| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Gnarth
Joined: 06 Oct 2023
Posts: 175
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 1:58 pm
|
 |
|
| luisedgarf wrote: | | Well, while I do agree with you about the using someone else's voice without permission of their or their families, and leaving aside the "misinformation" meme, claiming that all documentaries and biographies are "misinformation" is quite insulting, if you ask me. |
I literally never said ALL documentaries and biographies are misinformation. I said there is unfortunately already misinformation in some of them, and this is only going to get worse because of AI. And that's on top of the inherently disrespectful practice of using the apperance and voice of someone who didn't personally give their consent.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
King Chicken
Joined: 13 Aug 2022
Posts: 91
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 4:22 pm
|
|
|
| GATSU wrote: | | I wonder how you balance it with parody and fair use. |
Most AI stuff people on the internet complain about would fall under parody/satire so for all the people hoping this would curb the videos of AI voice actors and characters singing a song, Donald Trump and Joe Biden playing Mario Party together, or outright audio porn it's not going to do anything. This seems like it's more for commercial and fake endorsements.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
luisedgarf
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 657
Location: Guadalajara, Mexico
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 5:01 pm
|
|
|
| Gnarth wrote: | | I literally never said ALL documentaries and biographies are misinformation. I said there is unfortunately already misinformation in some of them, and this is only going to get worse because of AI. And that's on top of the inherently disrespectful practice of using the apperance and voice of someone who didn't personally give their consent. |
| Quote: | | Documentaries and biographies are already full of misinformation, with made up quotes and incorrect portrayals. |
Unless you were being specific, this is what you already stated in your post.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
jdnation
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 2004
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 5:19 pm
|
|
|
| Gnarth wrote: | | Those are not at all legitimate purposes in my opinion, using AI to simulate a dead person's voice is very disrespectful |
How is it disrespectful? Normally actors will study the subject and try as best they can to imitate someone else's voice, intonation and mannerisms. AI is like wise doing the same. If it is not disrespectful for an actor to do so, what precisely is the determination that an electronic algorithm cannot?
There are plenty of documentaries where controversial people are not depicted in a good light because that's how things were. Arguably that is intentionally disrespectful before we even begin talking about what they look like, so how they or their descendents feel about it is irrelevant to the content and people are free to debate whether the documentary was factual, fair, balanced, distorted, or a slanderous hit piece. If they are taken to court for distortions, it will be decided on the information presented, not on the creativive tools of the presentation itself. Whether those be actors, animation or arguably AI art, unless photoreal AI art was used in such a way with intention to deceive, which again is only a supporting argument to the information itself.
| Quote: | | The last thing we need is creating false evidence and doing what we please with people's voice and image. |
And how would this be so different if a voice actor did it instead?
| Gnarth wrote: | | I literally never said ALL documentaries and biographies are misinformation. I said there is unfortunately already misinformation in some of them, and this is only going to get worse because of AI. And that's on top of the inherently disrespectful practice of using the apperance and voice of someone who didn't personally give their consent. |
News corps are guilty of the same and they use real footage. And any problems you have were all present long before AI. So I don't buy this hysteria that AI will add anything new by utilizing it for things already being done. The idea that we can never imitate the likenesses of dead historical people in any media without permission is insane. Do we need to remove statues or paintings of famous people in museums too without theirs or their descendents permission either? Did manga artists need to get Obama's or Trump's permission before parodying the current US President in their stories?
It's one thing to regulate the use of a person's image in promotions and endorsements, especially in such a way where AI has the potential of an indistinguishable recreation compared to art and other actors with a likeness and passing that off as real footage, which would be deceitful. But if the context is clearly understood, and there are useful regulations that demand proper labelling, such as when documentaries add text at the bottom stating - 'dramatic reinactment' or 'AI generated footage' etc. then it is fine.
And of course you can't simply take an AI or CG recreation of Chris Evans and use it to play All Might in a commercial MHA movie. But if you're making a doc about actual Chris Evans in the future long after he's dead? I don't see an issue. Would it be better to let the family give approval? Sure! Do we need the Bin Laden family's approval to make a doc with Osama Bin Laden's likeness in a 9/11 documentary? Likewise, it would be nice, but, no, you don't need to, and I doubt anyone would ask.
I do agree that photoreal AI art and sound are a new frontier compared to actors dressing up, make up and animation. But the precedent of depicting dead people and critiquing them is already there. AI is another tool. Labeling artistic depictions to avoid confusion with historical footage is already a practice. So there is no issue with properly using it responsibly. That others abuse things to deceive is not an excuse to prevent it, and that was and is already being done long before AI.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Cecilthedarkknight_234
Joined: 02 Apr 2011
Posts: 3820
Location: Louisville, KY
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 5:53 pm
|
|
|
|
only people I see this hurting is those doing fake AI covers songs on YouTube or deepfake meme's. Hollywood has more than enough money to fight back if these laws do pass, so nothing here is being "protected" at the end of day.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
MFrontier
Joined: 13 Apr 2014
Posts: 11370
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 6:49 pm
|
|
|
|
At least it's a start and trying to address the issue.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Utsuro no Hako
Joined: 18 May 2012
Posts: 1035
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 7:48 pm
|
|
|
| Zomb1e13 wrote: | | Even if this passes, the likelihood of it being effective is really low. |
It will most certainly prevent movie studio and record companies from using this technology, and it'll kill most of the web-based services currently out there. If there'd desktop software capable of doing it, we'll still see randos on YouTube uploading stuff, but it'll be a lot less common.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Gnarth
Joined: 06 Oct 2023
Posts: 175
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 8:01 pm
|
|
|
| jdnation wrote: | | I do agree that photoreal AI art and sound are a new frontier compared to actors dressing up, make up and animation. But the precedent of depicting dead people and critiquing them is already there. AI is another tool. Labeling artistic depictions to avoid confusion with historical footage is already a practice. So there is no issue with properly using it responsibly. That others abuse things to deceive is not an excuse to prevent it, and that was and is already being done long before AI. |
The first sentence here invalidates pretty much everything you said before it, as it seems you realize too how suggesting actors playing roles and AI simulating people realistically are the same thing is just ridiculous. I know the misinformation thing is already present: I stated that very clearly. However, AI is going to make it much worse because it allows you to create very realistic fake evidence, greatly more so that what you could do before. So it's not creating a new problem but still exacerbating one we already have.
Generative AI is not "artistic depiction". Using a tool that mishmashes things and spits out a soulless imitation is not making art. God, the term "AI art" makes me wanna vomit. You keep comparing AI simulations to portrayals like paintings when it's a completely different thing. Nobody will look at a drawing of someone and think it's a real photo. Nobody will watch an actor play a role and think it's real footage. They'll see art and expression. However, somebody unfortunately will watch an AI-generated imitation and think it's real; I had personally always been able to easily distinguish, but if you do it subtly enough you'll fool a lot of people. On top of this, using someone's real appearence and voice as you please without their permission is a practice I will always find disrespectful; again, it's not "artistic depticion", it's an uncannily close imitation with which you can distort past and reality in a way that makes it automatically deceitful. I seriously hate this notion that suggests you can do whatever you want just because the person is "long dead". It can't be so hard to have some respect.
Admittedly, I have some strong opinions on this matter due to my deep disdain towards AI in general, but I've seen too much of what once was "user generated content" be infested and wholly stripped of any soul and artistic value by AI, and I'm seeing how greedy companies are trying to use it to substitue actors and writers and really anybody to finally erase even the last remnants of art and humanity from their already soulless, mass-produced, disposable products that I simply can't help but harshly condemn it as the plague it so clearly is in my eyes.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
luisedgarf
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 657
Location: Guadalajara, Mexico
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 8:02 pm
|
|
|
| Utsuro no Hako wrote: | | It will most certainly prevent movie studio and record companies from using this technology, and it'll kill most of the web-based services currently out there. If there'd desktop software capable of doing it, we'll still see randos on YouTube uploading stuff, but it'll be a lot less common. |
While it would prevent movie studios from using, that would not prevent web services from operating in another country. This would not accomplish too much.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Blanchimont
Joined: 25 Feb 2012
Posts: 3453
Location: Finland
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 8:03 pm
|
|
|
| Utsuro no Hako wrote: | | It will most certainly prevent movie studio and record companies from using this technology.. |
Why? They could still use the likenesses of those who gave consent(and preferably get some kind of royalty out of it), and the same way for estates of dead persons. Or they could simply attempt to create 'originals' then no-one's rights would be infringed...
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
AsleepBySunset
Joined: 07 Sep 2022
Posts: 208
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 9:46 pm
|
|
|
| King Chicken wrote: | | or outright audio porn it's not going to do anything. |
I have no idea why you think audio porn counts as fair use aside from political lobbying by the aclu, but using someones voice to create pornography is not parody.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
jdnation
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 2004
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 11:34 pm
|
|
|
| Gnarth wrote: | | The first sentence here invalidates pretty much everything you said before it, as it seems you realize too how suggesting actors playing roles and AI simulating people realistically are the same thing is just ridiculous. |
Not so, as following your logic video games ought to cease chasing photorealism, and VFX artists ought to cease using any tools that capture and reference real life data. AI at the end of the day is merely a fancier algorthimic software that makes the effort easier. Again, you have offered no good reason why using AI to recreate a photorealistic rendering is bad, but a CG artist using scanning and photogrammetry, or a sculptor using a clay bust as a basis for a CG character of a live individual to achieve the same result is okay. Because at the end of the day everyone is working towards the goal of convincing their audience that it is "real."
| Quote: | | However, AI is going to make it much worse because it allows you to create very realistic fake evidence, greatly more so that what you could do before. So it's not creating a new problem but still exacerbating one we already have. |
So anyone pursuing legitimate endeavors must cease because others might do something bad? That rationale taken to an extreme would be like banning the sale and use of cars because of occasional accidents and concern that more vehicles on the road exacerbates the possibility of more collisions. Photoshop has long been used to trick people, yet it is also a necessary industry-wide standard. The AI cat is already out of the bag, and bad people are gonna do what they want to do. The only solution is detecting and punishing them, not preventing legitimate usage and development.
| Quote: | | Generative AI is not "artistic depiction". Using a tool that mishmashes things and spits out a soulless imitation is not making art. |
Similar arguments were made about digital art and the ability to undo, copy, paste, layer, rotate etc. Certainly there is a difference in having a traditional material one-of-a-kind work of art versus a photoshop laser print, or a marble sculpture versus a 3D printed form built in Maya, but those things don't cease to be art. One is simply valued more, while the other also serves a useful function and is enjoyed and consumed differently. AI on it's own, randomly spitting out an image isn't art in the same sense, but as a useful tool taken further like digital brushes and editing software, it can be a tool to create new artistic expressions, or to aid development of CG art that is already there and removing tedium.
For example, when VFX artists have to spend time creating points to track pixels to match camera motion or character/object movement and match it to a CG asset, or brush out wires or unnecessary visual data for a film. AI advancements can help, even deepfake tech could help in deaging characters or fixing continuity errors etc. The art is finally the sum of all these elements put up on screen to tell a story. It is what you make of it. Nobody is going to put anywhere as much value on obviously lazily auto generated AI content once the initial novelty wears off.
I can envision AI being very useful for lowering costs and helping smaller productions in areas such as in betweening hand-drawn 2D animation, where artists need only focus on the keyframes, something thus far only afforded to 3D animation. 2D production quality will also skyrocket if background crowd animation and other elements can be auto generated by training AI on your studio's in-house style, or whatever style your particular project needs and you can scale it as much or as little as you need. AI tools can be just as efficient at helping artists as the entire range of digital tools used in all modern productions and libraries of generative information. It's all in what you do with it. People can tell the good from the lazy, and traditional art is not dead.
| Quote: | | On top of this, using someone's real appearence and voice as you please without their permission is a practice I will always find disrespectful; again, it's not "artistic depticion", it's an uncannily close imitation with which you can distort past and reality in a way that makes it automatically deceitful. I seriously hate this notion that suggests you can do whatever you want just because the person is "long dead". It can't be so hard to have some respect. |
Everyone can easily agree that nobody should be allowed to 'do whatever they want.' But there are legitimate things that one can do, and we prefer rules and solutions; not a blanket ban that throws the baby out with the bathwater.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
louis6578
Joined: 31 Jul 2013
Posts: 1862
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 10:28 am
|
|
|
| Zomb1e13 wrote: | | Even if this passes, the likelihood of it being effective is really low. |
I can already see people taking the meme and running with it. Those videos on YouTube of the presidents debating waifus? Well, now the creators of them have to double down and insist them to be real voice recordings from the presidents to avoid legal trouble.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
