“We need to proceed with great caution”: Natasha Lyonne on AI and the Sag-Aftra strike

To discuss the issue of AI, I spoke to Natasha Lyonne, who runs the Los Angeles production company Animal Pictures with fellow actor and comedian Maya Rudolph. Lyonne has been a screen actor since childhood, getting widely noticed in Woody Allen’s Everyone Says I Love You (1996) and reaching wider fame through her work on Orange Is the New Black (2013-19). She recently received her fifth Emmy nomination for Rian Johnson’s crime drama Poker Face. Lyonne also starred in, and was showrunner of, the Netflix series Russian Doll (2019-22), which dealt with ideas of parallel universes and multiple lives, themes that chime with AI’s potential to create alternative identities for film stars. Lyonne spoke to Sight and Sound about AI in filmmaking, the Sag-Aftra dispute and the new world of artificial intelligence that is developing around us.

Dominic Lees: As a producer and director, tell me what you think the audience reaction might be to fully synthetic characters on screen?

Natasha Lyonne: Well, I often think about the first time I saw a Pixar three-dimensional cartoon. That style was so different from the two-dimensional thing that we grew up with that it seemed [like] it was broken. And I couldn’t believe that it caught on and became completely normalised. So I think on some level they’re going to get us there slowly.

I think that the statistics are already there – like 65 per cent of your Instagram feed is actually AI images that you’re liking, whether it’s a picture of a hot chick or a cool dude or whatever. We’ve slowly been taken beyond the point of no return. It’s like a slow roll-out they’ve been preparing us for some time.

What do you think AI’s capabilities are in creating film and television?

Do I think that ChatGPT is capable of turning out an episode of CSI or [Real Housewives of Beverly Hills spinoff ] Vanderpump? Then, yes, probably. Do I think that people would care at all about the difference? Probably not – we have a lot of evidence that our standards are pretty low. I don’t mean any shade against those shows, I’m just saying that they’re probably easy to recreate, as opposed to creating a completely new concept. I don’t think ChatGPT can write [Jonathan Glazer’s 2013 film] Under the Skin.

What’s your reaction to the spate of AI-generated spoof videos of Wes Anderson’s film style?

What a perfect filmmaker! To recreate his images – it’s so, so disturbing… Wes has to live a whole life to become the quality of human being that he is, who sees the world in such a specific way. This really robs from him, and to make from him something sort of comedic on your computer in like ten seconds is deeply disturbing. It’s pretty obvious that it should not be legal. And certainly should not be legal without him getting a very serious payday.

The Sag-Aftra strike has foregrounded the issue of AI in the film industry…

I think the most extreme example we’ve seen in the past few days is the utterly unappealing idea that you can have a background actor get paid $700 and be able to use them in perpetuity. I’ve been doing this for 40 years and I think doing this to a background actor just to fucking make a little bit more money is so, so dark and so mean that it kills me.

Do you think AI is the major issue in the dispute, rather than the pay and residuals issues?

They are both major issues because they stem from a similar game. I had a lot of years when I was out there as a drug addict who was a non-working actor, but only survived because of residuals… I would not have been able to make it to rehab without residuals. So these are really fucking important. Are they just banking on the fact that artists are so desperate to work no matter what, that they’re willing to do it for free, even at the cost of their own dignity?

As an actor, are there circumstances in which you would allow yourself to be used with AI?

For what movie? If Jordan Peele said, “Hey, Natasha, I need to make a 3D model of you so I can use it for my next movie and a lot of it is going to use AI and this is how much I’ll pay you for it,” then it’s like, “Oh my God, Jordan, I can’t believe I get to work with you: sure, do what you need to do.”

So you would be happy with that?

It would be on a case-by-case basis. He’s a brilliant filmmaker and a wonderful guy. I wouldn’t be scared about what he would do with it. But if you were telling me that by signing off on that Jordan Peele movie, I was also giving Universal Pictures [the studio Peele often works with] the right to use me in any situation in perpetuity. And, furthermore, in 2090 some guy could be sitting there putting my face on whatever fiction you want. Well, now I’m not so into it. It becomes a lot scarier, a lot hairier.

In creative terms, can you describe to me some of the positives that AI may bring to Animal Pictures? Will you be looking to adopt the technology in projects in the future?

I can’t really picture that scenario yet. Honestly, it’s humanity that’s my primary concern, and getting some regulations going around tech giants not becoming monopolies and not being able to own people for $700 and not being able to have a bunch of shitty filmmakers and shitty writers just churn out garbage. I do think we need to proceed with great caution and also consider these greater ideas of not anthropomorphising machines.

It seemed like we would get AI first in trucking and things like that – automatic cars and Uber drivers. It’s interesting that it’s hitting the arts first. As much as people make fun of Hollywood celebrity, maybe it’s a good thing, because at least it’ll get some attention.