#Actors resisting studios that want to scan their bodies for one day and then use that data as input for #AI engines for the whole scene/film/series/show, or even forever, are resisting History. It's only logical and efficient that fewer and fewer humans are needed for those kinds of jobs. Welcome aboard.
They should simply negotiate their conditions wisely, as everyone else tries to do all the time. And be mindful of the actual value they bring to a production in an AI era: nobody can replace #BradPitt on a film, and so he will be paid accordingly for his scan. But supporting actors and extras? Even people with no acting training or experience will be able to pose for a scan and display a decent range of expressions and movements. It's clear that most of those jobs will be gone.
@tripu As usual with those things, the problem is not that jobs are gone, the problem is that the savings tend to end up with the wrong people.
Especially the less known actors or extras cannot "simply" negotiate. Beware of the word "simply", it can make you a liar so very quickly.
If a collective working within a free market can't get compensation they deem fair (especially if they're negotiating and acting _collectively_, eg using strikes), then the compensation they seek is just too high.
For special cases, like jobs that are vital to the economy or to public health or defence etc we have special mechanisms.
Supporting actors don't fall within any of those categories.
If the studios and the audience don't notice the difference between meat actors and digital actors, or don't care about the difference (or even prefer the digital ones!), then there's nothing wrong in principle with getting rid of them entirely.
There's a reason we don't have lift operators, copy boys, log drivers, switchboard operators or lamplighters any more. Should we keep those jobs around purposefully?
🇳🇱
One could argue (im not sure if im one of them mind you) that a collective in a free-market is no longer a free market. If you support anti-trust legislation that stops companies from collaborating to fix prices, and that such things represent an unfree market, then one can argue large unions are equally violating.
@freemo @tripu I agree with both of you in that the market is not actually free, kind of contrary-agree with freemo because of his example of unions that might push back a tiny little bit...
"Stuff gets easier, everyone should have an advantage"
Tripu characterized the problem well: actors resist being scanned, they seem to have some problems about being paid fairly.
Tell me, do you think fair compensation is something to be achieved "simply"?
Fair compensation is the default in a free market. I define a free market with strong anti-trust laws and similar boundaries set on unions.
Now I am not saying we shouldnt have unions, no more than i would say we shouldnt have corperations.. But both need to be kept in check from price-fixing practices.
Interesting, thank you. Yes, it seems we mostly agree.
I had never considered unions in relationship with anti-trust. I guess there's a good argument to be made about a handful of companies with deep pockets potentially having much greater power together than a heterogeneous mass of thousands or millions of workers, and that imbalance justifying anti-trust but not anti-union.
cf _§ 2.5: How do coordination problems justify labor unions and other labor regulation?_ on #ScottAlexander's [Non-Libertarian FAQ](https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertarian-faq/). His arguments seemed solid to me when I read that.
@admitsWrongIfProven
Right now? No we have not enforced anti-trust or similar rules on unions... both sides need to be reigned in.
@tripu