Comment by contrarian1234
2 years ago
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
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.
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
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.
11 replies →
Said #9 of those Chinese Tom Cruise clones... ;-)
(No no, you're perfectly right [except perhaps about "the technology is great, and it will empower small creators"], but yagotta admit, your example in justaposition with your user id is funny.)
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>?
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
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?
6 replies →
> As long as it's clear it's not actually me and I'm not personally endorsing the product then what is the problem?
At least the second time I've seen you making that argument on this page. So however long it was between your (at least) two comments to this effect, apparently it wasn't long enough for you to realise that the whole purpose of deepfake technology is to make it NOT "clear" that it's not actually you and you're not personally endorsing the product.
> 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-ri...
"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
> 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?
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.
> 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
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
1 reply →
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_chat...
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.
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
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.
6 replies →
Imagine if switchboard operator careers were protected. We still would not have the Internet today.