But they're using different actors for Spock and Colt in those scenes. How does that relate to AI/CGI?

@Knixon said:

But they're using different actors for Spock and Colt in those scenes. How does that relate to AI/CGI?

At the moment it is still necessary to use 'lookalikes' and real actors as models. When technology has advanced far enough, any scanned data can be used to recreate the characters without the original source. AI is already used to make deepfake video and audio.

Examples are found in games, animation and specific genre movies where the characters can look quite realistic, if the CGI is done well.

Will actors be replaced completely? Probably not. But the possibility of recreating them - including the deceased - is one that is already happening.

... Could CGI Replace Actors, and Should it? - article

Example: Recreating Grand Moff Tarkin (played by Peter Cushing, who died in 1994) in the 2016 movie "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story"

• How 'Rogue One' Recreated Grand Moff Tarkin

• CGI Tarkin vs Real Tarkin | Comparison

@wonder2wonder said:

"It is amazing how fast CGI and AI are progressing. The use of this technology everywhere is becoming commonplace and accepted by everyone. It is now more difficult to notice the difference between what is real and what is fake. In the future it will be impossible - unless you are an expert with specialized equipment - to, for example, spot a deepfake video."

"CGI has been used for decades to assist in creating the make-believe world of television and films. Now with AI it is the next step in the evolution and one day almost all films, television shows, plays, music, literature, etc. will be created by AI."

Who are you quoting here?

From what I've seen, they're using the new actors in the shows, not even trying to make them appear exactly the same as Nimoy and Goodwin.

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

@wonder2wonder said:

"It is amazing how fast CGI and AI are progressing. The use of this technology everywhere is becoming commonplace and accepted by everyone. It is now more difficult to notice the difference between what is real and what is fake. In the future it will be impossible - unless you are an expert with specialized equipment - to, for example, spot a deepfake video."

"CGI has been used for decades to assist in creating the make-believe world of television and films. Now with AI it is the next step in the evolution and one day almost all films, television shows, plays, music, literature, etc. will be created by AI."

Who are you quoting here?

It's just me, talking to myself.

@Knixon said:

From what I've seen, they're using the new actors in the shows, not even trying to make them appear exactly the same as Nimoy and Goodwin.

Recreating the actors with CGI and AI now would be too expensive and time consuming, They could make small edits to the older shows and movies. For example placing a hologram photo of Michael Burnham in the quarters of Spock's parents or having her mentioned in the episode "Journey to Babel".

@wonder2wonder said:

@Knixon said:

From what I've seen, they're using the new actors in the shows, not even trying to make them appear exactly the same as Nimoy and Goodwin.

Recreating the actors with CGI and AI now would be too expensive and time consuming, They could make small edits to the older shows and movies. For example placing a hologram photo of Michael Burnham in the quarters of Spock's parents or having her mentioned in the episode "Journey to Babel".

Who?

"Your words, say nothing."

Michael Burnham doesn't exist in my world, or my Star Trek.

@wonder2wonder said:

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

@wonder2wonder said:

"It is amazing how fast CGI and AI are progressing. The use of this technology everywhere is becoming commonplace and accepted by everyone. It is now more difficult to notice the difference between what is real and what is fake. In the future it will be impossible - unless you are an expert with specialized equipment - to, for example, spot a deepfake video."

"CGI has been used for decades to assist in creating the make-believe world of television and films. Now with AI it is the next step in the evolution and one day almost all films, television shows, plays, music, literature, etc. will be created by AI."

Who are you quoting here?

It's just me, talking to myself.

Oh...

Based on the quote marks, thought it was other-sourced.

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

Oh...

Based on the quote marks, thought it was other-sourced.

I understand. This site gives me the opportunity to use different writing styles and I like to play around with them. When I am reviewing, thinking out loud, talking to myself, the cat, my mirror reflection, the door, the person on television, etc., I can stick to the rules or choose to be unconventional. I can write in regular form, bold, in italics, with or without quotation marks.

"Sheldon would have a fit if I rewrote his agreements and had will have had replaced it."

Of course, if it is from another source, there is usualy a link to the article or video, or you can deduce that it is dialogue from the movie or television show that is the subject of the post. In some instances it can be an 'unpublished' - not available on internet - source.

Confusing? Perhaps.

"When an AI writes articles, will it use 'quotation' marks? Does everything have to be in 'quotation' marks, as anything it writes is programmed from another source?"

Studios - e.g. Disney - are now using AI to make parts - e.g. opening and end credits - of movies and television shows.

Unknown to the audience, more and more trailers are generated by AI.

After some fans of the new television series "Secret Invasion (2023)" commented that they liked the opening credits, it was revealed that the intro was made by AI. This brought a backlash from other fans. Some were horrified, others fascinated by discovering that AI has already been used for years to create this content and although it is not perfect yet, one day it will be.

No jobs will be replaced, for now. But in the future fewer VFX artists and writers will be needed.

Actors are being asked in their new contracts to sign over their likeness and voice. Most - older and wellknown - actors have refused. But what about the actors who are just starting out?

Have you noticed that there are people on social media - e.g. streamers - who have a chatbot version of themselves? Some are so good that they have even fooled their friends and family.

... Excerpt from ‘Secret Invasion’ Opening Using AI Cost “No Artists’ Jobs,” Says Studio That Made It (Exclusive):

"AI is just one tool among the array of tool sets our artists used. No artists’ jobs were replaced by incorporating these new tools; instead, they complemented and assisted our creative teams,”

... Excerpts from Yes, Secret Invasion’s opening credits scene is AI-made — here’s why:

Like many people, Selim says he doesn’t “really understand” how the artificial intelligence works, but was fascinated with the ways in which the AI could translate the sense of foreboding he wanted for the series. “We would talk to them about ideas and themes and words, and then the computer would go off and do something. And then we could change it a little bit by using words, and it would change.”

Method Studios, which previously worked on Marvel shows like Ms. Marvel, Loki, and Moon Knight, did not respond to Polygon’s request for comment about how exactly it designed the sequence (the staff for the credits includes producers, designers, and an AI technician). But in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter, Method Studios stated that “no artists’ jobs were replaced by incorporating these new tools.” The statement notes they were seeking an “otherworldly and alien look,” which they achieved by utilizing a “custom AI tool” for the project:

The production process was highly collaborative and iterative, with a dedicated focus on this specific application of an AI toolset. It involved a tremendous effort by talented art directors, animators (proficient in both 2D and 3D), artists, and developers, who employed conventional techniques to craft all the other aspects of the project. However, it is crucial to emphasize that while the AI component provided optimal results, AI is just one tool among the array of toolsets our artists used.

The entire process, guided by expert art direction, encompassed the initial storyboard phase, illustration, AI generation, 2D/3D animation and culminated in the final compositing stage.

The concept of AI art is certainly a hot-button topic at the moment, with concerns ranging from the rights of artists over their styles and how their work is used to the demands of those striking with the Writers Guild. But others, like Selim or Kaitlyn “Amouranth” Siragusa — a streamer using AI to build a chatbot version of herself — see AI as a tool that can prosper in the uncanny valley buffer of real life and artifice.

In the case of Secret Invasion, Selim says he was excited by what Method Studios brought to the show: “It felt explorative and inevitable, and exciting, and different.”

@wonder2wonder said:

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

Oh...

Based on the quote marks, thought it was other-sourced.

I understand. This site gives me the opportunity to use different writing styles and I like to play around with them. When I am reviewing, thinking out loud, talking to myself, the cat, my mirror reflection, the door, the person on television, etc., I can stick to the rules or choose to be unconventional. I can write in regular form, bold, in italics, with or without quotation marks.

"Sheldon would have a fit if I rewrote his agreements and had will have had replaced it."

Of course, if it is from another source, there is usualy a link to the article or video, or you can deduce that it is dialogue from the movie or television show that is the subject of the post. In some instances it can be an 'unpublished' - not available on internet - source.

Confusing? Perhaps.

"When an AI writes articles, will it use 'quotation' marks? Does everything have to be in 'quotation' marks, as anything it writes is programmed from another source?"

It’s just that when I'm reading something that being quoted, I give ‘weight’ to the content based on the source. It's the reason I asked....

--If the source is, say, your everyday conspiracy theorist that sees an alien under every rock…it gets one ‘weight’.

--If the source is, say, someone like Elon Musk…then it gets another ‘weight’.

--If the source is someone in the field who is renowned for knowing of what they speak, say, The International Association of A.I. and Extraterrestrial Studies, then I’m thinking, heavier 'weight’.

Now that I know the source...I'm good.

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

@wonder2wonder said:

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

Oh...

Based on the quote marks, thought it was other-sourced.

I understand. This site gives me the opportunity to use different writing styles and I like to play around with them. When I am reviewing, thinking out loud, talking to myself, the cat, my mirror reflection, the door, the person on television, etc., I can stick to the rules or choose to be unconventional. I can write in regular form, bold, in italics, with or without quotation marks.

"Sheldon would have a fit if I rewrote his agreements and had will have had replaced it."

Of course, if it is from another source, there is usualy a link to the article or video, or you can deduce that it is dialogue from the movie or television show that is the subject of the post. In some instances it can be an 'unpublished' - not available on internet - source.

Confusing? Perhaps.

"When an AI writes articles, will it use 'quotation' marks? Does everything have to be in 'quotation' marks, as anything it writes is programmed from another source?"

It’s just that when I'm reading something that being quoted, I give ‘weight’ to the content based on the source. It's the reason I asked....

--If the source is, say, your everyday conspiracy theorist that sees an alien under every rock…it gets one ‘weight’.

--If the source is, say, someone like Elon Musk…then it gets another ‘weight’.

--If the source is someone in the field who is renounced for knowing of what they speak, say, The International Association of A.I. and Extraterrestrial Studies, then I’m thinking, heavier 'weight’.

Now that I know the source...I'm good.

Which source?

SIRI vs GOOGLE HOME vs ALEXA vs CORTANA vs BIXBY vs ROOMBA

@wonder2wonder said:

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

@wonder2wonder said:

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

Oh...

Based on the quote marks, thought it was other-sourced.

I understand. This site gives me the opportunity to use different writing styles and I like to play around with them. When I am reviewing, thinking out loud, talking to myself, the cat, my mirror reflection, the door, the person on television, etc., I can stick to the rules or choose to be unconventional. I can write in regular form, bold, in italics, with or without quotation marks.

"Sheldon would have a fit if I rewrote his agreements and had will have had replaced it."

Of course, if it is from another source, there is usualy a link to the article or video, or you can deduce that it is dialogue from the movie or television show that is the subject of the post. In some instances it can be an 'unpublished' - not available on internet - source.

Confusing? Perhaps.

"When an AI writes articles, will it use 'quotation' marks? Does everything have to be in 'quotation' marks, as anything it writes is programmed from another source?"

It’s just that when I'm reading something that being quoted, I give ‘weight’ to the content based on the source. It's the reason I asked....

--If the source is, say, your everyday conspiracy theorist that sees an alien under every rock…it gets one ‘weight’.

--If the source is, say, someone like Elon Musk…then it gets another ‘weight’.

--If the source is someone in the field who is renowned for knowing of what they speak, say, The International Association of A.I. and Extraterrestrial Studies, then I’m thinking, heavier 'weight’.

Now that I know the source...I'm good.

Which source?

SIRI vs GOOGLE HOME vs ALEXA vs CORTANA vs BIXBY vs ROOMBA

Did you not say: "It's just me, talking to myself."?

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

Did you not say: "It's just me, talking to myself."?

A Confucius confusion. Rather to be a fool for a minute for asking a confusing question, than a fool for life for not asking any. My question was meant to tickle the mind about the difference between the human sources you referred to - e.g. a conspiracy theorist, Elon Musk, someone in the field, a user on the TMDb (myself) - and non-human sources - e.g. AI.

The advantage of talking to oneself is that it is not necessary to finish a sentence. I already know what I am going to say. It saves my voice - I won't be a 'pony'.

The disadvantage is that I sometimes assume that others can also do that, so I write it down exactly the way I say it, expecting them to 'autocomplete' my sentence. Of course, in this case 'I' and 'they' are not interchangeable.

I should have completed my sentence and asked: "Which source do you give more weight, the humans mentioned above or AI?"

To continue my train of thought, we - humans and AI - are all programmed and have stored data since the beginning of our existence. If I am human and talk to myself, then I am the source. If I am an AI and talk to myself, then I am the source. I am always I, but not always AI.

@wonder2wonder said:

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

Did you not say: "It's just me, talking to myself."?

A Confucius confusion. Rather to be a fool for a minute for asking a confusing question, than a fool for life for not asking any. My question was meant to tickle the mind about the difference between the human sources you referred to - e.g. a conspiracy theorist, Elon Musk, someone in the field, a user on the TMDb (myself) - and non-human sources - e.g. AI.

The advantage of talking to oneself is that it is not necessary to finish a sentence. I already know what I am going to say. It saves my voice - I won't be a 'pony'.

The disadvantage is that I sometimes assume that others can also do that, so I write it down exactly the way I say it, expecting them to 'autocomplete' my sentence. Of course, in this case 'I' and 'they' are not interchangeable.

I should have completed my sentence and asked: "Which source do you give more weight, the humans mentioned above or AI?"

To continue my train of thought, we - humans and AI - are all programmed and have stored data since the beginning of our existence. If I am human and talk to myself, then I am the source. If I am an AI and talk to myself, then I am the source. I am always I, but not always AI.

1. A conspiracy theorist – None
2. An Elon Musk - Some
3. Someone in the field – Most
4. A user on the TMDb - None
5. A non-human sources - e.g. AI – None