> I expect we'll see something like VTubers on a mass scale. Companies creating their own virtual people - where they control the IP - and putting all their efforts behind promoting them instead of humans

I'm reminded of the "failure" of Kizuna AI; the fully corporate vtuber whose human side is just a puppet operator who can be swapped, turns out not to be very appealing to audiences. The modern approach where a model is exactly synonymous with the person playing it, as an authentic human improvising, appeals more. The IP doesn't persist beyond the contract of that person with the company, and certainly can't be swapped with someone else. But in some cases the actor or actress has successfully maintained their career and fanbase under a different name following a fallout with their managers.

> once AIs crack acting

This is far beyond the turing test, and I don't think we're really ready for what happens with human-indistinguishable automated corporately owned doppelgangers.

> Companies creating their own virtual people - where they control the IP - and putting all their efforts behind promoting them instead of humans

The 'killer app' will be a personal cast of virtual performers. Tailor made to appeal to you.

Not a great movie, but one part of "the Congress" was interesting: if a famous actor or actress gets older, they could choose to sell the rights to their likeness to an AI company.

> As the tech improves, at current rates

Aha! The "current rates" there does some very heavy lifting. Nobody knows how LLMs will develop. It would be naive to assume that you can just extrapolate linearly from here on out.

You didn't read the article did you?

The first bill, AB 1836, “prohibits the use of a deceased person’s voice or likeness in digital replicas without the prior consent of their estate,” according to SAG-AFTRA. The second, AB 2602, “prohibits contractual provisions that would allow for the use of a digital replica of an individual’s voice or likeness in place of the individual’s actual services,” unless the individual gave their consent to a clear, specific description of how the AI would be used.

You just need consent or a proper contract. The bill only forbids them of doing this without consent, or having it forced onto standard contracts in Hollywood. Both of which were likely inevitable without this bill.

You can still do it, ignoring the clickbait title of this article.

If they’re applying for a random acting job they’re fine. If they’re applying for a Taylor Swift impersonator role, they’re likely to run into legal issues. I don’t see why that’s a problem. Why does their bodily autonomy have to include attempting to fool other people into thinking they’re someone they aren’t?

If I attempt to convince the government I’m someone I’m not, there are real criminal penalties - my “body autonomy” doesn’t extend to deception.

> absurd assumption that an individual owns a particular arrangement of facial features

They do, in combination with the rest of their abstract characteristics, such as personality. This is commonly referred to as identity - who you are. You own it by virtue of it being impossible for anyone to. You're you and you'll always be you, and nobody else can be you, by definition.

If someone is in panic about AI in art industry, it's because his skills are not good enough. AI is tool that makes job done faster, but you still need idea and know-how, how to use it properly and usefully for specific tasks.

Film industry should focus on quality instead of quantity.

By going to court and seeing what a judge and jury think, same as how you define countless other wrongdoings.

this is exactly the kind of thing that juries resolve all the time.

Indeed. What happens if you license the AI likeness of a George Clooney impersonator?

I think it should always be legal to use the likeness of deceased people.

Could it be gross? Yes. But I'd rather have that than the absurdity of copyright be extended to beyond the grave for yet another case where it makes no sense. There is no theory of harm here, the person being impersonated is dead.

Could you damage the reputation of a living person by using the image of a dead one? Of course, but that's already illegal.

So you’re assuming consent unless there’s someone there to deny it? Gross.

> organized people can still change things for the better.

Which is exactly why it's aggressively shunned in some circles and why large amounts of time/money is spent to manipulate public opinion against the practice.

All the US social media posts were crapping on unions about lazy teachers earning a ton of money and film productions waiting till an electrician comes in and turns on a switch. I didnt realize the alternative was corporates having the unchecked power.

Quoted from the second paragraph:

> the new laws not only bolster those existing protections but extend them to everyone in California — not just to people working in front of a camera in Hollywood

Roughly, I'd assume that the Screen Actors Guild was looking out for their member's interests.

Current AI's don't seem much of a threat to firefighters or plumbers.

> Why just actors?

So far, they're the only one who signed a big enough check to the politicians.

Someone impersonating someone else is already forbidden. The impersonators in Vegas get by because they are openly claiming to be impersonators. Nobody in their right mind is going to think the fake Elvis on the corner is actually Elvis.

Because it was created by/for the movie studios. Everything else is just unintended consequences.

Aren't there already state and federal laws to prosecute fraud and identity theft, including deepfakes?

It doesn't matter how advanced the rock or other weapon; if they hold someone up with it that's an aggravated crime.

why stop at actors, make genAI viewers too

Yeah, I don't see how most of everyone involved in artistic content creation comes out of this with economically viable jobs. People will only put up with legacy pricing for so long once AI can do it cheaper and/or better.

The law was introduced in January and has been working its way up since then. Are you making the case that a video posted 6 months later is to be given credit?

Law history source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.x...

The video link with post date is in your link