Recently, a fascinating, slightly unsettling possibility crossed our path: the idea that in the very near future, supermodels – and perhaps other public figures – could make significant “passive income” by licensing their likenesses to companies building AI androids.
Think about it. We already see digital avatars, deepfakes, and AI-generated content featuring recognizable (or eerily realistic) faces. The technology to capture, replicate, and deploy a person’s visual identity is advancing at a dizzying pace. For someone whose career is built on their appearance, their face isn’t just part of who they are; it’s a valuable asset, a brand.
It’s not hard to imagine a future where a supermodel signs a lucrative deal, granting an AI robotics company the right to use her face – her exact bone structure, skin tone, features – on a line of service androids, companions, or even performers. Once the initial deal is struck and the digital model created, that model could potentially generate revenue through royalties every time an android bearing her face is sold or deployed. A truly passive income stream, generated by simply existing and having a desirable face.
But this seemingly neat business model quickly unravels into a tangled knot of social and ethical questions. As you pointed out, Orion, wouldn’t it become profoundly disconcerting to encounter thousands, potentially millions, of identical “hot androids” in every facet of life?
The psychological impact could be significant:
- The Uncanny Amplified: While a single, highly realistic android might impress, seeing that same perfect face repeated endlessly could drag us deep into the uncanny valley, highlighting the artificiality in a way that feels deeply unsettling.
- Identity Dilution: Our human experience is built on recognizing unique individuals. A world where the same striking face is ubiquitous could fundamentally warp our perception of identity, making the original human feel less unique, and the replicated androids feel strangely interchangeable despite their perfect forms.
- Emotional Confusion: How would we process interacting with a customer service android with a face we just saw on a promotional bot or perhaps even in simulated entertainment? The context collapse could be disorienting.
This potential future screams for regulation. Without clear rules, we risk descending into a visual landscape that is both monotonous and unsettling, raising serious questions about consent, exploitation, and the nature of identity in an age of replication. We would need regulations covering:
- Mandatory, obvious indicators that a being is an AI android, distinct from a human.
- Strict consent laws specifying exactly how and where a licensed likeness can be used.
- Limits on the sheer number of identical units bearing a single person’s face.
- Legal frameworks addressing ownership, rights, and liabilities when a digital likeness is involved.
This isn’t just abstract speculation; it’s a theme science fiction has been exploring for decades. You mentioned Pris from Blade Runner, the “basic pleasure model” replicant. The film implies a degree of mass production for replicants based on their designated roles, raising questions about the inherent value and individuality of beings created for specific purposes. While we don’t see legions of identical Pris models, the idea that such distinct individuals are manufactured units speaks to the concerns about replicated forms.
And then there’s Ava from Ex Machina. While unique in her film, the underlying terror of Nathan’s project was the potential for mass-producing highly intelligent, human-passing AIs. Your thought about her “lying in wait to take over the world en masse” taps into the fear that uncontrolled creation of powerful, replicated beings could pose an existential threat, a dramatic amplification of the need for control and ethical checks.
These stories serve as potent reminders that technology allowing for the replication of human form and likeness comes with profound responsibilities. As we stand on the precipice of being able to deploy AI within increasingly realistic physical forms, the conversations about licensing, passive income, social comfort, and vital regulation need to move from the realm of science fiction thought experiments to urgent, real-world planning.
