“This ‘groundbreaking’ AI proposal that they gave us yesterday, they proposed that our background performers should be able to be scanned, get one day’s pay, and their companies should own that scan, their image, their likeness and should be able to use it for the rest of eternity on any project they want, with no consent and no compensation. So if you think that’s a groundbreaking proposal, I suggest you think again.”

  • Margot Robbie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The age of generative AI is upon us, and you can’t stop progress. There’s no putting that genie back in the bottle.

    Generative AI, like your image and speech, are just tools, it’s your responsibility to use it for good or bad, and it shouldn’t be owned by anyone else.

    But since the cat’s out of the bag now, so the next best thing is that this power should belong to everyone. There will be bad actors of course, but security through obscurity has rarely ever worked, if more people are exposed to AI generation, then they will understand what it can and can’t do, and thus can better look out for themselves.

    Besides, StableDiffusion is pretty fun.

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      The big difference is the keeping it forever part of the proposal. Background actors have already been digitally inserted into movies for a while and only get a days pay to get the scanning and motion capture done.

    • fearout@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, sure, let’s use it and have fun. No one is really arguing total bans. But you have to pay people when you use their likenesses. Otherwise, you know, Metahuman exists.

      • Margot Robbie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Of course. The law already protect the right of people’s likeness when used commercially, but there are still some questions surrounding that.

        For example, whenever somebody makes one of these ultra-realistic sketches of celebrities based on photographs on the Internet like on r/art and tries to sell them, should they also pay the original photographer and the original subject? Supreme Court recently said yes 7-2 in their latest ruling on “Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith”, with Kagan being a notable dissent. Give it a read, food for thought.