I don't see what the problem is. This is perfectly legal. Private companies can do whatever they want with their own money.
What if I am a shareholder (I am, through ETFs) of Netflix and I disagree with this? Shouldn't I be allowed to discuss and criticize the action?
The second it affects them, now it's real, now it's "OH this shouldn't be legal". Those people lack empathy.
Borderline psychopathy in my opinion.
That is just 100% wrong. It is literally a major point of contention in the demands of SAG and big reason they went on strike.
Will the SAG put a cap on actor's compensation? What makes an AI job worth inherently less than acting?
I'm trying to encourage thinking a bit more about the circumstances at hand. Hot air criticism is useless an so is economistic (or, Luddite) bargaining. The issue is at the root of how our society is organized. In short, new technology should benefit all of society equally because all new technology stands on the shoulders of all working people and their ancestors.
AI generated performers seems like a good idea. You can see the impact the passage of time has had on shows, e.g. Stranger Things. Why should a franchise be limited by the ability of a star actor to continue looking the same age decade after decade and eventually have to stop because the actor has aged out or just flat out died?
This is a ridiculous non-solution that has never really worked in practice. At best, it might revise the legal/PR strategies of the corporations and enables even more dishonesty on the part of various nonprofits who ostensibly "support" a related cause. More often, it's simply a big fat waste of effort.
Historically, organizing labor to withhold labor power to win political power for working people is in fact the only strategy that has actually worked. This is not what the actor/writer guilds are doing, though. They are merely bargaining for economistic industry-specific measures, not the political interests of working people as a whole.