During the Hollywood strike one woman claims to be a computer scientist and actress. She thinks Hollywood needs to outlaw AI or actors will be gone soon. So she supports the strike. She dislikes the term content
I had to quit listening to Justine Bateman. She doesn't know anything about AI.
And hilariously, nearly every one of her complaints could be turned around and made about the "artists" she spends all of her time "defending."
"But it's taking copyrighted stuff and just making new things based on what it learned!" Uhh, hate to break it to you Justine, but that's how humans work, too. And literally every other complaint she makes is exactly the same thing.
This is her saying actors will have their faces rented for cheap to movies.
This is a total "missing the forest for the trees" statement. If that happens it will be for a VERY short period of time, because it will be cheaper to just generate a new face. She just can't follow the train of logic to the obvious next step because she assumes "actor's faces have value" is a truism.
Say we were making Iron Man in this supposed future world. Why would anyone license RDJ's face when they could just generate a model of Stark's face based on the comics and not have to pay an actor for their face?
And once they're not hiring flesh-and-blood actors for any roles? DEI excuses go out the window. If they make a character look a certain way, it will be a deliberate choice. They won't be able to hide behind the "best actor who auditioned" lies anymore. They had the capability of making the character look exactly as described in whatever the source material was, they simply chose not to.
During the most recent Hollywood strike, they talked about this a lot.
AI: Propaganda: Justine Bateman
During the Hollywood strike one woman claims to be a computer scientist and actress. She thinks Hollywood needs to outlaw AI or actors will be gone soon. So she supports the strike. She dislikes the term content
https://archive.ph/cWQg9
Here's another anti content.
https://archive.ph/knW9D
This is her saying actors will have their faces rented for cheap to movies.
https://archive.ph/VXw1H
This is her saying Hollywood demands AI take over.
https://archive.ph/JIyuD
Here's another horror filled anti AI thread. These are going around my lefty friends a lot. Even a few lawyers.
https://archive.ph/kdn4S
I had to quit listening to Justine Bateman. She doesn't know anything about AI.
And hilariously, nearly every one of her complaints could be turned around and made about the "artists" she spends all of her time "defending."
"But it's taking copyrighted stuff and just making new things based on what it learned!" Uhh, hate to break it to you Justine, but that's how humans work, too. And literally every other complaint she makes is exactly the same thing.
Yeah, she was insane, but that's why I archived and placed her rants on my list.
This is a total "missing the forest for the trees" statement. If that happens it will be for a VERY short period of time, because it will be cheaper to just generate a new face. She just can't follow the train of logic to the obvious next step because she assumes "actor's faces have value" is a truism.
Say we were making Iron Man in this supposed future world. Why would anyone license RDJ's face when they could just generate a model of Stark's face based on the comics and not have to pay an actor for their face?
And once they're not hiring flesh-and-blood actors for any roles? DEI excuses go out the window. If they make a character look a certain way, it will be a deliberate choice. They won't be able to hide behind the "best actor who auditioned" lies anymore. They had the capability of making the character look exactly as described in whatever the source material was, they simply chose not to.