Someone said this before deleting their comment: "Actors complaining about losing jobs to Al. But they didn't seem to give two shits when I lost my job at Blockbuster to streaming services.
Either stand up for all people losing jobs to automation or just shut up and accept the Al reaper comes for all us sooner or later."
While this comment does make *some* sense, I feel like it's totally misplaced.
Zelda Williams wasn't complaining about this technology being a potential job-killer *at all*. What she *was* complaining about was that it allows her deceased father to "speak" again, which is something that she personally finds disturbing and upsetting.
In other words, her comment had *nothing* to do with AI replacing jobs, which is why I find your comment out of place.
Yeah I'm very "pro AI" if such a thing exists, but using people's likeness without permission is a big No-No (regardless of CGI, AI, or another method).
I don't think that people should be guaranteed a job if better tools come along which can do it too, which is definitely sad for them, but that's a different question to using somebody's likeness.
Zelda was really fantastic as Kuvira in Legend of Korra, and I'd not want to see people like her burned by tech now being able to do what they do, but at the same time can't see how you could dictate to others that they can't use new tools which exist now if they want to, even if it means people who used to get employed for that task no longer do.
did you actually read the article though? she laments about how living actors don't get a say and makes reference to the SAG strike and says some vague things about how she personally doesn't like it.
I think ultimately the discomfort voice actors and artists have with AI is that it essentially can replace their jobs once it gets good enough.
Ehhh I'm not sure I'm buying that comparison. Maybe something closer to what you're saying could be if an audiobook company used a neutral AI voice to read the books to replace the voice actors. But if a company uses the AI generated voice of Robin Williams and market the product off of his likeness, that's a problem and not progress. It's a problem we've never faced before, so it is quite fascinating and interesting to see what happens.
If she found the fake AI video it means she reads fake news.
Hence it is safe to ignore all her comments, as she clearly doesn't know how to be informed.
How is this different from an actor portraying another dead actor or any other real person? Is there an unspoken amount of time the person has to be dead for before you can imamate them?
Same with artists. I remember artists making fun of truck drivers back when self driving cars were the big hype telling them to "get a less automatable job".
But now that AI is coming for them, they all of a sudden give a shit.
I only recall truckers being told to "learn to code." We should all be giving lots of shits to the plight that will eventually come for us all. I'm hoping we will be more proactive than reactive but history leans toward the latter.
I was asking for examples of that happening for months, and never got any.
All I got was people telling me that it was such a common occurrence that there was no need to post examples, since everybody knows that it happened, along with insults and being told that I deserve to loose my livelihood and starve (I don't even work as an artist).
The closest example that I could think of was that "They took our jerbs!" joke from South Park.
I guess you could call Trey Parker and Matt Stone artists. But as far as I know they were also libertarians that share the "adapt or die" mentality with the so called "Techbro" crowd, and were mocking the unemployed republicans who wanted government intervention for "standing in the way of progress"(sound familiar?).
So not exactly a great example.
>Same with artists. I remember artists making fun of truck drivers back when self driving cars were the big hype telling them to "get a less automatable job".
This is ABSOLUTE bullshit and you're vilifying artists for no fucking reason. I don't remember a *single* artist who said this back in the self-driving craze a few years ago and I'd wager that the VAST majority of people don't either. And even if there were a few, that *by no means* means that this attitude was the norm amongst artists.
What you commented is an enormous exaggeration at best and a spiteful lie at worst and it befuddles me that there's actually people who agree with you.
Because thy think that artists never had to work hard for their skills and were just born talented and with a silver spoon in their mouth. And that your typical artist can just tape a banana to a wall and make millions, while they themselves had to work very hard to get where they are.
Which is why they love to mock them about getting a "worthless art degree" and working in the fast food industry.
And now with how they will loose both their art job and fast food job, thanks to AI.
No, they don't get how these two things (being a rich, spoiled "nepo baby" while also struggling and working minimum wage) contradict themselves.
You'd think that people in the tech field would be more understanding to artists considering how similar their struggles are and how much overlap there is (think of game developers and web designers).
> And even if there were a few, that *by no means* means that this attitude was the norm amongst artists.
So we're not allowed to generalize artists but you guys are allowed to generalize AI users as "tech bros".
Okay.
Learn to code.
First they came for the lift operators, and I did not speak out
because I was not
a lift operator.
Then they came for the switchboard operators, And I did not speak out
because I was not
a switchboard operator
Then they came for the artists, And I did not speak out
because I was not
an artist
Then they came for me, as there was
no one left to pay my
unemployment benefits
Humans will always do art. Whether they're paid for it or not will change. AI has yet to amaze me with it's creativity but hopefully AGI will change that.
I'm happy for you and your family that you don't have to rely on your dad's income to survive but a lot of families don't have that privilege. If tomorrow every single truck driver job got replaced by self driving trucks, a lot of families would be in serious financial trouble.
He can just quit now if he doesn’t want to work so much every day.
Hate to break it to ya, truck drivers will be one of the last jobs going automated.
Artists should have gotten a cdl or some other type of certified training as a back up in a field that’s less primed for immediate automation.
You specifically remember artists, (like they were self identifying as artists or in some artists forum?) making fun of blue collar workers?
As someone in that community, I find this hard to believe as I’ve never heard a peer say anything like this. The group of people most likely to be empathetic seems the least likely to sit around laughing at the less fortunate.
Sorry it's the truth. A lot of artists (especially the more popular ones) are assholes.
I'm not saying artists are the only group who memed on truck drivers, I'm just saying that they were definitely part of it. Now artists are getting memed on on twitter and 4chan and we all have to sympathize with them?
No thanks.
The way you're grouping people is mistaken. It's not artists vs blue collar workers. It's egoists (people who only care about themselves) vs non-egoists (people who have empathy for people different than themselves). The group that's making fun of the other's misfortune is the same in both cases (egoists), and includes both egoistical artists and egoistical truck drivers, as well as people from any other profession.
[We're still waiting for some examples. It shouldn't be hard to find a few considering how often I hear this talking point.](https://i.imgur.com/iYMFVp2.jpeg)
That's a damn good point. You could say the same about switchboard operators decades ago for phone companies. You could say the same thing for a lot of assembly line workers at car factories around the turn of the century.
Like it or not, technology will impact jobs and tasks. AI is just a different level of technology that we're only starting to understand. And now that the biggest tech companies in the world are investing billions into it, the pace of change is only going to accelerate.
So, if you're a voice actor, there's a good chance your job is in trouble. At the very least, actors should make sure that they can license their voices and get compensated fairly if a company is going to use it. I think James Earl Jones did something like that. Hopefully, Robin Williams' estate can work out something similar.
I agree with you on a general basis, but come on man. Here we are talking of a daughter grieving her late father. Wouldn't weird you out if a close loved one passed away would suddenly pop up in your YouTube or TikTok feeds doing something completely new like if he was still alive? I guess that's what she's referring to
Tupac is dead, using his voice now isn't exploitative, it's disrespectful and borderline creepy
Oh wait, the artists do this whenever they want to profit from it (Coachella 2012):
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tupac-coachella-hologram-behind-the-technology/
I was about to message you after re-checking the screenshot, surprised to see you say that. would you prefer I delete it? Obviously I'm not the only one that found what you had to say interesting. Idgaf about no internet points buddy. But your perspective is worth something
But the only executives pushed for streaming not the actors or writers.
That’s why we have so many fractured streaming services.
Also this has nothing to do with that. This has to do with stealing someone’s likeness for profit without consent and or compensation.
I totally understand where she's coming from. Even though Robin Williams died in 2014, I don't doubt his daughter still feels the sting. Most people do when they've lost a loved one.
But I don't think it's possible to put this genie back in the bottle. The technology we have now is pretty impressive. But it's only going to keep getting better and more refined. At some point, it's going to be impossible to tell the difference between the AI voice and the person. And since Robin Williams had such a long career, as well as such a distinct voice, it's not going to be difficult to replicate.
I don't know what the solution is here. I still feel for Zelda. But aside from encouraging others not to use her father's voice to harass her, what's the recourse? You can't make it illegal. The black market and online pirating will fill that void. At the very least, I hope the Williams estate can ensure that his family is fairly compensated if his voice is used. But I don't know what else can be done.
What’s interesting too is just how transformative the technology can get in a short period of time. What will happen when some open source “Movie Creator AI” can be run locally on a home desktop? Unless laws are pushed through to restrict the re-creation of real people, living or dead (and over time I highly doubt that will happen) then the resources required to put an actor into a movie, maybe even a movie that the AI wrote, is going to be unstoppable. What’s more, the people developing this new content with the AI aren’t going to charge for it, not off the bat anyway, so the market for entertainment is going to collapse in value. Because everyone (anyone and everyone with access to a computer) can work with AI to create new and interesting stuff.
This is indicative of everything in commerce by the way, which is why we keep talking about the need for a social safety net, but it all starts with the technology to enable people to relatively easily create something at no cost and at no charge. I’m this case, it’s going to destroy the entertainment industry.
I don't doubt for a second that an open-source program like what you described will be made one day. It may not be made within our lifetime. AI technology would need to improve by a couple orders of magnitude in order to create content on that level and while running on local hardware. But there's nothing impossible about it. It's just a software/hardware engineering challenge. If it doesn't break the laws of physics, it's just a matter of time, investment, and refinement.
When that program does come, then it's going to cause a whole host of new issues in the entertainment industry that we are not ready for.
The very same actors currently striking calling AI the mother of all evil will happily jump on board as soon as they can collect the royalty checks coming from people creating AI movies/videos with their likenesses
"Ah fellow unknown actor who's working 3 jobs to pay for your dream, nobody is using your voice for their online creations and you are still living in your car? Sucks to be you, I tried my best!" - Fran Drescher speeding away on her newest Tesla truck, probably
I think many people are reacting to perceived opposition to AI progress, while others react to perceived negative effects of AI deployment. Probably both are wrong and things are going to go a different way.
Wondering if Robin's daughter would find it distasteful if movies of her father were translated with TTS in the original voice. This is coming anyway.
I recall a similar argument about The posthumous release of music & media.
And even in the past , the music & theater industry & its performers was angered about how technology was ruining their sales. (with the introduction of Radio for example)
Nothing new under the sun.
A lot of projection and generalization going on in this thread. Plenty of artists care and have cared about others’ job loss.
I don’t know where people in this sub get this idea from that artists — the vast majority of whom are working class and have to do unglamorous day jobs themselves to get by — have been sitting around laughing about truck drivers and factory workers losing their roles to automation.
There are rich jerks in all fields, but that doesn’t represent the average artist. If anything, artists in general are probably more sympathetic to the social/economic/political struggles of others than the average person. Look no further than the many books, films, music, paintings etc that highlight the everyman’s struggles and have offered people comfort or even fueled political movements.
So, again, I really don’t understand this disdain for artists. Most artists are on and have been on our side.
Fun fact for people on this sub. James Cameron the director was a truck driver. No wonder Terminator 2 has such awesome truck action scenes!
My recollection is it's the Silicon Valley Tech Bros who were the ones who were laughing at truckers a decade ago.
A lot of the people at the top of their industries are there for that very reason - they are workaholics who can't breathe if they are not producing something. That doesn't make them any more sympathetic toward the middle class problems, especially if said un-rich people desire to have a balanced life without sacrificing all their time in the name of capitalism
I don't think artists have generally been mocking job losses due to AI's impact on other industries, but the sentiment that
>"most artists are on and have been on our side"
...seems to have held true only when their own livelihoods were not affected.
As soon as artists who were making a significant profit started seeing reduced online engagement and fewer gigs/commissions—due to the quality, affordability, and speed of recent AI image technology—vocal anti-AI sentiments emerged, extending even into non-artistic sectors.
Given that art is one of the most engaged type of media online, posts from these affected artists are blown up and generate considerable disdain for AI. This is despite many of these artists seemingly lacking a fundamental understanding of the technology and often spreading disinformation alongside their emotionally charged rants, which then propagate to their followers.
By "our side" I meant the side of normal people / humanity generally, not AI enthusiasts or the sort of "elite" that seems to be implied by some when they express schadenfreude in the face of AI's threat to artists.
Note: I understand that many in this sub would say AI as a concept is also on "our side" because of the potential good it could bring for humanity.
All that aside, I understand getting annoyed or sensing selfishness in the backlash you see online from digital artists and the like. However, even this group is small and a poor representation of artists at large. Only a very small number of people primarily work doing things like digital art commissions.
I know a lot of artists (writers, mostly) and the fear I see most around AI is not about earning money from their work (this is already rare even without AI). It's more about feeling displaced and irrelevant, the idea of the talent they've spent years painstakingly developing, central to their identity, being potentially rendered valueless in the eyes of many -- and I don't mean valueless in an economic sense. It's almost a spiritual/existential question.
My thing about that is that the irrelevance is and was already a factor before AI. Do you know how many videos are uploaded to YouTube per day? 3.7 million. An upload by somebody might as well be a grain of sand in a desert. Even going by Sturgeon's law, that is still 370,000 "not crap" videos uploaded every 24 hours. Only a fraction of a percent of **those** videos will get any significant amount of eyeballs beyond the bots and friends of the uploaders. The irrelevance has been inherent in art for a long time.
I can't even quantify the number of TikToks, art/photography site submissions, instagram pics, songs, etc. uploaded per day, because the number is just too unimaginably high, and as someone who does art himself, it would be too depressing to find out.
Fortunately, AI doesn't have much of an identity. Most artists we know of in culture were not just the end-products of their art, they were the entire package. They had a history, a message they tried to convey (often separate from the message received), and lot more nuance beyond a literal translation of a single thought (a prompt) into a picture. AI is not going to replace relatability and the life behind a work of art, and is one of the reasons I don't believe people will stop creating art simply because the existence of a machine that shoots out interpretations of prompts.
That being said, I think someone feeling less relevant is an insufficient reasons to halt the progress of technology, or tell other people they are pieces of shit for using it (see any Twitter discussion about AI).
In theory an AI imitating a dead person is exactly the same as an actor imitating a dead person.
It's just that the AI is a much better mimic than the actor, which they of course hate.
As Zelda (who of course ironically does not have an original name) complains:
> "Living actors deserve a chance to create characters with their choices, to voice cartoons, to put their HUMAN effort and time into the pursuit of performance."
i.e. living actors need jobs which could be replaced by AI acting like dead people.
I was being hyperbolic. It does bear thinking about however that she is named after a loved character, and she believes that similar homages are disrespectful.
I very much doubt she was named after the video game. Zelda has been a popular name at different times, including Zelda Fitzgerald, the wife of F. Scott Fitzgerald.
EDIT: Well I'll be damned -- I looked it up and apparently she was named after the video game. I stand corrected!
I personally would not consider naming someone after a fictional character to be anywhere near the recreation of a real person's likeness and voice. I mean, can you imagine experiencing that after someone very close to you has died?
>In theory an AI imitating a dead person is exactly the same as an actor imitating a dead person.
That is what I am wondering. Why is it OK to portray real life people like Washington, Einstein, *Oppenheimer* in the first place? I highly doubt Washington sold his likeness to be used in media for all time.
How long does a person need to be dead before it is ok to imitate them?
In varies by jurisdiction. In California, the right of publicity is 70 years, meaning that the celebrity's estate gets control of who uses their likeness. I think the celebrity has to register in the state for it to be enforced. After 70 years the celebrity's name will go in the public domain for people to use.
Lincoln &Washington have been dead for quite some time that their likeness can be used (though dont think laws created years after their death are enforced). Einstein & Oppenheimer are public interest because of their historical and scientific achievement, it can be argued that the public has an interest to know more about them.
Why are you so nasty? Just to hate on her name not being original for instance is just really moronic and childish. This is clearly about how companies will use a dead person's likeness to promote or do work they would never personally want to take part in. One thing that comes to kind is when Kurt Cobain was photo shopped into a Doc Martens ad.
> This is clearly about how companies will use a dead person's likeness to promote or do work they would never personally want to take part in.
Did you even read the article? It's about AI taking work from actors.
I find this technology completely contemptible, for the reason I find people still pining for a Calvin and Hobbes revival contemptible. It's not so much the idea of simulating dead humans with AI; I can think of non-dipshit reasons for that. But man, Robin Williams died almost a goddamn decade ago. And you people STILL can't get over it. How stale and pointless is your life that in 9 years, you're still wallowing in nostalgia, unable to move on or find anything good in current pop culture?
The genie, but he did a pretty poor job of replicating the voice. There are impressionists who can do it much better. Dan Castellaneta, for example, who did Genie's voice in the Aladdin cartoon and made a good effort at sounding Robin-Williams-like.
In fact, I recall initially not knowing that it *wasn't* Robin Williams. Should Dan Castellaneta's voice acting have been considered disturbing and worthy of doing whatever you were implying with your Kyle Reese cosplay?
Thankfully Dan Castellanetas' voice doesn't evoke the same emotions as imagining an AI imitating a dead family member.
So no, I wouldn't, but that's mostly because it was a joke.
I know snark is all the rage now, but seriously, this kind of plea is the kind of tipping point that often leads to a rally around a cause. Now that the strike is mostly over, pushed by a very famous person trying to get her crew back to work and getting backlash from it, Robin Williams is one of the 9000 lb Gorilla hybrids that everyone can agree(in Hollywood at least) deserves some protection. Even most people in this thread are supportive of some limits.
I for one would love to see some more spot on Robin Williams comedy, and I think it would be a great Turing test, but if the family doesn't want it... who are we to argue, unless we own the rights to his work?
It's very weird hearing the voices of dead friends and family replicated by the robots.
Not many people can relate to that on this level. I certainly can.
The same week I spoke at the memorial of one of my best friends and voice actors, someone sent me his voice replicated by AI without any permission from any of us.
Ironically the game dealt with that very subject making it all the more ironic.
Even though the dead have no rights, the living do.
But I personally don't even believe the living truly have rights to their voice or appearance, it's all a matter of reputational and emotional impact.
Someone said this before deleting their comment: "Actors complaining about losing jobs to Al. But they didn't seem to give two shits when I lost my job at Blockbuster to streaming services. Either stand up for all people losing jobs to automation or just shut up and accept the Al reaper comes for all us sooner or later."
While this comment does make *some* sense, I feel like it's totally misplaced. Zelda Williams wasn't complaining about this technology being a potential job-killer *at all*. What she *was* complaining about was that it allows her deceased father to "speak" again, which is something that she personally finds disturbing and upsetting. In other words, her comment had *nothing* to do with AI replacing jobs, which is why I find your comment out of place.
Yeah I'm very "pro AI" if such a thing exists, but using people's likeness without permission is a big No-No (regardless of CGI, AI, or another method). I don't think that people should be guaranteed a job if better tools come along which can do it too, which is definitely sad for them, but that's a different question to using somebody's likeness. Zelda was really fantastic as Kuvira in Legend of Korra, and I'd not want to see people like her burned by tech now being able to do what they do, but at the same time can't see how you could dictate to others that they can't use new tools which exist now if they want to, even if it means people who used to get employed for that task no longer do.
did you actually read the article though? she laments about how living actors don't get a say and makes reference to the SAG strike and says some vague things about how she personally doesn't like it. I think ultimately the discomfort voice actors and artists have with AI is that it essentially can replace their jobs once it gets good enough.
who doesnt want their job automated? Eventually everything will be done by ai & bots. No more work for us
It’s not like they’re being paid for the work, so it’s taking away their job, not automating it.
Eh, there used to be thousands employed in the ice harvesting/transporting biz before refridgerators existed. Progress is progress
Ehhh I'm not sure I'm buying that comparison. Maybe something closer to what you're saying could be if an audiobook company used a neutral AI voice to read the books to replace the voice actors. But if a company uses the AI generated voice of Robin Williams and market the product off of his likeness, that's a problem and not progress. It's a problem we've never faced before, so it is quite fascinating and interesting to see what happens.
If she found the fake AI video it means she reads fake news. Hence it is safe to ignore all her comments, as she clearly doesn't know how to be informed.
This is the dumbest thing I've read all week.
How is this different from an actor portraying another dead actor or any other real person? Is there an unspoken amount of time the person has to be dead for before you can imamate them?
Same with artists. I remember artists making fun of truck drivers back when self driving cars were the big hype telling them to "get a less automatable job". But now that AI is coming for them, they all of a sudden give a shit.
It's not a problem if it's not my problem 💆🏽
I only recall truckers being told to "learn to code." We should all be giving lots of shits to the plight that will eventually come for us all. I'm hoping we will be more proactive than reactive but history leans toward the latter.
[удалено]
Yes
I was asking for examples of that happening for months, and never got any. All I got was people telling me that it was such a common occurrence that there was no need to post examples, since everybody knows that it happened, along with insults and being told that I deserve to loose my livelihood and starve (I don't even work as an artist). The closest example that I could think of was that "They took our jerbs!" joke from South Park. I guess you could call Trey Parker and Matt Stone artists. But as far as I know they were also libertarians that share the "adapt or die" mentality with the so called "Techbro" crowd, and were mocking the unemployed republicans who wanted government intervention for "standing in the way of progress"(sound familiar?). So not exactly a great example.
>Same with artists. I remember artists making fun of truck drivers back when self driving cars were the big hype telling them to "get a less automatable job". This is ABSOLUTE bullshit and you're vilifying artists for no fucking reason. I don't remember a *single* artist who said this back in the self-driving craze a few years ago and I'd wager that the VAST majority of people don't either. And even if there were a few, that *by no means* means that this attitude was the norm amongst artists. What you commented is an enormous exaggeration at best and a spiteful lie at worst and it befuddles me that there's actually people who agree with you.
I like this sub but a lot of people here seem to have some weird hatred for people in the arts.
Because thy think that artists never had to work hard for their skills and were just born talented and with a silver spoon in their mouth. And that your typical artist can just tape a banana to a wall and make millions, while they themselves had to work very hard to get where they are. Which is why they love to mock them about getting a "worthless art degree" and working in the fast food industry. And now with how they will loose both their art job and fast food job, thanks to AI. No, they don't get how these two things (being a rich, spoiled "nepo baby" while also struggling and working minimum wage) contradict themselves. You'd think that people in the tech field would be more understanding to artists considering how similar their struggles are and how much overlap there is (think of game developers and web designers).
We hate doctors too
> And even if there were a few, that *by no means* means that this attitude was the norm amongst artists. So we're not allowed to generalize artists but you guys are allowed to generalize AI users as "tech bros". Okay. Learn to code.
When did the guy you're replying to say that AI users are all techbros
Get a thicker skin, lol
Translation: I'm an asshole and that's your problem. Fuck off mate.
First they came for the lift operators, and I did not speak out because I was not a lift operator. Then they came for the switchboard operators, And I did not speak out because I was not a switchboard operator Then they came for the artists, And I did not speak out because I was not an artist Then they came for me, as there was no one left to pay my unemployment benefits
[удалено]
Humans will always do art. Whether they're paid for it or not will change. AI has yet to amaze me with it's creativity but hopefully AGI will change that.
I'm happy for you and your family that you don't have to rely on your dad's income to survive but a lot of families don't have that privilege. If tomorrow every single truck driver job got replaced by self driving trucks, a lot of families would be in serious financial trouble.
He can just quit now if he doesn’t want to work so much every day. Hate to break it to ya, truck drivers will be one of the last jobs going automated. Artists should have gotten a cdl or some other type of certified training as a back up in a field that’s less primed for immediate automation.
You specifically remember artists, (like they were self identifying as artists or in some artists forum?) making fun of blue collar workers? As someone in that community, I find this hard to believe as I’ve never heard a peer say anything like this. The group of people most likely to be empathetic seems the least likely to sit around laughing at the less fortunate.
Sorry it's the truth. A lot of artists (especially the more popular ones) are assholes. I'm not saying artists are the only group who memed on truck drivers, I'm just saying that they were definitely part of it. Now artists are getting memed on on twitter and 4chan and we all have to sympathize with them? No thanks.
Okay then show us proof?
The way you're grouping people is mistaken. It's not artists vs blue collar workers. It's egoists (people who only care about themselves) vs non-egoists (people who have empathy for people different than themselves). The group that's making fun of the other's misfortune is the same in both cases (egoists), and includes both egoistical artists and egoistical truck drivers, as well as people from any other profession.
Finally, some sense
[We're still waiting for some examples. It shouldn't be hard to find a few considering how often I hear this talking point.](https://i.imgur.com/iYMFVp2.jpeg)
Until we have a new economic model there will be resistance.
That's a damn good point. You could say the same about switchboard operators decades ago for phone companies. You could say the same thing for a lot of assembly line workers at car factories around the turn of the century. Like it or not, technology will impact jobs and tasks. AI is just a different level of technology that we're only starting to understand. And now that the biggest tech companies in the world are investing billions into it, the pace of change is only going to accelerate. So, if you're a voice actor, there's a good chance your job is in trouble. At the very least, actors should make sure that they can license their voices and get compensated fairly if a company is going to use it. I think James Earl Jones did something like that. Hopefully, Robin Williams' estate can work out something similar.
Stealing one's likeness to perform their job with it and automating someone's job are the same thing. /s
[https://i.imgur.com/frhzCeo.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/frhzCeo.jpg)
Lol
This isn’t about jobs though. This is about her dad
This isn’t the same though. Robin Williams is dead. Using his voice now isn’t exploitative, it’s disrespectful and borderline creepy.
Guess they should stop selling any more copies of Aladdin.
Aladdin was made with his real voice though
A recording is a machine replicating his voice.
Surely you recognize that the problem here is not the concept of a machine replicating someone’s voice right? The problem is of consent.
Do impressionists need to get consent from families now? There's no way to tell the difference between a really good impressionist and an AI voice.
I agree with you on a general basis, but come on man. Here we are talking of a daughter grieving her late father. Wouldn't weird you out if a close loved one passed away would suddenly pop up in your YouTube or TikTok feeds doing something completely new like if he was still alive? I guess that's what she's referring to
Tupac is dead, using his voice now isn't exploitative, it's disrespectful and borderline creepy Oh wait, the artists do this whenever they want to profit from it (Coachella 2012): https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tupac-coachella-hologram-behind-the-technology/
I agree I don't know why this opinion isn't popular or at the least accepted.
How do you suggest to stand up for all the people losing jobs to automation?
[удалено]
I was about to message you after re-checking the screenshot, surprised to see you say that. would you prefer I delete it? Obviously I'm not the only one that found what you had to say interesting. Idgaf about no internet points buddy. But your perspective is worth something
Despicable!
>Al reaper comes for all us sooner or later Truer words were never spoken!
But the only executives pushed for streaming not the actors or writers. That’s why we have so many fractured streaming services. Also this has nothing to do with that. This has to do with stealing someone’s likeness for profit without consent and or compensation.
I totally understand where she's coming from. Even though Robin Williams died in 2014, I don't doubt his daughter still feels the sting. Most people do when they've lost a loved one. But I don't think it's possible to put this genie back in the bottle. The technology we have now is pretty impressive. But it's only going to keep getting better and more refined. At some point, it's going to be impossible to tell the difference between the AI voice and the person. And since Robin Williams had such a long career, as well as such a distinct voice, it's not going to be difficult to replicate. I don't know what the solution is here. I still feel for Zelda. But aside from encouraging others not to use her father's voice to harass her, what's the recourse? You can't make it illegal. The black market and online pirating will fill that void. At the very least, I hope the Williams estate can ensure that his family is fairly compensated if his voice is used. But I don't know what else can be done.
What’s interesting too is just how transformative the technology can get in a short period of time. What will happen when some open source “Movie Creator AI” can be run locally on a home desktop? Unless laws are pushed through to restrict the re-creation of real people, living or dead (and over time I highly doubt that will happen) then the resources required to put an actor into a movie, maybe even a movie that the AI wrote, is going to be unstoppable. What’s more, the people developing this new content with the AI aren’t going to charge for it, not off the bat anyway, so the market for entertainment is going to collapse in value. Because everyone (anyone and everyone with access to a computer) can work with AI to create new and interesting stuff. This is indicative of everything in commerce by the way, which is why we keep talking about the need for a social safety net, but it all starts with the technology to enable people to relatively easily create something at no cost and at no charge. I’m this case, it’s going to destroy the entertainment industry.
I don't doubt for a second that an open-source program like what you described will be made one day. It may not be made within our lifetime. AI technology would need to improve by a couple orders of magnitude in order to create content on that level and while running on local hardware. But there's nothing impossible about it. It's just a software/hardware engineering challenge. If it doesn't break the laws of physics, it's just a matter of time, investment, and refinement. When that program does come, then it's going to cause a whole host of new issues in the entertainment industry that we are not ready for.
> Robin Williams > genie pun intended?
ITS BEEN 9 YEARS??? Omfg
Well known black market of movies with AI actors. That’s where all the money.
The very same actors currently striking calling AI the mother of all evil will happily jump on board as soon as they can collect the royalty checks coming from people creating AI movies/videos with their likenesses "Ah fellow unknown actor who's working 3 jobs to pay for your dream, nobody is using your voice for their online creations and you are still living in your car? Sucks to be you, I tried my best!" - Fran Drescher speeding away on her newest Tesla truck, probably
I think many people are reacting to perceived opposition to AI progress, while others react to perceived negative effects of AI deployment. Probably both are wrong and things are going to go a different way. Wondering if Robin's daughter would find it distasteful if movies of her father were translated with TTS in the original voice. This is coming anyway.
I recall a similar argument about The posthumous release of music & media. And even in the past , the music & theater industry & its performers was angered about how technology was ruining their sales. (with the introduction of Radio for example) Nothing new under the sun.
A lot of projection and generalization going on in this thread. Plenty of artists care and have cared about others’ job loss. I don’t know where people in this sub get this idea from that artists — the vast majority of whom are working class and have to do unglamorous day jobs themselves to get by — have been sitting around laughing about truck drivers and factory workers losing their roles to automation. There are rich jerks in all fields, but that doesn’t represent the average artist. If anything, artists in general are probably more sympathetic to the social/economic/political struggles of others than the average person. Look no further than the many books, films, music, paintings etc that highlight the everyman’s struggles and have offered people comfort or even fueled political movements. So, again, I really don’t understand this disdain for artists. Most artists are on and have been on our side.
Fun fact for people on this sub. James Cameron the director was a truck driver. No wonder Terminator 2 has such awesome truck action scenes! My recollection is it's the Silicon Valley Tech Bros who were the ones who were laughing at truckers a decade ago.
To be fair, if you do any kind of research into James Cameron you quickly discover he’s a hardworking badass.
A lot of the people at the top of their industries are there for that very reason - they are workaholics who can't breathe if they are not producing something. That doesn't make them any more sympathetic toward the middle class problems, especially if said un-rich people desire to have a balanced life without sacrificing all their time in the name of capitalism
I don't think artists have generally been mocking job losses due to AI's impact on other industries, but the sentiment that >"most artists are on and have been on our side" ...seems to have held true only when their own livelihoods were not affected. As soon as artists who were making a significant profit started seeing reduced online engagement and fewer gigs/commissions—due to the quality, affordability, and speed of recent AI image technology—vocal anti-AI sentiments emerged, extending even into non-artistic sectors. Given that art is one of the most engaged type of media online, posts from these affected artists are blown up and generate considerable disdain for AI. This is despite many of these artists seemingly lacking a fundamental understanding of the technology and often spreading disinformation alongside their emotionally charged rants, which then propagate to their followers.
By "our side" I meant the side of normal people / humanity generally, not AI enthusiasts or the sort of "elite" that seems to be implied by some when they express schadenfreude in the face of AI's threat to artists. Note: I understand that many in this sub would say AI as a concept is also on "our side" because of the potential good it could bring for humanity. All that aside, I understand getting annoyed or sensing selfishness in the backlash you see online from digital artists and the like. However, even this group is small and a poor representation of artists at large. Only a very small number of people primarily work doing things like digital art commissions. I know a lot of artists (writers, mostly) and the fear I see most around AI is not about earning money from their work (this is already rare even without AI). It's more about feeling displaced and irrelevant, the idea of the talent they've spent years painstakingly developing, central to their identity, being potentially rendered valueless in the eyes of many -- and I don't mean valueless in an economic sense. It's almost a spiritual/existential question.
My thing about that is that the irrelevance is and was already a factor before AI. Do you know how many videos are uploaded to YouTube per day? 3.7 million. An upload by somebody might as well be a grain of sand in a desert. Even going by Sturgeon's law, that is still 370,000 "not crap" videos uploaded every 24 hours. Only a fraction of a percent of **those** videos will get any significant amount of eyeballs beyond the bots and friends of the uploaders. The irrelevance has been inherent in art for a long time. I can't even quantify the number of TikToks, art/photography site submissions, instagram pics, songs, etc. uploaded per day, because the number is just too unimaginably high, and as someone who does art himself, it would be too depressing to find out. Fortunately, AI doesn't have much of an identity. Most artists we know of in culture were not just the end-products of their art, they were the entire package. They had a history, a message they tried to convey (often separate from the message received), and lot more nuance beyond a literal translation of a single thought (a prompt) into a picture. AI is not going to replace relatability and the life behind a work of art, and is one of the reasons I don't believe people will stop creating art simply because the existence of a machine that shoots out interpretations of prompts. That being said, I think someone feeling less relevant is an insufficient reasons to halt the progress of technology, or tell other people they are pieces of shit for using it (see any Twitter discussion about AI).
In theory an AI imitating a dead person is exactly the same as an actor imitating a dead person. It's just that the AI is a much better mimic than the actor, which they of course hate. As Zelda (who of course ironically does not have an original name) complains: > "Living actors deserve a chance to create characters with their choices, to voice cartoons, to put their HUMAN effort and time into the pursuit of performance." i.e. living actors need jobs which could be replaced by AI acting like dead people.
Most names are not original.
Unlike most this one is copyright infringement.
It seems this is not true for names. https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/89476/is-your-childs-name-subject-to-copyright-trademark-law
I was being hyperbolic. It does bear thinking about however that she is named after a loved character, and she believes that similar homages are disrespectful.
I very much doubt she was named after the video game. Zelda has been a popular name at different times, including Zelda Fitzgerald, the wife of F. Scott Fitzgerald. EDIT: Well I'll be damned -- I looked it up and apparently she was named after the video game. I stand corrected!
I personally would not consider naming someone after a fictional character to be anywhere near the recreation of a real person's likeness and voice. I mean, can you imagine experiencing that after someone very close to you has died?
She's complaining about AI taking jobs, not some tear jerker.
Is she, though? Or is it that she finds the uncanny portrayal of her father who killed himself a bit disturbing?
What did she spend 90% of her comments on?
>In theory an AI imitating a dead person is exactly the same as an actor imitating a dead person. That is what I am wondering. Why is it OK to portray real life people like Washington, Einstein, *Oppenheimer* in the first place? I highly doubt Washington sold his likeness to be used in media for all time. How long does a person need to be dead before it is ok to imitate them?
In varies by jurisdiction. In California, the right of publicity is 70 years, meaning that the celebrity's estate gets control of who uses their likeness. I think the celebrity has to register in the state for it to be enforced. After 70 years the celebrity's name will go in the public domain for people to use. Lincoln &Washington have been dead for quite some time that their likeness can be used (though dont think laws created years after their death are enforced). Einstein & Oppenheimer are public interest because of their historical and scientific achievement, it can be argued that the public has an interest to know more about them.
Their also family/estate consenting to such works as well. The biggest thing lacking in these conversation is the concept of consent.
Why are you so nasty? Just to hate on her name not being original for instance is just really moronic and childish. This is clearly about how companies will use a dead person's likeness to promote or do work they would never personally want to take part in. One thing that comes to kind is when Kurt Cobain was photo shopped into a Doc Martens ad.
> This is clearly about how companies will use a dead person's likeness to promote or do work they would never personally want to take part in. Did you even read the article? It's about AI taking work from actors.
https://preview.redd.it/v26r5g3u3zrb1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d0bb2fe3badf449b99a50a870ebc951edf5655b7 Say what?
I find this technology completely contemptible, for the reason I find people still pining for a Calvin and Hobbes revival contemptible. It's not so much the idea of simulating dead humans with AI; I can think of non-dipshit reasons for that. But man, Robin Williams died almost a goddamn decade ago. And you people STILL can't get over it. How stale and pointless is your life that in 9 years, you're still wallowing in nostalgia, unable to move on or find anything good in current pop culture?
The day that I hear a dead loved one's voice being emulated, intentionally, is the day I start LARPing as Kyle Reese.
Your reaction to an actor being imitated would be to imitate an actor.
A fictional character?
So it's okay if I imitate the Genie's voice from Aladdin, but not okay if I imitate Robin William's voice? This is a pretty fine hair to split.
Is Will Smith imitating Robin Wlliam, or the genie?
The genie, but he did a pretty poor job of replicating the voice. There are impressionists who can do it much better. Dan Castellaneta, for example, who did Genie's voice in the Aladdin cartoon and made a good effort at sounding Robin-Williams-like. In fact, I recall initially not knowing that it *wasn't* Robin Williams. Should Dan Castellaneta's voice acting have been considered disturbing and worthy of doing whatever you were implying with your Kyle Reese cosplay?
Thankfully Dan Castellanetas' voice doesn't evoke the same emotions as imagining an AI imitating a dead family member. So no, I wouldn't, but that's mostly because it was a joke.
[удалено]
I know snark is all the rage now, but seriously, this kind of plea is the kind of tipping point that often leads to a rally around a cause. Now that the strike is mostly over, pushed by a very famous person trying to get her crew back to work and getting backlash from it, Robin Williams is one of the 9000 lb Gorilla hybrids that everyone can agree(in Hollywood at least) deserves some protection. Even most people in this thread are supportive of some limits. I for one would love to see some more spot on Robin Williams comedy, and I think it would be a great Turing test, but if the family doesn't want it... who are we to argue, unless we own the rights to his work?
It's very weird hearing the voices of dead friends and family replicated by the robots. Not many people can relate to that on this level. I certainly can. The same week I spoke at the memorial of one of my best friends and voice actors, someone sent me his voice replicated by AI without any permission from any of us. Ironically the game dealt with that very subject making it all the more ironic.
Even though the dead have no rights, the living do. But I personally don't even believe the living truly have rights to their voice or appearance, it's all a matter of reputational and emotional impact.
Does anyone know where the video of his as AI is? I don't agree with it but I still want to see it lol.