ARTIST’S NEWEST PARASITE: GENERATIVE AI
Over a year after the end of the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike, the 97th Academy Awards season has seen its first controversy regarding the usage of generative AI. In an interview with RedShark News, director Brady Corbet revealed he used AI voice technology in order to make the leading actor nominee, Adrien Brody’s, accent sound more authentic. Soon after the interview, Emilia Perez’s utilization of AI to clone actors' voices and improve singing was also called out. All of this to bring up the question: Is Generative AI in art an ethical practice?
Quite frankly, no. Art is meant to be, and is, a unique creation. It’s a unique perspective from person to person. That’s why you’ll hear me and other artists always encouraging artists to expand on what makes them unique. AI is the antithesis of that. It is a pure lack of perspective. Sure, it can be useful for medical problems and what not, but for creative spaces it is nothing but a tool that muddles the artists’ voice. Generative AI is just a big plagiarism machine. It steals all the art available, and then uses said art to create a big mash of slop onto your phone screen. Which is exactly the furthest it should ever go. Not to the big screen.
Art is beautiful because it’s human. It can have charming mistakes and niches that make it unique. Artificial Intelligence will never have uniqueness. It is purely an amalgamation of work that’s all been done, and then rearranging it to make it less noticeable.
AI is putting itself everywhere I don’t want it to be. I just got a pop up from google while writing this, asking me if I want to use AI to improve productivity! I don’t! Generative AI is a creative parasite that is trying to force itself into all the spaces that don’t want it. This is the big issue, to me, about The Brutalist using it. I probably would have never known it was used, and the speech fixing isn’t generative, but we shouldn’t be normalizing even the slightest emergence of AI in our creative spaces.
In response to the backlash, Brody made a point to clarify that nobody was harmed by the artificial intelligence, stating: “There was no technology implemented that takes work from people. It’s quite a typical post-production process.” Which I do think makes an interesting point. If it didn’t take jobs from anyone, can we really consider it that harmful?
Well… My first argument I’d make is that Brody is wrong. The dialect coach could have been paid more hours for the fine tuning with the actors themselves. Corbet could have hired an actor whose first language is Hungarian instead. Or, according to another post from Redshark News that alleges that it all could have all been done on ProTools, though it still would have been in post. Which then means that could have been another period of artists getting paid, and the only arguments in support of less work are rooted in making money. Which is somewhat fair, if you are making a product, and I reject viewing art as a product.
In the defense of Corbet, that much is out of his hands. Producers pressuring someone to not spend too much money, or to have actors of a certain fame level, are all just anti-art problems within the film industry that everyone is dealing with. You need money to make art, and you need that art to make more money in order to make more art. It sucks. But regardless, there are many other routes that avoid using AI, which shouldn't be surprising since this is a rather new infestation.
I haven’t even mentioned, yet, that accents are all different person to person, not just region to region. Some people are more susceptible to foreign languages than others, it’s a normal thing. As long as an accent isn’t a mockery of the people, is it something that needs artificial enhancement? I speak two languages, and I know many people in the classes I took, who had different accents than mine. We were all Americans, from Missouri, learning the same language, but nobody had the exact same pronunciation. I obviously haven’t seen The Brutalist without the speech modifications, but could it really have been that necessary?
Artificial Intelligence could be considered just another tool. CGI, makeup, and wardrobe, are all things that can enhance an actor's performance after all. Although this is a common argument, I can’t help but note that CGI is still crafted by an artist. Makeup is done by an artist. Wardrobe is crafted by artists. These are all categories that are awarded by the Academy. Each tool is applied from a unique perspective. Someone, not something crafted that element of film. Those categories belong to people that worked on them. Having something else doing the work has never been awarded.
The Brutalist isn’t even the first piece in our industry to be called out for artifice, either.
Not too long ago, fans noticed that Late Night With the Devil used AI in its trailer. I’d argue this was especially bad, because it was generative, using other artists' handcrafted work to make the images. More recently, video game Kingdom Come Deliverance II allegedly used AI to fill in NPC dialogue.
In regards to The Brutalist, Emilia Perez’s, and other films using artificial intelligence enhancements, my opinion is this: The Brutalist was still a piece of art. Emilia Perez, however controversial, is still a piece of art. *But* the usage of AI is disappointing. It seems otiose. I understand the temptation for artists to achieve perfection for their works. The fear of your art being imperfect can be quite crushing sometimes. I feel it whenever I write and especially anytime I act on stage or for camera. That’s the thing, though. It’s me that did it. Me working with a team, a community of artists. Sure, it’s possible some people would have mocked the imperfections in accents, or singing quality, or graphic design, but that’s part of art! It’s imperfect! It’s human! That’s why we love it, and why it’s all the more impressive when it’s enjoyable!
Low budget films have often been the most creative works, because they have to be. They aren’t always going to have the budget for the easiest solutions, or effects, and that’s when we find unique ways around it. They craft practical effects with innovative methods, since computer effects couldn’t be afforded. Or maybe the costume department finds new ways of making a garment look more expensive than it really is.
I find generative AI, at its core, to be unnecessary in artistic fields. It’s the lazier solution to a low budget that doesn’t require coming up with any sort of innovation.
It’s also anti-community. Work with people who have the same passion to fix imperfections. Or maybe learn to love the imperfections and recognize that they might be what makes your film unique.
My opinion may not be perfectly informed, but it comes from my heart, and it comes from my brain; both things artificial intelligence will never have on its own.
What I encourage of anyone who is considering using generative AI, and is reading this, is to find a friend to help out instead. Reach out to a teacher you like. And if you can’t find anyone else to help; reach out to me. I spend most of my time fooling around with writing anyway. Use your resources! We are a resource, and a more human one than AI! I will learn how to edit audio for you, even. Your community, not your plagiarism machine, is how you are going to grow as an artist.
- Keegan Adkins