• Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    AI could probably fly under the radar if they just didn’t do stupid stuff like this, but they just have to push the boundaries. If they made any number of fake voices it’d be fine, but no, had to do a celebrity. I hope they lose. Stupid stupid stupid marketing department.

    • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Actually, I think this is a legally very interesting area.

      At the end of the day, AIs are just fancy imitations. Nobody would sue someone for imitating a voice, as long as it’s not impersonation (in the legal sense).

      • CosmoNova@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        Deutsch
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        I think you misunderstand something. The same thing many AI enthusiasts and critics often choose to not understand. Regenerative AIs aren‘t just born from plain code and they don’t just imitate. They use a ton of data as reference points. It’s literally in the name of the technology.

        You could claim „well maybe they used different voices and mixed them together“ but that is highly unlikely, given how much of a wild west approach most regenerative AI services have. it‘s more likely they used protected property here in a way it was not intended to be used. In which case SJ does indeed have a legal case here.

        • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          Again: how is that different from an imitation? What exactly differentiates a human watching a movie to imitate a voice from a machine doing the same thing?

          And that is, what you misunderstand. AI is not magic, it’s computation. Nothing more. In no other context would it even matter, whether the source data was intended for the use case, if no infringement is being committed by the end product.

      • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’s a hard one. You train a general AI and ask for a story idea, that’s not a huge deal IMO. You ask it to write in the style of George RR Martin or something that’s something different. Yes you can do it by hand too, but these tools make it easier than ever.

        Then sub questions… Is it okay to do it for free? What if you distribute it? What if you charge for it? All questions that these ai companies are just ignoring when they potentially have massive ramifications.

        Making a random avatar is fine. Using ScarJo is iffy if you’re using it for free. What if you’re streaming on twitch with her? What if you’re charging to use her likeness on twitch where the users will make money? Idk the answers to any of those.

        • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          But why would anyone commit anything fraudulent by that? Where exactly does it become “too much” AI?

          I did it very iffy to argue that writing in the style of someone else is illegal. That’s a perfectly normal thing to happen. Maybe AI makes it easier, but if an action is not illegal, why would doing the same thing tool assisted be illegal? Doesn’t make sense.