|
Serotoning posted:This is why education needs to be privatized ASAP. There's not enough incentive for education to change, or at least to change fast enough, to meet the demands of the modern world. A profit incentive applied to teaching would cause a rapid revolution in how we teach kids and prepare them for the world. This is a bit, right? You're saying the most insane thing you can possibly think of to troll the thread, right? Right!?
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2024 08:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 10:21 |
|
|
KillHour posted:This is a bit, right? You're saying the most insane thing you can possibly think of to troll the thread, right? Right!? It's a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2024 08:49
|
|
|
KillHour posted:This is a bit, right? You're saying the most insane thing you can possibly think of to troll the thread, right? Right!? Haha but no. I think education is ripe for revolutionary changes, and way to make that happen (and fast) is to give people the incentive to innovate. Why do you think that sounds insane?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2024 10:01
|
|
|
Maybe start a new thread for this entirely sincere private education chat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2024 10:17
|
|
|
Move fast and break things* *children
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2024 02:59
|
|
|
Libertarian 2000s D&D is back again baby! Awoo! (wolf howl)
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2024 03:13
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Libertarian 2000s D&D is back again baby! Awoo! (wolf howl) Great username/post combo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2024 03:34
|
|
|
There was no George Carlin A.I. https://arstechnica.com/ai/2024/01/george-carlins-heirs-sue-comedy-podcast-over-ai-generated-impression/
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 04:55
|
|
|
Serotoning posted:This is why education needs to be privatized ASAP. There's not enough incentive for education to change, or at least to change fast enough, to meet the demands of the modern world. A profit incentive applied to teaching would cause a rapid revolution in how we teach kids and prepare them for the world. We're decades into charter experimentation with no discoveries that suggest privatization will improve anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 05:35
|
|
|
fez_machine posted:There was no George Carlin A.I. Are voice transformers over the line? Deepfakes, even if it's for the purposes of comedy? Is parody infringing if it's unfunny?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 06:14
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:What interests me about this is where the line for parody and satire is drawn now that AI tools allow for uncannily realistic impressions. Dudesy reportedly implicitly talks about the artifice of their "AI" on the show with their fanbase being in on it, the word kayfabe comes up often on the show and and in the fan community, so it's not like this could be framed as some kind of conniving scam. They tipped their hand to anyone paying attention (I wasn't). The short answer is "that's up to the judge". Fair use is inherently a subjective rule; there's no clear and specific line in the sand that everyone can point to. There's plenty of stuff that's obviously fair use, but if you're not sure whether something's fair use and you think it's pretty close to the line, then you're in trouble because it's not really possible to tell exactly where the line is. Doing an impression where it's obviously a parody and you're not making any meaningful money off that person's identity is extremely likely to be fair use. If you're disguising that it's a parody, or if you're making a lot of money off the parody, or if the parody directly competes with the original, it very well might not be fair use. Whether it's funny doesn't really matter, what matters is what your intentions are and what the commercial impact might be. I haven't really seen any indication that the Dudesy thing was parody, though. It's just a human writing their own comedy act, running it through a George Carlin speech synthesizer, and claiming it's from Virtual George Carlin. I haven't seen anyone seriously accuse them of trying to parody Carlin's acts or satirize his views. But if they're not, then they're just stealing a famous name to get people talking and capitalize on his fame, and that's not so great legally. As Carlin's daughter's lawsuit puts it... quote:"Defendants always presented the Dudesy Special as an AI-generated George Carlin comedy special, where George Carlin was 'resurrected' with the use of modern technology," the lawsuit argues. "In short, Defendants sought to capitalize on the name, reputation, and likeness of George Carlin in creating, promoting, and distributing the Dudesy Special and using generated images of Carlin, Carlin’s voice, and images designed to evoke Carlin’s presence on a stage."
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 07:38
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I haven't really seen any indication that the Dudesy thing was parody, though. It's just a human writing their own comedy act, running it through a George Carlin speech synthesizer, and claiming it's from Virtual George Carlin. I haven't seen anyone seriously accuse them of trying to parody Carlin's acts or satirize his views. But if they're not, then they're just stealing a famous name to get people talking and capitalize on his fame, and that's not so great legally. As Carlin's daughter's lawsuit puts it... Claiming it's from Virtual Carlin in the same way that pro wrestling is claiming that it's a sport. Since when was parody something you accuse someone of? The act explicitly makes light of the death of George Carlin in the act itself, it's not an imitation of George Carlin but an imitation of a now dead George Carlin who has been resurrected with a (fictional) AI, something that is part of the greater meta narrative of the Dudesy podcast (or less charitably, deception, but that's harder to argue this now that it comes out that the fanbase was in on it). Is that enough "comic effect", taking from the typical dictionary definition, to define as parody? Maybe not, but I don't think it helps the case of the Carlin estate. SCheeseman fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Jan 29, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 07:49
|
|
|
Probably all they needed to do was call it "zombie george carlin." Which is not to say that it's NOT fair use, just that I agree they're in the dreaded Judge Interpretation Zone, and doing something like calling it Zombie George Carlin would be a way to hopefully get it OUT of the Judge Interpretation Zone without any actual changes to content.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 07:57
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:Probably all they needed to do was call it "zombie george carlin." Which is not to say that it's NOT fair use, just that I agree they're in the dreaded Judge Interpretation Zone, and doing something like calling it Zombie George Carlin would be a way to hopefully get it OUT of the Judge Interpretation Zone without any actual changes to content. What's the difference between 'George Carlin resurrected using science fiction' versus 'George Carlin resurrected through paranormal shenanigans'? Is it because more people are willing to believe in science fiction? SCheeseman fucked around with this message at 08:08 on Jan 29, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 08:05
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:Claiming it's from Virtual Carlin in the same way that pro wrestling is claiming that it's a sport. Pro-wrestling has suffered legal consequences from claiming to be a sport through out its history and in a number of countries. Prowrestling also doesn't claim it's an adaptation of Harlem Globetrotters material
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 08:22
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:What's the difference between 'George Carlin resurrected using science fiction' versus 'George Carlin resurrected through paranormal shenanigans'? Is it because more people are willing to believe in science fiction? Honestly... pretty much, yeah. A core element here is convincing the judge you were making it obvious that It's A Bit, while simultaneously the George Carlin estate is trying to convince the judge that it was Not A Bit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 08:29
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:Honestly... pretty much, yeah. A core element here is convincing the judge you were making it obvious that It's A Bit, while simultaneously the George Carlin estate is trying to convince the judge that it was Not A Bit. You could make a pretty good bit out of that scene for bonus meta satire. Tell everyone an AI wrote it pretending to be The Three Stooges.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 08:31
|
|
|
fez_machine posted:Pro-wrestling has suffered legal consequences from claiming to be a sport through out its history and in a number of countries. I'm guessing, but was sports betting the driving motivator behind those legal problems? I haven't read much about the legal implications of kayfabe in pro wrestling. They falsely claimed the special was AI generated, but they never said it was actual Carlin nor was anybody fooled into thinking that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 08:41
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:Claiming it's from Virtual Carlin in the same way that pro wrestling is claiming that it's a sport. An "imitation of a now dead George Carlin who has been resurrected with a (fictional) AI" is still an imitation of George Carlin. And the same would be true of Zombie George Carlin or anything like that, too. The storyline doesn't really matter, and whether the diehard fans were in on it doesn't really matter either. The fact is that they used Carlin's name and likeness in their stuff without permission, and that's a problem regardless of whether they're pretending to be the real person. Something being funny doesn't automatically make it parody. Generally there needs to be some kind of social commentary, or commentary on the thing you copied, or something like that. It doesn't have to be particularly insightful or well-done, and it doesn't even particularly have to be funny. It's not enough to demonstrate that it was A Bit. They have to be able to demonstrate that the Bit was about Carlin in some sense. That using his name and likeness specifically was essential to the joke they were trying to tell, that the jokes in their script wouldn't have landed quite the same way if they switched out all instances of "George Carlin" with some other name and used somebody else's voice. I don't know if that's the case or not, but in all the considerable commentary about it, I haven't seen anyone talking about how using Carlin in particular made the jokes extra funny because of all the Carlin references, or anything like that. And that's bad for Dudesy, because Carlin's family is going to argue that the jokes themselves didn't benefit from the usage of Carlin at all, and that his name and likeness was included solely to capitalize on his fame and draw more attention to the podcast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 08:55
|
|
|
quote:I’m glad to be dead, so I don’t have to deal with this poo poo anymore. I wasn’t looking forward to dying, but now that I’m dead, I have to admit it’s pretty f*cking good. No cops, no government, no pissing, no making GBS threads, no sleeping. I don’t get hungry, I don’t get sick, I don’t get old, and I don’t get bored. Starting to sound a lot like heaven again, ain’t it? But this heaven’s a little different than the one you might be thinking of because this heaven didn’t come from a God; it came from artificial intelligence! SCheeseman fucked around with this message at 09:28 on Jan 29, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 09:25
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:This reads like commentary to me and it takes up about a third of the act, using the premise of an AI of George Carlin as part of it's commentary, going on to touch on issues related to using AI generated likenesses of real people and other politics associated with it. They're making clear points about the implications of what they're doing (or appearing to do). Well, it's good for them that fair use doesn't require something to be funny, because I've seen D&D posts funnier than that. Looks more like satire than parody to me. That might be enough for fair use. Or it might not. Depends on the judge. The decisive factor that would bring this into the clear is if the parody relies on using George Carlin specifically, and that the parody wouldn't have landed nearly as well if they'd been made by someone else. As the Supreme Court puts it, "Parody needs to mimic an original to make its point, and so has some claim to use the creation of its victim’s (or collective victims’) imagination, whereas satire can stand on its own two feet and so requires justification for the very act of borrowing". In other words, the parody exception isn't a blanket "it's okay as long as you're trying to be funny and incisive". It's an acknowledgement of the fact that when you're lampooning or playing off or making fun of something, you inherently need to include at least a little bit of the original to make the reference clear. Is this generated voice bitching about people hating AI funnier or more interesting because it came from Virtual George Carlin specifically, rather than Virtual Andy Kaufman or Virtual Charlie Chaplin or Virtual Goku or Virtual Original Character? I don't know, but that's the question that's going to be going in front of the judge. Another case to look at for an idea of how all this settles out is Midler v. Ford Motor Company. It's not really a fair use case, but it's one of the cases that established how copyright treats voices and whether it's okay to use impersonators, since what this case is really about is the use and violation of Carlin's identity. quote:The purpose of the media's use of a person's identity is central. If the purpose is "informative or cultural" the use is immune; "if it serves no such function but merely exploits the individual portrayed, immunity will not be granted." Note that this doesn't say that the work as a whole has to be informative or cultural. It says that the use of the person's identity in particular has to be informative or cultural. There needs to be a specific reason to use that specific identity, and that reason can't just be "because we think it'll be more popular that way". Of course, even then, "is it parody" is not the only condition that matters in fair use. There's other factors that are important, like how much commercial benefit Dudesly might have seen from their use of his identity (I'm inclined to say "a fair bit", since I'd never heard of Dudesly before the rash of media articles about the AI resurrection of George Carlin). But overall, voice transformers don't bring anything new to the table legally. There's already caselaw about voice imitation, and nothing really changes by using a computer-generated voice instead of hiring an impersonator.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 18:02
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:But overall, voice transformers don't bring anything new to the table legally. There's already caselaw about voice imitation, and nothing really changes by using a computer-generated voice instead of hiring an impersonator. I don't think this is true in the sense that there's a legal question over whether training a model on copyrighted content is fair use. If Getty wins their case against OpenAI, I would think it applies equally to audio as well. I agree that it doesn't matter for the actual resulting output though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 18:35
|
|
|
This A.I. Respects No Math
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 01:18
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I don't think this is true in the sense that there's a legal question over whether training a model on copyrighted content is fair use. If Getty wins their case against OpenAI, I would think it applies equally to audio as well. Is there a current case against Open AI? I only see the Stability AI lawsuit, the people behind Stable Diffusion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 02:00
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:This reads like commentary to me and it takes up about a third of the act, using the premise of an AI of George Carlin as part of it's commentary, going on to touch on issues related to using AI generated likenesses of real people and other politics associated with it. They're making clear points about the implications of what they're doing (or appearing to do).
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 02:21
|
|
|
LASER BEAM DREAM posted:Is there a current case against Open AI? I only see the Stability AI lawsuit, the people behind Stable Diffusion. OpenAI is being sued by the NYTimes, not Getty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 02:29
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:Your honour, when we had our digital avatar of George Carlin state that it was "the real George Carlin" and "the only George Carlin" what we actually meant was... A judge isn't going to be convinced by a couple of quotes pulled out of context. No one has been fooled into thinking that it was actually Carlin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 03:59
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:I'm guessing, but was sports betting the driving motivator behind those legal problems? I haven't read much about the legal implications of kayfabe in pro wrestling. Steroids, actually. There’s still betting on wrestling, the ending being predetermined doesn’t mean you know what it is ahead of time. The quack doctor who was giving everybody incredible amounts of steroids and pain pills was a much bigger problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 04:10
|
|
|
poop chute posted:Steroids, actually. There’s still betting on wrestling, the ending being predetermined doesn’t mean you know what it is ahead of time. The quack doctor who was giving everybody incredible amounts of steroids and pain pills was a much bigger problem. So it's not true that pro-wrestling ran into legal trouble from the whole kayfabe thing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 04:16
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:So it's not true that pro-wrestling ran into legal trouble from the whole kayfabe thing? Revealing it wasn’t a real sporting event probably kept Vince out of prison, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 04:58
|
|
|
012924_6 posted:This A.I. Respects No Math This Machine Kills Deeply To Fact
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 05:26
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:So it's not true that pro-wrestling ran into legal trouble from the whole kayfabe thing? They did, I think OP was confused from them also having a steroid crisis (ongoing for about 30 years now). Not to be confused by the current sex trafficking controversy, and the always just under-the-surface "oh Christ we're destroying these kid's bodies for entertainment" crisis (also upcoming in American football). I'm starting to think WWE has some issues...
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 10:35
|
|
|
Bug Squash posted:They did, I think OP was confused from them also having a steroid crisis I very much am not. The only time I can remember kayfabe being a legal issue is during the earliest steroid scandal, because if it was a sport then Vince was deliberately getting his employees and athletes on steroids. Which was solved, at least temporarily, by the whole “it’s sports entertainment” thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 10:52
|
|
|
poop chute posted:I very much am not. The only time I can remember kayfabe being a legal issue is during the earliest steroid scandal, because if it was a sport then Vince was deliberately getting his employees and athletes on steroids. Which was solved, at least temporarily, by the whole “it’s sports entertainment” thing. Huh, they're right. There's been any number of exposés through the years but it's like the one thing that hasn't caused legal trouble. Bug Squash fucked around with this message at 11:40 on Jan 30, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 11:29
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:OpenAI is being sued by the NYTimes, not Getty. Whoops, had those mixed up. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 16:06
|
|
|
Admitting it was kayfabe was something McMahon HAD to do in hearings otherwise he would have ran afoul of state sports commissions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 16:14
|
|
|
My company opened up Github Copilot for all developers this week. I guess they're not worried about lawsuits against OpenAI? This is a big company and I'm sure corporate lawyers reviewed this before giving approval.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2024 15:14
|
|
|
Bug Squash posted:Huh, they're right. There's been any number of exposés through the years but it's like the one thing that hasn't caused legal trouble. I was thinking France and Korea Any way, A.I returns to the source with a neural network being trained on the sights and sounds experience by a baby https://twitter.com/wkvong/status/1753132293491708027
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 00:33
|
|
|
fez_machine posted:I was thinking France and Korea
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 10:21 |
|
|
LASER BEAM DREAM posted:My company opened up Github Copilot for all developers this week. I guess they're not worried about lawsuits against OpenAI? This is a big company and I'm sure corporate lawyers reviewed this before giving approval. My understanding is the training datatset for GitHub copilot is made up entirely of permissively licensed source code. The lawsuits won't affect that product in a direct way and I highly doubt MS is going to go bankrupt over them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 00:52
|
|