amanah

1)😂 the audacity is amazing “ You don’t get to make public statements about replacing workers with AI and then clutch your pearls when someone brings up ethics”

I get to do whatever I want on public space as long as it’s not insults or threats on people. You GET to ignore what you don’t agree with.

I’m not clutching my pearls (is this a new expression you learned?) You’ve been using it wrong since clearly from the beginning I can see that on the human side it can be problematic but on the business side, it’s not. So idk about which pearls you think in your head that I’m clutching.

2) yes, not hiring people who won’t bring anything is business savvy. In this case, I believe only one person said he didn’t get paid? Was that person told they’d receive compensation and they didn’t? Then the law will be there. If now the person did the work without discussing compensation, whose fault is it?

3) honestly, idk how else to address this and since you confirmed that comprehension could be an issue and you just assume whatever you want, I’ll let you be on that ChatGPT trip.

4) you admit you don’t care. You won’t carry this issue past this thread. That’s fine — indifference is your choice. But let’s not pretend it’s noble. If you don’t care, then don’t try to be the voice of logic in a discussion about real people losing real jobs. ”

Yes, I’ve been saying that I didn’t care. I was never on here to discuss the ethical part of this issue and you now know it.

I’m not intending to be “noble”, in front of who? Strangers online who don’t even use their real names? I don’t want that type of “nobility” 😅.

Have a thread discussing real people losing jobs and that will be a different one than the original here.
Of course I’m doing nothing about this topic, I honestly don’t think you are as well. I told you that already, this comment here is just me and you.. unless you are someone big in entertainment business and you can actually do something about this issue or you’ll gather teams and actively do something about this?

I told you already that what we were doing here is just noise, idk what other logic you think you are bringing here. You are just repeating what I said above and making it sound like you are saying something insightful?

YOU and I are just MAKING NOISE right now! Unless you gather people and do something about this. 🤝

1) Staying on topic response to my original post while bringing another topic, an example “ it may or may not happen but what will the be ethical side of this?” (a bright person on this thread did that).

2) your interpretation of my values is something I can’t change nor care to change so think whatever you want. And yes, on the business side and saving the production money then yes, remove people who unfortunately don’t bring much. That’s for anything.

Would you hire and keep paying people who don’t bring much? You just hire people just to exist? More power to you! I’m sure you are hiring or taking in every person in need that you see.

2) “ As for ChatGPT: you tried using it as some ironic counterpoint to accuse others of hypocrisy — while simultaneously cheering on AI replacing humans.”… idk how you honestly interpret what you read when I reply to you. I told you that it’s a good thing that you are using it. I told you that we ALL benefit from AI.

3) “ You openly admit you're indifferent, that you won’t care in a few days, and that nothing meaningful comes out of conversations like this.”

Yes, I’m not interested in faking care online tbh. This particular topic will not stay with me because I have other human issues that I care more about. It is what it is. Pretending that I will carry this issue past this thread is hypocrisy. If you will continue then more power to you! We all have hills that we will die on for the sake of humanity and this is not mine.

“ but don’t expect everyone else to stop questioning the cost of that convenience.” you give this too much power, why would I expect anything from strangers online?

“ Acknowledging something is happening isn’t neutral when you justify it as efficient, dismiss the human cost, and treat criticism as noise. That’s not just observation. That’s endorsement.”

It is efficient, maybe not to you but to the production team. Dismissing the human cost, since we now know that you interpret things however in your mind, I will repeat this.. I said that it was UNFAIR for people who will lose their jobs but with AI taking jobs, there are new jobs being created.


Criticism that doesn’t bring tangible change is just that, noise.

1) “ Expecting a response or not, if you post publicly, people will respond. That’s how discourse works. ” I agree but again that’s when people STAY on topic. What kind of exchange can come out when people are having a conversation about 2 separate topics?

2) “ If you’re fine with background actors being replaced by AI, then you shouldn’t clutch pearls over someone using it to formulate replies. That contradiction undercuts your point.” Yes, I’m totally fine with it because I personally don’t see what a person that we barely see or notice in the background not talking is
bringing to
the drama.

I don’t need to clutch pearls since I’m fine with you or anyone using AI. Again, I was pointing out that you also benefit from it without worrying about the people who put the info you are using. Please, use it! I encourage it.

3) Yes, it’s cheaper AND convenient. Producers won’t have to worry about actors sick or background actors complaining about any type of unfairness. It will save them legal fees if they need to defend themselves. AI won’t have needs.

The only reason I mentioned the harmfulness is because you INSISTED I talked about the ethical part which we now both agree that it was not the original point.

I didn’t bring awareness and same for you. I mentioned about the possibility of AI taking their jobs and you mentioned awareness. Do you think your comments here are going to start a movement? No. You didn’t bring any new info that people didn’t already know about. This AI taking over the industry is not new. This conversation is only for me and you, nothing grand will come out of it. If you want to spark something, it won’t be on MyDramaList. Writing were production teams can see is where you can spark something.

I’m not pretending to care about anything discussed here. I said it above. In a few days or hours, I’ll move on with my life to deal with my daily matters. You will to and so does many others under this post.

Defend “dehumanization”… have mercy, where? Stating that it’s happening is now defending it?

1) we are back at the same comprehension problem. I didn’t say I didn’t want people to respond. I said that I was not EXPECTING a response. That if there were responses, they should address what was mentioned. You also don’t get to dictate or impose your wrong interpretation to my comment. If someone wants to engage, it’s their responsibility to make sure they understood the original comment.

There are plenty of comments online that are left without responses.

2) What deflection? I’ve been presenting my case even without the mention of ChatGPT. I only used it to show you how you also benefited from using someone else’s work without caring if they were compensated or not.

3) This topic is not a burden to me so I’m not putting it on anyone else. The reason I’m mentioning a solution is because of your original comment “so your solution is…” I am now asking, since you are outraged for them, how are you going to help?

Outraged is valid when we act on it or else it’s just temporary discomfort in front of facts. It’s just blowing hot air.

How is this conversation on MyDramaList going to spark a bigger change? Most people have read and commented then they moved on with their days. It’s what will also happen to both of us, by tomorrow, I personally know that I will not be discussing this topic to the point of sparking change.

1) yes, it’s possible to write something in comments without expecting a response. If a response happens to come along, the response should be based on what was said originally. I think we agreed that “fairness” was not the original discussion.

2) in this case it didn’t seem that you brainstormed, you copy/paste something that was written by someone else then put on ChatGPT. Will that person get compensation? Idk.

3) again, the topic is the ethical part and that was never the conversation.

“ ” is easy when you’re not the one being replaced. That’s not insight — that’s indifference dressed up as pragmatism.”

Of course it is! That’s human nature. What are you then personally going to do tomorrow and the following days to support consistently the background actors? You will probably be fake outraged for some time and then forget about the issue because your own personal life will take over. Yes, you will show indifference as well and maybe write some comments but what are you truly going to do about it?

How do you know that my job wasn’t taken by AI? How do you know if I’m not back to school because of that? You don’t, you just assume.

Temporary online outrage that is forgotten about in a few days doesn’t impress me at
all. So far all I’ve seen is your outrage without tangible “solutions”.

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.

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.

“ '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?

Fan was forgiven too quickly 😒.

This was the original “ AI is already being used to replace main actors.”

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.

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.

I’m all for solutions that will be effective.

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.

(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.

Have a great day as well.

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!

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.

“ 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)

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.

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.

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.

Exactly, it comes down to individuals and their views. I hope many people will riot in person.

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”