A
@AKJ_N5T
"and you won't know the difference"
25
0
2.1K
@TukiFromKLposted on X
🚨 Do you understand what you're watching happen right now.. Kelsey Plum, a WNBA player just launched an AI clone of herself.. fans pay to talk to a chatbot that has her voice and her personality.. 24/7.. while the real one sleeps. two days ago they announced Val Kilmer is starring in a new movie.. Val Kilmer is dead.. died last year at 65.. battled throat cancer for a decade.. they're using AI to resurrect him for a film called "As Deep As the Grave".. you can't make this up connect the dots.. right now it's one athlete selling a chatbot.. one dead actor getting digitally dug up for a movie.. but give it 18 months.. every A-list actor will have an AI twin trained on every scene they've ever shot.. every expression.. every inflection.. every mannerism and you won't know the difference
View original tweet on X →
Community Sentiment Analysis
Real-time analysis of public opinion and engagement
Sentiment Distribution
73% Engaged
50% Positive
23% Negative
Positive
50%
Negative
23%
Neutral
27%
Key Takeaways
What the community is saying — both sides
Supporting
1
Identity-as-product:
Personalities and likenesses are becoming monetizable commodities — celebrities and athletes can sell AI clones or “O‑Fans” versions of themselves, turning reputation into scalable revenue.
2
Posthumous consent and legacy:
Families and estates can resurrect deceased figures (or sell their likeness), raising questions about who consents and whether legacy becomes a perpetual revenue stream.
3
Loneliness-driving demand:
People may pay for AI conversations with simulated loved ones or celebrities, highlighting that market demand is rooted in social isolation rather than just novelty.
4
Legal and liability gaps:
If an autonomous AI twin “hallucinates” damaging statements, it’s unclear who is legally responsible — the actor, estate, developer, or platform.
5
Job displacement in entertainment:
Actors, stunt doubles and extras risk being replaced as studios use AI likenesses; some predict performers will sell likeness rights instead of continuing to act.
6
Market incentives make it inevitable:
The economy rewards scalable, low‑cost clones — the athlete or star who monetizes this first stands to win far beyond traditional contracts.
7
Dystopian and weaponization fears:
Many see this as a slide toward a “Black Mirror” reality — resurrections, deepfakes and deceptive clones could be weaponized for propaganda, fraud or emotional manipulation.
8
Detection and regulation are emergent priorities:
Unions like SAG‑AFTRA are mobilizing and some propose roles for micro‑analysts to detect AI content and enforce safeguards.
9
Rejection and cultural refusal:
A vocal group says they’ll simply abstain — won’t watch or pay for AI-driven content because it lacks value or authenticity.
10
Claims it’s already pervasive:
Some argue this tech has been used against audiences for years and that clones already flood media, suggesting the problem is less future, more present.
11
Uneasy admiration:
Even critics acknowledge the technical achievement — AI can do “great shit,” but that capability makes the future more frightening.
Opposing
1
Payment and permission defuse the outrage:
Both Kelsey Plum and Val Kilmer’s family were paid/gave rights, so some see the practice as ethically acceptable when consent and compensation are present.
2
Embrace the tech — it’s progress:
AI chatbots and digital recreations are exciting to proponents who want to adopt new tools and even extend aspects of life via technology.
3
There’s little market for niche celebrity clones:
Critics argue WNBA players and lesser-known figures won’t command paying audiences — “who is Kelsey Plum?” and “no one’s paying to watch her play” capture that view.
4
This isn’t new:
Skeptics point out chatbots, holograms and simulated interactions (Jerry Jones hologram, entertainers using bots) predate the current AI buzz; porn industry usage was cited as long-standing precedent.
5
Hype vs. reality — don’t buy the countdowns:
Forecasts that AI will transform entertainment in fixed short windows are dismissed as repeat futurist tropes that assume adoption that hasn’t materialized.
6
Replace actors? Fine by some:
A segment welcomes AI replacing performers — not for novelty but to avoid celebrity moralizing and because they don’t care about star power.
7
Consent is nuanced and important:
People note differences — families granting permission vs. the deceased not personally consenting — so the ethics vary case by case.
8
Existing content backlog reduces pressure:
Some argue studios can (and will) rely on unreleased material rather than resort to AI-generated likenesses.
9
Fans who pay for simulated access get mocked:
The “simps” criticism frames paying to converse with celebrity AIs as pathetic or pointless.
10
Conspiratorial alarm exists:
A minority links widespread AI replication to dystopian outcomes like centralized control and surveillance symbolism.
11
Broader social critique:
A thread connects the phenomenon to an economy built on exploiting low-information consumers, arguing such dynamics fuel demand for gimmicks.
Top Reactions
Most popular replies, ranked by engagement
2
@2kySzn
Today it’s chatbot clones and dead actors. Tomorrow it’ll be impossible to tell who’s real, alive, or even consenting.
18
2
2.0K
T
@TukiFromKL
https://t.co/XY749Fn7or
5
0
19.6K
M
@MIsm4rt455
I am 100% ok with AI replacing actors and actresses just so I dont have to listen to smug lowlifes tell people how to live.
3
1
271
P
@popsbabyiv
As someone who wants to live forever I appreciate where technology is going. We can’t be afraid of everything new.
1
1
440
M
@MWGardner80
Reminds me of those 900 numbers in the 80s where you could talk to the Easter bunny Simps lead such sad lives
1
0
210
Report an Issue
Found something wrong with this article? Let us know and we'll look into it.