AI is modeling David Attenborough and the filmmaker isn’t happy

It is very important for us to "NOT" support any films, shows, games, and whatever form of art and entertainment that tries to use AI to replace human creators.

Greed is going to tear apart every part of society unless we stop it.

What if I make my own videos with actors and/or voices are entirely imaginary? I don't have the resources to hire a videographer let alone an actor but I can write a script and use AI (and program/script things).

If I make something cool it'd be sad if no one watched it just because it didn't use real human actors and voices.
- As long as you don't clone someone's voice without permission, then you didn't replace any actors imo. There's a big difference between an indie production using this tech to reach higher than they could otherwise and Disney just not wanting to pay wages.
If it's something for profit by some massive multi billion dollar company, definitely. That's just pure greed. But some tiny indie game dev or YouTuber using ai voiceovers is quite a bit more acceptable imo.
- Is there a specific dollar amount where a creator isn’t allowed to create the way they want anymore?
- Agreed. Butterbee's explanation in this thread is much better than my word.
Permanently Deleted
- No one is talking about translation and subtitles.
  
  I am very aware of machine translation, probably more than most people in here. In fact, machine translation started much earlier than this AI craze...like they started massively using machine translation for a decade already. That's why some of the Netflix translation to foreign language is so shit.
  
  The thing is no one is outraged about machine translation because it is not a primary creative process. This is very different from acting, voice acting, illustration, creative writing, etc. that people care about.
Lets let Bruce willis' family or val kilmer decide for themselves whether they can work a deal that lets us see their acting or likeness again and they get proper compensation. I'm not going to boycott a production with proper paperwork in place just because they use AI to make fremen eyes blue in a programmatic fashion.

Article seems to miss the point, it’s not that some celebs are unhappy like Attenborough and others are fine with it and participating in its development. It’s that some celebs are in control of how they are being used and represented and some are not. We are entering a period where we all need stronger legal protections, to ensure that we remain in control of what makes each of us unique, whether that’s DNA or a copy of our voice

DNA is highly likely to be unique, not guaranteed to be so.

This is a terrible idea. No one owns DNA or genes, and we already have problems with shitty company’s trying to patent or copyright genes we all already have. It’s bullshit that only benefits those at the top, and prevents others from getting there by restricting their rights.

Voices are the same. You can’t complain about an impressionist imitating you because you don’t like it, that childish nonsense. Everything we do is in some way a copy and recreation of what other people have done. AI just automated that process and people are upset it’s harder to rent seek and gate keep things that never belonged to them in the first place.

Seriously, the future you’re imagining has twins sueing each other for rights to their unique “identity”. It’s dumb as hell.
- Sorry man but control over your own image, voice etc is not dumb, why should giant corporations be allowed to replicate and use it to make money without your consent. The fact that it can be so easily automated now just makes it worse. I’m not talking about copyright though just control and privacy. With regards to DNA I’m saying the exact opposite and there we probably agree, companies should absolutely not be able to patent or copyright genes. They shouldn’t be able to use them at all without explicit consent.

Maybe a cynical outlook, but 'AI' becoming such a big deal is only going to serve as a means to take out the human element. Why have a person narrate or write your nature show when you can have 'AI' mimic a known quantity.

I dont see how its a bad thing. Its basically multiplicating the amount of better narrators in that example.

Why having a shitty narrating voice when you can have an awarded one?

The only thing is the compensation to the originator and the labelling of whats real and generated.

But thats a minor issue IMO.
- Whether or not you want someone to use your likeness isn't necessarily just a matter of money. You can't just wave dollar bills at any objection and assume everything's going to be okay. Some things are more important than a few bucks.
- It's a bad thing because Attenborough's vioce isn't just his voice. He's not lauded because of his vocal prowess - it's because of his knowledge of the subject and the fact that if he says something - even read from a script - his professional reputation means that he would question material that doesn't pass his sniff test.
  
  Whatever people say - it is this reputation that people are exploiting, not his vowel sounds.
- I saw a video the other day about how the movie culture has shifted to extensively using greenscreens instead of real world locations. And then just editing everything in afterwards, doing all the cuts in the studio etc. This obviously has altered how big movie productions are made and I imagine shifting to AI instead of real actors would exacerbate this trend by a lot. To me, big movie productions already feel lifeless and boring (most of the heavy lifting solely done by reputation the cast or director). I guess this will get worse. But then, I'm also curious what crazy ideas indie producers come up with.

I see this as a good thing nature docs wouldn't be as good without his voice and I'm sure AI could be trained to give a very similar set of opinions.

Yeah it's a bit morbid and he should definitely get paid for it.

he should definitely get paid for it.

Playing devil's advocate a little bit here - are you saying a person's voice is or should be copyrightable? Because it wouldn't be his voice, it's an imitation of his voice, it's an impression.

I'm just not sure this is an area that copyright law needs to be extended in to. I can see a requirement to disclose that it's AI generated being a good idea, but the idea that the likeness of somebody's voice is proprietary I think opens up a much worse can of worms.
- The ai is trained on recordings of his voice which they have not secured the rights to though. You can't simply use any data you find on the street and use it professionally in any field.
  
  An impression is a very different context. You're vastly overestimating the independence of an AI model to equate it to human performance or impersonators.

I'd imagine the situation is more dire to those filmmakers and journalists that do narration as a job

Why would you need them if you can just use the voice of an AI impersonating famous speakers like this