zlacker

>>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

>>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.

>>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

>>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.

>>Tracke+k01
Look, we're all just wearing these meat bags for a little while. I personally don't know anyone who would care if I was deep-faked in a porn, it wouldn't have any professional consequences (why would my boss, or friends for that matter, watch it in the first place?), and ultimately it's as ficticious as Lord of the Rings. Really, people get too riled up about salacious bits in the first place while we're on the subject.

>>r2_pil+021
So what if someone made a digital twin out of you, and started using you in other work? Suddenly you're being used in commercials, political campaigns, spam, or whatever.

I'm not buying that people here are "fine" with this. This is one of those things people might be fine with, until they find themselves in that exact spot.

Now, what kind of people will find themselves in that spot? Celebrities, obviously.

One thing is being used in material that will defame your character (spam, fraud, porn, whatever) - another thing is to be used in material that will potentially take away your livelihood.

If someone clone, say, Tom Cruise - and makes a movie with his digital twin, he sure as shit is entitled to royalties for that. People go to see the movie because they think it is Tom Cruise, not because it's some generic AI avatar of him.

>>Tracke+c31
> I'm not buying that people here are "fine" with this. This is one of those things people might be fine with, until they find themselves in that exact spot.

I'm gonna suggest that people who are blase about this issue are comfortable in the knowledge that it will never affect them. HN contributors might have 99+ problems, but being lusted over by the internet at large isn't one of them.