DareDaniel

1) Ah, so you’re posting in a public space but didn’t want input? That’s not how the internet works. If you want a diary, there are private apps for that. Once you share an opinion — especially one about replacing workers with AI — people are going to respond. That’s not a comprehension problem, that’s a consequence of saying things out loud.

2) Love the false equivalence. Using ChatGPT to brainstorm or help structure thoughts isn’t quite the same as using AI to digitally erase human performers from the entertainment industry. But sure, let’s pretend it’s all just “convenience.” By that logic, we should just automate everything — no need for artists, actors, or creators at all. Who needs culture when we’ve got convenience, right?

Just because a system allows something doesn’t mean we shouldn’t question it. Saying “some will lose, some will win” is easy when you’re not the one being replaced. That’s not insight — that’s indifference dressed up as pragmatism.

“Then someone interested in an intellectual exchange would ask the original commenter for more clarification…”

That works both ways. If your comment was open to interpretation or could be taken as endorsing replacement of background actors, the responsibility is also on you to be clear — especially when the topic involves real people's jobs and livelihoods. You can’t put the burden of "intellectual exchange" solely on the responder while writing something that sounds like a passive approval of a controversial shift.

Comparing AI replacing retail or customer service roles to replacing creative labor like actors — who aren’t just doing repetitive tasks but contributing to storytelling and culture — is a false equivalence. One improves convenience; the other undermines the human element of an art form and puts entire professions at risk, often without fair compensation or consent.

Using "I think" doesn't make a statement neutral or harmless — especially when the point being made involves replacing real people’s jobs with AI. It might technically express an opinion, but when it's stated without concern for the consequences or ethical context, it still carries weight.

Saying “air pollution will increase lung cancer” is an observation based on harm. Saying “background actors will be computerized” without criticizing it sounds like acceptance of harm. That’s the difference. The way it's framed matters — especially in a conversation where workers’ livelihoods and rights are being debated.

Saying 'AI is already being used to replace main actors' strongly implies that full replacement is happening now — not that AI is being used in limited ways alongside main actors.

That phrasing raised concerns because it contributes to a misleading narrative, especially when paired with your earlier statement: 'I think background actors will completely be computerized, the real people will be the mains.' That frames AI replacement as both inevitable and acceptable, rather than focusing on the real issue — worsening working conditions.

If the intention was to refer to minor augmentation, then clearer wording would have made that distinction. Precision matters, especially in conversations about labor and ethics.

I agree — collective action from both viewers and actors is crucial. But that’s exactly why it’s frustrating when the conversation shifts toward replacing workers with AI instead of addressing the actual issue: poor working conditions.

If we care about solutions that are truly effective, we have to prioritize human dignity and labor rights — not just corporate efficiency. Supporting actors means pushing for better treatment, not replacing them with tech. Viewers have power through boycotts and public pressure, and actors through unions and coordinated action — but only if we stay focused on the real issue.

Saying someone misunderstood is one thing — framing it as a 'reading comprehension issue' crosses into condescension, whether intentional or not. It's about tone and respect. You can clarify without implying someone is incapable of understanding.

As for the original statement — 'AI is already being used to replace main actors' — that wording clearly suggests full AI replacement of actors, not limited digital editing or face-swapping. That’s why it raised eyebrows.

Yes, AI has been used in post-production to alter or replace some aspects of performances — but saying main actors were 'replaced' entirely by AI is a stretch. If we’re aiming for clarity and respectful debate, we need to be precise with both language and tone.

Exactly — and that's part of the problem. Contracts are written by corporate lawyers, not by the workers. Just because something is in a contract doesn't automatically make it fair or ethical. If someone is desperate for work, they might agree to terms they normally wouldn’t accept.

Also, the existence of 'loopholes' is precisely why accountability matters. Companies do still take risks, even in this era of increased awareness, because lawsuits are rare, slow, and expensive — especially for background actors who don't have the same resources or leverage.

So yes, I also hope the workers get what they deserve — but that depends on us taking these issues seriously, not just assuming that legal equals ethical.

"Just somebody saying something on the internet" — as opposed to what? Speaking up on TV and risking being blacklisted from future jobs? For a lot of people, the internet is the only place they can talk about mistreatment without immediate consequences. That doesn’t make their experience any less valid.

"How about we get some evidence to back up on the claims before automatically finding everybody guilty." - There are several common protocols and power dynamics in the entertainment industry that can make it extremely difficult for workers (especially background actors or crew) to gather or present hard evidence of abuse or poor conditions (no phones or recording devices, NDAs...). The system is built in a way that discourages transparency, so demanding “evidence” without understanding the industry context is unrealistic — and often unfair to the most vulnerable workers.

Saying 'it was their choice' ignores the reality that many people take bad jobs out of necessity, not because they’re okay with being mistreated. Economic pressure doesn't make exploitation ethical — it just makes it easier for powerful people to get away with it.

And when someone says 'they were treated like slaves,' the response shouldn’t be to dismiss them. It should be to ask why they felt that way and whether there's a deeper issue worth examining. Brushing off mistreatment by blaming the worker only protects those creating the harmful conditions

Your original wording — 'AI is already being used to replace main actors' — reasonably gave the impression that full AI replacement was happening. That’s why people responded the way they did. Your later clarification changed the framing to limited use, and that’s a different, more accurate conversation.

As for the ‘salt’ analogy — sure, salt being used doesn’t mean a dish is made entirely of salt, but if someone says, ‘This dish is made of salt,’ people will understandably assume it’s not just a seasoning. Words matter.

It’s a little ironic — you questioned my reading comprehension, which is a pretty direct jab, but then took issue with being called a liar. If we’re asking for respectful dialogue, that has to go both ways.

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.

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡