George Carlin Estate Files Lawsuit Against Group Behind AI-Generated Stand-Up Special: ‘A Casual Theft of a Great American Artist’s Work’::George Carlin’s estate has filed a lawsuit against the creators behind an AI-generated comedy special featuring a recreation of the comedian’s voice.

  • lucidinferno@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    How is the AI impersonation of Carlin different from when Paramount used actors who looked like Queen Elizabeth or Barbara Bush, or human impersonators who sound just like the real person they’re impersonating (besides the obvious difference)?

    I’m not saying Dudesy is in the right. Making an AI system sound like someone somehow feels different than an impersonator doing the same thing. But I don’t know why I feel that way, as they’re extremely similar cases.

    • UNWILLING_PARTICIPANT@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s because a person is directly doing it. It’s not odd that our laws and mores exist for the benefit of people trying to do stuff.

      Even comparing a photocopy to a forgery, at least the forgery took some direct human skill, rather than just owning a photocopier

      • lucidinferno@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I hear you, and I thought about that before posting the comment, but does method matter? Does human skill in something make it any more right, or does a computer being directed to do something make it any more wrong? The final product is essentially the same, no matter how it was achieved.

        Whether I, unprovoked, physically attack someone or I command my dog to attack someone, I’m being held responsible for the attack. It’s not so much the method or the tool that was used as it is the product, because the act is wrong.

        Better yet, to your point, whether I draw the Simpsons and sell that image or print an image of the Simpsons and sell it, it’s considered wrong without permission of Groening.

        The question is: Is it wrong to impersonate without intention of deceiving, using any method? I’m not arguing for or against. Simply asking moral questions. It’s a quandary, for sure.