• TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I dunno about all that. They’re not making a video game for the sake of our entertainment, it’s not some artistic altruism, it’s to sell a product and make money. It’s just one of the many avenues to do so.

    What you’ve said is hyperbolic and ridiculous. What you’re talking about making is a movie, and, yeah, professionally built sets and models tend to look nicer on the screen than CGI.

    And while there’s probably precedent for synthesizing a dead person’s likeness for use in commercial media, it’s still fucking weird to me.

    • probablyaCat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      You know none of the people involved. I’m certain his family knew him better than you. My family knows good and damn well if that an opportunity for me to posthumously support them that I would want them to take it.

        • probablyaCat@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Weird I can accept. Especially as we move into the future with this tech. I know people focus on the voice of actors being used forever, but I see something different happening. I imagine this tech getting used by deciding what they want an animated or cgi character to sound like, developing it then they can get whoever is cheapest to do the lines.

          • TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It reminds me a lot of the Luddite movement in a way. My personal feelings about the seemingly widespread industrial interest in adopting AI tech had me reexamine the Luddites through a different lens, as I had used their name, as many have, as a pejorative for people against progress.

            The loom is clearly an invention of great importance and allowed greater access to goods for many people, and that is good. But the Luddites very much got the very short end of that stick and, in the moment, it was the property and business owners who profited immensely while the skilled workers were robbed of their livelihoods. The rich got richer and the people who had helped build their wealth got shafted. The Luddites weren’t barriers to progress, that’s winners rewriting history. They were disenfranchised workers trying to ensure they could keep their heads above water.

            Clearly, technological progress is inevitable and likely beneficial in the long-term. But can we learn from the mistakes of the past and use them to guide our actions with this industrially revolutionary tech to help ensure that the skilled workers and talented people who rely on their honed skills to feed their families aren’t hurt in the process?