zlacker

[return to "OpenAI didn’t copy Scarlett Johansson’s voice for ChatGPT, records show"]
1. contra+tX[view] [source] 2024-05-23 07:44:26
>>richar+(OP)
I think it's really problematic that the government is protecting voice actor's careers. It's like if they disallowed cars on the roads to protect horse carriages. Clearly with the new technology a whole economic sector is gone and irrelevant over night. Now amateurs and small projects can afford to add good sounding voices to their creations. This is good news in the end

The same goes for actors and their likenesses ... just stop protecting ultra wealthy celebrities. They'll be a bit poorer, but they're going to be okay. You're just holding back progress

I can imagine in a decade some place like China which doesn't care about protecting celebrities will have movies with dozens of Tom Cruises Arnolds and Johansson's and will just be pumping out better quality content at affordable budgets. Young talented directors won't be hamstrung by these legal roadblocks

◧◩
2. cruise+OY[view] [source] 2024-05-23 07:55:09
>>contra+tX
That's a pretty generous take on the situation. Sam Altman isn't some robin hood character taking from the rich to give to the poor. If AI companies can keep operating with impunity, taking as much data as they want with no compensation for the creators, or consequence for infringement, that's not good.

I agree that the technology is great, and it will empower small creators, but I'm also worried about the cowboy behaviour of all these tech billionaires.

◧◩◪
3. contra+LZ[view] [source] 2024-05-23 08:02:01
>>cruise+OY
In this context they aren't "creators" because they don't create anything. These actors are not being compensated, b/c they're not actually performed any additional work or doing any acting

If you record my voice at a conference and then create a synthetic replica.. why would I care? You didn't make me do any additional work or anything

◧◩◪◨
4. Tracke+k01[view] [source] 2024-05-23 08:06:49
>>contra+LZ
So if someone created a deep fake porn video of you, that wouldn't bother you either? Because, after all, you didn't do any work or anything.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. contra+e11[view] [source] 2024-05-23 08:14:56
>>Tracke+k01
It's not really an analogous situation at all

In the case of a pornographic video there is no issue if it's clear from the context or content that it isn't actually me doing what's in the video

When you talk to ChatGPT, I don't actually think Scarlett Johansson is speaking to me

If I make a fake phone call recording with her synethetic voice and claim it's real and it somehow hurts her then that's an issue - but that's a different legal matter entirely

[go to top]