4 ms·

> the producers claim to know him and his mind so well that they're comfortable speaking for him They aren't making up words though, they're "merely" having an

> the producers claim to know him and his mind so well that they're comfortable speaking for him They aren't making up words though, they're "merely" having an AI read words we know he wrote. Is that ethical? I'm not sure. Neither is the filmmaker: > Neville said. “We can have a documentary-ethics panel about it later.” I'm comfortable saying it's not disingenuous though.

mthoms 5y ago
Refusing to reveal all the parts that were AI generated is very unethical IMHO. It's an extraordinarily bad precedent too: Imagine a world where this is the norm. The only benefit to concealing this important detail is generating controversy and getting his film talked about. This is a very selfish move by the filmmaker.
- AdamJacobMuller 5y ago
  > Refusing to reveal all the parts that were AI generated I don't disagree but I think he's genuinely saying at some point he wants to have that documentary ethics panel. I think it's far more interesting to wait a bit (after it's out on streaming/blu-ray/etc) and see if anyone can figure it out. I think he's actually INVITING that kind of discussion and analysis by giving everyone exactly the information they would need to do so. A) here's a voiceover which was done by AI B) obviously here's a lot of legitimate samples C) here's how I did it D) there are two other fakes, go find them. I think it's a really good discussion to have.