Oscar-nominated actor James Woods is warning artificial intelligence (AI) is not a short-lived craze, but a technology that could mean the “end of human actors” in Hollywood.
“AI is the end of human actors. I’m adamant about this,” Woods told Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade on Sunday.
To those who might say, “You’re overreacting,” the actor pointed out, “When the silent [movies] went to talkies, people said, ‘Oh it’s a fad.’ When television came in, ‘It won’t replace movies.’”
Woods says he believes film companies will start to look at where they can cut red tape wherever possible, resulting in them skipping actors’ agents, entourages, and lucrative contracts, in favor of AI-generated replacements.
“It’s not going to work [right now], because we have movie stars we like,” the Vampires star said.
“We love brilliant actors like Brad Pitt, we love Meryl Streep, all these great actors, because we grew up with them,” Woods continued. “But when the next generation grows up with a computer-generated model, they will be as realistic as people.”
The Casino actor went on to cite Moore’s Law, an observation made in 1965 by Gordon Moore, one of the co-founders of Intel, who made a powerful prediction about computer chips.
Moore noticed that the number of transistors one can fit on a microchip doubles roughly every 18 to 24 months, while the cost stays about the same — or even goes down.
Woods told Kilmeade that, similarly, expeditious AI advances could enable filmmakers to release content 24 hours a day at a cheaper price.
“When Steven Spielberg did the first Jurassic Park, people said, ‘This is amazing — how can he have done it?’ He goes, ‘In five years, 14-year-old kids will be doing this on their Macintosh,’ and he was right,” Woods said.
“Maybe it was a couple years more or a couple of years less,” he added. “But it’s astonishing how quickly it’s changing.”
But Woods may be on to something. As Breitbart News reported, ABC’s Shark Tank investor Kevin O’Leary recently noted that an Oscar-contending movie he’s in could have saved millions of dollars by using AI-generated background actors.
“There’s a movie I’m in that’s coming out on Christmas called Marty Supreme,” O’Leary told The Hill last month. “We worked on it for eight months. Almost every scene had as many as 150 extras.”
“Those people had to stay awake for 18 hours, be completely dressed in the background — not necessarily in the movie, except they’re necessary to be there moving around. And yet, it costs millions of dollars to do that,” O’Leary explained.
The Shark Tank star then gave an example, adding, “When we shot in a French bistro, all of the supporting actors behind, or at least the extras, were speaking French in a dim — you couldn’t tell, but you know it wasn’t English.”
“Why couldn’t you simply put AI agents in their place? Because they’re not the main actors, they’re only in the story visually,” O’Leary inquired, arguing that such a move would “save millions of dollars” and “more movies could be made.”
“That same director, instead of spending $90 million or whatever he spent, could have spent $35 million and made two movies,” he added.
“I’d argue that for the sake of the art, you should allow it in certain cases,” the businessman said. “An extra is a really good-use case, because you can’t tell the difference. You just put a hundred Norwood Tillies in there, and you’re good.”
O’Leary was referring to the recently-developed AI-generated “actress” Tilly Norwood, whose creation sparked outrage among members of the entertainment, who expressed fears that the use of AI will end up replacing them in the industry.
While AI-generated actors may introduce themselves in film as mere extras, those familiar with the law of unintended consequences have reason to share their concern, as history shows that once a cost-saving technology takes root in the background, it rarely stays put.
Alana Mastrangelo is a reporter for Breitbart News. You can follow her on Facebook and X at @ARmastrangelo, and on Instagram.
Read the full article here