this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
668 points (97.9% liked)
Technology
58816 readers
4531 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I would agree with you if they hadn't named their video "George Carlin - I'm glad I'm dead". This is the equivalent of a Taylor Swift band putting out original work and naming their upload "Taylor Swift - my new song".
I shouldn't have to wonder if the video I'm clicking is by the original artist or an AI/Impersonator. It should be clear without a doubt.
There is a line and it's pretty generous but I think they crossed it, most likely purposely as to drum up controversy and make a quick buck. It's a shame because this kind of irresponsibility is only going to cause problems.
I mean, fair enough. But what alive person titles their show "I'm glad I'm dead?" Especially since people that know George know he's dead. It's almost The Onion level of satire. And once the video starts, it immediately starts with a disclaimer that it's not Carlin, but AI. Nobody would sit through the entire show only to be dumbfounded later that it wasn't actually Carlin risen from the dead.
We can't really go on a case per case basis on this imo. It would start to get silly fast, like it's okay if the wording makes it kind of obvious as long as it's dead people.
And ya, everyone knows he's dead but not everyone knows all of his shows and skit, in a year or two, the AI specials will vastly outnumber the original ones and not all are going to have such an obvious tell in the name.
Don't get me wrong though, I think it's fine as long as it explicitly states it's from an AI or impersonator in the title.
You're right, it can lead to a flood of new material that could overshadow his old works. But that would basically require it to be as good if not better than his old works, which I just don't think will happen. Had nobody bat an eye at this, it would have just sunk into obscurity, as is the fate of many creative works. Should more shows be made, I think after the third people would just not even care anymore. Most haven't even bothered to watch the first, after all.
I also think it will eventually become normalized, it's hard to keep track of. I also think these lawsuits should be aimed at the platforms for allowing mislabeling and not at the individual creators.
I like Vernor Vinge's take on it in one of his short stories where copyrights are lessened to 6 months and companies must quickly develop their new Worlds/Characters before they become public domain.
For sure! Deceit should be punished. Ethical AI usage should not go without disclosure, so I think we must be understanding to people choosing to be open about that, rather than having to hide it to dodge hate.
That's an interesting idea. Although 6 months does sound like an awfully short time to actually develop something more grand. But I do think with fairer copyright limits we could also afford to provide more protections in the early days after a work's release. It's definitely worth discussing such ideas to make copyright better for everyone.
It's blatantly meant as satire and obviously within the protections of the First Amendment.
I wholesale disagree that they crossed a line at all.
How is this satire?
Is Alec Baldwin appearing on SNL as Donald Trp considered Satire?
How different is the end result as a from a human prompt guided AI creation, created by comedians that is mimicking any public persona at all?
As far as your understanding of the nuances, what is the specific reasoning and background providrd from the creators themselves on this?
Looks a lot like you, among many others, are just reacting with the anti AI pitchfork crowd and throwing mud at anyone that doesnt fall into the narrative bubble you prefer on this.
Are you saying this is a satire specifically on the current AI world views, or that all satirical comedy specials are protected by the first amendment and can be made available in the same way this was?
They are exactly the same and I would have the same opinion about someone mimicking George Catlins voice, recording a set and then uploading it to YouTube under his name.
My issue is more with the labeling than with the AI. I'm actually a huge AI advocate, it's also why I think we need to be responsible with it and hold those that aren't accountable.
These guys are looking for a quick buck and it's just giving fodder to those that don't want us to have free access to AI and it's outputs.
As for the lawsuit, ultimately I think the platform should be held responsible for not having better policies on clearly indicating when a video is an AI impersonation.
Even the labelling itself in this case is part of the satire.
I'm saying satire falls under protected speech already, period. Your position requires it doesn't.
My position is that it doesn't need the protection, it's perfectly fine to make AI generated content as long as it's labeled as such and there is no chance of mistaking it for the original person.
I get your argument, I just think it implies everything else wouldn't be legal. Like only comedy specials about AI are okay.
What is it a satire on? What is the object of the satire?