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

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

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

    You know, like for court.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        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.

          • 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

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                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?

                  • SCB@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Yeah me and the Harvard Business Review are wrong about existing precdent because you have very strong feelings.

                    Guess the SAG strike should end then, since this is all settled!

                    Fun fact: by your current interpretation, since movie companies own the likeness of characters within movies, they can reuse those characters, and potentially even those actors in some instances (since they can claim they are representative of similar archetypes) forever and the movie stars don’t need to get paid. Writers are flat fucked so long as the studios train AI on prior scripts they own.

                    This is why semantics are important in law.