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
The vast majority of all voice actors are piss poor, not ultra wealthy celebrities. The ultra wealthy celebrities just happen to be the only ones who could legally defend themselves and can create a media fuzz.

You're basically suggesting that it's okay to copy anyone's voice and appearance without ever giving them compensation and without regard to personality rights. That's insane. Even for someone who thinks this should be allowed in principle (I certainly don't think so), there would need to be strict safeguards. Or, do you want your person and voice to appear in a commercial for <insert organization, product, or cause you don't support at all and despise>?

>>jonath+961
As long as it's clear it's not actually me and I'm not personally endorsing the product then what is the problem? Here you are talking to OpenAI's system and it's clear Scarlett isn't personally answer you and the answers don't represent her or her views

>>contra+t61
That's not what you suggested, though. You said that young talented directors will make movies with an AI-generated Tom Cruise anyway and insinuated that this is what we should allow. That's the opposite of "...being clear that it's not me." By the way, the law already allows all this when it's clear that no particular person is imitated. We're talking about the cases when it's not clear.

Or do you suggest to have different laws for celebrities and poor actors?

>>jonath+P61
I don't really understand what's confusing..

If a director makes a movie with AI Tom Cruise it's not ambiguous if the real Tom Cruise participated or not. The goal is not to fool everyone to think he was in it (b/c that would be trivially denied by the real man). There is a list of credits at the end if you're somehow confused. So if the movie is about drowning Scientologists, you'll know it's not supported by the real Tom Cruise

It's similar to if you were to paint a picture of him sodomizing a goat. You don't immediately think "damn, he's a real sick bastard". You just assume it's a fake things created by the creator/director. Nobody is hurt (well maybe his feelings a bit)

If you do make a thing that confuses people and makes them thing it's the real Tom Cruise and he's somehow hurt by this then that's kinda messed up and should be illegal.

In this case with the AI chatbot it's not confusing. I don't think Scarlett is on the other end of the line. Everyone knows it's not really her. It just sounds like her