4 ms·

Normally I'd agree if this were some vague "artist style", but this was clearly an attempt to duplicate a living person, a media celebrity no less.

by gedy 2y ago

__loam 2y ago
Why do you have an issue with them taking someone's likeness to use in their product but not with them taking someone's work to use in their product?
- gedy 2y ago
  Because this isn't training an audio model along with a million other voices to understand English, etc. It's clearly meant to sound exactly like that one celebrity. I suspect a video avatar service that looked exactly like her would fall afoul of fair use as well. Though an image gen that used some images of her (and many others) to train and spit out generic "attractive blonde woman" is fair use in my opinion.
  - numpad0 2y ago
    Chances are this is. Basically same as LoRA. One of go-to tools for these literally uses Diffusion model and work on spectrograms as images.
  - __loam 2y ago
    Okay so as long as we steal enough stuff then it's legal.
threatofrain 2y ago
Is this different from the various videos of the Harry Potter actors doing comedic high fashion ads? Because those were very well received. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipuqLy87-3A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipuqLy87-3A
- BadHumans 2y ago
  Is a billion dollar AI company utilizing someone's voice against their will in a flagship product after they said no twice different from a random Youtube channel making comedy videos? I think so but that could just be me.
- nicklecompte 2y ago
  I think anti-deepfake legislation needs to consider fair use, especially when it comes to parody or other commentary on public figures. OpenAI's actions do not qualify as fair use.
  - throwway120385 2y ago
    The problem with that idea is that I can hide behind it while making videos of famous politicians doing really morally questionable things and distributing them on YouTube. The reason Fair Use works with regular parodies in my opinion is that everyone can tell that it is obviously fake. For example, Saturday Night Live routinely makes joking parody videos of elected officials doing things we think might be consistent with their character. And in those cases it's obvious that it's being portrayed by an actor and therefore a parody. If you use someone's likeness directly I think that it must never be fair use or we will quickly end up in a world where no video can be trusted.
    - cjbgkagh 2y ago
      I’m guessing you’re referring to people still thinking Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house, that was from a SNL skit and an amazing impression from Tina Fey. I agree, people have a hard time separating reality from obvious parody, how could we expect them to make a distinction with intentional imitation. Society must draw a clear line that it is not ok to do this.
    - nicklecompte 2y ago
      Let me start by saying I despise generative AI and I think most AI companies are basically crooked. I thought about your comment for a while, and I agree that there is a fine line between "realistic parody" and "intentional deception" that makes deepfake AI almost impossible to defend. In particular I agree with your distinction: - In matters involving human actors, human-created animations, etc, there should be great deference to the human impersonators, particularly when it involves notable public figures. One major difference is that, since it's virtually impossible for humans to precisely impersonate or draw one another, there is an element of caricature and artistic choice with highly "realistic" impersonations. - AI should be held to a higher standard because it involves almost no human expression, and it can easily create mathematically-perfect impersonations which are engineered to fool people. The point of my comment is that fair use is a thin sliver of what you can do with the tech, but it shouldn't be stamped out entirely. I am really thinking of, say, the Joe Rogan / Donald Trump comedic deepfakes. It might be fine under American constitutional law to say that those things must be made so that AI Rogan / AI Trump always refer to each other in those ways, to make it very clear to listeners. It is a distinctly non-libertarian solution, but it could be "necessary and proper" because of the threat to our social and political knowledge. But as a general principle, those comedic deepkfakes are works of human political expression, aided by a fairly simple computer program that any CS graduate can understand, assuming they earned their degree honestly and are willing to do some math. It is constitutionally icky (legal term) to go after those people too harshly.
citizenpaul 2y ago
An actress that specifically played the voice of AI in a movie about AI no less.

Normally I'd agree if this were some vague "artist style", but this was clearly an attempt to duplicate a living person, a media celebrity no less.

by gedy 2y ago

Normally I'd agree if this were some vague "artist style", but this was clearly an attempt to duplicate a living person, a media celebrity no less.

__loam 2y ago

Why do you have an issue with them taking someone's likeness to use in their product but not with them taking someone's work to use in their product?

gedy 2y ago
Because this isn't training an audio model along with a million other voices to understand English, etc. It's clearly meant to sound exactly like that one celebrity. I suspect a video avatar service that looked exactly like her would fall afoul of fair use as well. Though an image gen that used some images of her (and many others) to train and spit out generic "attractive blonde woman" is fair use in my opinion.
- numpad0 2y ago
  Chances are this is. Basically same as LoRA. One of go-to tools for these literally uses Diffusion model and work on spectrograms as images.
- __loam 2y ago
  Okay so as long as we steal enough stuff then it's legal.

threatofrain 2y ago

Is this different from the various videos of the Harry Potter actors doing comedic high fashion ads? Because those were very well received. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipuqLy87-3A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipuqLy87-3A

BadHumans 2y ago
Is a billion dollar AI company utilizing someone's voice against their will in a flagship product after they said no twice different from a random Youtube channel making comedy videos? I think so but that could just be me.
nicklecompte 2y ago
I think anti-deepfake legislation needs to consider fair use, especially when it comes to parody or other commentary on public figures. OpenAI's actions do not qualify as fair use.
- throwway120385 2y ago
  The problem with that idea is that I can hide behind it while making videos of famous politicians doing really morally questionable things and distributing them on YouTube. The reason Fair Use works with regular parodies in my opinion is that everyone can tell that it is obviously fake. For example, Saturday Night Live routinely makes joking parody videos of elected officials doing things we think might be consistent with their character. And in those cases it's obvious that it's being portrayed by an actor and therefore a parody. If you use someone's likeness directly I think that it must never be fair use or we will quickly end up in a world where no video can be trusted.
  - cjbgkagh 2y ago
    I’m guessing you’re referring to people still thinking Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house, that was from a SNL skit and an amazing impression from Tina Fey. I agree, people have a hard time separating reality from obvious parody, how could we expect them to make a distinction with intentional imitation. Society must draw a clear line that it is not ok to do this.
  - nicklecompte 2y ago
    Let me start by saying I despise generative AI and I think most AI companies are basically crooked. I thought about your comment for a while, and I agree that there is a fine line between "realistic parody" and "intentional deception" that makes deepfake AI almost impossible to defend. In particular I agree with your distinction: - In matters involving human actors, human-created animations, etc, there should be great deference to the human impersonators, particularly when it involves notable public figures. One major difference is that, since it's virtually impossible for humans to precisely impersonate or draw one another, there is an element of caricature and artistic choice with highly "realistic" impersonations. - AI should be held to a higher standard because it involves almost no human expression, and it can easily create mathematically-perfect impersonations which are engineered to fool people. The point of my comment is that fair use is a thin sliver of what you can do with the tech, but it shouldn't be stamped out entirely. I am really thinking of, say, the Joe Rogan / Donald Trump comedic deepfakes. It might be fine under American constitutional law to say that those things must be made so that AI Rogan / AI Trump always refer to each other in those ways, to make it very clear to listeners. It is a distinctly non-libertarian solution, but it could be "necessary and proper" because of the threat to our social and political knowledge. But as a general principle, those comedic deepkfakes are works of human political expression, aided by a fairly simple computer program that any CS graduate can understand, assuming they earned their degree honestly and are willing to do some math. It is constitutionally icky (legal term) to go after those people too harshly.

citizenpaul 2y ago

An actress that specifically played the voice of AI in a movie about AI no less.