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

>>contra+lp1
There was no confusion on my part, you're confirming that you're propagating what I thought you were. I indeed think that's insane and plain immoral. It seems we have very different views on personality rights. I suppose we have to agree to disagree on that one.

>>jonath+VN1
well.. welcome to the new world old man/woman

Regardless of what me and you think this just seems inevitable and we're all just going to have to get used to it. Just like you can't stop people from drawing and painting other people - you won't be able to stop people from using AI to render their image/voice. It's all getting cheaper and more accessibly

>>contra+PY3
It's not inevitable. There are already powerful laws against this where I live, and I have no doubt that the EU will sharpen them additionally, too. It's already being discussed. Illicit AI copies of people can be treated pretty much the same as other counterfeit goods - physical goods get confiscated, servers are shut down, people who do it on a commercial scale get arrested, etc. The enforcement is not more complicated than what the movie and software industry has already been doing for decades. The video game industry has already set the precedents.

I mean, honestly, I think it's kind of bizarre that you think a Chinese movie maker could make a film with a digitally cloned Tom Cruise in it and get away with it. Maybe in China, but not in the rest of the world.

>>jonath+la4
Lord.. that's like the exact opposite of the world I want to live in. More regulations, more controls on the internet. More tracking and DRM. All to protect the rich bastards and entrenched interest. Acting and voice acting have the potential to become dead professions. This is great. Embrace it and move on.

It just goes against the whole cyberpunk future we grow up dreaming about. Against the A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace and all that. I think in the end the bureaucrats won't win though. It just slows down the inevitable.

As always it'll probably start with porn. There will be porn of everyone and it'll be shared. Then that will become normalized. Then it'll spread into other more socially acceptable areas. Maybe first under the guise of "parody" and then it'll just become normal. Just how streaming and pirating has made music sales irrelevant. Now musicians make money with concerts.. and somehow the famous ones are still filthy rich. Didn't seem to hurt them one bit.

I'm sure the Tom Cruises of the future can still go to conventions and give speeches at private events.