TV and Film Extras Are Afraid AI Will Copy Their Faces and Bodies To Take Jobs
source link: https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/23/08/07/1958212/tv-and-film-extras-are-afraid-ai-will-copy-their-faces-and-bodies-to-take-jobs
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
TV and Film Extras Are Afraid AI Will Copy Their Faces and Bodies To Take Jobs
Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
binspamdupenotthebestofftopicslownewsdaystalestupid freshfunnyinsightfulinterestingmaybe offtopicflamebaittrollredundantoverrated insightfulinterestinginformativefunnyunderrated descriptive typodupeerror
Do you develop on GitHub? You can keep using GitHub but automatically sync your GitHub releases to SourceForge quickly and easily with this tool so your projects have a backup location, and get your project in front of SourceForge's nearly 30 million monthly users. It takes less than a minute. Get new users downloading your project releases today!
"Have your hands out. Have your hands in. Look this way. Look that way. Let us see your scared face. Let us see your surprised face," she said. What was most concerning, however, was that she didn't know what or how her images were going to be used. "My first thought leaving the trailer was, 'Oh this might just be the future," Lubsey said. "We might just lose our jobs," Dom Lubsey, an actor from Los Angeles, added. Studios already use computational techniques to create synthetic images of people to create fake crowds for backgrounds in films.
It's not too far-fetched to think that extras can also be generated too. Andrew Susskind, an associate professor at Drexel University's film and TV department, explained how AI-made background actors would slash production budgets. "Imagine ballroom scenes, party scenes, any scenes that need tons of extras," Susskind said. "Imagine the amounts of money they would be saving. Not paying $180 a day. Plus meals. Plus costuming," he said.
-
-
It is a dumb argument. AI does not need to copy their faces. It can make new faces and expressions. For example: https://twitter.com/AiModelMil... [twitter.com] is a completely AI generated influencer. Just imagine when AI can animate her based on a text input. The real issue is, actors and actresses wont be able to keep up with these "perfect" people, shown in situations that would be prohibitively expensive or impossible to film.
-
they have been doing this for decades with CGI, the people that should be worried are the animators
-
You're a liar. You're glossing over the fact that it couldn't do this without first being fed a giant catalog of illegally sourced images of real people's faces. It doesn't generate those faces just "based on text input." It generates them based on text and image/video input. Those aren't 100% unique from-scratch fabrications pulled out of some magical AI's virtual asshole. They're evolutionarilly-generated combinations of parts of real people's faces who have had their rights violated in many cases to be i
-
The AI learns to draw faces by looking at lots of faces.
That's also how humans learn to draw faces.
-
-
-
They can clone trolls also, you're obsolete.
-
can they clone moderators to automatically downvote the cloned trolls?
-
AFTER they find enough dupe cleaners.
-
-
-
-
-
That would be a good way to guarantee AI would take over this more quickly. It's a good incentive to pluck this low-hanging fruit as soon as possible.
-
So's capitalism.
-
I doubt anyone's holding off on figuring out how to have AI generate background people that just have to stand and/or walk around. As soon as that's done and has spread around, "movie extra" will no longer be a job.
And I don't think it will take long. There's free software that can render a free model walking around, it just takes more money to pay someone to spend time to set up the animation than to hire a warm body for a day. For now.
-
-
Go speak to the supermarket and speak to the former cashier who now supervises 4 self-checkout stations.
-
Hey, he got a promotion, he's a supervisor now!
-
So you can get screwed one way, or the other. Might as well go down fighting then. All these industries that depend on power imbalance to pay predatory wages are really comfortable in their position, they should really feel at least a bit of discomfort...
-
Or... adapt and survive. Its sort of what the universe forces upon us.
-
Bend over and take it. Understood.
-
-
-
-
And do what? Strike? Absolute best case, you cripple a bunch of movie producers and companies and put them out of business - which would be a great contribution to American culture. We *want* Disney, CBS, etc, put out of business. But that ain't going to get you any jobs as extras in movies.
Strikes can work where the job is critical and where you can't just go out and find someone else. "Movie Extra" doesn't qualify on either count.-
Can you elaborate on why you want Disney and CBS out of business?
-
-
-
TV and Film Extras Are Afraid AI Will Copy Their Faces and Bodies To Take Jobs
OK, AI will create artificial faces and bodies for the extras in scenes to eliminate IP issues. It already happens at a distance, it just keeps getting closer and closer to the camera, where more details can be recognized.
Fortunately AI seems to be starting with some of the most useless humans on the planet, internet influencers.
Face it, if your only value is the look of your face or body, you are entirely replaceable.-
It's probable that the scanning is to provide match data for special effects and post work for specific scenes. It's not that they're creating artificial actors to replace existing actors in that case, as much as it is they need to put the extras through the same scanning as the principal actors in order to provide continuity when doing the SFX work.
The question then is, what happens to the data afterwards. What might make more sense is handing a copy of the data to the extra, or "banking" it with SAG/AFT
-
-
Are extras signing away their likeness for all eternity?
I hope they're not going to hit it big later as a star if they are... because whoever they sold their likeness to originally will be able to clone them without further compensation going forward.
As with any contract, you're allowed to make ones that aren't advantageous to you. In the same vein, you're also allowed to decline to accept the contract and just walk away.
BTW, California does recognize that you have a right to your likeness, and that people are not allowed to copy your appearance, speech, etc. in an effort to monetize it. So I assume if studios are scanning extras, that they're applying the same contracts they would normally use for extras to appear in a film.
California publicity law: https://www.dmlp.org/legal-gui... [dmlp.org]
-
No problem, more production will leave California.
-
-
Look-a-likes happen already. They just have to deal with people they don't know coming up and starting a conversation before they realize they have the wrong person.
If it's all digital any way the easy way to fix it is the old Identikit way from '60s movies. Just mix up eyes, noses, cheeks, mouths, chins, etc to randomize the faces.
That old movie "Looker" keeps coming true. The movie didn't quite work, but it's topical enough.
For that matter "Oh my god, what am I doing?" Is also on point, but that was a twi
-
-
-
I guess they're not scanning these actors to use their likeness. But instead using their movements and expressions to train AI and build new, fictional people to put in their place. This way, the studios won't have to bother with future contracts.
-
They don't even need actors to scan then. They could call temp agencies and pay those people double their rates to scan them. Most wouldn't care and would be thrilled to make twice as much as usual, even if for a short time.
-
I agree. But just to clarify, when I said actors I were meaning the extras or any other people hired only for this purpose, since they're too acting.
-
-
-
That's exactly what the studios are proposing, and it's a big sticking point in the strike. One day pay for scanning then they get to use the scans however they want for as long as they want.
One thing comments here are also overlooking is that these scans can (will) be used not only to put the person they scanned into films as a virtual background actor, but also to train AI to create 'from scratch' background actors. Feeding the models with high quality, multi-angle scans will get them better results fa-
yeah, the AI adds a layer of plausible deniability, so they can claim it isn't really their likeness. Kinda like how they do with scripts already.. someone comes in with an interesting script but no name, it is pretty common for studios to hand it over to one of their existing writers and change it just enough that it doesn't count as copying.
-
-
-
Are doomed. The writing is clearly on the wall. The basic “we need a person to stand there and look surprised” types of video jobs probably have an expiration data of 10-30 years at this point. Beyond that, there will be so many people’s vids processed by ML that there’ll be no need for warm bodies beyond the people playing the actual parts. I’d be surprised if a tenth of those jobs exist past 2040.
-
It's not even a real job, they get paid scale for something that really isn't even a job and you could find lots of people to do for free.
No one should or should expect to make any sort of a living at it, they need a real job, too
-
Nobody really expects to make a living from being an extra. But it's a potential entry point to the acting business, which looks like it's about to close.
-
-
-
The music industry learned a way to resolve most conflicts between composers, performers, and producers: they each automatically get an industry-wide agreed-on cut. This way it's harder to take advantage of desperate newbies: if the tune is a hit, they automatically get a cut. I believe composers and performers can agree to a higher percent than the default, but not a lower one. (It's assumed producers are not desperate newbies. I'm probably over-simplifying, but this is the gist.)
Something similar can be d
-
They shot a movie at my house school when I was growing up. Tons of people from my school were lining up to be an extra in the movie.
I didn't realize that being an extra was a career. I thought it was the kind of thing that people did for the novelty of it. It's weird to think that there are people out there looking at AI filling in scenes with extras saying, "they took our jobs!" Do actors in New York or LA do a bunch of extra jobs in hopes of meeting people who could actually cast them in real roles?
-
You can make $50k/year as an extra bouncing from set to set if you persist at it and show up for every gig in the area. And sometimes you get lucky and get picked up for something bigger. Good money? No. But a living... for now.
-
-
-
If it is the hill you live on, it may be worth dying on if you don't have another hill to move to (and sometimes even if you do but it's a big jump). Doesn't matter how strange it is.
-
-
Find a real job or get roles with lines. Extra work is going to disappear sooner than you want to think it can. The only times a human extra is necessary is for close together where a face and the extras essential stand together.
For anything at a distance, the price of real-time 3d character generation keeps dropping. I figure you have maybe 10 years left before the only roles are in live tv.
-
Already done. For the Colosseum scenes in Gladiator (released in 2000) they used a mix of live people, digital rendering and cardboard cutouts.
-
-
Because the arts pay so well! Why, in my most recent year doing comedy, I made six figures! (The first three figures were zero.)
Seriously, though, if AI ends up killing much of art, it's a real threat to our culture.
-
It WILL replace a lot of the actors. The questions are "How quickly?" and "How many?". Eventually all the actors will be replaced, but that may be a decade or two away. The actors of "the golden age" (whatever that it to you) will be synthesized, a Humphrey Bogart and Marilyn Monroe will star in new films. (Neither of those had contracts giving them control over future uses of their images. Nor did Charlie Chaplin, or many others. And all copyrights will have expired.)
What current actors have is a BRI
-
-
Of course they will! Souls don't grow on trees you know, and Hollywood sold theirs so long ago that no one there remembers having them in the first place.
https://youtu.be/Yd60nI4sa9A [youtu.be]
I mean, they could invent their own shit, but it's just so much easier to steal it from others. Just ask ruSSia, they stole their entire culture that way.
-
Why copy the faces and bodies of living extras when they can train from the extras in films of long ago? They could train from the faces and bodies from crowds in newsreels from the 1930s.
-
Because it's difficult to extrapolate from a series of 2D imaged to a 3D model, and you need to do that to get the shadows and lighting correct. This, however, is only a temporary problem.
-
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK