Severance fame Britt Lower is confident about AI not replacing Hollywood

With generative AI now prompting intrigue as well as concern in Hollywood, Britt Lower, the charismatic force behind Severance has a down-to-earth outlook on the future. In her new cover feature with The Hollywood Reporter, Britt Lower claims that the use of synthetic tools can be helpful to storytellers, but not capable of replacing the human element that breathes life into performance. Instead of being afraid of becoming obsolete, she is confident that curiosity, connection, and creative instinct are particularly human traits.

Britt Lower’s case: human spark over synthetic convenience

One of the most prominent performers of Severance, Britt Lower, who has helped turn the series into one of the best representations of how television is increasingly falling in love with high-concept storytelling, has been candid about what grounds her when contemplating the headlines around artificial intelligence. When interviewed by the Hollywood Reporter on a cover story, Britt Lower casts her concerns over synthetic performance as the clash of value sets: algorithms can reproduce shape and sound according to her, but they lack the history, danger of risk, and related responsiveness that can be generated only through human performance.

“Whenever I think about the way I feel watching someone walk across a tightrope, I don’t feel nervous about AI.”

Britt Lower tends to cite her practice off-screen, training with small-tent circuses and improv, which made her conscious that acting is a two-way street: a never-ending concurrent listening and responding to the other human being. This is about give-and-take, with tiny moments like taking a deep breath, holding someone’s glance a little longer: the little things that take a scene to a deeper and more profound place.

What occurs in such moments, you can never set right with more accurate data; it is something that organically develops out of experience and collective memory. Britt Lower has no objection to the practical applications of technology, such as editing efficiency, visual alternatives, and cleanup work, but she will draw a line between the use of tools and the usurping of authorship. Britt Lower argues that creative authorship should stay comprehensively human, and digital support should become an aid to human decisions, not a replacement.

What machines have a hard time stealing

Generative systems are marvelously good at being able to mix and match: they can sew an audio together using matches between sounds, facial expressions, and the speech patterns to create convincing imitations. However, they lack real-life experiences; the personal memories that can add more depth to a line, the spontaneous improvisational skills made possible through years of practice, or the moral sense that guides one's decision making in front of a camera. Industry reporting indicates that studios are already using AI in a wide variety of practical applications (background cleanup, early VFX, storyboarding), even though these efforts encountered legal challenges, union participation, and debate over the consent and ownership of the resulting work.

A road ahead: policies, partnerships and play

Britt Lower’s optimism about AI not killing Hollywood’s business has a pragmatic note: the movie industry can set ground rules for the use of the new technology. The creative future is not a matter of either/or, it is going to be hybrid. It has been suggested that a just credit system be implemented to utilize these synthetic assets, and that there should be transparent negotiations and plans prior to getting someone's representation recreated, and finally the option to provide training to artists to learn how to manipulate prompts rather than be a mere product.

Both labor groups and studios can find a benefit in making up contracts that will secure residual payments, request a clear record of AI usage frequencies, and a human approval on anything concerning authorship. There are creative advantages of AI as well: it can accelerate rough visual planning, allow cinematography crews to safely experiment with dangerous stunts in simulation, and allow editors to concentrate on making important narrative decisions rather than on dull, time-consuming cleanup work. The central problem is to put the actors and the creators in control: the goal will be not only to learn how to use the tools, but also co-designing them, and to insist on regulations that acknowledge their creative dignity and capacity to earn their living.

Provided that policymakers, unions, and companies maintain such protective measures, the technology can be integrated into an environment that broadens the scope of what is created, and the key process of giving meaning to a work stays squarely in the hands of humans, not machines.

Trending

For more insights, keep following Soapcentral.

×

Was this article helpful?

Thank You for feedback