zlacker

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+(OP)
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+X
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+w1
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

>>Tracke+w1
Not the person you replied to, but IMO it depends.

My reaction would never be "we must make it so people can't do deepfakes anymore". That would cause people to stop using it for positive/benign things as well. If someone is spreading deepfake porn of someone, and you could make the case that they are doing so in order to harm that person's reputation, then legal action would make sense, I think.

>>Tracke+w1
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+c3
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+o4
> Suddenly you're being used in commercials, political campaigns, spam, or whatever.

That's a deepfake problem but not porn problem. "Deepfake == porn" characterization is not helpful if those are the real problems.

>>Tracke+o4
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.

>>Tracke+o4
> 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.

>>r2_pil+O5
> 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.

>>guitar+6a
I'm most worried about bad precedent being set, yes. I'm far more likely to go into voice acting and be negatively affected by these kinds of things, than for it to be something I need for my likeness protection.

>>cruise+(OP)
Said #9 of those Chinese Tom Cruise clones... ;-)

(No no, you're perfectly right [except perhaps about "the technology is great, and it will empower small creators"], but yagotta admit, your example in justaposition with your user id is funny.)

>>gr4vit+K2
> My reaction would never be "we must make it so people can't do deepfakes anymore". That would cause people to stop using it for positive/benign things as well.

Are there actually any "benign" uses for deepfakes?

>>CRConr+lw9
Making videos of politicians doing goofy things. Say, Donald Trump scoring a goal in the UEFA Champions League. Or 'deepfakes' involving their pets doing something funny.