The first AI actress from new talent studio Xicoia, made waves at the Zurich Summit as creator Eline Van der Velden positioned her as the ‘next Scarlett Johansson’
The word “star” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that headline.
Don’t you have to star in something before you can become a film star?
What makes it a star? Has it ‘starred’ in any thing that did well?
Marketing, you talking about it. Stern named himself King of All Media, because he had found out that Michael Jasckson had named himself King of Pop
Sorry I’m not into six fingered women
I solemnly promise to permanently blacklist any studio that attempts to rent it and pass it off as something for human consumption.
“People are realizing that their creativity doesn’t need to be boxed in by a budget – there are no constraints creatively and that’s why AI can really be a positive,” continued Eline. “It’s just about changing people’s viewpoint.”
What does this even mean? Agreed, creativety doesn’t haved to be limited by a budget, you can implement workarounds (Blair Witch Project), but those workarounds require creativity and not whatever this fellow is pitching.
“We can get rid of these pesky humans and keep all the profit.”
There is no creativity in AI. Only thievery.
If you’re creative and have no money, write a book ffs. You can have some of my scrap paper and i will lend you a pencil. You don’t have to boil the oceans and steal from better artists to be creative on no budget. People who use AI for art are fucking losers.
Whatever happened to the “first cgi actress”!? Oh that’s right, nothing…
Unsurprisingly, she’s pretty and so bland as to not offend anyone. For looks, I like actors and actresses that look a little off, think, Anna Taylor-Joy’s wide-spaced eyes, or Sandra Bullock’s strong nose. AI acting will have no quirks, no “oops” that makes a better scene, no ad libbing, no going off script, nothing human. At this point in AI development, there’s an uncanny valley. Some still images of humans can work for me but those are rare, not sure how they make those.
These things will never age, never get better, explore other options in their “career”. Remember when everyone shit bricks at Tom Cruise playing a bad guy in Collateral? While we’re at it, everyone shit bricks at his superb version of the vampire LeStat. How interesting would Brad Pitt be is he had the same looks and skills as he had in the 90s?
Anyway, if you didn’t read the article, this is not about what you think. She says. If this were merely the creator experimenting, that would count as creativity in my book. But FFS, she’s shopping this thing around and then telling us it’s not meant to replace actors. Bull. Shit.
“AI offers another way to imagine and build stories. I’m an actor myself, and nothing — certainly not an AI character — can take away the craft or joy of human performance,” she added.
So, why are you trying to do just that…? You literally are taking away the human performance.
“and nothing — certainly not an AI character — can take away the craft or joy of human performance,” she added.
Yeah… I beg to differ.
Attention probably. It’s not like she’s busy with acting. I’m Dutch and I’ve never heard of this Dutch actress.
I use ai tools to fix spreadsheets, make schedules, and help me solve technology problems. I find it useful.
This just seems demented. This is a twisted caricature of a person that is just what studios and producers want. This is born of greed. Now your favorite “celebrity” can be sold to everyone. They can do cat food commercials. They can speak at any function. They can be sold as a virtual ai friend in your phone and they won’t ask for a penny. GREED.
I don’t shed tears for rich celebrities, but if making shows and movies with fake actors becomes the norm, the performing arts will be reduced to a sad husk.
Some might argue that the player piano did not replace pianists, but they’re not looking at the whole picture. Technology that created automated and recorded music did replace a whole lot of live music, and musicians.
I’m sure the studios and the jackwagon “actor” who stuck her name on this will say that this is a means of expression and that the artist is not the brush, but they instead control the brush.
Not buying it. This is one place that should not be encroached upon. Without performers who think, feel and emote, the performances will be hollow. Of course, once it takes over, most people won’t know the difference.
Without performers who think, feel and emote, the performances will be hollow.
Cartoon characters do all of those thing. Silent ones don’t even have a vocal performance, and functionally do everything a mime can do.
The main problem with the AI performance is your other point about it being intended as a replacement for real people, not as an alternate form of expression.
A cartoon character performance comes from the artists pen or their posing and rigging in the case of 3D animation so it’s still very human
The arts won’t become a sad husk. I would bet more live events will become common again. Think plays and operas.
Or people will do what I’m doing: go back in time to when stuff was guaranteed not to be slop. There’s thousands of years of literature from thousands of cultures to explore. I don’t have to watch the latest shit Hollywood shoves at me.
deleted by creator
lmao.
right…and what about the 60,000,000 hours of porn that have been generated? are those characters not acting enough?
got news for you if that’s the case. this clanker isn’t acting either.
The next Scarlett Johansson? Is AI going to pull off a Marriage Story level performance?
She ain’t no Sim0ne
