Re: I don’t understand this comment:

I think it will turn people off and not work well for many genres. I wouldn’t assume this idea, even if feasible, would work as well for any type of movie under the sun. So if possible, it will be tried with varying success. It’s great for movies that are trying to make a commentary about AI and there are quite a few. It’s been tried in some limited ways for action and Sci-Fi movies. But I wouldn’t expect, for example, to see Laura Linney replaced in Ozark, or Ana De Armas in Blonde. What’s the point? We watch these things to see real humans doing things that people do. Dramatic performances - in the absence of a real person, what’s the fucking point? I would lose interest.

Hollywood wants nothing more than to make self referential movies about their art, so I fully expect to see a dystopic movie covering this in a meta commentary on the subject.

The issue is I have a hard time with the idea of fully crossing the uncanny valley for things that are naturalistic and actor focused etc. Could they do something like this for cgi riddled action movies? Probably. But those have large special effects budgets. You’re arguing for the idea of automating out actor work with AI like other professions and forms of art. It would have to make financial sense and in many cases I think it would not. There’s a reason not all movies are animated or all filmed on green screens. I think it will be a long time before actors can be replaced fully in such a way that is believable, and in such a way that is affordable. Additionally I think people will stop caring to watch for many genres of movies.

I would be more immediately concerned with AI replacing or augmenting the writing process, because so many movies and shows follow similar tropes and plot lines. Additionally I’d expect to see AI augmentation for the animation process for movies that are legitimately animated, or use CGI backdrops / set pieces etc.