6 ms·

I think it's really problematic that the government is protecting voice actor's careers. It's like if they disallowed cars on the roads to protect horse carriag

I think it's really problematic that the government is protecting voice actor's careers. It's like if they disallowed cars on the roads to protect horse carriages. Clearly with the new technology a whole economic sector is gone and irrelevant over night. Now amateurs and small projects can afford to add good sounding voices to their creations. This is good news in the end The same goes for actors and their likenesses ... just stop protecting ultra wealthy celebrities. They'll be a bit poorer, but they're going to be okay. You're just holding back progress I can imagine in a decade some place like China which doesn't care about protecting celebrities will have movies with dozens of Tom Cruises Arnolds and Johansson's and will just be pumping out better quality content at affordable budgets. Young talented directors won't be hamstrung by these legal roadblocks

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> like if they disallowed cars on the roads to protect horse carriages What? Nobody is banning OpenAI from licensing voices. The censure is on, at the very least, using an unlicensed likeness to promote their new products without compensation. (Assuming Sky truly is a clean-room product.) Likeness just became a tradeable product. That wasn't true before. The better analogy is in recognising mineral rights, including crude oil, after the utility of it was recognised and traded on [1]. > ultra wealthy celebrities We have a hundred millionaire atop a multi-billion dollar industry fighting a billionaire atop a multi-billion dollar company. Nobody gets to cry poverty. > can imagine in a decade some place like China which doesn't care about protecting celebrities Would positively love to see Altman try to pull this stunt with Xi Jinping's voice. [1] https://info.courthousedirect.com/blog/history-of-mineral-rights https://info.courthousedirect.com/blog/history-of-mineral-ri...
- defrost 2y ago
  I'd like to see him go further again, deliver all discussions on Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era via an animated Pooh Bear with the voice from the movie. https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/23/china_xi_jinping_chatbot/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/23/china_xi_jinping_chat...
- contrarian1234 2y ago
  "Likeness just became a tradeable product. That wasn't true before." Only because the government is making it that way. It's not an inevitability. It's a shortsighted move that doesn't add any value to society. It only serves to make celebrities even more wealthy
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Only because the government is making it that way. It's not an inevitability. Likeness wasn’t mass producible. It is now. That isn’t because of government but technology. > doesn't add any value to society According to whom? Certainly not Johansson or OpenAI. > only serves to make celebrities even more wealthy You don’t see how an entry-level actor doesn’t benefit from their first short skit being a substitute for a life’s work?
- persnickety 2y ago
  What makes a likeness a likeness? A measure of similarity? Then I demand all people sounding like me to license their voice from me. A claim that the voice originates from a certain person? Then you don't need any licensing in this case.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > What makes a likeness a likeness? I'm not sure. Precedented personality rights would be a good place to start [1]. I'd argue for a higher standard of evidence for human-produced voices, Middler v. Ford Motor Co. seems good as any [2]. But a lower burden for synthesised voices, given the difficulty in proving intent and mass producibility of them. > A claim that the voice originates from a certain person? Then you don't need any licensing in this case Altman basically claimed as much by tweeting about Her in its context. At that point, he is using her fame to market his products without her permission. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
    - persnickety 2y ago
      Oh, I wasn't aware of the last bit (brokenwall). Now we're entering gray area, depending on what was said exactly, and how much of a contribution voice actors made their characters.
zirgs 2y ago
Imagine if switchboard operator careers were protected. We still would not have the Internet today.
cruise9 2y ago
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.
- contrarian1234 2y ago
  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
  - TrackerFF 2y ago
    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.
    - gr4vityWall 2y ago
      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.
      - CRConrad 2y ago
        > 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?
TrackerFF 2y ago
It boils down to dollars and cents. Why should the creative sources (artists, actors, writers, etc.) be left out of the cut, while the tech companies are reaping the rewards? "But those stars are rich, they'll survive." Yeah, maybe - but the creative world is 0.001% wealthy people, and the rest being people that barely get by - and could earn more money by doing pretty much anything else. I get the argument about copyright protections stifling progress, but it bugs me something fierce that people here are essentially saying it's OK for the AI/ML creators to become filthy rich, while the people they are ripping off should just do something else.
- contrarian1234 2y ago
  They won't become filthy rich based of any one person's voice b/c anyone else can create a synthetic replica as well (unless they have some secret training data or something). It becomes commodity and as free as the air. Voice acting ceases to be a real career but in exchange it becomes accessible to everyone for pennies
  - TrackerFF 2y ago
    And where does this stop? Say you wake up one day, and find out some AI copy made a digital twin/clone out of you. Your voice, your looks, your style of writing, your style of speaking. Everything that is you, they've cloned. And then they use a digital you in commercials, movies, or whatever. And, of course, you're not entitled to a single cent - because it's not you, just something that looks, sounds, and acts like you. Hell, no mater how much you hate the use, there's nothing that can be done - because this is for the greater good of tech progress. This is some pretty fundamental stuff that needs to be sorted out, ASAP.
    - contrarian1234 2y ago
      You're being a bit melodramatic, but again the distinction is pretty clear. As long as there is a clear distinction between what is me, and made my me, and what was done by a machine/company/etc. then I don't really see the issue If people make videos of me having sex, or fighting aliens or selling laundry detergent.. again.. why should I care? As long as nobody is saying "Hey you're actually talking to Scarlett live right now!" it's not hurting her.
jonathanstrange 2y ago
The vast majority of all voice actors are piss poor, not ultra wealthy celebrities. The ultra wealthy celebrities just happen to be the only ones who could legally defend themselves and can create a media fuzz. You're basically suggesting that it's okay to copy anyone's voice and appearance without ever giving them compensation and without regard to personality rights. That's insane. Even for someone who thinks this should be allowed in principle (I certainly don't think so), there would need to be strict safeguards. Or, do you want your person and voice to appear in a commercial for <insert organization, product, or cause you don't support at all and despise>?
- contrarian1234 2y ago
  As long as it's clear it's not actually me and I'm not personally endorsing the product then what is the problem? Here you are talking to OpenAI's system and it's clear Scarlett isn't personally answer you and the answers don't represent her or her views
  - jonathanstrange 2y ago
    That's not what you suggested, though. You said that young talented directors will make movies with an AI-generated Tom Cruise anyway and insinuated that this is what we should allow. That's the opposite of "...being clear that it's not me." By the way, the law already allows all this when it's clear that no particular person is imitated. We're talking about the cases when it's not clear. Or do you suggest to have different laws for celebrities and poor actors?
    - contrarian1234 2y ago
      I don't really understand what's confusing.. If a director makes a movie with AI Tom Cruise it's not ambiguous if the real Tom Cruise participated or not. The goal is not to fool everyone to think he was in it (b/c that would be trivially denied by the real man). There is a list of credits at the end if you're somehow confused. So if the movie is about drowning Scientologists, you'll know it's not supported by the real Tom Cruise It's similar to if you were to paint a picture of him sodomizing a goat. You don't immediately think "damn, he's a real sick bastard". You just assume it's a fake things created by the creator/director. Nobody is hurt (well maybe his feelings a bit) If you do make a thing that confuses people and makes them thing it's the real Tom Cruise and he's somehow hurt by this then that's kinda messed up and should be illegal. In this case with the AI chatbot it's not confusing. I don't think Scarlett is on the other end of the line. Everyone knows it's not really her. It just sounds like her

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> like if they disallowed cars on the roads to protect horse carriages What? Nobody is banning OpenAI from licensing voices. The censure is on, at the very least, using an unlicensed likeness to promote their new products without compensation. (Assuming Sky truly is a clean-room product.) Likeness just became a tradeable product. That wasn't true before. The better analogy is in recognising mineral rights, including crude oil, after the utility of it was recognised and traded on [1]. > ultra wealthy celebrities We have a hundred millionaire atop a multi-billion dollar industry fighting a billionaire atop a multi-billion dollar company. Nobody gets to cry poverty. > can imagine in a decade some place like China which doesn't care about protecting celebrities Would positively love to see Altman try to pull this stunt with Xi Jinping's voice. [1] https://info.courthousedirect.com/blog/history-of-mineral-rights https://info.courthousedirect.com/blog/history-of-mineral-ri...

defrost 2y ago
I'd like to see him go further again, deliver all discussions on Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era via an animated Pooh Bear with the voice from the movie. https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/23/china_xi_jinping_chatbot/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/23/china_xi_jinping_chat...
contrarian1234 2y ago
"Likeness just became a tradeable product. That wasn't true before." Only because the government is making it that way. It's not an inevitability. It's a shortsighted move that doesn't add any value to society. It only serves to make celebrities even more wealthy
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Only because the government is making it that way. It's not an inevitability. Likeness wasn’t mass producible. It is now. That isn’t because of government but technology. > doesn't add any value to society According to whom? Certainly not Johansson or OpenAI. > only serves to make celebrities even more wealthy You don’t see how an entry-level actor doesn’t benefit from their first short skit being a substitute for a life’s work?
persnickety 2y ago
What makes a likeness a likeness? A measure of similarity? Then I demand all people sounding like me to license their voice from me. A claim that the voice originates from a certain person? Then you don't need any licensing in this case.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > What makes a likeness a likeness? I'm not sure. Precedented personality rights would be a good place to start [1]. I'd argue for a higher standard of evidence for human-produced voices, Middler v. Ford Motor Co. seems good as any [2]. But a lower burden for synthesised voices, given the difficulty in proving intent and mass producibility of them. > A claim that the voice originates from a certain person? Then you don't need any licensing in this case Altman basically claimed as much by tweeting about Her in its context. At that point, he is using her fame to market his products without her permission. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
  - persnickety 2y ago
    Oh, I wasn't aware of the last bit (brokenwall). Now we're entering gray area, depending on what was said exactly, and how much of a contribution voice actors made their characters.

zirgs 2y ago

Imagine if switchboard operator careers were protected. We still would not have the Internet today.

cruise9 2y ago

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.

contrarian1234 2y ago
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
- TrackerFF 2y ago
  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.
  - gr4vityWall 2y ago
    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.
    - CRConrad 2y ago
      > 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?

TrackerFF 2y ago

It boils down to dollars and cents. Why should the creative sources (artists, actors, writers, etc.) be left out of the cut, while the tech companies are reaping the rewards? "But those stars are rich, they'll survive." Yeah, maybe - but the creative world is 0.001% wealthy people, and the rest being people that barely get by - and could earn more money by doing pretty much anything else. I get the argument about copyright protections stifling progress, but it bugs me something fierce that people here are essentially saying it's OK for the AI/ML creators to become filthy rich, while the people they are ripping off should just do something else.

contrarian1234 2y ago
They won't become filthy rich based of any one person's voice b/c anyone else can create a synthetic replica as well (unless they have some secret training data or something). It becomes commodity and as free as the air. Voice acting ceases to be a real career but in exchange it becomes accessible to everyone for pennies
- TrackerFF 2y ago
  And where does this stop? Say you wake up one day, and find out some AI copy made a digital twin/clone out of you. Your voice, your looks, your style of writing, your style of speaking. Everything that is you, they've cloned. And then they use a digital you in commercials, movies, or whatever. And, of course, you're not entitled to a single cent - because it's not you, just something that looks, sounds, and acts like you. Hell, no mater how much you hate the use, there's nothing that can be done - because this is for the greater good of tech progress. This is some pretty fundamental stuff that needs to be sorted out, ASAP.
  - contrarian1234 2y ago
    You're being a bit melodramatic, but again the distinction is pretty clear. As long as there is a clear distinction between what is me, and made my me, and what was done by a machine/company/etc. then I don't really see the issue If people make videos of me having sex, or fighting aliens or selling laundry detergent.. again.. why should I care? As long as nobody is saying "Hey you're actually talking to Scarlett live right now!" it's not hurting her.

jonathanstrange 2y ago

The vast majority of all voice actors are piss poor, not ultra wealthy celebrities. The ultra wealthy celebrities just happen to be the only ones who could legally defend themselves and can create a media fuzz. You're basically suggesting that it's okay to copy anyone's voice and appearance without ever giving them compensation and without regard to personality rights. That's insane. Even for someone who thinks this should be allowed in principle (I certainly don't think so), there would need to be strict safeguards. Or, do you want your person and voice to appear in a commercial for <insert organization, product, or cause you don't support at all and despise>?

contrarian1234 2y ago
As long as it's clear it's not actually me and I'm not personally endorsing the product then what is the problem? Here you are talking to OpenAI's system and it's clear Scarlett isn't personally answer you and the answers don't represent her or her views
- jonathanstrange 2y ago
  That's not what you suggested, though. You said that young talented directors will make movies with an AI-generated Tom Cruise anyway and insinuated that this is what we should allow. That's the opposite of "...being clear that it's not me." By the way, the law already allows all this when it's clear that no particular person is imitated. We're talking about the cases when it's not clear. Or do you suggest to have different laws for celebrities and poor actors?
  - contrarian1234 2y ago
    I don't really understand what's confusing.. If a director makes a movie with AI Tom Cruise it's not ambiguous if the real Tom Cruise participated or not. The goal is not to fool everyone to think he was in it (b/c that would be trivially denied by the real man). There is a list of credits at the end if you're somehow confused. So if the movie is about drowning Scientologists, you'll know it's not supported by the real Tom Cruise It's similar to if you were to paint a picture of him sodomizing a goat. You don't immediately think "damn, he's a real sick bastard". You just assume it's a fake things created by the creator/director. Nobody is hurt (well maybe his feelings a bit) If you do make a thing that confuses people and makes them thing it's the real Tom Cruise and he's somehow hurt by this then that's kinda messed up and should be illegal. In this case with the AI chatbot it's not confusing. I don't think Scarlett is on the other end of the line. Everyone knows it's not really her. It just sounds like her