3 ms·

Libertarians care a lot about property rights. I can understand how a Libertarian wouldn’t take issue with a law to protect the right to one’s own likeness. It

Libertarians care a lot about property rights. I can understand how a Libertarian wouldn’t take issue with a law to protect the right to one’s own likeness. It could be argued that using AI to duplicate someone’s voice is a form of theft. I can’t think of any Libertarians who think the government shouldn’t have laws around theft.

nobodyandproud 3y ago
So hypothetically, if someone looks or sounds like an individual then are they in violation? Suppose they’re identical twins. AI can’t be a free-for-all and I’m perfectly fine with what Tennessee is doing here. It’s the stated Libertarian position that I have questions on.
- BuyMyBitcoins 3y ago
  I don't see the identical twin / soundalike argument as relevant because we are talking about using an AI with the specific intent of impersonation. This doesn’t ban cover bands or soundalikes. Even so, I think there are some existing laws around such things, and I think such acts need to pay royalties in some form. I don’t want to go down that rabbit hole, to be honest. Regardless, no actual Libertarian position was presented in the article. The comment I responded to was making a dig at Libertarians and the State of Kentucky. Even though I find a lot of Libertarians abrasive and that their ideology is incompatible with actual governance, I still like to analyze how they think. My goal was to provide a perspective on why a Libertarian might be okay with such a law.
  - nobodyandproud 3y ago
    Fair enough. You’re narrowing the issue of ownership by method of construction/reproduction. But isn’t the issue and violation of ownership really about making forgeries: That is, claiming to be what it isn’t? What’s novel then is that AI just made it incredibly easy to create forgeries of IP.

3 ms·

Libertarians care a lot about property rights. I can understand how a Libertarian wouldn’t take issue with a law to protect the right to one’s own likeness. It

by BuyMyBitcoins 3y ago

nobodyandproud 3y ago
So hypothetically, if someone looks or sounds like an individual then are they in violation? Suppose they’re identical twins. AI can’t be a free-for-all and I’m perfectly fine with what Tennessee is doing here. It’s the stated Libertarian position that I have questions on.
- BuyMyBitcoins 3y ago
  I don't see the identical twin / soundalike argument as relevant because we are talking about using an AI with the specific intent of impersonation. This doesn’t ban cover bands or soundalikes. Even so, I think there are some existing laws around such things, and I think such acts need to pay royalties in some form. I don’t want to go down that rabbit hole, to be honest. Regardless, no actual Libertarian position was presented in the article. The comment I responded to was making a dig at Libertarians and the State of Kentucky. Even though I find a lot of Libertarians abrasive and that their ideology is incompatible with actual governance, I still like to analyze how they think. My goal was to provide a perspective on why a Libertarian might be okay with such a law.
  - nobodyandproud 3y ago
    Fair enough. You’re narrowing the issue of ownership by method of construction/reproduction. But isn’t the issue and violation of ownership really about making forgeries: That is, claiming to be what it isn’t? What’s novel then is that AI just made it incredibly easy to create forgeries of IP.