Technological Unemployment

  • Luke Stevenson

    Actor

    I'm clearly bored. I'm resting..

    Hoping to unsettle some people enough to provoke a debate!

    Look at current human CGI

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6R6N4Vy0nE#t=40

    Now do you think, when every variation of every human emotion from every filmed performance that has ever inspired anyone is scanned, quantified and programmed, any of us will have a job?

    This isnt a nightmare future. We are already here. The videogame industry today dwarfs hollywood. Most kids today get the bulk of even their narrative driven entertainment from polygons on a screen.

    www.theguardian.com/technology/gamesblog/2009/sep/27/videogames-hollywood

    www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/07/18/new-reports-forecasts-global-video-game-industry-will-reach-82-billion-by-2017/

    And if you think theatre is safe, I think 2pac has something to say about that! :)

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGbrFmPBV0Y

    When this tech becomes cheap, as all tech before it has done, what the hell are we going to do?!

    We are talking near future.

    • 1st Jul 2014
    • 942
    • 24
  • Luke Stevenson

    Actor

    "Coming to see my fringe play?"

    "No I'm going to watch the hologram of The National's production of X in our living room. It's free on Youtube"

    Pay actors buyouts for commercials? No. Cgi. Cgi does what it's told and nothing else.

    Pay a diva superstar millions for a movie when I own the rights to scan, edit, cut, remix, duplicate, violate and rape every performance from every genius who ever lived?

    No economic sense.

    At least in our current economy!

    • 30th Jun 2014
    • 1
  • Jack Cooper

    Actor

    Do you think human emotion can be reproduced by computers?

    • 1st Jul 2014
    • 2
  • Jack Cooper

    Actor

    If an actor cannot produce aperformance better than CGI or a robot/hologram he/she is not an actor.There is no debate

    • 1st Jul 2014
    • 3
  • Jack Cooper

    Actor

    You know my next move is obviously to look at your showreel?

    • 1st Jul 2014
    • 4
  • Jack Cooper

    Actor

    Hi Luke.I hope your boredom is temporary.You should never be bored in this business there is always something to do.I dont think you will get a long debate on this its one of the things a computer cant reproduce. Good luck :)

    • 1st Jul 2014
    • 5
  • Laura Jane Watling

    Actor

    I'm not sure how some of these things work, but surely, at least, a human would have to provide the voice? Even if initially?

    I see you're point, but I believe humans relate to humans, and as much as most people like watching an impressive CGI they can't necessarily connect to it in the same way...

    • 1st Jul 2014
    • 6
  • Jeremy Reece

    Actor

    My understanding is CGI is very expensive to do so actors are still cheaper - even where properly paid ( see the other thread where this topic was raised).

    • 1st Jul 2014
    • 7
  • Luke Stevenson

    Actor

    Great stuff thanks for your responses guys.

    So see in Shrek for example, Mike Myers face will be fitted with sensors, and his performance is scanned, and fitted onto a cgi character.

    Just as remixing is common today with music, that performance could be put onto a different cgi character, the voice could be changed, you could take part of the script from the end, mesh it with someone else's lines from another piece of cgi in a different film, and create a whole new performance. You could even take a Siri type application, give it Jack Nicholson's voice, and create new content.

    So I'm saying that yes initially, actors performances are fed into the machine, but performances can be stored, edited and duplicated.

    Like say, a drum machine, today.

    I'm not saying cgi can act any more than a robot can play the drums. That would be ridiculous. Cgi is just a tool, as a robot is. But human performances can be scanned and put onto a cgi body, and I'm saying once this technology is prevalent, we are going to have a tough time getting paid, as we are now.

    I think the natural assumption is to think humans will want their narrative driven entertainment from watching other humans, but the evidence, in light of the video game and cartoon industries, doesn't support this. In fact the evidence goes transparently the other way.

    Most people today get their stories, watch relationships tangle, enjoy battles lost and won, nervously watch human dilemmas unfold through the medium of cgi.

    There is always a cultural lag with new tech. But just as yesterday, we accepted listening to synthesisers as opposed to real instruments, today we have left behind paper books for the simplicity of kindle, tomorrow, the abandonment of real actors in favour of cgi capable of replicating performances from all our heros, in my opinion, will become a reality.

    Because it's cheaper.

    How could it not?

    • 1st Jul 2014
    • 8
  • Jeremy Reece

    Actor

    Where will it end. Even when 'resting', beware robot waiters and bar staff!!!

    • 1st Jul 2014
    • 9
  • Luke Stevenson

    Actor

    They are called self service checkouts!

    • 1st Jul 2014
    • 10
  • Charles Delaney

    Actor

    ...It would appeal to a certain demographic (perhaps 4-17year olds) but not comprehensively to the audience.

    Household names in show business drive the business; A hologram cgi created by a techie in Sacramento who doesn't go out much doesn't quite have the same star quality thing going on!

    • 1st Jul 2014
    • 11
  • Luke Stevenson

    Actor

    But you are forgetting that today's kids are tomorrow's adults!

    Rock n roll was once pesky kids music. Not any more!

    • 1st Jul 2014
    • 12
  • Luke Stevenson

    Actor

    I think you may have some questionable assumptions about people who create new tech ;)

    • 1st Jul 2014
    • 13
  • Luke Stevenson

    Actor

    You can imagine the arguments about preferring theatre when people started watching movies.

    A flat image on a screen filmed by some peeping tom photographer from "The United States of America" doesn't quite have the same star quality!

    • 1st Jul 2014
    • 14
  • Charles Delaney

    Actor

    ...It's just twaddle m8 !

    When do you think we're be seeing main characters on 'Corrie' cgid ?

    btw,when rock n'roll was hot,so was Perry Como with 'Hot Diggity'!

    Different mediums for different audiences.

    • 1st Jul 2014
    • 15
  • Luke Stevenson

    Actor

    It's just twaddle.. No it's just all going over your head mate.

    We will never see Corrie cgid. New entertainment will come about that will make corrie obsolete.

    • 1st Jul 2014
    • 16
  • Charles Delaney

    Actor

    ..It's not going over my head, it's a subject/topic that just doesn't serve any relevance to what's going on in the acting industry right now.(Being in the moment & stuff!)

    let's continue this conversation in around 50 years time when 'Corrie' is still on TV !

    Be seeing you....

    • 1st Jul 2014
    • 17
  • Luke Stevenson

    Actor

    It is. This phenomenon is affecting us hugely right now, as Iv demonstrated. Saying it's twaddle or making baseless assertions that such and such will never happen adds absolutely nothing to the discussion so yes, be seeing you. Much appreciated.

    • 1st Jul 2014
    • 18
  • Charles Delaney

    Actor

    ..But we're the only ones talking at the moment!

    What's your 'super objective' of this discussion?

    btw, even if performances were 'stored' as you put it like Myers or Nicholson's the law of copyright & royalties would equally apply whether it be now or in 2040 and you still need the actor's performances to 'burn onto a template', so to speak in the first place

    • 1st Jul 2014
    • 19