172
Stars protest after AI actress gets agency interest: ‘What about living young women?’
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2025
172 points (93.0% liked)
News
32517 readers
3240 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Or the Hollywood accountants put out of work by Excel, or the film processing and printing technicians put out of work by digital cameras, the cel animators put out of work by various digital alternatives, and so forth.
Technology changes and the jobs available change with it. Looks like many actors are soon going to join the ranks of the lamplighters and buggy whip manufacturers. I don't see why their profession should get protections and exemptions from this process that nobody else gets.
To me it's not even about jobs. It's about the interest in the art... why the fuck would I care about a script written by AI and acted by AI? What's even the point?
If everything is artificially generated to be mildly pleasing, just fucking electrically stimulate my dopamine receptors directly, what's even the goal here? See a few pixels move on my screen?
The whole humanity thing was work to survive so we can make the things only humans can make: wonders, art, tell stories, play sports... why would I give a shit about a computer's interpretation of that?
Well, if the computer consistently makes a better product than the human, the world will embrace the computer “art.”
At the moment we still have AI creating some pretty Janky shit, so it makes sense to dislike it.
Is it good?
That's really all I care about at the end of the day. When I watch a TV show I've never really cared who the scriptwriter was or what their personal history or intent behind the story whatever. I just watch the show, and if it's a good story I enjoy it.
I know AI's not well liked in these parts and a lot of people are of the opinion that AI writing can never be "good." If that is indeed the case then there's no risk of writers losing jobs to it.
But what if it turns out that things other than humans can make those things?
It used to be a commonly-repeated argument that no computer would ever best a human grandmaster at chess. Or a top-ranked go player. CGI actors would never be indistinguishable from the real thing. And, recently, that AI couldn't depict plausible hands. I wouldn't be so confident that AI can't tell good stories at some point soon.
You people would watch The Matrix and side with the villains, that's bizarre. I have a toy soldier with more soul than what you just displayed.
In what fairy tale universe do you live where bad things aren't forced upon people via market pressures?
They can (copying massive amounts of actually human made content, of course) but that's completely irrelevant to the point. I don't care if they can do it or not, I'm not their creator.
And guess what, I watch people compete when playing chess, even if they are not as good as the chess engines. People watch people playing chess, not two smartphones side by side on a table with StockFish running.
They can write a 10 hour movie and I still wouldn't give a shit about what an AI is got to say.
Who's "you people"?
Also, did you watch the Matrix? The villains were not clear cut. There were machines who were sympathetic to humanity and humans who were traitors, and they had complex motivations. The Animatrix made it clear that humans were the villains in the original war between humans and machines, and in the most recent movie of the series we see that at least some factions of human and machine were holding to the peace treaty that Neo negotiated and are living in harmony. The situation in the Matrix is complicated.
Unless you just watch it for the cool kung-fu and bullet time, and don't pay attention to the writing. In which case I guess I see why you'd think my criterion of "is the writing good?" Is irrelevant.
You.
I was specifically making allusion to Cypher's steak scene, but I should've suspected you wouldn't understand how that was meant to be interpreted given you agree with the villain. Sorry for not being clear enough.
Says the guy who just commented how you just consume the content and never makes a hint of effort to understand the purpose behind the writing, whilst defending AI scripts.
You don't know me.
He's literally who I was thinking of when I said there were "humans who were traitors."
Again, you've got a weirdly black and white view about a movie that was written to have a complex moral landscape and ambiguous characters. I think you missed out on a great deal of the movie's meaning and intent.
Ah, irony.
Good thing I'm reflecting on your comments about AI, not your favorite ice cream flavor.
Good thing I'm not talking about the morality around the movie, just one specific character and their views on the merits of artificially generated experiences.
Maybe copy and paste the thread on the AI you love so much and it could explain the concept to you.
Except that's not what you did. You said I would watch the Matrix and side with the villains.
Turns out you don't even understand who the "villains" are in that movie, though, so it's not a particularly useful reflection.
I recall reading a news article about AI damaging people's ability to comprehend a simple conversation... I didn't think it was true, but I can see now that yes, you people do exist out there huh.