indistinguishable content from each other, and the only content that will stand out is the one made by people with actual talent, who would be able to get great results with any assortment of plug-ins. Which makes all these AI characters completely fungible.
Not to mention that the AI “actors” can only do what someone tells them to do. They’re not talented artists putting their own twist onto a character. They’re like the clothes and make-up worn by an actual actor. Which means that even in a make-believe world where they become popular, studios will still have to deal with the same bullshit they deal with today from actors, except it’ll be prompt engineers dishing it out. Don’t worry though, because AI “actors” will never be popular as such. At most they’ll replace certain types of CG, but never real people. Not with any quality at least.
This doesn’t seem like something that benefits the majority of people.
If it was like “here’s free (or at least legitimately cheap) access to some virtual actors. Go make the movie of your dreams, kids!” maybe that would be cool. Maybe there are people out there with brilliant ideas that are blocked by not having real actors to act for them. Maybe.
But this just seems like another way for the rich to keep more wealth for themselves.
You can already hire dirt cheap nobody actors for your indie passion project by putting up a poster near any college with a liberal arts program. Or use a website. Hell, there are even carve outs to stay full union.
But if you have money to make a “real” movie? You have money to pay talent.
But this just seems like another way for the rich to keep more wealth for themselves.
Yup. Insert AlwaysHasBeen.meme here.
That last sentence alone has described the entire American business sector for the past 10 years or so
past
1050 years or soAnd even further back than that, but post WW2 I feel like progress was made.
Seems like it could be like music production software becoming widely available. Now you don’t need to get a drummer, a bass player etc. Together to make music, you can just make it at home on your computer. It enables lower level people to get off the ground as they now have the tools that the pros do, you want a saxophone but don’t know anyone in town who can play or can’t afford one, just use a synth that sounds like one. Once you get signed though and you have a label giving you studio time you might hire an actual saxophone player because it sounds better.
Same with movies, AI could be helpful in making small low/no budget indie movies, but I don’t think it’s at the same quality as real actors for big budget movies where people expect more, so maybe the wealthy studio execs won’t benefit from it much right now.
If this agency normalizes AI actors for the big movie theatres it’ll help the smaller ones too, IMO.
It’s already happening that people are using AI to make the movies of their dreams (well, short form video, at any rate - The Adventures of Reemo Green is a recent example that comes to mind, I would dearly love to see a TV series of this guy). They don’t need to use an AI actor agency, but they do have to face the “ew, AI!” Reaction to their work. If the big studios start doing it that’ll make things easier for them.
Everything about this “news” story would have been easy for Tilly’s owners to orchestrate as publicity for their projects
Does it creep anyone else out that the first “AI actress” they’re trying to sell is a very young woman? It could’ve been literally anyone else. This is a character who can’t say no, can’t lay down boundaries, can’t say something is unrealistic. If they want to show her flying on Epstein’s private plane or getting shot at school, there’s nothing to stop them.
Oh sweet child, don’t let anyone ever tell you about fan fiction.
I mean, obviously yeah there’s that but this isn’t fan fiction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Hater fact?
Critic review?
Does it creep anyone else out that the first “AI actress” they’re trying to sell is a very young woman?
Watching “The Substance” and thinking that it would be better as a Black Mirror episode.
This is a character who can’t say no, can’t lay down boundaries, can’t say something is unrealistic.
In fairness, if we took every pedophile on earth and slapped a GACHA game in front of them to occupy their horny energies indefinitely? I wouldn’t hate the idea of alienating and commoditizing this particular corner of the population.
At the same time, there’s definitely a Pete Hegseth tier mental disorder that comes out of being perpetually surrounded by women who can’t/won’t say no. Eventually, you’re going to have people who immerse themselves in this video game put the device down and try to interact with the real world on the same terms.
Go browse image generation models up for download on https://civitai.com/. Even when you’re not signed in, almost all the models are advertised with generated images of young looking women. And if you create an account and turn on not safe for work, it gets even worse because everything then becomes highly pornographic, because that’s what people use the models for primarily.
That is what 95% of image/video generation is used for, creating porn for mostly young looking women.
So it makes sense that’s what they’re trying to sell here, not saying it’s right or moral. Feeling creeped out is probably an appropriate response for many people
For me, I don’t really care. Sex sells, that’s how it’s always been and will continue to be into the future.
Long term I do think it’s an improvement, there will always be a demand for porn so creating it virtually without economically coercing young women to do it is “harm reduction”. In the future with VR and cyberdildonics it might even make prostitution / sex work mostly obsolete.
She also can’t physically interact with a real person.
Ai is really only good at creating young women because that’s what 90% of headshots online are
I’m wondering if they used AI to name the talent studio.
“Xicoia” sounds like a prescription my elderly parents would ask their doctor about after seeing it on TV.
Probably used AI to write the article too.
Just an ouroboros of shit
A snake sucking on its own asshole
I heard in my head like the old ricolla ads.
“ZeeeeeeCoyAaaaaah!”
Eventually it’s gonna happen.
We’re not there yet, and we’ll start seeing it from the bottom up when it actually happens.
It’s already used for crowds, next is extras walking down the street, then once it gets to speaking lines the stars will have to worry. The won’t be replaced till last, but eventually making a movie won’t involve a single camera.
We might actually get a proper indie scene. AI is going to pull us out of the Hollywood bullshit era.
Soulless marvel character showcases disguised as feature films won’t cut it anymore.
Soulless marvel character showcases disguised as feature films won’t cut it anymore.
I already don’t believe it should cut it, but the masses are the stupid masses.
We might actually get a proper indie scene. AI is going to pull us out of the Hollywood bullshit era.
And how do you propose this would happen?
If anybody can build a scene in blender with some rough models and untextured puppets, then generate over that into something that looks like movie quality, the studios just lost their whole industry.
They have a monopoly because of the costs associated, AI destroys those costs essentially. It’s also the main reason why these “talent agencies” will fail, AI actors are going to be a dime a dozen.
We’re not there yet, but its prettty decent already for amateurs or low-stakes proffesionals. Like this
Influencers using horizontal video? Pft. So unrealistic.
It’s being used by the government to fake the president. If it can fool the dumb country bumpkins it can be used in Hollywood. Future media is gonna be lifeless and uncanny.
Are you implying that the bearded belly dancer on the beaches of the golden Trump Riviera was AI?
Trump recently did an official announcement using an ai avatar to hide his stroke-face
Thumbnail has a framed movie poster of my favorite film of all time:
“fffff”
dont forget the sequel, “gggggg”
May you live in stupid times.
HA that’s funny, not even the people behind the original Chinese curse probably thought such evil was even possible, or maybe they thought it would be funny?
Goddam I wish these were merely “interesting” times.
Honestly I think it might be best to simply ban AI actors looking like humans.
I fear it may cause even more unrealistic standards than having almost perfect actors, and people may feel even less as part of a society than they do now.I can see how it can be practical and cheaper and all that, but if the depiction of humans stop to be actual human, I think we may be walking into a whole new set of problems in the future.
CGI actors, too.
And stunt men, if you’re going to depict a famous actor doing something dangerous it’s false advertising to have someone else doing it for him.
We should probably ban makeup as well.
What does this even mean? You can’t put other actors on screen with it. The only movies you could make would be garbage like Ice Cube’s War of the Worlds.
Sure they can. There have been animated characters next to live characters for decades.
Nah-uh! Gamma rays just has that effect on real genuine human persons.
Just need a “green man” and it’d be no different than CGI…
Calling it now: literally only gooners will be interested in this character, no one else will care
Check youtube shorts. Videos have filters now to make them look like AI. Kids on youtube are already brainwashed into thinking AI is fun. AI actors and models are like any other product. If you hype it enough kids will love it.
What are the filters to make it look like AI? I’m not sure what that means. When I hear “looks like AI”, I imagine “has 7 fingers per hand, inconsistent art styles, and has really weird things when you look closely at the details”
What about all the stuntmen that lost their jobs with CG stunts?
Or the Hollywood accountants put out of work by Excel, or the film processing and printing technicians put out of work by digital cameras, the cel animators put out of work by various digital alternatives, and so forth.
Technology changes and the jobs available change with it. Looks like many actors are soon going to join the ranks of the lamplighters and buggy whip manufacturers. I don’t see why their profession should get protections and exemptions from this process that nobody else gets.
To me it’s not even about jobs. It’s about the interest in the art… why the fuck would I care about a script written by AI and acted by AI? What’s even the point?
If everything is artificially generated to be mildly pleasing, just fucking electrically stimulate my dopamine receptors directly, what’s even the goal here? See a few pixels move on my screen?
The whole humanity thing was work to survive so we can make the things only humans can make: wonders, art, tell stories, play sports… why would I give a shit about a computer’s interpretation of that?
Well, if the computer consistently makes a better product than the human, the world will embrace the computer “art.”
At the moment we still have AI creating some pretty Janky shit, so it makes sense to dislike it.
why the fuck would I care about a script written by AI and acted by AI? What’s even the point?
Is it good?
That’s really all I care about at the end of the day. When I watch a TV show I’ve never really cared who the scriptwriter was or what their personal history or intent behind the story whatever. I just watch the show, and if it’s a good story I enjoy it.
I know AI’s not well liked in these parts and a lot of people are of the opinion that AI writing can never be “good.” If that is indeed the case then there’s no risk of writers losing jobs to it.
The whole humanity thing was work to survive so we can make the things only humans can make: wonders, art, tell stories
But what if it turns out that things other than humans can make those things?
It used to be a commonly-repeated argument that no computer would ever best a human grandmaster at chess. Or a top-ranked go player. CGI actors would never be indistinguishable from the real thing. And, recently, that AI couldn’t depict plausible hands. I wouldn’t be so confident that AI can’t tell good stories at some point soon.
Is it good?
That’s really all I care about at the end of the day. When I watch a TV show I’ve never really cared who the scriptwriter was or what their personal history or intent behind the story whatever. I just watch the show, and if it’s a good story I enjoy it.
You people would watch The Matrix and side with the villains, that’s bizarre. I have a toy soldier with more soul than what you just displayed.
If that is indeed the case then there’s no risk of writers losing jobs to it.
In what fairy tale universe do you live where bad things aren’t forced upon people via market pressures?
But what if it turns out that things other than humans can make those things?
They can (copying massive amounts of actually human made content, of course) but that’s completely irrelevant to the point. I don’t care if they can do it or not, I’m not their creator.
It used to be a commonly-repeated argument that no computer would ever best a human grandmaster at chess.
And guess what, I watch people compete when playing chess, even if they are not as good as the chess engines. People watch people playing chess, not two smartphones side by side on a table with StockFish running.
I wouldn’t be so confident that AI can’t tell good stories at some point soon.
They can write a 10 hour movie and I still wouldn’t give a shit about what an AI is got to say.
You people would watch The Matrix and side with the villains, that’s bizarre.
Who’s “you people”?
Also, did you watch the Matrix? The villains were not clear cut. There were machines who were sympathetic to humanity and humans who were traitors, and they had complex motivations. The Animatrix made it clear that humans were the villains in the original war between humans and machines, and in the most recent movie of the series we see that at least some factions of human and machine were holding to the peace treaty that Neo negotiated and are living in harmony. The situation in the Matrix is complicated.
Unless you just watch it for the cool kung-fu and bullet time, and don’t pay attention to the writing. In which case I guess I see why you’d think my criterion of “is the writing good?” Is irrelevant.
Who’s “you people”?
You.
Also, did you watch the Matrix? The villains were not clear cut. There were machines who were sympathetic to humanity and humans who were traitors
I was specifically making allusion to Cypher’s steak scene, but I should’ve suspected you wouldn’t understand how that was meant to be interpreted given you agree with the villain. Sorry for not being clear enough.
In which case I guess I see why you’d think my criterion of “is the writing good?” Is irrelevant.
Says the guy who just commented how you just consume the content and never makes a hint of effort to understand the purpose behind the writing, whilst defending AI scripts.
Who’s “you people”?
You.
You don’t know me.
I was specifically making allusion to Cypher’s steak scene, but I should’ve suspected you wouldn’t understand how that was meant to be interpreted given you agree with the villain.
He’s literally who I was thinking of when I said there were “humans who were traitors.”
Again, you’ve got a weirdly black and white view about a movie that was written to have a complex moral landscape and ambiguous characters. I think you missed out on a great deal of the movie’s meaning and intent.
Says the guy who just commented how you just consume the content and never makes a hint of effort to understand the purpose behind the writing, whilst defending AI scripts.
Ah, irony.
All these virtual persona companies are going to fail. It’s basically just grifters trying to make a quick buck on the new technology.
Anyone can create an “AI actress” in a few clicks now. Should Hollywood be worried? Yes, but that isn’t a bad thing and it’s definitely not these fake talent agencies that are going to reap the rewards.
