Yeah, how is Harvey Weinstein supposed to molest an AI?
this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2025
135 points (97.2% liked)
News
32517 readers
3408 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
135
Stars protest after AI actress gets agency interest: ‘What about living young women?’
(www.independent.co.uk)
Won't anybody think of the children?
VR headset and a fleshlight.
Considering what his allegedly looks like, maybe he should've washed his toys more —or, at all. 🤢
The real Turing test
This doesn't seem like something that benefits the majority of people.
If it was like "here's free (or at least legitimately cheap) access to some virtual actors. Go make the movie of your dreams, kids!" maybe that would be cool. Maybe there are people out there with brilliant ideas that are blocked by not having real actors to act for them. Maybe.
But this just seems like another way for the rich to keep more wealth for themselves.
You can already hire dirt cheap nobody actors for your indie passion project by putting up a poster near any college with a liberal arts program. Or use a website. Hell, there are even carve outs to stay full union.
But if you have money to make a "real" movie? You have money to pay talent.
But this just seems like another way for the rich to keep more wealth for themselves.
Yup. Insert AlwaysHasBeen.meme here.
That last sentence alone has described the entire American business sector for the past 10 years or so
past ~~10~~ 50 years or so
And even further back than that, but post WW2 I feel like progress was made.
Seems like it could be like music production software becoming widely available. Now you don't need to get a drummer, a bass player etc. Together to make music, you can just make it at home on your computer. It enables lower level people to get off the ground as they now have the tools that the pros do, you want a saxophone but don't know anyone in town who can play or can't afford one, just use a synth that sounds like one. Once you get signed though and you have a label giving you studio time you might hire an actual saxophone player because it sounds better.
Same with movies, AI could be helpful in making small low/no budget indie movies, but I don't think it's at the same quality as real actors for big budget movies where people expect more, so maybe the wealthy studio execs won't benefit from it much right now.
If this agency normalizes AI actors for the big movie theatres it'll help the smaller ones too, IMO.
It's already happening that people are using AI to make the movies of their dreams (well, short form video, at any rate - The Adventures of Reemo Green is a recent example that comes to mind, I would dearly love to see a TV series of this guy). They don't need to use an AI actor agency, but they do have to face the "ew, AI!" Reaction to their work. If the big studios start doing it that'll make things easier for them.
This feels like an archaic system clinging to life.
Why would middlemen like agencies, talent studios and 'AI production companies' be needed for what is essentially CG?
For the same reason they are "needed" for flesh and blood humans.
Studios need to know who is and isn't worth even spending the time for an interview on, let alone filming. For a human this might be avoiding complete flakes that waste casting time or, theoretically, avoiding something like Joaquin Phoenix pulling out of a movie at the very last minute because it was too gay (allegedly).
For an AI? That is a model that has been vetted that it won't lead to immediate law suits because it is just Tom Cruise or that can be programmed to do what is needed. Sometimes you want a model that is like Keanu and became a gun nut after The Matrix and shoots 3 gun in his spare time. And sometimes you want that Korean Boy Band actor who is going to flinch every time a blank goes off because that is the character.
On the talent side? What role you "choose" can completely derail your career. We all love industry darlings like the Twilight kids or Jennifer Lawrence who can do both big budget leading roles AND pick some of the quirkiest and most interesting indie films. But pick the wrong quirky role and you are "that chick who sucked a guy off" or get typecast into action movies and so forth.
And that is doubly true for AI models and their handlers/trainers. Everyone pretends they can spot generative AI because there are six fingers on that hand. But the reality is that different underlying algorithms/models will have characteristics in terms of what training data they weight and so forth. So two "actresses" generated with the same toolset WILL have similarities if you obsess over it enough. And... it won't end well if Aki Ross 2.0's underlying model was also used to train Project Melodee 2.0 and people realize her face when she is eating that cake that represents the last vestiges of her innocence is REALLY similar to the face that Melodee make when she is doing DVDA.
At which point the agency helps to avoid situations where "Well... you are contracted and mr tarantino wants you to drive that car while he jacks it to your feet. And you wouldn't want to be problematic, would you?".
And the last part being, funny enough, collective bargaining. An individual is gonna have a hard time saying no to that rock star director. Whereas said director is going to think twice about taking advantage of someone if it means they might get blocklisted by the same org that represents Thom Cruz.
There are obviously a LOT of issues with "AI Actors" and... I wish I believed it wasn't going to be a thing within the next 5 years. But the idea of having talent agencies to act as intermediaries still makes a LOT of sense.
That is a model that has been vetted that it won’t lead to immediate law suits because it is just Tom Cruise or that can be programmed to do what is needed. Sometimes you want a model that is like Keanu and became a gun nut after The Matrix and shoots 3 gun in his spare time. And sometimes you want that Korean Boy Band actor who is going to flinch every time a blank goes off because that is the character.
We are talking about a completely different ecosystem here.
These generative 'models' either fall into the buckets of:
-
A very small basket of completely closed, relatively inflexible corporate APIs.
-
Or a still-small basket of open models folks build these skeletal frameworks around, or maybe loras or adapters.
All these AI startups like to pretend they're doing something special when, underneath, they're really just prompting ChatGPT with a wrapper, or hosting a Flux finetune or whatever.
In other words, they are NOT pretraining Thom Cruz from scratch. The pool of usable frontier models is very small.
And… it won’t end well if Aki Ross 2.0’s underlying model was also used to train Project Melodee 2.0 and people realize her face when she is eating that cake that represents the last vestiges of her innocence is REALLY similar to the face that Melodee make when she is doing DVDA.
At which point the agency helps to avoid situations where “Well… you are contracted and mr tarantino wants you to drive that car while he jacks it to your feet. And you wouldn’t want to be problematic, would you?”.
Again, you're treating these 'models' like a diverse group of humanity, and like every company's training from scratch, when that's not how the software's set up.
It makes no economic sense to treat them like people with their associated complications. They're software suites, they're tools, more like different flavors Davinci Resolve or whatever studios use these days, that can each produce an infinite spectrum of humans depictions, basically for free. A closer analog would be video game development, with the cost of voice acting and animation stripped out; the only thing that makes The Master Chief, Commander Shepard, or a particular incarnation of Lara Croft 'unique' is the copyright, recognition, and software suite they built them into.
EDIT:
To add to this, I think its extremely dangerous and unhealthy to anthropomorphize them.
In fact, this might be what the agencies are trying to do. 'Humanizing' them like theyre individual, sentient things makes them appear less like Lara Croft selling a Snickers bar. It may be optics for the customers (like ad makers hiring actors/actresses) more than anything.
Everything about this "news" story would have been easy for Tilly's owners to orchestrate as publicity for their projects
I’m wondering if they used AI to name the talent studio.
“Xicoia” sounds like a prescription my elderly parents would ask their doctor about after seeing it on TV.
Probably used AI to write the article too.
Just an ouroboros of shit
I heard in my head like the old ricolla ads.
"ZeeeeeeCoyAaaaaah!"
Eventually it's gonna happen.
We're not there yet, and we'll start seeing it from the bottom up when it actually happens.
It's already used for crowds, next is extras walking down the street, then once it gets to speaking lines the stars will have to worry. The won't be replaced till last, but eventually making a movie won't involve a single camera.
We're not there yet, but its prettty decent already for amateurs or low-stakes proffesionals. Like this
Influencers using horizontal video? Pft. So unrealistic.
We might actually get a proper indie scene. AI is going to pull us out of the Hollywood bullshit era.
Soulless marvel character showcases disguised as feature films won't cut it anymore.
It's being used by the government to fake the president. If it can fool the dumb country bumpkins it can be used in Hollywood. Future media is gonna be lifeless and uncanny.
Are you implying that the bearded belly dancer on the beaches of the golden Trump Riviera was AI?
Thumbnail has a framed movie poster of my favorite film of all time:
"fffff"
dont forget the sequel, "gggggg"
Honestly I think it might be best to simply ban AI actors looking like humans.
I fear it may cause even more unrealistic standards than having almost perfect actors, and people may feel even less as part of a society than they do now.
I can see how it can be practical and cheaper and all that, but if the depiction of humans stop to be actual human, I think we may be walking into a whole new set of problems in the future.
CGI actors, too.
And stunt men, if you're going to depict a famous actor doing something dangerous it's false advertising to have someone else doing it for him.
We should probably ban makeup as well.
What does this even mean? You can't put other actors on screen with it. The only movies you could make would be garbage like Ice Cube's War of the Worlds.
Sure they can. There have been animated characters next to live characters for decades.
Nah-uh! Gamma rays just has that effect on real genuine human persons.
Just need a "green man" and it'd be no different than CGI...
Norwood is an entirely virtual creation owned by Xicoia
Current US law has been reluctant to allow copyright for AI generated works. At least until this industry throws gobs of cash at Congress and a motor coach at scotus.
So what's to stop somebody from recreating "Tilly" for their own use?
Even if the AI output itself is public domain, you can trademark the characters involved and you can copyright the work that the output is a part of. This isn't likely to be a big obstacle. If I generate an image of Mario, for example, the fine folks at Nintendo can still get on my case about it. And if I'm making a movie and the Mona Lisa comes into shot the movie remains my IP regardless.
So people who only got overpaid because of the way they look are upset about being undercut by something because of the way it looks?
All these virtual persona companies are going to fail. It's basically just grifters trying to make a quick buck on the new technology.
Anyone can create an "AI actress" in a few clicks now. Should Hollywood be worried? Yes, but that isn't a bad thing and it's definitely not these fake talent agencies that are going to reap the rewards.
May you live in stupid times.
HA that's funny, not even the people behind the original Chinese curse probably thought such evil was even possible, or maybe they thought it would be funny?
Goddam I wish these were merely "interesting" times.
What about all the stuntmen that lost their jobs with CG stunts?
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.
Putting a living person in hotel reverie is just too dangerous