ClamDrinker

ClamDrinker , 5 months ago to Technology in George Carlin Estate Files Lawsuit Against Group Behind AI-Generated Stand-Up Special: ‘A Casual Theft of a Great American Artist’s Work’

That's a pretty sloppy reason. A nuanced topic is not well suited to be explained in anything but descriptive language. Especially if you care about people's livelihoods and passion. I care about my artist friends, colleagues, and acquaintances. Hence I will support them in securing their endeavors in this changing landscape.

Artists are largely not computer experts and artists using AI are buying Microsoft or Adobe or using freebies and pondering paid upgrades. They are also renting rather than buying because everything’s a subscription service now.

I really don't like this characterization of artists. They are not dumb nor incapable of learning. Technical artists exist too. Installing open source AI is relatively easy. Pretty much down to pressing a button. And because it's open source, it's free. Using them to it's fullest effect is where the skill goes, and the artists I know are more than happy to develop their skills.

A far bigger market for AI is for non-artists and scammers to fill up Amazon’s bookstore and the broader Internet full of more trash than it already was.

The existence of bad usage of AI does not invalidate good usage of AI. The internet was already full of bad content before AI. The good stuff is what floats to the top. No sane person is going to pay to read some no name AI generated trash. But people will read a highly regarded book that just happened to be AI assisted.

But the whole premise is silly. Did we demonize cars because bank robbers started using them to escape the police? Did we demonize cameras because people could take exact photo copies of someone else's work? No. We demonized those that misused the tool. AI is no different.

A scammer can generate thousands of garbage images and text without worth, before an artist being assisted by AI can make a single work. Just like a burglar can make more money easily by breaking into someone's house and stealing all their money compared to working a day job for a month. There's a reason these things are illegal and/or unethical. But those are reflections of the people doing this, not the things they use.

ClamDrinker , 5 months ago (edited 5 months ago) to Technology in George Carlin Estate Files Lawsuit Against Group Behind AI-Generated Stand-Up Special: ‘A Casual Theft of a Great American Artist’s Work’

I mean, you ignored the entire rest of my comment to respond only to a hyperbole to illustrate that something is a bad argument. I'm sure they are making money off it, but small creators and artists can relatively make more money off it. And you claim that is not 'actually happening'. But that is your opinion, how you view things. I talk with artists daily, and they use AI when it's convenient to them, when it saves them work or allows them to focus on work they actually like. Just like how they use any other tool to their disposal.

I know there are some very big name artists on social media who are making a fuss about this stuff, but I highly question their motives with my point of view in mind. Of course it makes sense for someone with a big social media following to rally up their supporters so they can get a payday. I regularly see them speak complete lies to their followers, and of course it works. When you actually talk to artists in real life, you'll get a far more nuanced response.

ClamDrinker , 5 months ago to Technology in George Carlin Estate Files Lawsuit Against Group Behind AI-Generated Stand-Up Special: ‘A Casual Theft of a Great American Artist’s Work’

Well then we agree. Lets leave ridiculous arguments out of it. There are far better arguments to make.

ClamDrinker , 5 months ago to Technology in George Carlin Estate Files Lawsuit Against Group Behind AI-Generated Stand-Up Special: ‘A Casual Theft of a Great American Artist’s Work’

I don't disagree with that, but such differences can matter when it comes to ruling if imitation and parody are allowed, and to what extent.

ClamDrinker , 5 months ago to Technology in George Carlin Estate Files Lawsuit Against Group Behind AI-Generated Stand-Up Special: ‘A Casual Theft of a Great American Artist’s Work’

The court might rule in favor of his estate for this reason. But honestly, I do think there are differences to a singer (whose voice becomes an instrument in their song) and a comedian (whose voice is used to communicate the ideas and jokes they want to tell). A different voice could tell the same jokes as Carlin, and if done with the same level of care to communicate his emotions and cadence, could effectively create the same feeling as we know it. A song could literally be a different song if you swap an instrument. But the courts will have to rule.

ClamDrinker , 5 months ago (edited 5 months ago) to Technology in George Carlin Estate Files Lawsuit Against Group Behind AI-Generated Stand-Up Special: ‘A Casual Theft of a Great American Artist’s Work’

There’s another thing here which is that you seem to believe this was actually made in large part by an AI while simultaneously stating the motivations of humans. So which is it?

AI assisted works are, funnily enough, mostly a human production at this point. If you asked AI to make another George Carlin special for you, it would suck extremely hard. AI requires humans to succeed, it does not succeed at being human. And as such, it's a human work at the end of the day. My opinion is that if we were being truthful, this comedy special would likely be considered AI assisted rather than fully AI generated.

You seem really sure that I think this is fully (or largely) AI generated, but that's never been a question I answered or alluded to believing before. I don't believe that. I don't even believe fully AI generated works to be worthy of being called true art. AI assisted works on the other hand, I do believe to be art. AI is a tool, and for it to be used for art it requires humans to provide input and humans to make decisions for it to be something that people will actually enjoy. And that is clearly what was done here.

The primary beneficiary of all of the AI hype is Microsoft.
Secondary beneficiary is Nvidia. These aren’t tiny companies.

"The primary beneficiaries of art hype are pencil makers, brush makers, canvas makers, and of course, Adobe for making photoshop, Samsung and Wacom for making drawing tablets. Not to mention the art investors selling art from museums and art galleries all over the world for millions. These aren't tiny entities."

See how ridiculous it is to make that argument? If something is popular, people and companies who are in a prime position to make money off it will try to do so, that is to be expected under our capitalist society. But small artists and small creators get the most elevation by the advance of open source AI. Big companies can already push out enough money to bring any work they create to the highest standards. A small creator cannot, but they can get far more, and far better results by using AI in their workflow. And because small creators often put far more heart and soul into their works, it allows them to compete with giants more easily. A clear win for small creators and artists.

Just to be extra clear: I don't like OpenAI. I don't like Microsoft. I don't like Nvidia to a certain degree. Open Source AI is not their piece of cake. They like proprietary, closed source AI. The kind where only they and the people that pay them get to use the advancements AI has made. That disgusts me. Open Source AI is the tool of choice for ethical AI.

ClamDrinker , 5 months ago to Technology in George Carlin Estate Files Lawsuit Against Group Behind AI-Generated Stand-Up Special: ‘A Casual Theft of a Great American Artist’s Work’

You're right, South Park doesnt need it either. But a disclaimer removes all doubt. The video doesnt need a disclaimer either, but they made it anyways to remove all doubt. And no, they disclaimed any notion that they are George Carlin. Admitting to a crime in a disclaimer is not what it said, that much should be obvious.

ClamDrinker , 5 months ago (edited 5 months ago) to Technology in George Carlin Estate Files Lawsuit Against Group Behind AI-Generated Stand-Up Special: ‘A Casual Theft of a Great American Artist’s Work’

A complete false equivalence. Just because improper disclaimers exist, doesn't mean there aren't legitimate reasons to use them. Impersonation requires intent, and a disclaimer is an explicit way to make it clear that they are not attempting to do that, and to explicitly make it clear to viewers who might have misunderstood. It's why South Park has such a text too at the start of every episode. It's a rather fool proof way to illegitimize any accusation of impersonation.

ClamDrinker , 5 months ago (edited 5 months ago) to Technology in George Carlin Estate Files Lawsuit Against Group Behind AI-Generated Stand-Up Special: ‘A Casual Theft of a Great American Artist’s Work’

Healthy or not, my lived experience is that assuming people are motivated by the things people are typically motivated by (e.g. greed, the desire for fame) is more often correct than assuming people have pure motives.

Everyone likes praise to a certain extent, and desiring recognition for what you've made is independent from your intentions otherwise. My personal experience working with talented creative people is that the two are often intertwined. If you can make something that's both fulfilling and economically sustainable, that's what you'll do. You can make something that's extremely fulfilling, but if it doesn't appeal to anyone but yourself, it doesn't pay the bills. I'm not saying it's not possible for them to not have that motivation, but in my opinion anyone ascribed to be malicious must be to some point proven to be that way. I have seen no such proof.

I really understand your second point but... as with many things, some things require consent and some things don't. Making a parody or an homage doesn't (typically) require that consent. It would be nice to get it, but the man is dead and even his children cannot speak for him other than as legal owners of his estate. I personally would like to believe he wouldn't care one bit, and I would have the same basis as anyone else to defend that, because nobody can ask a dead man for his opinions. It's clear his children do not like it, but unless they have a legal basis for that it can be freely dismissed as not being something George would stand behind.

I've watched pretty much every one of his shows, but I haven't seen that documentary. I'll see if I can watch it. But knowing George, he would have many words to exchange on both sides of the debate. The man was very much an advocate for freedom of creativity, but also very much in favor of artist protection. Open source AI has leveled the playing field for people that aren't mega corporations to compete, but has also brought along insecurity and anxiety to creative fields. It's not black and white.

In fact, there is a quote attributed to him which sort of speaks on this topic. (Although I must admit, the original source is of a defunct newspaper and the wayback machine didn't crawl the article)

[On his work appearing on the Internet] It's a conflicted feeling. I'm really a populist, down in the very center of me. I like the power people can accrue for themselves, and I like the idea of user-generated content and taking power from the corporations. The other half of the conflict, though, is that, traditionally speaking, artists are protected from copyright infringement. Fortunately, I don't have to worry about solving this issue. It's someone else's job.

August 9, 2007 in Las Vegas CityLife. So just a little less than a year before his death too.

EDIT: Minor clarification

ClamDrinker , 5 months ago to Technology in George Carlin Estate Files Lawsuit Against Group Behind AI-Generated Stand-Up Special: ‘A Casual Theft of a Great American Artist’s Work’

Completely true. But we cannot reasonably push the responsibility of the entire internet onto someone when they did their due diligence.

Like, some people post CoD footage to youtube because it looks cool, and someone else either mistakes or malicious takes that and recontextualizes it to being combat footage from active warzones to shock people. Then people start reposting that footage with a fake explanation text on top of it, furthering the misinformation cycle. Do we now blame the people sharing their CoD footage for what other people did with it? Misinformation and propaganda are something society must work together on to combat.

If it really matters, people would be out there warning people that the pictures being posted are fake. In fact, even before AI that's what happened after tragedy happens. People would post images claiming to be of what happened, only to later be confirmed as being from some other tragedy. Or how some video games have fake leaks because someone rebranded fanmade content as a leak.

Eventually it becomes common knowledge or easy to prove as being fake. Take this picture for instance:
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/5c11ddc9-f234-4743-8881-60be66bdc196.jpeg

It's been well documented that the bottom image is fake, and as such anyone can now find out what was covered up. It's up to society to speak up when the damage is too great.

ClamDrinker , 5 months ago to Technology in George Carlin Estate Files Lawsuit Against Group Behind AI-Generated Stand-Up Special: ‘A Casual Theft of a Great American Artist’s Work’

We can argue their motives all we want (I’m pretty uninterested in it personally), but we aren’t them and we don’t even know what the process was to make it

Yes, that is sort of my point. I'm not sure either, but neither did the person I responded to (in my first comment before yours). And to make assumptions with such negative implications is very unhealthy in my opinion.

and I think that is because the whole thing sure would seem less impressive if they just admitted that they wrote it.

It's the first time I hear someone suggest they passed of their own work as AI, but it could also be true. Although AI assisted material is considered to be the same as fully AI generated by some. But again, we don't know.

I laughed maybe once, because the whole thing was not very funny in addition to being a (reverse?) hack attempt by them to deliver bits of their own material as something Carlin would say.

I definitely don't think it meets George's level. But it was amusing to me. Which is about what I'd expect of an homage.

ClamDrinker , 5 months ago to Technology in George Carlin Estate Files Lawsuit Against Group Behind AI-Generated Stand-Up Special: ‘A Casual Theft of a Great American Artist’s Work’

For sure! Deceit should be punished. Ethical AI usage should not go without disclosure, so I think we must be understanding to people choosing to be open about that, rather than having to hide it to dodge hate.

I like Vernor Vinge’s take on it in one of his short stories where copyrights are lessened to 6 months and companies must quickly develop their new Worlds/Characters before they become public domain.

That's an interesting idea. Although 6 months does sound like an awfully short time to actually develop something more grand. But I do think with fairer copyright limits we could also afford to provide more protections in the early days after a work's release. It's definitely worth discussing such ideas to make copyright better for everyone.

ClamDrinker , 5 months ago (edited 5 months ago) to Technology in George Carlin Estate Files Lawsuit Against Group Behind AI-Generated Stand-Up Special: ‘A Casual Theft of a Great American Artist’s Work’

I agree that George is one of the best stand up comedians, but that doesn't change that his material is very much counter-culture. It's made to rub people the wrong way, to get them to think differently about why things are the way they are. That makes it inherently not as good of a money maker as someone who tries to please all sides in their jokes. I'd like to believe if he was alive today he would do a beautiful piece on AI.

In your second point I have to wonder though. Who made it a headline? Who decided this was worth bringing attention to?
Clearly, the controversy did not come from them. There is nothing controversial about an homage. But it is AI, and that got people talking.
You can be of the opinion they did it for that reason, but I would argue that they simply expected the same lukewarm reception they had always gotten.
After all, people don't often solicit themselves to be at the center of hate. Even when the association pays off, experiencing that stuff has lasting mental effects on people.

And again, if they wanted to be controversial to stir up as much drama, they could have done so much more.
Just don't disclose it's AI even though it's obviously AI, or make George do things out of character, like a product endorsement, or a piece about how religion is actually super cool.
All of that would have gotten them 10x the hate and exposure they got now.

But instead, they made something that looks like and views like an homage with obvious disclosure.
The only milder thing they could have done is found someone whose voice naturally sounds like George and put him in a costume that looks like George, at which point nobody would have bat an eye. Even though the intent is the same, just the way it was achieved is different.

ClamDrinker , 5 months ago to Technology in George Carlin Estate Files Lawsuit Against Group Behind AI-Generated Stand-Up Special: ‘A Casual Theft of a Great American Artist’s Work’

You're right, it can lead to a flood of new material that could overshadow his old works.
But that would basically require it to be as good if not better than his old works, which I just don't think will happen.
Had nobody bat an eye at this, it would have just sunk into obscurity, as is the fate of many creative works.
Should more shows be made, I think after the third people would just not even care anymore. Most haven't even bothered to watch the first, after all.

ClamDrinker , 5 months ago to Technology in George Carlin Estate Files Lawsuit Against Group Behind AI-Generated Stand-Up Special: ‘A Casual Theft of a Great American Artist’s Work’

I mean, fair enough. But what alive person titles their show "I'm glad I'm dead?"
Especially since people that know George know he's dead. It's almost The Onion level of satire.
And once the video starts, it immediately starts with a disclaimer that it's not Carlin, but AI.
Nobody would sit through the entire show only to be dumbfounded later that it wasn't actually Carlin risen from the dead.