It'd be a lot cooler if it didn't.

That's dumb as Hell. At best, "good" "AI" "acting" would compete in categories like "best screenplay" or "best animation" or something like that, because there's no actual acting or actor involved.

He's not wrong that the film industry is going to do everything it can to eliminate the costs of expensive human actors, though, although the summary blurb is wrong ascribing his remarks as addressing "younger generations." Trademarking themselves might help the incumbent superstars for a while, but any actor who doesn't already have that kind of fame has no real future career.

I don't think the oscars should allow AI to be eligible for awards in the same categories as humans

@return2ozma Giving me John Henry vibes. Go humans!

It they have to compete with AI, the pre-selection process failed.

Yep.

All artists are competing with AI. With actors, it's harder because AI-generated video is super expensive to make. It might just be cheaper to hire actual actors. I think the difference would be someone like Tom Cruise who does these wild, outlandish stunts, but he's getting too old, and most actors don't have that level of commitment to the craft, so I can see them using AI to do stunts rather than injuring stuntmen.

Music is already being flooded with AI (like Spotify) as the barrier to create AI music is far lower, and far more profitable. Same thing with still art. Many people would rather prompt an AI than pay an actual artist, even if they have to pay the AI a few cents (a token they bought a bunch of for a set price or subscription).