The actor told an audience in London that AI was a “burning issue” for actors.

  • gregorum@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You are twisting yourself into knots to describe something other than what happened. All of which amounts to is an elaborate “Nuh uh”

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      No I’m looking at this the way a lawyer does.

      You know, like for court.

      • gregorum@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        So, like, arguing against the letter of the law, in order to defend a morally bankrupt practice in defense of profitability for large corporations, to rip off artists work.

        No, I got that

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          That you think I am defending the people using Fry’s voice here is just further confirmation that you don’t understand what I’m saying.

          I’m saying there aren’t laws or standards that accurately restrict this usage, and that is a bad thing and why people are upset.

          • gregorum@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            All that it’s proof of is that you don’t understand what you’re talking about.

            There are laws and standards which govern this usage, it’s called the digital millennium copyright act. While there does exist currently an argument for AI to co-op current works for what the DMCA refers to as “fair use“, whether these works would be regarded as “Derivative works” or unauthorized infringement is up for the courts to decide, not you.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Here is current precedent:

              This isn’t the first time technology and copyright law have crashed into each other. Google successfully defended itself against a lawsuit by arguing that transformative use allowed for the scraping of text from books to create its search engine, and for the time being, this decision remains precedential.

              Please explain, in your view, the substantive differences.

              Quote from here: https://hbr.org/2023/04/generative-ai-has-an-intellectual-property-problem

              • gregorum@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                That’s not the same thing as this case. Google did not use the information it scraped from a single specific work to create another specific creative work. These two things are different, and the fact that you used this precedent to defend this practice in this context, shows your lack of a grasp of the material at hand.

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  The AI doesn’t scrape words, in context. It scrapes morphemes and pieces them together. That’s how voice AI works. I work with voice AI as part of my job, and learning to feed it morphemes instead of full words is often important, because the AI trips up on some of its inflections.

                  It’s weird that you still think I’m defending this usage after this many posts. What are you missing?

                  • gregorum@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’m not missing anything. You’re very clearly missing a full comprehension of US copyright law and are stubbornly resisting any attempt at having it explained to you.

                    But thanks for explaining your bias.