Supporting Roles and Below May Use AI Actors, Director Yu Zheng Claims Real Performance Cannot Be Replaced by Technology

marsbitОпубліковано о 2026-03-18Востаннє оновлено о 2026-03-18

Анотація

Recent discussions about "replacing supporting and minor roles with AI actors" have sparked heated debates on social platforms, indicating that generative AI technology is now moving beyond special effects and entering the core of character portrayal in film and television production. Prominent screenwriter Yu Zheng has publicly responded, emphasizing the irreplaceable value of real human performance. While AI actors, powered by digital generation technology, are already performing complex actions and creating unique character appearances—particularly in short-form dramas where they significantly reduce costs and shorten production cycles—their limitations are becoming increasingly clear. AI still struggles to convey emotional depth and a sense of humanity, and audiences often find it difficult to form genuine emotional connections with digital characters. This trend reflects an ongoing tension between technology and art in the industry. As Yu Zheng noted, AI may represent a temporary trend that filters out mediocre output, but true creative expression still relies on human thought and emotion. As both digital models and human performances continue to coexist, the industry must confront the challenge of balancing technological efficiency with artistic and emotional authenticity.

Recently, the discussion about "using AI actors for supporting roles and below" has topped the trending list on social platforms, marking that the penetration of generative AI technology into the film and television production process has deeply advanced from special effects assistance to character replacement. Prominent screenwriter Yu Zheng publicly responded to this, emphasizing the irreplaceability of real performances.

Currently, AI actors, leveraging digital generation technology, can perform high-difficulty actions and create special character images, demonstrating significant cost reduction and efficiency improvement in short film production, greatly shortening development cycles. However, the limitations behind the technological benefits are increasingly evident: digital algorithms still lack the ability to convey emotional depth and the warmth of life, and the audience's psychological defense mechanisms make it difficult for AI images to establish emotional resonance among peers.

This trend reflects that the film and television industry is in a period of intense friction between technology and art. As Yu Zheng stated, AI may be a temporary trend; it serves more as a screening mechanism to eliminate mediocre output, while the core of creation still needs to return to human thought and emotions. In the current era where digital models and real performances coexist, how to balance technological leverage and humanistic care has become an issue the industry must face directly.

Пов'язані питання

QWhat is the main topic of the article that sparked online discussion?

AThe main topic is the proposal to use AI actors for supporting roles (specifically 'male second lead and below') in film and television productions.

QWhat is director Yu Zheng's stance on the use of AI actors?

ADirector Yu Zheng believes that real human performance is irreplaceable and cannot be substituted by technology.

QWhat are two main advantages of using AI actors mentioned in the article?

AThe two main advantages are significant cost reduction and efficiency improvement, as well as the ability to perform difficult actions and create special character appearances.

QWhat key limitation does AI technology currently face in acting, according to the article?

AThe key limitation is that digital algorithms lack the ability to convey emotional depth and a sense of life's warmth, making it difficult for AI characters to establish emotional resonance with audiences.

QHow does the article describe the current state of the film and television industry regarding this technology?

AThe article describes the industry as being in a period of intense friction between technology and art, where it must confront the challenge of balancing technological leverage with humanistic care.

Пов'язані матеріали

Agent Race Ends, Super Workbench Takes Over

The era of fragmented AI agents is ending. Over the past month, China's tech giants—Tencent, Alibaba, and ByteDance—have simultaneously shifted strategy: instead of launching new, standalone AI agents, they are consolidating their various agent projects into unified "super workbenches." Tencent integrated its QClaw teams into WorkBuddy, a strategic product hailed as a potential third flagship after QQ and WeChat. Alibaba is merging its QoderWork, Wukong, and MuleRun agents into a new "Qianwen Office" platform under DingTalk's leadership. ByteDance rebranded its TRAE SOLO coding agent to TRAE Work, signaling a broader focus on workflow collaboration. This convergence marks a pivotal industry consensus. The initial exploration phase, where companies rapidly built numerous overlapping agents for different scenarios, proved costly and inefficient. With open-source tools eroding technical barriers, competition has shifted from agent creation to resource consolidation and cost control. Historically, platform wars are won not by creating more products, but by simplifying them—as seen with browsers unifying web access and super-apps consolidating services. Now, the "super workbench" aims to become the unified AI entry point for work. This reflects a deeper market realization: the primary audience for AI is no longer just programmers (a market in the tens of millions) but all knowledge workers (a market of billions). The real opportunity lies in augmenting everyday tasks—managing emails, documents, data, and meetings—across the entire workday. The core battleground is becoming control over the primary AI entry point that employees use daily. Tencent's WorkBuddy leverages WeChat and Tencent Docs; Alibaba's Qianwen Office taps into DingTalk's organizational data; ByteDance's TRAE Work integrates with Feishu's workflows. Whoever owns this "super workbench" gains strategic control over orchestrating enterprise data and APIs. This shift is redefining enterprise software. Traditional SaaS applications, valued for their user interfaces, will recede into the background. Their core functionalities will be exposed as standardized "Skills" or APIs for the super workbench's agents to invoke. Software value will shift from selling user seats to charging based on API calls and outcomes delivered. The evolution of agents is moving through clear stages: first as novel standalone products, then as consolidated primary work entry points, and finally as pervasive, invisible capabilities embedded into the digital fabric. The recent moves by major tech firms signal the transition from the first stage into the second, accelerating toward the third. In the end, the most successful agent technology may become invisible—like electricity or the HTTP protocol—a fundamental, unnamed infrastructure powering work itself.

marsbit27 хв тому

Agent Race Ends, Super Workbench Takes Over

marsbit27 хв тому

Michael Saylor: 110 Reasons to Oppose BIP-110

Michael Saylor presents 110 arguments against Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 110, a soft fork aimed at restricting certain non-monetary data storage uses (like inscriptions) on the Bitcoin blockchain. He acknowledges the proponents' valid concerns—such as node costs, fee pressure, and preserving Bitcoin's monetary focus—but fundamentally disagrees with the proposed solution. Saylor argues that BIP 110 represents a dangerous precedent of using consensus rules to enforce value judgments on transaction validity, moving away from Bitcoin's core principles of neutrality and permissionless innovation. His key objections are organized into eleven categories: 1) It violates neutrality and hard consensus by banning currently valid transactions. 2) It fails to meet the high burden of proof required for a consensus change, lacking concrete data on the alleged crisis. 3) Its seven bundled technical restrictions are overly broad, targeting generic script functionalities and blocking future upgrade paths. 4) It sacrifices compatibility and future optionality by closing off designed upgrade hooks. 5) Its temporary rules add significant complexity (grandfathering, expiry states) without sufficient justification. 6) The economic and security impacts, particularly on miner revenue and fee markets, are uncertain and unmodeled. 7) Superior, market-based tools (fee markets, relay/mining policies) already exist to manage blockchain load. 8) It stifles innovation by creating a chilling effect for developers. 9) Its modified activation mechanism (55% threshold, forced signaling) is aggressive and risks network splits. 10) The precedent it sets—using consensus to suppress disliked but legal uses—is more dangerous than the problem it aims to solve. 11) A better path exists: improving measurements, refining resource-based policies, and allowing market forces to work. Saylor concludes that Bitcoin's strength lies in its neutral rules, open markets, and hard consensus. Changing these foundational elements to target specific use cases is an unnecessary and risky "iatrogenic" intervention. He advocates for guarding Bitcoin's neutrality rather than acting as its redeemer.

marsbit42 хв тому

Michael Saylor: 110 Reasons to Oppose BIP-110

marsbit42 хв тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片