If robots can act instead of actors, is the existence of actors still meaningful?

Of course it makes sense! Do you think the camera has been invented for so many years, and the art of painting has declined? On the contrary, photos provide material for many people who have no chance to sketch, and painting provides inspiration for many photographers in the later period. Before the Gongbi class, the teacher probably said: The difference between a painting (Gongbi) and a photo is that the photo reflects the truth, so there are always flaws. The painting must be perfect, and every leaf in the painting must be elegant and subtle. Even if there is a bug eye, it is also an elegant bug eye. This photo can't be done, but it provides an improved reference for painters. Suppose we can invent an actor printer in the future, throw the actor in and scan it, and we can print a robot with the same expression and behavior in 3 D. Will the actor lose his job? Even less. Comparing the relationship between photography and painting, you will find that actors play the roles of photography model and painter at the same time here. In order to build a good robot, we must first train good actors and let the robot have a good learning sample; Actors will analyze their own shortcomings by buying robots and observing their performances. Isn't that great? However, whenever a new thing and an old thing have some overlapping functions, don't always think about who can replace who. In fact, if you don't want to be replaced by the other party, you should try your best to help each other and achieve a better self.