Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Thursday, October 03, 2024
Rachel Zegler Is Scared of AI: It's 'Dystopian'
www.indiewire.com/news: The actress, who made her debut with “West Side Story” and is set to lead Disney’s live-action “Snow White” remake, told Variety that she was concerned about artificial intelligence replacing her onscreen.
5 comments:
Carly Tamborello
said...
What stands out to me about this article is Tom Hanks’ statement that if AI were to replace actors in certain projects so that they could appear posthumously or at a certain age in perpetuity, audiences would probably notice, but lots of people wouldn’t care. That does seem to be the tide with AI recently: the average consumer can tell that something is a bit non-human, but they are more interested in the convenience and capabilities of AI and mostly unbothered by the moral implications or the fear of AI winning out over humanity. If the problem continues to expand, I don’t think Rachel Zegler’s word of “dystopian” is too far off for the effects it would have. However, I do like to believe that people still see the value in human artwork and that AI will stay where it belongs, helping with more tedious/ intricate technical jobs rather than taking the place of creativity.
Although AI has its uses I believe it has the capability to do more harm than good, many jobs have the possibility to be taken over by ai and some are even being taken at this very moment. ai in the arts is especially controversial for the fact that it takes away the creativity in a lot of the process, it will come to a point where anyone could type a prompt in and create certain areas of a film, although right now it would be easy to tell in the future it won’t be. I do agree with Rachel when she says that ai in Hollywood is scary, the fact that actors could be recreated in film without them being there is technologically impressive but it can go wrong in a bunch of ways, like what if someone signs a contract agreeing to their image being used in this way but down the line change their mind, their image could still be used for the movies for on and on and they would be able to do anything about it
This article directly adresses some concerns on the uprise of artificial intelligence and how AI ties into art and film. Rachel Zegler, who is a renowned performed and singer discusses her fear of artificial intelligence and it’s ability to replace people or things in the near future. Zegler fears that AI will fully be able to reanimate her, leaving her without a job. Other actors, such as Rashida Jones share a similar opinion as Zegler. Jones does not fear artificial intelligence, but recognizes that one day AI might be able to replace her, and leave her jobless too. On the other hand, Tom Hanks claimed that AI might be able to extend and benefit actors and movies. He thinks that the possibility of artificial intelligence might be able to extend these actors and performers careers. I think that this fear is super rational and quite possible, as AI can fully reanimate people and animals.
The idea that AI can fully replicate a human is a little far away but not too far in the future that we shouldn’t be at least a little worried about it. The issue of human body scans is cropping up in the industry weather as fears of being added as background filler or being added posthumously to a movie. I frankly feel that posthumous image manipulation is extremely unethical as the actor could never give their full consent or properly revoke their continued consent of a movie. I am distinclty worried about the idea that a person could be uncomfortable with the idea of a full frontal nudity scene and a director just decideing “wells its happening weather you try to or not. Crazy
I think that this is a question that will follow the entertainment industry for a long time. My visceral response is to say that yes, we do care, we will care, but I also know that there are a lot of people who won't. I think Rachel Ziegler's fears are very real. Especially as a woman in the film industry, in an era where actresses are still treated as though they have an expiration date, the thought of giving away your person so it can be recreated is one that is infinitely terrifying. There is no guarantee for these people that their images won't be used to replace them, and for those who would want to continue to appear after their deaths, that's great, but Zeigler, as a woman who knows the danger of her body being exploited in every way, she has every right to be worried not only that she will be replaced, but that her replacements may be sinister. I think, especially with recent events, we as a society have to consider the long term implications of this kind of technology, and create protections to guarantee compensation and consent for the usage of those types of scans.
5 comments:
What stands out to me about this article is Tom Hanks’ statement that if AI were to replace actors in certain projects so that they could appear posthumously or at a certain age in perpetuity, audiences would probably notice, but lots of people wouldn’t care. That does seem to be the tide with AI recently: the average consumer can tell that something is a bit non-human, but they are more interested in the convenience and capabilities of AI and mostly unbothered by the moral implications or the fear of AI winning out over humanity. If the problem continues to expand, I don’t think Rachel Zegler’s word of “dystopian” is too far off for the effects it would have. However, I do like to believe that people still see the value in human artwork and that AI will stay where it belongs, helping with more tedious/ intricate technical jobs rather than taking the place of creativity.
Although AI has its uses I believe it has the capability to do more harm than good, many jobs have the possibility to be taken over by ai and some are even being taken at this very moment. ai in the arts is especially controversial for the fact that it takes away the creativity in a lot of the process, it will come to a point where anyone could type a prompt in and create certain areas of a film, although right now it would be easy to tell in the future it won’t be. I do agree with Rachel when she says that ai in Hollywood is scary, the fact that actors could be recreated in film without them being there is technologically impressive but it can go wrong in a bunch of ways, like what if someone signs a contract agreeing to their image being used in this way but down the line change their mind, their image could still be used for the movies for on and on and they would be able to do anything about it
This article directly adresses some concerns on the uprise of artificial intelligence and how AI ties into art and film. Rachel Zegler, who is a renowned performed and singer discusses her fear of artificial intelligence and it’s ability to replace people or things in the near future. Zegler fears that AI will fully be able to reanimate her, leaving her without a job. Other actors, such as Rashida Jones share a similar opinion as Zegler. Jones does not fear artificial intelligence, but recognizes that one day AI might be able to replace her, and leave her jobless too. On the other hand, Tom Hanks claimed that AI might be able to extend and benefit actors and movies. He thinks that the possibility of artificial intelligence might be able to extend these actors and performers careers. I think that this fear is super rational and quite possible, as AI can fully reanimate people and animals.
The idea that AI can fully replicate a human is a little far away but not too far in the future that we shouldn’t be at least a little worried about it. The issue of human body scans is cropping up in the industry weather as fears of being added as background filler or being added posthumously to a movie. I frankly feel that posthumous image manipulation is extremely unethical as the actor could never give their full consent or properly revoke their continued consent of a movie. I am distinclty worried about the idea that a person could be uncomfortable with the idea of a full frontal nudity scene and a director just decideing “wells its happening weather you try to or not. Crazy
I think that this is a question that will follow the entertainment industry for a long time. My visceral response is to say that yes, we do care, we will care, but I also know that there are a lot of people who won't. I think Rachel Ziegler's fears are very real. Especially as a woman in the film industry, in an era where actresses are still treated as though they have an expiration date, the thought of giving away your person so it can be recreated is one that is infinitely terrifying. There is no guarantee for these people that their images won't be used to replace them, and for those who would want to continue to appear after their deaths, that's great, but Zeigler, as a woman who knows the danger of her body being exploited in every way, she has every right to be worried not only that she will be replaced, but that her replacements may be sinister. I think, especially with recent events, we as a society have to consider the long term implications of this kind of technology, and create protections to guarantee compensation and consent for the usage of those types of scans.
Post a Comment