Synthetic vs Human Actors

On May 12, 2023, writers in Hollywood went on a strike against Hollywood studios and streaming companies. Actors joined in June, making it one of the biggest and most disruptive protests in Hollywood since 1960.

One of the key highlights of the protest is around the use of Generative AI. Writers and Actors want studios to abstain from using LLMs and Synthetic Characters in movies and TV shows.

However, the biggest concern for actors is actually around a proposal that studios have been trying to push: Hollywood studios want to use AI replicas of actors for free, forever.

In a statement about the strike, the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) said that its proposal included “a groundbreaking AI proposal that protects actors’ digital likenesses for SAG-AFTRA members.”

When asked about the proposal during the press conference, Crabtree-Ireland said that “This ‘groundbreaking’ AI proposal that they gave us yesterday, they proposed that our background performers should be able to be scanned, get one day’s pay, and their companies should own that scan, their image, their likeness and should be able to use it for the rest of eternity on any project they want, with no consent and no compensation. So if you think that’s a groundbreaking proposal, I suggest you think again.”

The Verge

Understanding Generative AI

To understand why Generative AI is disruptive, you have to understand the technology at play and its capabilities.

At its core, GenAI is a giant cloning, replicating and mashing machine. It takes content that’s already out there, in form of text, images, video, audio, and, either creates something similar, or mashes it to create new forms of content that doesn’t exist yet.

This capability of GenAI is at the heart of the protest — are writers and actors staring at a future where studios don’t need them much anymore? If studios get free forever access to use an actor’s image without paying them, wouldn’t it simply make actors redundant?

Hopefully this protest would create a legal framework around Generative AI and its use in Media industry.

However, it also raises a bigger question: can studios potentially engineer completely synthetic characters in future movies, without the help of human actors at all?

Synthetic Characters

Virtual synthetic characters, btw, is nothing new. There’s an entire growing industry of virtual influencers that stands to threaten the economic foundation of influential creators. The biggest of that list is Lu do Magalu, with over 6 Mn followers.

The potential of synthetic characters in films and movies is both fascinating and controversial. With advancements in technology and the rise of Generative AI, studios have the ability to engineer entirely virtual characters without the need for human actors.

One of the key advantages of synthetic characters is the level of control and customization they offer. Filmmakers can design these characters from scratch, tailoring their appearance, personality, and abilities to fit the story’s needs. This opens up a whole new world of creative possibilities, allowing for the creation of fantastical creatures, superhumans, or even characters that defy the limitations of the physical world.

Moreover, synthetic characters can eliminate many of the logistical challenges associated with traditional filming. They can be created and modified entirely in a digital environment, saving time, resources, and budget. They can also perform stunts and actions that would be dangerous or impossible for human actors, pushing the boundaries of what can be achieved on screen.

Ethical Concerns

However, the use of synthetic characters also raises ethical and artistic concerns. Critics argue that relying heavily on virtual actors could devalue the craft and artistry of human performers. Human actors bring their unique talents, emotions, and interpretations to a role, connecting with audiences in a deeply human way. It raises questions about the authenticity and emotional resonance of characters created solely through algorithms.

If you study the trajectory of cinema from the era of Godfather trilogy, and Shawshank Redemption to the latest generation of Marvel and Disney blockbusters, we are increasingly witnessing narratives that repeat the ‘protagonist saving the world from a catastrophic end’ storyline, using fast-paced action tropes and fully CGI generated scenes, which rake in revenues, but do your head in, especially if you are the kind who seeks a narrative that’s a tad bit smarter.

Of course, along with purely artistic concern, there are economic implications for actors and the entertainment industry as a whole. If studios can create virtual actors without needing to pay or negotiate contracts with human performers, it may lead to job losses and decreased opportunities for actors. This concern is at the heart of the ongoing strike in Hollywood.

Technology-Led Disruption

However, every technological disruption opens out a new set of opportunities, which in turn creates new markets and new business models. Historically, this shift has taken place a number of times:

• During the birth of silent cinema on December 28, 1895, when the Lumière brothers held their first public screening of films at the Grand Café in Paris. Traditional theater actors and critics viewed cinema as a cheap novelty and not a legitimate art form. More than a hundred years later, both forms coexist.
• In 1960s, labor protests that took place in the US due to shift in business models after television added a new distribution channel.
• Kodak’s fall with the rise of digital cameras, and their inability to adapt. While several new companies and business models were born, the incumbent leader failed to adapt and eventually lost.
• Music and video streaming triggered by a combination of high speed internet access and smartphones, which changed the business model for labels, studios and stakeholder of the creative industry.

These are a few of the many instances, and our recent collective history is littered with far more. This disruption is inevitable, and the core reason why it happens is that technology tends to drive down the cost of production, creates wider distribution channels, and effectively changes economics of distribution through removal of middlemen.

Since change is inevitable, the question then arises, what does the future of media and entertainment look like in the era of generative AI? This is the key question to ask. A follow up question would be, how does that effectively change the business model for the stakeholders?

Back to Basics

Economic value is created when currency changes hand from a consumer to a producer, in return for a good or service they value. In media, this valuable service happens to be content that entertains.

With Generative AI and Synthetic Characters, we are staring at a world where there would be an explosion in amount of good, bad and crappy content that’s generated. When production becomes easy, and accessible to everyone, the volume of content is bound to grow exponentially, both in short form, long form, films, videos, tv shows.

However, what is in short supply is time and attention span. The viewer is inundated, and they lack time. What do they value then that they will pay for? As a case in point, here’s a tweet that you may enjoy:

Note that I don’t agree with Musk’s viewpoint on the film Oppenheimer at all. I sat engrossed, and found it to be several notches above Nolan’s previous film Tenet, which I found to be pointless and trivial.

So we then go back to the basics. The question to ask is not whether you can generate using Synthetic Characters in the future, but how do you make it interesting enough so that a viewer will spend time, attention and money, the real measure of value of content? Only time will tell.