10 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. wouldn’t have to pay

      premise 6: economic incentive

      claim: ai will cut cost tremendously (wont have to pay the actor, be able to produce faster, no breaks would be needed, ect.)

      This premise supports the conclusion that ai will replace humans because its cheaper, not because the quality of the art is better.

    2. 15 seconds

      premise 5- people already want short shallow content

      the author suggest that audiences already now prefer shorter content and quick entertainment (ex. tiktok, youtube shorts, reels)

      logical point: human driven art may lose its value to ai because the audience now values speed and simplicity over depth.

    3. Marvel, sequels, adaptations and streaming shows that feel a

      Premise 4: Ai will thrive in a "degraded hollywood"

      Claim: the industry is all a formula and algorithm driven Connection: If creativity is already automated, ai will fit perfectly- worsening the decline

    4. That, readers, would be less than ideal.

      The overall conclusion is ai's growing role in entertainment and media threatens authenticity, creativity, and societies grasp on whats real and whats fake.

    5. In the immortal words of Emily Blunt, “Good Lord, we’re screwed.”

      The main implied argument throughout this article is the rise of Ai in entertainment threatens genuine human connection.

    6. “She’s not going to talk back,”

      Diagraming this argument that is IN favor of using AI actress would look like: "shes not going to talk back" + "...wants her to be the next Scarlett Johansson" = this is better (im not sure if im supposed to find a specific quote that supports it).

    7. Told that Tilly’s creator, Eline Van der Velden, a Dutch former actress with a master’s in physics, wants her to be the next Scarlett Johansson,

      I would say this is the main argument being made throughout the article.