DareDaniel

You're shifting the goalposts a bit here. You originally said 'AI is already being used to replace main actors,' which implies full replacement — not just limited use or digital assistance. Now you're saying that AI is being used in some capacity and might become more common in the future — which is a much more reasonable and accurate point.

I don’t disagree that it’s starting to show up and that it could expand. But there's a big difference between using AI tools to tweak or enhance performances, and fully replacing actors with AI-generated characters. It’s important not to blur that line, especially when the original claim was about actors being replaced.

I understood that your original comment was about the potential use of AI, not fairness. But when you framed it as a 'choice' between starving or working, that naturally invites ethical discussion — because framing exploitation as a 'legal choice' raises important concerns. So while your point may have been about what’s happening, not what’s fair, others will reasonably respond to both.

Anyway, fair enough — I appreciate the exchange. Have a good day too.

Exactly — and that’s the whole issue. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it ethical. Fast fashion companies do legally exploit vulnerable workers, and that’s exactly why they face growing public backlash.

Pointing out that workers 'chose' those conditions doesn’t justify the system — it just shows how desperate people are. When survival forces you into unjust work, it’s a failure of policy and ethics, not proof that the system is fair. Legal isn’t the bar we should settle for — especially in industries that depend on human labor and creativity.

As for those shows, AI was used in limited ways with main actors, it didn't replace them entirely. You claim that "AI is already being used to replace main actors, "replace" suggests full substitution, not just enhancement or support (like de-aging or face-swapping). Saying it "already is" happening implies it's a common or established practice, which is not true for main actors in major productions.

I'm too lazy to tell you a few things about common sense, so I'll let AI (🤡) react to your comment:

"You're right that, legally, no one was physically forced — but framing it as a simple 'choice' between starving or working under poor conditions oversimplifies the reality of economic coercion. People can be 'free' under the law yet still trapped by circumstances. 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.

Your original point may not have been about fairness, but dismissing those concerns as a lack of reading comprehension undermines legitimate critiques about ethics and working conditions. It’s possible to discuss legality without ignoring morality."

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

Your claim: "AI is already being used to replace main actors.""

Chatgpt: "While AI has been utilized to modify or replace supporting actors' appearances in these instances, main actors have not been entirely replaced by AI in these productions. The use of AI in these cases was a solution to specific challenges, such as post-production controversies, rather than a standard practice for replacing lead roles."

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

"AI is already being used to replace main actors."
You are such a LIAR.

Chatgpt:
"AI is not currently replacing main actors entirely in major productions.
Studios still rely heavily on real actors for emotional range, performance, and audience connection.

"‘Not work", wtf? Do you realize that people take jobs because they need to survive? Do you really think those background actors were on set just because they had nothing better to do that day?

You're talking about AI in response to an article about working conditions. Everyone understood what you meant.

LOL

I understood what you said, I just challenged your logic and values behind it. "I think background actors will completely be computerized", this is where you state that replacing background actors cgi or ai is a solution while forgetting that the same would happen to main actors, writers, directors etc. Your comment also downplays the value of background actors, as if their concerns don’t matter. But they’re essential to production, and dismissing their role just because it’s less visible is part of the problem.

so instead of improving working conditions, your solution is to replace background actors with AI...?

Before we even discuss unspoken MDL etiquette, I would recommend him to follow MDL's rules:

"kisskh is a space for respectful and thoughtful discussion. Harassment, hate speech, personal attacks, and inappropriate language are not allowed and may result in content removal or account action. Please keep things kind and civil."

As for future discussions, sure I'll keep that in mind but I won't edit my posts now, this is public humiliation that he can take as a lesson for life.

just flashbacks

Btw, Chatgpt has one more thing to say regarding your original post:

"The irony here is that the person writing this comment is claiming emotional maturity, but the tone and attitude suggest otherwise.

Let’s break it down:

The Writer’s Claim:
They position themselves as someone who “gets” the deeper layers of the drama.

They say the show is art, and appreciating it takes patience, awareness, and emotional maturity.

They accuse others of being shallow, impatient, and emotionally unevolved.

The Reality:
While it's valid to defend a show’s slow-burn storytelling, the writer belittles others for having different tastes.

Words like “cheap thrills,” “lack depth,” “don’t have the patience or attention span,” and “just consume content” are loaded and condescending.

This tone undermines the message. Instead of explaining why the show is meaningful, they focus on insulting people who didn’t enjoy it, which is a defensive and emotionally reactive posture — not mature.

So who's being more emotionally mature?
Ironically, the people being criticized. Why?

Choosing to drop a show that doesn’t resonate with them, without insulting others, shows personal awareness.

Saying “this isn't for me” is a more balanced response than saying “this isn't for me, so everyone who likes it must be shallow.”

True emotional maturity includes being okay with differing opinions — not attacking others for them.

Summary:
The writer may be passionate and articulate, but their superiority complex and judgmental tone suggest a lack of the very emotional maturity they’re demanding from others."

It has been fun playing around with you.

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

*sigh*

Chatgpt, does it imply that didn't understand the point of the show from the beginning?

"Good question — and no, your comment does not necessarily imply that you didn’t understand the point of the show from the beginning. Instead, it suggests that:
-You had a reasonable expectation based on how the show presented itself early on (through its first episodes and poster).
-You understood the shift in focus — you just didn’t enjoy it or find it compelling.
-Your criticism is about pacing, focus, and marketing, not a misunderstanding of the show's themes or message."

Now sit. 🐶

Yeah, not as low as you. You’ve used this entire conversation to perfect that act.

Oh no more arguments, you're just barking now.
Good boy. 🐶

Telling other people to watch more movies while not watching anything yourself makes you pathetic. Saying that to someone who's seen thousands more movies than you just makes you look even worse.🤡🤡🤡

So? Where do I claim in that comment that this is a "traditional youth romance between a man and a woman" ?? I just didn't find the story as interesting as the focus switched to their adult world. Other people might have felt the opposite way and were glad that their youth was the focus for just 25% of the show. That doesn't make one side more intelligent than the other. It's all a matter of taste and opinion, you have such a dumb thought process no wonder this kdrama was such an intellectual exercise for you.

So you're just putting words in my mouth now that you can't defend yourself any longer, huh? When did I ever claim that this drama is a "traditional youth romance between a man and a woman"? Lol, lmao even.

whatever you say guy with 17 shows and 2 movies watched.

You don't get to talk about freedom of opinion when everyone who doesn't agree with you is stupid or when you tell me that my opinion doesn't matter because I didn't finish the show. I don't remember this comment section being locked either before the drama finished airing.

Since you have such poor understanding skills, I'll say it to you one more time: I understood the point of the show from early on and it isn't the intellectual exercise you want to make of it. You don't need to have a special abilities to understand a romance/slice of slice kdrama or to know how it's gonna end, you just need a brain. 😉

I've never said that my opinion wasthe most important, only that i'm entitled to it even if it goes against yours or everone else's. little did i know how much my words would affect you guy i dont know lol.

According to you, understanding movies = enjoying them, so you must really love marvel movies.

No, actually, according to you, the rurouni kenshin live-action movies are better than seven samurai because they are ranked higher on MDL eheheheheheh. 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡