• @PoisonedPrisonPanda
    link
    85 months ago

    I dont see how its a bad thing. Its basically multiplicating the amount of better narrators in that example.

    Why having a shitty narrating voice when you can have an awarded one?

    The only thing is the compensation to the originator and the labelling of whats real and generated.

    But thats a minor issue IMO.

    • @millie@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      335 months ago

      Whether or not you want someone to use your likeness isn’t necessarily just a matter of money. You can’t just wave dollar bills at any objection and assume everything’s going to be okay. Some things are more important than a few bucks.

      • @PoisonedPrisonPanda
        link
        65 months ago

        Sure. I fully agree with you.

        But nonetheless its how technology works. Make something accessible to everyone (at least in digital technology)

        Lets compare it to how davinci would have though about the possibility of photocopying the mona lisa and bring the art into every household.

        Making him more fameous more than he could ever be by simply having one original picture in the louvre.

        I think this example can be done with any abritrary skill and digital modelling.

        Lets think ahead. A tennis player and his movements are used to train and create a robot which acts as a tennis teacher for tennis amateurs. It would also benefit the sport in general.

        • @millie@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          I mean, in the instance of legal use of a likeness outside of maybe some fair use cases, the technology doesn’t necessarily dictate that its own use is legitimate in all use cases. Some people independently training a model for private use may be harder or impossible to do anything about, but there’s definitely precedent for going after someone for profiting from your likeness without your consent.

          There may be some grounds where the sort of fair use that parody enjoys could apply to AI or the use of AI-derived likenesses, but I wouldn’t expect people’s rights to their own likeness to evaporate overnight unless copyright goes with them in some broader sense.

          The current controversy within SAG over whether to sign even a deal on a per-project basis for scanning actors seems like a pretty good indicator that the standards on this are far from ironed out.

          When it comes to training models, I do think it’s unrealistic to limit the use of materials that are readily and legitimately available on the internet for free. But straight up using AI to copy a likeness for profit is very different.

          • @PoisonedPrisonPanda
            link
            15 months ago

            Hmm. I think the discussion turning around copyright and fair use is somehow the bedrock of this.

            You are right. Since we cannot even find a solution to work for nowadays breaches of copyright, it will probably be still problematic in future cases as well.

            But I also see the chance to get rid of something on the way.

            As we know what does not work, like copyright law execution and the uphill battle of forcing it, we can truly think outside the box.

            i do not want to take sides on certain technologies for now as I never truly looked into such special case, but I could think of some kind of ownership verificatiom mechanism probably backed by cryptocurrency even nfts.

            I do not expect for people to pay in full compensation for skills (capitalism shows us on youtube how some ecosystem is formed) but I am confident that the market will nonetheless finds some solution. We will get more of everything, this means trash, and this means copythefted content as well but summing up the content will be better, and skill will find a way to sustain and be unique on its own.

            Anyway I am drifting off. I see many similarities in piracy discussions here in certain comminities. Because if it can be done, it will be done, and I see no choice but making the best out of it during the way.

    • HeartyBeast
      link
      fedilink
      245 months ago

      It’s a bad thing because Attenborough’s vioce isn’t just his voice. He’s not lauded because of his vocal prowess - it’s because of his knowledge of the subject and the fact that if he says something - even read from a script - his professional reputation means that he would question material that doesn’t pass his sniff test.

      Whatever people say - it is this reputation that people are exploiting, not his vowel sounds.

      • @PoisonedPrisonPanda
        link
        55 months ago

        Reputation is an interesting point.

        But as I said in another post. That is no issue of AI itself.

        We need anyway a verification of validity for anything in the near future.

        Therefore it is already late for thinking about that. In the modern world nothing is valid until proven to be.

    • @flora_explora@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      25 months ago

      I saw a video the other day about how the movie culture has shifted to extensively using greenscreens instead of real world locations. And then just editing everything in afterwards, doing all the cuts in the studio etc. This obviously has altered how big movie productions are made and I imagine shifting to AI instead of real actors would exacerbate this trend by a lot. To me, big movie productions already feel lifeless and boring (most of the heavy lifting solely done by reputation the cast or director). I guess this will get worse. But then, I’m also curious what crazy ideas indie producers come up with.

      • @PoisonedPrisonPanda
        link
        15 months ago

        Indeed. And I am more curious about whats possible instead of missing the good old days.

        Nobody can argue that a 1950 movie is better as a marvel multi million production.

        Even watching movies from the late 90s -2000s is a time travel and I assume most of the “good old movies” is of nostalgic origin

        However nothing that cant be done by modern movies.

        lifeless and boring

        Do you have an example for that?

        To me modern productions are putting so much effort in side story/side character building that it gets complex.

        Also that nowadays a good movie lasts 3 hours. Instead of the good old 90 minutes.

        • @flora_explora@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          15 months ago

          I strongly disagree with most of what you said. Especially Marvel productions to me seem to be terrible movies, or as I said, lifeless and boring. That was the whole point of my comment, i.e. that more and better technology won’t automatically make movies better, but that you need a certain creative element in there (that so far, only humans can come up with). Big productions already lost most of this human, creative touch. Most characters/stories are pretty one-dimensional, acting is boring because actors are mainly chosen by reputation, etc. My last sentence referred to indie productions then combining this new technology with a more creative approach.