so instead of improving working conditions, your solution is to replace background actors with AI...?
1) I’m the person who made the statement, I was not asking about others’ input. It’s the responsibility of the person responding to make sure they understand what the original commenter is saying. I didn’t ask for an exchange, you decided to bring your input in my comment.
2) isn’t it the consequences that can happen? An example, did you create the picture in your profile? If you did, great! If you didn’t, did you pay the person who created it? You used ChatGPT to find answers to copy/paste instead of building the argument yourself. It’s convenience.
Regardless of the ethical part of it, we are all using AI and it’s taking jobs away because it’s making it convenient for others. Some will lose and some will win.
so instead of improving working conditions, your solution is to replace background actors with AI...?
Then someone interested in an intellectual exchange would ask the original commenter for more clarification, instead of the hostile and wrong “so your solution is..”, especially when the person responding comes with another topic (in this case the ethic).
And no, not everyone think that taking jobs away is harmful. There are people who see it as part of evolution and to make human lives easier. Same as using emails, phones or online shopping. Yes, retail stores are closing and people losing jobs is sad BUT many enjoy the benefits of shopping from home.
Lung cancer is negative but whatever is causing pollution is also making people’s lives easier. AI takes jobs for some but making it easier for others.
It now comes to personal stands. If I want to track an order at 2 am, I’m happy it’s AI helping me instead of a human being awake at 2 am to answer to me.
so instead of improving working conditions, your solution is to replace background actors with AI...?
“ 'I think background actors will completely be computerized, the real people will be the mains.' That frames AI replacement as both inevitable and acceptable,”
Key words: “I think” which does not mean certainty. The comment is based on what I am personally seeing. “I think” leaves room for me being wrong.
“The air pollution will increase lung cancer in the future.” Does saying that mean that I accept it? Or is it just me making an observation basing my assumption on facts of today?
they'd only be expected to do things like that if it was initially mutually agreed on or stipulated in their contracts…
The viewers and the actors need to find a way to be collectively heard. On the end of the viewers, we can boycott and send emails but what else can we do? The actors can decide to not physically show up on sets, we will support them, obviously.
so instead of improving working conditions, your solution is to replace background actors with AI...?
Is it an insult to tell someone that the reading comprehension is an issue since they didn’t understand the comment? If it’s a fact, is that a lie? If I had said “read again my comment, that’s not what I said” wouldn’t that also imply lack of comprehension on your end? Stating facts can sting but it doesn’t take away from being a fact. Calling someone a liar when they are not, is a different issue.
“ Your original wording — 'AI is already being used to replace main actors' ”
Were original main characters changed? Yes. Was AI used to do that? Yes.
so instead of improving working conditions, your solution is to replace background actors with AI...?
(Sorry, at work)
If someone says “salt was used in this dish”, will you understand that the dish is fully made out of salt? Is it my fault that you understood that ONLY salt was used?
Regardless of how much is used, it doesn’t take away that salt was used.
We need to stay on topic when replying to someone and not bring another issue within the response. Also, going as far as insulting me (calling me a liar) and cursing at me (wtf) was uncalled for since I provided later evidence of AI usage on actors. Let’s find ways to prove our points without insulting people, especially strangers online (especially when we are wrong). I appreciate that others stopped once they realized that they were discussing something I didn’t but you insisted on going. It’s good that you finally acknowledged that “fairness” was not what I was discussing.
so instead of improving working conditions, your solution is to replace background actors with AI...?
You said it yourself “ As for those shows, AI was used in limited ways with main actors”… regardless how much of it was used, it WAS used.
The fact that another drama is using it means that it’s IN THE WAY of becoming common. Other producers are seeing it becoming a possibility. It always starts small then increase.
Your comment again “ Exactly — and that’s the whole issue. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it ethical.”
Yes, that IS an issue but that’s not what my original comment was about. It was about them potentially using AI and not about the fairness of it. That’s why I said it’s important to understand what we read. I never said in my original comment that it was fair. On that note, good day!
so instead of improving working conditions, your solution is to replace background actors with AI...?
You can’t even understand what you copied and paste nor what I’ve been saying since the BEGINNING.
No where your AI “response” said it was not a choice. It mentioned that it’s NOT fair and that’s what I’ve BEEN saying but it doesn’t take away that it’s STILL a choice!
From your dumb copy/paste
“ Saying it’s a 'shitty option but still an option' doesn’t make it a meaningful or fair one — and it doesn’t excuse exploitative systems.”… AI is acknowledging that it’s a CHOICE but NOT a fair one and that’s what I’ve been saying.
Again, the comment was not about fairness “
Thank you for confirming that you don’t understand what you read.
so instead of improving working conditions, your solution is to replace background actors with AI...?
“ It’s possible to discuss legality without ignoring morality.”
And it’s possible to discuss legality AND ignore morality. Or else companies in fast fashion would not exist. We all know that companies like Nike overwork and underpay workers in “poor” countries. Is it legal? Yes. Is it fair? No.
“Ai SaId”🥴🤡 Brocade odyssey” (that I watched and you can clearly see AI being used on the actor)
so instead of improving working conditions, your solution is to replace background actors with AI...?
There are plenty of dramas where AI is being used to replace actors. “The brocade Odyssey” is one and now “The legend of Female general” is another one where AI is being used on actors.
so instead of improving working conditions, your solution is to replace background actors with AI...?
FFS!
Just because it’s a shitty option that doesn’t mean it is NOT an option!
How many times do I need to repeat myself?
Yes! It’s NOT fair BUT it’s still a CHOICE! I’m talking about legally here, not fairness.
A person can CHOOSE to starve OR work… NOW, is it ethical/fair etc…? No, it is not but it’s still a choice. Legally they were not kidnapped and forced to work.
Again, the ORIGINAL comment was NOT about the fairness of the situation and that’s why I said that reading comprehension was important.
so instead of improving working conditions, your solution is to replace background actors with AI...?
Where is the lack of logic in thinking that the entertainment industry will prefer to replace a person whose role is to cross the street with AI?
How much is the production team now going to spend in legal action trying to prove that they didn’t abuse the workers? How much time and money will go into damage control?
Yes, I can only speak personally. When I watch a movie or drama, the person selling oranges in the background is not my priority. I can see how someone who pays attention to the extras can be upset about humains not being used.
AI is already being used to replace main actors.
I’m going to say this again, I was NOT bringing a solution to the problem because I highly doubt that the team production is reading my comments. I was talking about what could potentially happen, hence the “I think”
so instead of improving working conditions, your solution is to replace background actors with AI...?
In this unfair world, some will say that the person still have a choice. The choice would be not work OR work and get paid less. In the case you mentioned, the person decided (reluctantly but still decided) to take a low salary.
Again, my ORIGINAL comment was NOT about the fairness of the situation. My ORIGINAL comment was about the entertainment industry potentially using AI to replace background actors. Idk why people are not reading what I originally wrote?
they'd only be expected to do things like that if it was initially mutually agreed on or stipulated in their contracts…
For that we will have to see the contracts that were signed. I believe these entertainment companies work with lawyers and there are probably loopholes, I don’t know. Will companies really take the risk now with how people take workers rights seriously? Who knows, I hope the workers get the money they deserve.
so instead of improving working conditions, your solution is to replace background actors with AI...?
Oh, it’s definitely unfair. They put their efforts into the drama and made it a success. They should get paid properly.
Unfortunately, as we know, life is not fair. I wish fairness was ruling the world but if we look at it legally, the industry can say that the extras were free to leave but they chose to stay and accepted the conditions. It’s not fair but it’s unfortunately the world we live in.
so instead of improving working conditions, your solution is to replace background actors with AI...?
It may be expensive now but if it saves them from lawsuits and actors complaining about working conditions and the likes… the potential of legal actions can cost more.
AI doesn’t need all the accommodations humans need.
When we watch movies/dramas, how many really pay attention to the person crossing the street in the background? Let’s be honest.
The conversation here is not the ethical part of using AI or not, again, as I mentioned above.. I am discussing the side of cost and effectiveness for the team production NOT the workers losing their jobs etc…
Is it a fact that AI will take jobs? Yes. We are seeing it in almost all industries. Is that fair to humans? It depends.
so instead of improving working conditions, your solution is to replace background actors with AI...?
Reading comprehension is essential before replying to someone. Where did I state “the solution would be to replace people with AI?”. Also, who am I to bring a solution?
The production companies do not care about the opinions. Do you really think these people are oblivious that working conditions should be improved? They chose to do what they did. As far as the background actors, if working conditions don’t suit you, you are free to not take the job, there will always be someone to take the job. They were not forced to be there, they chose to stay. That doesn’t mean that it’s right but that’s what it is. Businesses are always looking for ways to cut the cost and if having AI is cheaper and will not complain, they will pick that route if possible.
AI will take jobs, regardless if we want it or not. It is already happening in the entertainment industry. Me stating the obvious is not giving a solution but stating a fact.
1 
2) isn’t it the consequences that can happen? An example, did you create the picture in your profile? If you did, great! If you didn’t, did you pay the person who created it? You used ChatGPT to find answers to copy/paste instead of building the argument yourself. It’s convenience.
Regardless of the ethical part of it, we are all using AI and it’s taking jobs away because it’s making it convenient for others. Some will lose and some will win.
And no, not everyone think that taking jobs away is harmful. There are people who see it as part of evolution and to make human lives easier. Same as using emails, phones or online shopping. Yes, retail stores are closing and people losing jobs is sad BUT many enjoy the benefits of shopping from home.
Lung cancer is negative but whatever is causing pollution is also making people’s lives easier. AI takes jobs for some but making it easier for others.
It now comes to personal stands. If I want to track an order at 2 am, I’m happy it’s AI helping me instead of a human being awake at 2 am to answer to me.
Key words: “I think” which does not mean certainty. The comment is based on what I am personally seeing. “I think” leaves room for me being wrong.
“The air pollution will increase lung cancer in the future.” Does saying that mean that I accept it? Or is it just me making an observation basing my assumption on facts of today?
You just said “ but saying main actors were 'replaced' entirely by AI is a stretch”
Where did I say they were ENTIRELY replaced? Please point me to it so I can apologize for generalizing. Thank you.
I’m all for solutions that will be effective.
“ Your original wording — 'AI is already being used to replace main actors' ”
Were original main characters changed? Yes. Was AI used to do that? Yes.
If someone says “salt was used in this dish”, will you understand that the dish is fully made out of salt? Is it my fault that you understood that ONLY salt was used?
Regardless of how much is used, it doesn’t take away that salt was used.
We need to stay on topic when replying to someone
and not bring
another issue
within the
response. Also, going as far as insulting me (calling me a liar) and cursing at me (wtf) was uncalled for since I provided later evidence of AI usage on actors. Let’s find ways to prove our points without insulting people, especially strangers online (especially when we are wrong). I appreciate that others stopped once they realized that they were discussing something I didn’t but you insisted on going. It’s good that you finally acknowledged that “fairness” was not what I was discussing.
Have a great day as well.
The fact that another drama is using it means that it’s IN THE WAY of becoming common. Other producers are seeing it becoming a possibility. It always starts small then increase.
Your comment again “ Exactly — and that’s the whole issue. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it ethical.”
Yes, that IS an issue but that’s not what my original comment was about. It was about them potentially using AI and not about the fairness of it. That’s why I said it’s important to understand what we read. I never said in my original comment that it was fair. On that note, good day!
No where your AI “response” said it was not a choice. It mentioned that it’s NOT fair and that’s what I’ve BEEN saying but it doesn’t take away that it’s STILL a choice!
From your dumb copy/paste
“ Saying it’s a 'shitty option but still an option' doesn’t make it a meaningful or fair one — and it doesn’t excuse exploitative systems.”… AI is acknowledging that it’s a CHOICE but NOT a fair one and that’s what I’ve been saying.
Again, the comment was not about fairness “
Thank you for
confirming that you don’t understand what you read.
And it’s possible to discuss legality AND ignore morality. Or else companies in fast fashion would not exist. We all know that companies like Nike overwork and underpay workers in “poor” countries. Is it legal? Yes. Is it fair? No.
“Ai SaId”🥴🤡
Brocade odyssey” (that I watched and you can clearly see AI being used on the actor)
https://koalasplayground.com/2024/12/03/brocade-odyssey-with-tan-song-yun-and-zheng-ye-cheng-airs-to-criticism-on-stale-plot-poor-directing-and-distracting-ai-face-swap-of-third-male-lead/
Female general
https://koalasplayground.com/2025/03/02/supporting-actor-li-ming-des-role-in-legend-of-the-female-lead-gets-ai-face-swap-and-tencent-aims-to-broadcast-the-drama-this-month-in-march/
Here are a few links to start your search you were too lazy to do.
Just because it’s a shitty option that doesn’t mean it is NOT an option!
How many times do I need to repeat myself?
Yes! It’s NOT fair BUT it’s still a CHOICE! I’m talking about legally here, not fairness.
A person can CHOOSE to starve OR work… NOW, is it ethical/fair etc…? No, it is not but it’s still a choice. Legally they were not kidnapped and forced to work.
Again, the ORIGINAL comment was NOT about the fairness of the situation and that’s why I said that reading comprehension was important.
How much is the production team now going to spend in legal action trying to prove that they didn’t abuse the workers? How much time and money will go into damage control?
Yes, I can only speak personally. When I watch a movie or drama, the person selling oranges in the background is not my priority. I can see how someone who pays attention to the extras can be upset about humains not being used.
AI is already being used to replace main actors.
I’m going to say this again, I was NOT bringing a solution to the problem because I highly doubt that the team production is reading my comments. I was talking about what could potentially happen, hence the “I think”
Again, my ORIGINAL comment was NOT about the fairness of the situation. My ORIGINAL comment was about the entertainment industry potentially using AI to replace
background actors. Idk why people are not reading what I originally wrote?
Unfortunately, as we know, life is not fair. I wish fairness was ruling the world but if we look at it legally, the industry can say that the extras were free to leave but they chose to stay and accepted the conditions. It’s not fair but it’s unfortunately the world we live in.
AI doesn’t need all the accommodations humans need.
When we watch movies/dramas, how many really pay attention to the person crossing the street in the background? Let’s be honest.
The conversation here is not the ethical part of using AI or not, again, as I mentioned above.. I am discussing the side of cost and effectiveness for the team production NOT the workers losing their jobs etc…
Is it a fact that AI will take jobs? Yes. We are seeing it in almost all industries. Is that fair to humans? It depends.
The production companies do not care about the opinions. Do you really think these people are oblivious that working conditions should be improved? They chose to do what they did. As far as the background actors, if working conditions don’t suit you, you are free to not take the job, there will always be someone to take the job. They were not forced to be there, they chose to stay. That doesn’t mean that it’s right but that’s what it is. Businesses are always looking for ways to cut the cost and if having AI is cheaper and will not complain, they will pick that route if possible.
AI will take jobs, regardless if we want it or not. It is already happening in the entertainment industry. Me stating the obvious is not giving a solution but stating a fact.