AI Actors Begin to Take Human Jobs—The "Humanless" Production Revolution in the Short Drama Market

Is the actor on your smartphone screen a real person?

What once sounded like a strange question is rapidly becoming a reality in the video industry.

With advancements in video generation technology that can create characters, backgrounds, camera work, and even voices using generative AI, there is a surge in short dramas produced by AI.

The most significant changes are occurring in China's short drama market.

In the first quarter of 2026, about 128,000 short dramas were released, with approximately 95% reported to be AI-produced. Furthermore, on Douyin, the Chinese version of TikTok operated by ByteDance, 89 of the top 100 popular anime dramas in May were AI-produced.

Looking at the numbers alone, generative AI is no longer just a "technology that might be used in the future."

It is becoming a practical infrastructure for mass-producing video content.

And the actors who have traditionally stood in front of the camera are beginning to feel the most significant impact behind this rapid change.

Dramas that took months can now be made by "one person in a few days"

The primary reason production companies are jumping on AI is straightforward.

It's because they can produce content "faster, cheaper, and in greater quantities."

Traditional video production requires numerous people, including scriptwriters, actors, directors, cameramen, lighting technicians, art directors, and editors.

They must secure locations, prepare costumes, adjust actors' schedules, conduct filming, and add editing and special effects.

However, with generative AI, much of this process can be moved to a computer.

According to an example shared by Professor Shen Yang from Tsinghua University with the Financial Times, a 3-5 minute drama that took five staff members about three months to produce in 2024 can now be made by one person in just one to two days.

This is not merely a 20% or 30% efficiency improvement.

It is a difference significant enough to change the structure of video production itself.

The case of AI animation company Zeelin is also symbolic. The company reportedly released about 8,000 one-minute short dramas in May alone, with production costs reduced to approximately $90-$120 per minute, down to about 10% of what it would have been with human-centric production.

With such a wide cost gap, it becomes difficult for companies to ignore AI.

With a budget that previously allowed for only 100 productions, there is now the potential to try hundreds or even more.

They can serialize only the projects that become hits based on viewership data and quickly cancel those with poor responses.

Such a "mass production, mass testing" video business model becomes viable.

Vertical short dramas, consumed in a few minutes or even seconds per episode, are particularly well-suited to this approach.

AI as a "Tool to Assist Actors" to "Actors Themselves"

Until now, generative AI has often been described as "technology to support human creators."

Creating backgrounds with AI.

Creating storyboards with AI.

Assisting special effects with AI.

Streamlining translation and dubbing with AI.

For such uses, it could be understood as an extension of traditional CG and digital editing software.

However, the changes occurring in the short drama market have taken it a step further.

AI is not just "assisting human work" but has begun generating "the humans appearing on screen" themselves.

AI actors do not get tired.

There are no restrictions on filming time.

They do not negotiate for higher appearance fees.

There is no need to shoot on location in the scorching sun, nor is there a need to adjust schedules with other projects.

There is no need to wait hours to change hairstyles.

It is even possible to have a character who is 20 years old in the story appear as 20 years old 10 years later.

From a production company's perspective, the economic appeal is enormous.

However, from the perspective of human actors, the story looks entirely different.

"The work of shooting three films a week has disappeared"

Greg Wollner, who has been active as an actor and producer in short dramas, used to shoot about three projects a week before the emergence of the AI video generation model "Seedance 2.0."

However, the situation changed drastically with the advent of new technology.

He reports that work has rapidly decreased, and some around him have been forced to leave the acting profession.

In China, there have also been reports of actors who gained popularity in short dramas losing their jobs after the surge in AI-produced works.

The important point here is that the impact of AI is not just a problem for star actors.

Those who may be most affected initially are people working in low-to-mid-budget video productions, such as short dramas, advertisements, corporate videos, educational videos, reenactments, and extras.

In major films, the fame of well-known actors still holds product value.

However, in short content consumed in seconds to minutes, with new works being introduced one after another, "who is acting" may be less important than "whether the continuation is intriguing."

When AI actors reach sufficient quality in that market, the economic reasons for hiring humans weaken.

The More Serious Issue of "Competing Against Oneself"

What makes the situation even more complex for actors is the case where their face, voice, and acting data are AI-ized.

There is a reported case where a performer in a children's educational program was asked to consent to create an AI replica of themselves.

It was a situation where refusal could lead to being replaced by another actor.

Ultimately, after negotiations, they secured a five-year contract, compensation equivalent to one year's salary, and the right to refuse the use of the AI version.

This case symbolizes how actor contracts might change in the AI era.

Previously, the focus was on conditions like "how many days of shooting," "where it will be broadcast," and "how much for secondary use."

Now, it includes,

whether their face can be AI-ized.

whether their voice can be learned.

what kind of works it can be used in.

whether it can be used after the contract ends.

whether it can be used after death.

whether their AI version can advertise other products.

These new conditions are added.

What actors provide is no longer just "acting on the day of shooting," but "personal data that can potentially be reused indefinitely."

The "Few Lines of Instruction" That Shook Hollywood

One reason Seedance 2.0 shocked the film industry was the AI video that spread on social media.

It showed characters reminiscent of Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt engaging in movie-like action.

It reportedly did not require a large filming set or numerous staff.

Rhett Reese, known for the 'Deadpool' series, expressed concerns on X about the future of their work.

The industry's reaction was not just amazement at the technology.

The issue was "whose face it is," "whose character it is," and "what was learned to create the video."

Companies like Disney and industry groups raised concerns about the unauthorized use of copyrights and actors' likenesses.

SAG-AFTRA also strongly opposed the recreation of human actors' voices and appearances without their consent, arguing it undermines their ability to earn a living.

As the quality of AI videos improves, it becomes increasingly difficult to separate technical issues from rights issues.

On Social Media, "Revolution" and "Rejection" Proceed Simultaneously

Reactions on social media regarding AI videos are sharply divided.

 

Those in favor focus on the "democratization of production."

Previously, creating movie-like videos required significant funding and specialized staff.

However, as video generation AI advances, individual creators may be able to produce large-scale sci-fi, action, and fantasy videos from their home computers.

On Reddit, there is anticipation that individuals will be able to create video works that only large studios could previously produce.

The same applies to advertising and marketing.

If cinematic promotional videos can be made without a budget of tens of thousands of dollars, there are significant benefits for small businesses and individuals.

These people view it not as "AI destroying movies" but as "breaking down barriers to film production."

On the other hand, there is strong opposition.

Particularly regarding the ability to generate actors' faces and voices without their permission, there is criticism that it is not just a technological innovation but a misuse of human identity.

Interestingly, there is also rejection from the viewer's side, not just the creators.

In Reddit communities discussing vertical dramas, posts express sentiments like "AI-generated dramas are boring," "real actors convey more emotion and personality," "I deleted the app because of the increase in AI works," and "I don't watch AI dramas."

The ability to technically create AI works and the desire of viewers to watch them are separate issues.

"Looking Real" Alone Doesn't Make an Actor?

There is a significant issue that generative AI has yet to solve.

Humans do not become fond of actors simply because "the image looks real."

Expressions.

Voice.

Timing.

Relationships with co-stars.

Interviews outside of the work.

Life experiences.

Failures and growth.

Through the accumulation of these elements, a story is born around the existence of an actor.

People want to see movies starring famous actors not just because of the characters.

They also find value in "who is playing the role."

There are opinions on social media that it is possible to empathize with AI characters.

Considering that people have deep attachments to characters in animation and puppet shows, it's not surprising.

However, behind excellent animation and puppet shows are many humans, including scriptwriters, voice actors, animators, and puppeteers.

Therefore, what may become important in the future is not the binary choice of "AI or human," but "how much human creativity is behind the character."

Still, AI Utilization Will Not Stop

Even if there is backlash from viewers, the possibility of AI utilization disappearing from the entire video industry is low.

Amazon MGM Studios is also advancing "AI Studio" to incorporate AI into film and TV production.

The aim is to speed up processes like pre-production and editing and control rising production costs.

Amazon indicates a stance of using AI as a tool while involving scriptwriters, directors, actors, and designers in the production process, rather than completely replacing human creators.

This way of thinking is important for considering the future of the video industry.

The introduction of generative AI itself is not the same as generative AI excluding humans.

The danger is not only that all processes previously handled by humans are replaced by AI.

As a result of AI increasing productivity tenfold, there is also the possibility that it will be judged that "a job previously done by 10 people can be done by one," eliminating the jobs of the remaining nine.

Even if technically "assisting humans," the impact on employment can be extremely significant.

The Importance of "Consent, Management, and Compensation"

Responses to these issues are also beginning.

The American actors' union SAG-AFTRA emphasizes "consent," "management," and "compensation" as important principles for protecting performers in the AI era.

When creating and using digital replicas, the consent of the individual is required, and they are informed specifically about how it will be used.

Furthermore, even if an AI version of an actor appears, it is not treated as "free data," and mechanisms are put in place to connect it to compensation.

If this way of thinking spreads, future actors might not just be "those whose jobs are taken by AI."