3 ms·

> You can’t assume consent just because someone isn’t around to say no. The dead are devoid of a will to act against, so consent doesn't even meaningfully ente

> You can’t assume consent just because someone isn’t around to say no. The dead are devoid of a will to act against, so consent doesn't even meaningfully enter into it. There is respect for the still living family to be considered certainly, but when no one left alive cares, then what is the harm? Why should it matter if it's a digital actor (AI) or a human one? Why does your idea of the "dead's consent" stop being relevant if a person is portraying them without asking vs using an AI without asking? It seems like your issue has a lot more to do with an objection to AI conceptually than how the dead person feels about it. Consider that this would prevent AI from being used in a portrayal of someone even in cases where the actor/person, if they were still living, would be thrilled with the idea.

hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago
Your moral compass is broken.
- autoexec 2y ago
  I don't think so. It takes into consideration the wishes of the living, the feelings of the family of the dead, hell, even (to a point) the known wishes of the dead while they were still alive. It just acknowledges that there's no value in making an assumption about how the dead would feel when there's no way to know and no family alive to express an opinion. It says that rather than protect the imagined feelings of people long dead that the greater harm would be in preventing their portrayal in future educational and cultural works. Of course, you seem to think we can ignore the consent problem entirely and we're morally in the clear if we only have a human actor portray them without asking, but where is the line? If the actor carefully studies their speech and mannerisms is it okay? Is it okay if they (purely through the lottery of random genetic mutation) strongly resemble the person they are portraying? Does it become immoral when prosthetics are used to enhance the likeness? When CGI is used is it still okay provided that human does the work? At a certain point the ability to portray an important dead actor or historical person matters more than protecting our assumptions about how the dead might feel about showing up in a creative work. It really feels like the objection here is about the AI more than concern for the dead, or for that matter concern for the cultural works we'd risk losing if we made it illegal for AI portrayals to be used when there's no one left to ask, and that's all I'm really saying. If someone is alive, by all means require their permission. When they are dead ask the family. If it's in their will that should never be represented in any way in any kind of media ever again... we might want to try to respect that but also might not... that gets rather complicated, but certainly when there's no way to ask the actor and no family left to ask or care then it seems pretty reasonable not to cut people off from the creation of content which might have artistic or educational value.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    > It just acknowledges that there's no value in making an assumption about how the dead would feel when there's no way to know and no family alive to express an opinion. But your stance is also making an assumption about how the dead would feel. It's just a different assumption than those that feel this shouldn't be allowed. It seems to me that in the absence of the ability to get consent, assuming consent should not be the fallback position.

hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago

Your moral compass is broken.

autoexec 2y ago
I don't think so. It takes into consideration the wishes of the living, the feelings of the family of the dead, hell, even (to a point) the known wishes of the dead while they were still alive. It just acknowledges that there's no value in making an assumption about how the dead would feel when there's no way to know and no family alive to express an opinion. It says that rather than protect the imagined feelings of people long dead that the greater harm would be in preventing their portrayal in future educational and cultural works. Of course, you seem to think we can ignore the consent problem entirely and we're morally in the clear if we only have a human actor portray them without asking, but where is the line? If the actor carefully studies their speech and mannerisms is it okay? Is it okay if they (purely through the lottery of random genetic mutation) strongly resemble the person they are portraying? Does it become immoral when prosthetics are used to enhance the likeness? When CGI is used is it still okay provided that human does the work? At a certain point the ability to portray an important dead actor or historical person matters more than protecting our assumptions about how the dead might feel about showing up in a creative work. It really feels like the objection here is about the AI more than concern for the dead, or for that matter concern for the cultural works we'd risk losing if we made it illegal for AI portrayals to be used when there's no one left to ask, and that's all I'm really saying. If someone is alive, by all means require their permission. When they are dead ask the family. If it's in their will that should never be represented in any way in any kind of media ever again... we might want to try to respect that but also might not... that gets rather complicated, but certainly when there's no way to ask the actor and no family left to ask or care then it seems pretty reasonable not to cut people off from the creation of content which might have artistic or educational value.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  > It just acknowledges that there's no value in making an assumption about how the dead would feel when there's no way to know and no family alive to express an opinion. But your stance is also making an assumption about how the dead would feel. It's just a different assumption than those that feel this shouldn't be allowed. It seems to me that in the absence of the ability to get consent, assuming consent should not be the fallback position.