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. r2_pil+021[view] [source] 2024-05-23 08:22:33
>>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.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. Tracke+c31[view] [source] 2024-05-23 08:32:58
>>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.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. r2_pil+C41[view] [source] 2024-05-23 08:44:39
>>Tracke+c31
Sorry, but I've been told almost 12x12 times(or more) that "you look familiar, like so-and-so"(where so-and-so has ranged from local friends to celebrities). I don't take any effort to look like anybody. I don't care about the poor celebrities; they make the choice to put themselves in the public eye, and frankly we could stand to have fewer of them. If someone defames my character, I can take legal action if I felt inclined to do so, and that's okay, that's why we have a system of law.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. guitar+U81[view] [source] 2024-05-23 09:23:06
>>r2_pil+C41
> I can take legal action if I felt inclined to do so, and that's okay, that's why we have a system of law.

So you basically are saying that in these cases law system should have a precedent against deepfakes so that you would be to able to argue on some basis against deepfakes made off of you.

The people now getting concerned about this are setting those precedents, so that when shit hits the fan in your life (it probably won't), you will have an easier path in the court.

[go to top]