James Woods Warns AI Could Spell the End for Human Actors
Oscar-nominated actor James Woods has expressed serious concerns that artificial intelligence (AI) may not just be a trend but could ultimately lead to “the end of human actors” in Hollywood.
“AI is the end of human actors. I am adamant about this,” Woods stated during an appearance with Brian Kilmeade on a recent FOX News Sunday segment.
He addressed skeptics who might dismiss such warnings as overreactions, recalling that when talkies first arrived, many believed these new films were merely a passing fad. Similarly, when television made its debut, people confidently predicted it wouldn’t replace cinema.
Woods believes studios are likely to streamline operations, potentially eliminating agents and large contracts in favor of roles that could be filled by AI creations.
He remarked, “But that doesn’t work right now, because we all have favorite movie stars.” Wood’s admiration for iconic actors was evident as he mentioned familiar names like Brad Pitt and Meryl Streep. “We love them because we’ve grown up with them,” he noted. “Yet, the younger generation may come to see computer-generated personalities as convincingly real.”
Woods referenced Moore’s Law, which predicted that the number of transistors on a microchip would double approximately every couple of years, while costs would either remain stable or decrease. He suggested that similarly swift advancements in AI could enable filmmakers to produce content more frequently and at a reduced cost.
“When Steven Spielberg first released Jurassic Park, people were amazed. He said, ‘In five years, kids will be doing this on their Macintoshes,’” Woods reflected. “And he was right. It’s incredible how quickly things evolve.”
Woods’s concerns echo a sentiment expressed by ABC Shark Tank investor Kevin O’Leary, who recently noted that his own Oscar-nominated film could have saved a significant amount of money by utilizing AI-generated background actors instead of human extras.
O’Leary explained, “There’s a movie I’m in that’s coming out on Christmas, called Marty Supreme. We worked on it for eight months with around 150 extras.” He continued, “Those people had to be fully clothed and alert for 18-hour shoots. Even if they were not prime characters, their presence still incurred substantial costs.”
He posed a compelling question: “Why couldn’t we simply replace those background roles with AI actors? They aren’t integral to the storyline, just visually present.” O’Leary claimed that switching to AI could lead to substantial savings and potentially double the number of movies produced.
The businessman argued, “In the interest of art, it should be permissible in specific situations. Extras are a prime example since the distinction may often be undetectable.” He referenced Tilly Norwood, an AI-generated “actress,” which sparked heated discussions in the industry regarding the ramifications of AI on acting jobs.
While AI-generated performers might initially serve as basic background figures, the unforeseen consequences of such technology could reshape the industry, as history indicates that cost-cutting measures tend to proliferate rather than remain confined.
