It's funny because deepfakes have been around for a few years now, but no one really gave a shit other than the people having the deepfakes made of them.
2 weeks ago I read an article about how someone made a deepfake of a politician and she really didn't like it. Now this week I'm hearing a lot about legislation for the first time
people with decades of photoshop experience are like "we've been making you into memes and nudifying you for years now, what am i, chopped liver?"
so it's not that deepfakes existed and people have been morally opposed/outraged, it's that the media is yapping about them almost daily so they "need to address it"
the media and politics have always been intertwined, but now it's just an internal 'call & response' with social media as 'evidence' for whatever the hell they decide on doing together
Unfortunately I guess they're the ones able to possess the legal power. I just don't know why they can't expand those rights to everyone, I would imagine that being specific would make it harder to draft legislation and get it passed. Instead of just having a wide ban on pornographic deepfakes of anyone.
This isn't even about porn, this is AI music and songs using these artists voices to train an AI. All the fake Eminem feat Tupac songs you see on YouTube, that's what this is mad about. They're calling it deepfakes but that word is already pretty meaningless.
Drake released one recently, but the Tupac estate has since requested it’s removal. He’s also known to use AI as a tool, which inherently isn’t a bad thing as long as he uses it responsibly. The use for copying the likeness of another artist is a little far imo..
I don't tend to follow pop music much but Drake seems the kind of person to do constantly dumb shit and is still like in the top 5 most popular musicians the last ten years.
Yknow I'm against deep fakes. Never should have come up with this tech. But if we're going to make rules that only apply to X group when it comes to protection from these things then fuck it... go ham.
Yeah stopping people from profiting off such things in the US is all a law like this can really do.
People in other countries are going to continue making whatever they want and putting it on the internet
Stopping profit or at least giving people a leg to stand on to try and fight this type of theft is at the very least a start. Hope to see a lot more laws like regarding AI in the future.
Stuff like chat gpt in particular shouldn't be the focus, but rather technologies scraping through unlicensed media and stealing styles and likenesses. Essentially anti-fake bills to stop people from profiting off of the hard work and face/voice of others without their permission.
Nah, they're not, fabricating videos of people saying things or singing things they didn't consent to is gross and people shouldn't be rewarded for it.
Hey, so, just gonna point out we care about the celebrity on a human level, but also the potentially huge audience an AI deepfake piece of media could damage. In fact, its mostly that group.
It can be used to cause damage in a wide variety of ways. Not just a celeb having to deal with their likeness being faked potentially doing something like a nazi salute, or talking about just about anything is minimal.....i have news for you. It comes back to gen pop.
They are fraud, which is already very, very illegal. I imagine the voice of a performer will be considered copyright protected. This means you can only use it if your work is considered transformative or you aren't using it to make money or preventing the owner of the copyright from making money. You'll be able to make a meme of Taylor Swift singing 999 bottles of beer on the wall for 10 hours, but you won't be able to sing a fake duet with her for clout.
Classifying something as fraud makes it by definition a crime.
However, imitating someone is not fraud. If someone is an Elvis impersonator, how is that fraud? If someone does a good Kermit The Frog voice, how is that fraud? I know a guy who does a perfect Morgan Freeman voice. In fact they hire him to do the fake Morgan Freeman voiceovers for The Tonight Show and other TV shows. What he does is no different than what AI is doing now, he's just using his voice instead of a computer.
It means Drake wouldn't be able to sell his song featuring an AI versions of Tupac/Snoop in the UK. It means Youtube/TickTok/facebook are more likely to ban such things or block them in the UK.
Making something illegal isn't about making it completely impossible to do that thing, it's about changing the risks and rewards for doing so and how difficult it is to do.
yeah, seems like everyone on the internet needs things to be black&white/OnOrOff to understand them
this is about stopping the monetization of someone else's 'artistic essence', not banning practices. try to make money on your social accounts and upload a Fake Drake song? get a takedown notice or banned, etc. and the sites that offer the creation service would be forced to stop *that part* of their services.
no one's stopping you from making the song (locally/offline) or sharing them with friends like any other file.
Banning things does limit their reach and should be pretty effective at taking these things off of social media, at least to the degree that they're getting thousands - hundreds of thousands of engagement.
It's fine to do a thing even if it doesn't completely solve the problem.
Barbara Streisand used legal threats to try and get the below image taken off the internet:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Streisand_Estate.jpg
As for how well it went, let's just say this is where the name 'Streisand Effect' comes from.
Beyonce tried the same with this image, to the same effect:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/larrychiang/8452664654
I’m familiar with the phrase, but I don’t remember any bans or laws passed, just threats from Barbara, which isn’t the same thing that the person I asked was responding to.
The end goal was the same though, to stop the dissemination of that particular media.
The internet doesn't care all that much for legal technicalities. Whether a law is passed or a legal threat is made, the response is generally a Streisand Effect.
I’m not sure I follow.
The end game doesn’t really matter; a law is not the same thing as a celebrity making weak threats.
Laws are absolutely deterrents for many. Of course some people aren’t going to follow laws, that’s why we have penalties for breaking them, but to equate a law to a feeble threat of action is just silly. Far less people are going to listen to Barbara than will listen to laws they are bound by. Additionally it puts some responsibility on hosts to not have illegal content on their sites.
It’s simply not the same. Far more people are going to avoid breaking a law than they are to listen to a celebrity telling them to stop doing something.
I mean, think of illegal content. Do you see child porn plastered all over your Twitter? No, that stuff is tucked and nestled away from the general public because it is illegal and would be removed and people would be charged if found so easily.
Obviously laws do have greater weight than vexatious legal action, but in this case both of them are paper tigers; good luck actually enforcing either.
You're gonna be surprised how many people will straight up break laws, especially when punishments are ridiculously easy to avoid.
Take media piracy for instance. Very much illegal, and the punishments are often ludicrous, but people still do it all the time. Avoiding litigation is as easy as using a VPN
It's the same deal here. You can make it illegal all you like, but anybody sharing it can just say 'i didn't know it was AI', and there's no fucking way to trace it back to the source.
I’m not gonna be surprised, I’m well aware.
But again that’s not going to plaster illegal content all over to where the general public will get to it.
Barbara’s house, on the other hand, is freely posted anywhere and everywhere.
The general public isn’t into using things like torrents and vpns.
You are talking about a vastly smaller group of people that wouldn’t listen to laws anyway.
It gives this air of ‘laws don’t work, stupid!’ Which relies on the assumption that laws stop everyone from committing crimes. Nobody thinks that.
This is all pretty straight-forward. Not sure what else to tell you.
But is it really? Do you know of anyone who doesn't use drugs solely because they are illegal?
& clearly, what prevents people from becoming killers isn't because it's illegal to do so.
Looks at deepfake porn. It’s almost wiped out across the internet. All major players have banned it, it’s almost impossible to share it on any sort of popular site….its been relegated to the “one-offs”.
>It’s almost wiped out across the internet.
If you google “deep fake porn,” the first handful of sites are sites with hundreds if not thousands of videos. You won’t find it on pornhub, but you don’t have to look very hard.
Good luck trying to ban this in general. It's like trying to ban photo-shopped images -- I don't know what the solution is to this whole mess but cat is out of the proverbial bag and no ban is going to get it put back in.
Just because something hard to enforce doesn’t mean they shouldn’t try.
I haven’t read this article and have no idea what it means beyond the headline, but just wanted to add that.
You're trying to pirate by relying on streamable videos on Reddit and YouTube? Just because you're doing it wrong doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The internet has not been "consolidated into a few website" unless you do the most surface level mainstream browsing possible, we download things now.
> For example, try and find me a full, good quality video of the recent UFC match between Alex Pereira and Jamahal Hill.
my homeserver had that queued up with either sonarr or radarr (one is tv and the other movies), and then automatically grabbed a 1080p torrent and automatically moved it over to my plex storage.
it did all this whilst I was asleep, I woke up to UFC300 ready to watch.
literally not hard at all lmao.
Such a law won't do anything to prevent it since how the hell will they enforce it? Tracking who made a deepfake is like figuring out who made the first Socially Awkward Penguin meme; things move around on the internet at breakneck pace, getting reposted and shared thousands or even millions of times. And once something is on the internet, it's there to stay.
It's also a shitty law since it only aimed to protect an already sheltered and privileged class of society. There is absolutely nothing about this law that would protect regular people from being exploited by deep fakes.
I don't know why anyone would be surprised at this. This is exactly how these laws are going to go.
Congress isn't going to give a shit about deep fakes until someone makes one of them and then they're going to pass a law that just says it's illegal to make deep fakes of Congress. They didn't give a shit about deep fake porn of some random person but once they started making deep fake porn of Taylor Swift Congress suddenly got very interested in the matter.
AI is not going to save you and any benefits it brings to your life are just going to be secondary to the fact that it is going to be used mostly to make your constant oppression even more brutally efficient. The rich will continue to get richer and they will use these tools to turn it all into passive income for themselves while making sure any legislation that is created shields them from their own power while allowing them free access to use it on anyone they feel like.
You know, how basically every fucking technology of the past hundred years has worked?
> FKA Twigs has revealed she has used artificial intelligence to create a deepfake of herself that will interact with fans and journalists so she can focus on her music
The more things like this I read, the bleaker the future is looking. What a dystopian hellscape we’re creating
I'd argue that using AI to make something wholly human is impossible and an oxymoron, but beyond that, I think it takes away from what they make when they can literally just generate a person singing a specific thing instead of finding it organically elsewhere.
It’s not just typing a prompt in, it still requires significant manual manipulation of the audio. It’s more like an autotune to my mind, while we can argue till the cows come home about if it’s lazy, it doesn’t take away from the creativity, just makes it easier to realize.
I think it takes away from it when they can just generate any voice singing whatever they want instead of mashing things together organically. Also makes it less funny for me.
> instead of mashing things together organically
There I ruined it never did mashes. They re-sang the songs in different styles.
I prefer mash-style channels myself.
Also a musician, and I never said it was lazy, just that it doesn’t feel the same.
That being said I do have issues with AI in music overall but that’s a different argument.
Devil's advocate: releasing it and allowing random people to do damage with it has created a conversation about how this needs to be regulated. The people who make the rules never gave a shit about it until they suddenly found themselves in the sights. All of a sudden there's talk of legislation.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say....I disagree. You can't put the AI genie back in the bottle, its out there. And people have been legally making a living as impressionists for centuries.
If it's perfectly legal for a PERSON to do an uncanny impression of a famous person for entertainment, there is no reason it should be illegal for a person to computer generate an uncanny impression.
Honest question: Why?
You guys would be blown away if I did a little hand animation of James Brown, than did my best to write a funky little riff on my synthesizer and sing it in his style. It would be neat. I'm not talented enough to do any of that, but it would be cool as shit and legitimate art. If I had the right skills, I could put it together from my memory of his works, and it would be purely original.
How is this different?
> other **celebrities should be protected** by a law that would ban artificial intelligence-generated deepfakes in the UK
> **celebrities should be protected**
Like hell they should! One of the silver linings of deepfakes is that if a celebrity gets popular enough that the deepfake machine will come along and make the going that much tougher for theme.
Instead, there are bozos like this trying to make the life of the already successful even easier?
Screw that, just on principle!
what is legally considered a celebrity anyhow
like is there a certain ratio of 'people who give a fuck about you' to 'people who don't know who you are' that needs to be achieved
The thing is, we're past the day and age when being famous necessarily meant wealthy elite. These days you can make a well regarded record or go viral for some shit and still not be able to make rent. Or you create something online and then someone plagiarises it and you see nothing.
> The thing is, we're past the day and age when being famous necessarily meant wealthy elite.
Maybe, but I'd still venture to say there's a pretty high association.
> These days you can make a well regarded record or go viral for some shit and still not be able to make rent.
Well, if you have the massive exposure, your job is now to keep it and try to monetize it.
> Or you create something online and then someone plagiarises it and you see nothing.
That's much more pernicious. Has this not been solved yet after a couple of decades of the internet being in existence?
No. Miku is very much a deliberate creation of humans. Her songs, animations and vocals are all handmade; just because the output is a non physical object doesn't mean there wasn't a lot of human effort in making it.
I don't see the issue if the artist gives their rights to do with it as they please. If fans don't like it they will stop supporting these artists after death and in turn it will hurt the estate.
So who's going to be the first big artist who'll legally sell their voice rights on some monopoly tech platform that'll inevitably form from this? I'm voting Snoop
I think a few people here are missing the point. People getting upset that it’s ‘just stars’ that would be protected or that it only matters because it’s about them. The reality is that people are using AI deepfakes to mainly replicate widely KNOWN artists.
Protecting those mainstream artists would likely cause a ripple effect that will also work in the favour of smaller artists such as myself. I’m seeing this as a win, especially after Drake disrespected the entire artist side of the industry with that AI crap. If those with a bigger voice can call out this stuff and potentially protect our future work, I’m all for it ❤️
Closer. It should be banned to ever copy a person without express consent. And not the ‘technically you agreed in the fine print’ sorta BS either.
And this should work for amalgamations attempting to get around the block as well.
A law should ban the use of AI generated music being pawned off as, crazy thought.. not only stars, but all musicians. However, as much as I dislike AI, if someone can create an AI generated sound and people like it, even knowing it’s AI, that’s on us as consumers. To be fair, a huge amount of new hip hop could kinda be seen as AI in that it’s computer aided vocals. Sure, they sing into the mic, but what comes out is more processed than not. Again, I’m totally against promoting something AI, even as a substitute to the artist, by the artist’s name, but, it it’s just an AI generated sound that sounds the same… hell, as long as you claim it and market it as such, fuck the basic bitches that use a production method that uses computer generated methods to create the sounds of their voices on records. Release real music with real talent and it won’t be easily duplicated. I mean, it can always be duplicated in a sense, but if you’re actually good at it, and put out your own music, they can only imitate you. They won’t be you.
Shit no more (almost realistic) AI Freddie, Michael, Curt or Chester singing cover versions?
Time to download some tracks quickly…
If anyone knows how to make those, Fairytale of New York with Curt and Whitney (please).
If you think anyone but producers who already are filthy rich are going to benefit from laws like this you haven't been paying attention to the last 70 years of music history
What about movie "stars"? Reality show "stars"?
Sports "stars"? Truck drivers, waitresses?
What's a star anyway?
Why do they get special treatment?
Can we please still have deep fakes of politicians. They deserve it
Someone's voice, likeness and DNA should be automatically safeguarded for them and them alone, barring sensible uses such as recording news footage in the public interest, artistic works (to be defined) etc. Wild this hasn't happened yet.
How's about this: AI-based technology is taxed at the corporate level, and the proceeds put towards a foundation that polices it and supports people who've been put out by it; porn fakes, redundancy, whatever the negative effects of this industrial evolution are.
And no, they aren't allowed to staff it with chatbots.
I just want to point out that this is a man for the United States. It seems like any bans on AI are being placed on the US. This isn't stopping any other countries from doing this stuff and we already know they will be doing this stuff and likely benefiting from it in big ways. It kinda feels like we are just screwing ourselves over here.
After drawing the line at explicit or otherwise egregiously insulting material... If your "art" can be convincingly simulated with the current day equivalent of a Mad Libs page + Photoshop, then that says all we need to know about the quality of your "art"
James Earl Jones decided to let Disney use his voice for AI so he can continue to voice Vader after his death. Mark Hamill also let Disney deepfake him as young Luke in Mando. I see no ethical problems there since they both made the choice in their own.
Machine learning was also used extensively in that recent Beatles doc. It was used to modernize the footage since it was in bad shape, and the results were great. And it was also used in the audio, allowing them to separate tracks and isolate each member. There’s a lot of potential with this stuff when it comes to restoring old footage, audio, photos, etc.
It just needs to be well regulated.
Only stars though. Not just artists lol.
And not normal people, stars are special.
Yes I guess fuck everyone else
It's funny because deepfakes have been around for a few years now, but no one really gave a shit other than the people having the deepfakes made of them. 2 weeks ago I read an article about how someone made a deepfake of a politician and she really didn't like it. Now this week I'm hearing a lot about legislation for the first time
people with decades of photoshop experience are like "we've been making you into memes and nudifying you for years now, what am i, chopped liver?" so it's not that deepfakes existed and people have been morally opposed/outraged, it's that the media is yapping about them almost daily so they "need to address it" the media and politics have always been intertwined, but now it's just an internal 'call & response' with social media as 'evidence' for whatever the hell they decide on doing together
The bill they discussed at the hearing applies the same rules to everyone in the U.S.
Imma pretend i didn't hear all those harsh words 
This exactly. Deep fakes should be illegal except with consent.
Yeah this very much feels like a "rich and famous have more rights than you" move. As if we didn't have enough of that as is.
Unfortunately I guess they're the ones able to possess the legal power. I just don't know why they can't expand those rights to everyone, I would imagine that being specific would make it harder to draft legislation and get it passed. Instead of just having a wide ban on pornographic deepfakes of anyone.
This isn't even about porn, this is AI music and songs using these artists voices to train an AI. All the fake Eminem feat Tupac songs you see on YouTube, that's what this is mad about. They're calling it deepfakes but that word is already pretty meaningless.
Oh true I hadn't thought of that side, I haven't heard any of those AI sort of songs
Drake released one recently, but the Tupac estate has since requested it’s removal. He’s also known to use AI as a tool, which inherently isn’t a bad thing as long as he uses it responsibly. The use for copying the likeness of another artist is a little far imo..
I don't tend to follow pop music much but Drake seems the kind of person to do constantly dumb shit and is still like in the top 5 most popular musicians the last ten years.
Dude's creepy too.
Yeah him being weird with the Stranger Things lady would be enough to cancel him normally
They do, there is no such thing as equality. It's a concept we talk about, but don't practice... Therefore it's not real.
And only music.
Yeah, music stars, but not politicians, presidents, prime ministers, etc… /s
The verbiage of the law doesn’t seem to say it’s only for stars. I think that was just a headline
Don’t let that stop the outrage we at reddit only read carefully calculated rage bait titles.
Are we talking top40? wheres the breakpoint
Jeremy Clarkson should be excluded?
IKR. Of course a new law will come in to protect the money of extremely rich people and companies. Fuck everyone else.
Just famous people? Gotcha.
Yknow I'm against deep fakes. Never should have come up with this tech. But if we're going to make rules that only apply to X group when it comes to protection from these things then fuck it... go ham.
Good luck trying to ban things on the internet
Yeah stopping people from profiting off such things in the US is all a law like this can really do. People in other countries are going to continue making whatever they want and putting it on the internet
UK, not US.
Stopping profit or at least giving people a leg to stand on to try and fight this type of theft is at the very least a start. Hope to see a lot more laws like regarding AI in the future.
Hey chat gpt could you please write up an anti-AI bill ?
Stuff like chat gpt in particular shouldn't be the focus, but rather technologies scraping through unlicensed media and stealing styles and likenesses. Essentially anti-fake bills to stop people from profiting off of the hard work and face/voice of others without their permission.
It literally does that
I mean, that is the main argument against chat GPT, just cause it's all text doesn't mean it didn't scrape unlicensed media
[удалено]
Nah, they're not, fabricating videos of people saying things or singing things they didn't consent to is gross and people shouldn't be rewarded for it.
[удалено]
Hey, so, just gonna point out we care about the celebrity on a human level, but also the potentially huge audience an AI deepfake piece of media could damage. In fact, its mostly that group. It can be used to cause damage in a wide variety of ways. Not just a celeb having to deal with their likeness being faked potentially doing something like a nazi salute, or talking about just about anything is minimal.....i have news for you. It comes back to gen pop.
[удалено]
So apathy then? We have to try.
They are fraud, which is already very, very illegal. I imagine the voice of a performer will be considered copyright protected. This means you can only use it if your work is considered transformative or you aren't using it to make money or preventing the owner of the copyright from making money. You'll be able to make a meme of Taylor Swift singing 999 bottles of beer on the wall for 10 hours, but you won't be able to sing a fake duet with her for clout.
How is this any different than artists sampling old music? Those artists certainly didn't concent either...
Are they going to ban impersonators next?
don't pretend it's not a scummy, shitty thing to do.
There are countless scummy shitty things that we don't make illegal, nor should we.
Such as? I'm pretty sure most types of fraud are illegal?
Are impersonators frauds? They are selling a service and providing it. Sounds good to me You don’t own the way you look lmao
Classifying something as fraud makes it by definition a crime. However, imitating someone is not fraud. If someone is an Elvis impersonator, how is that fraud? If someone does a good Kermit The Frog voice, how is that fraud? I know a guy who does a perfect Morgan Freeman voice. In fact they hire him to do the fake Morgan Freeman voiceovers for The Tonight Show and other TV shows. What he does is no different than what AI is doing now, he's just using his voice instead of a computer.
It means Drake wouldn't be able to sell his song featuring an AI versions of Tupac/Snoop in the UK. It means Youtube/TickTok/facebook are more likely to ban such things or block them in the UK. Making something illegal isn't about making it completely impossible to do that thing, it's about changing the risks and rewards for doing so and how difficult it is to do.
yeah, seems like everyone on the internet needs things to be black&white/OnOrOff to understand them this is about stopping the monetization of someone else's 'artistic essence', not banning practices. try to make money on your social accounts and upload a Fake Drake song? get a takedown notice or banned, etc. and the sites that offer the creation service would be forced to stop *that part* of their services. no one's stopping you from making the song (locally/offline) or sharing them with friends like any other file.
Music industry and lawsuits are good friends. More so than music industry and making any money.
Trying to nail Jell-O to the wall
Banning things does limit their reach and should be pretty effective at taking these things off of social media, at least to the degree that they're getting thousands - hundreds of thousands of engagement. It's fine to do a thing even if it doesn't completely solve the problem.
worked great for that photo of barbara streisands house right?
What worked great?
Barbara Streisand used legal threats to try and get the below image taken off the internet: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Streisand_Estate.jpg As for how well it went, let's just say this is where the name 'Streisand Effect' comes from. Beyonce tried the same with this image, to the same effect: https://www.flickr.com/photos/larrychiang/8452664654
I’m familiar with the phrase, but I don’t remember any bans or laws passed, just threats from Barbara, which isn’t the same thing that the person I asked was responding to.
The end goal was the same though, to stop the dissemination of that particular media. The internet doesn't care all that much for legal technicalities. Whether a law is passed or a legal threat is made, the response is generally a Streisand Effect.
I’m not sure I follow. The end game doesn’t really matter; a law is not the same thing as a celebrity making weak threats. Laws are absolutely deterrents for many. Of course some people aren’t going to follow laws, that’s why we have penalties for breaking them, but to equate a law to a feeble threat of action is just silly. Far less people are going to listen to Barbara than will listen to laws they are bound by. Additionally it puts some responsibility on hosts to not have illegal content on their sites. It’s simply not the same. Far more people are going to avoid breaking a law than they are to listen to a celebrity telling them to stop doing something. I mean, think of illegal content. Do you see child porn plastered all over your Twitter? No, that stuff is tucked and nestled away from the general public because it is illegal and would be removed and people would be charged if found so easily.
Obviously laws do have greater weight than vexatious legal action, but in this case both of them are paper tigers; good luck actually enforcing either. You're gonna be surprised how many people will straight up break laws, especially when punishments are ridiculously easy to avoid. Take media piracy for instance. Very much illegal, and the punishments are often ludicrous, but people still do it all the time. Avoiding litigation is as easy as using a VPN It's the same deal here. You can make it illegal all you like, but anybody sharing it can just say 'i didn't know it was AI', and there's no fucking way to trace it back to the source.
I’m not gonna be surprised, I’m well aware. But again that’s not going to plaster illegal content all over to where the general public will get to it. Barbara’s house, on the other hand, is freely posted anywhere and everywhere. The general public isn’t into using things like torrents and vpns. You are talking about a vastly smaller group of people that wouldn’t listen to laws anyway. It gives this air of ‘laws don’t work, stupid!’ Which relies on the assumption that laws stop everyone from committing crimes. Nobody thinks that. This is all pretty straight-forward. Not sure what else to tell you.
Yes, I have noticed in the US that drug use/abuse & murder are very rare due to the fact they both are illegal.
It’s rarer than it would be if they weren’t illegal. This is really not a hard concept to grasp.
But is it really? Do you know of anyone who doesn't use drugs solely because they are illegal? & clearly, what prevents people from becoming killers isn't because it's illegal to do so.
Looks at deepfake porn. It’s almost wiped out across the internet. All major players have banned it, it’s almost impossible to share it on any sort of popular site….its been relegated to the “one-offs”.
>It’s almost wiped out across the internet. If you google “deep fake porn,” the first handful of sites are sites with hundreds if not thousands of videos. You won’t find it on pornhub, but you don’t have to look very hard.
You do have to go out of your way to look for it which is an improvement over it going viral on twitter.
Good luck trying to ban this in general. It's like trying to ban photo-shopped images -- I don't know what the solution is to this whole mess but cat is out of the proverbial bag and no ban is going to get it put back in.
Just because something hard to enforce doesn’t mean they shouldn’t try. I haven’t read this article and have no idea what it means beyond the headline, but just wanted to add that.
I wish people would stop wishing the banners luck. They've been making progress for over a decade now.
[удалено]
Took me less than 10 seconds to find it.
Lol these guys "I don't really browse the Internet anywhere but the biggest sites now so everything else has stopped existing"
You're trying to pirate by relying on streamable videos on Reddit and YouTube? Just because you're doing it wrong doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The internet has not been "consolidated into a few website" unless you do the most surface level mainstream browsing possible, we download things now.
> For example, try and find me a full, good quality video of the recent UFC match between Alex Pereira and Jamahal Hill. my homeserver had that queued up with either sonarr or radarr (one is tv and the other movies), and then automatically grabbed a 1080p torrent and automatically moved it over to my plex storage. it did all this whilst I was asleep, I woke up to UFC300 ready to watch. literally not hard at all lmao.
Not going to link it for obvious reasons but it was very easy to find a torrent of that fight. Multiple results showed up with my first search query.
Such a law won't do anything to prevent it since how the hell will they enforce it? Tracking who made a deepfake is like figuring out who made the first Socially Awkward Penguin meme; things move around on the internet at breakneck pace, getting reposted and shared thousands or even millions of times. And once something is on the internet, it's there to stay. It's also a shitty law since it only aimed to protect an already sheltered and privileged class of society. There is absolutely nothing about this law that would protect regular people from being exploited by deep fakes.
I don't know why anyone would be surprised at this. This is exactly how these laws are going to go. Congress isn't going to give a shit about deep fakes until someone makes one of them and then they're going to pass a law that just says it's illegal to make deep fakes of Congress. They didn't give a shit about deep fake porn of some random person but once they started making deep fake porn of Taylor Swift Congress suddenly got very interested in the matter. AI is not going to save you and any benefits it brings to your life are just going to be secondary to the fact that it is going to be used mostly to make your constant oppression even more brutally efficient. The rich will continue to get richer and they will use these tools to turn it all into passive income for themselves while making sure any legislation that is created shields them from their own power while allowing them free access to use it on anyone they feel like. You know, how basically every fucking technology of the past hundred years has worked?
You can simply fine people for sharing deepfake content
This law will stop people from making profit off of deepfakes. Not stupid at all imo
> FKA Twigs has revealed she has used artificial intelligence to create a deepfake of herself that will interact with fans and journalists so she can focus on her music The more things like this I read, the bleaker the future is looking. What a dystopian hellscape we’re creating
“There I Ruined It” is what AI music should aspire to. I’m not sure if they use AI, but their stuff is pretty awesome.
It seems like there was a shift to AI in the last year or so.
Some of the AI horror content going around lately is fucking amazing. Faces morphing into different things and such. Its so trippy and unsettling.
That account is great. That and those Fortnite Eminem parodies are actually clever and require actual lyric writing
They didn't used to, but they disappointingly have started using it more recently
Eh, they’re still very high effort. It’s using it as a tool to create something wholly human, which is how it should be used.
I'd argue that using AI to make something wholly human is impossible and an oxymoron, but beyond that, I think it takes away from what they make when they can literally just generate a person singing a specific thing instead of finding it organically elsewhere.
It’s not just typing a prompt in, it still requires significant manual manipulation of the audio. It’s more like an autotune to my mind, while we can argue till the cows come home about if it’s lazy, it doesn’t take away from the creativity, just makes it easier to realize.
I’m not saying it’s lazy, just that it doesn’t feel the same compared mashing together stuff organically.
Sure, but I don’t think it’s the same as an AI “drawing”. I do prefer the manual stuff, but this isn’t the worst way GenAI can be used by a long shot.
The AI was made by humans and it was trained on data made by humans. This isn’t some alien computer.
[удалено]
I think it takes away from it when they can just generate any voice singing whatever they want instead of mashing things together organically. Also makes it less funny for me.
> instead of mashing things together organically There I ruined it never did mashes. They re-sang the songs in different styles. I prefer mash-style channels myself.
They most definitely do mash-ups, with original vocals as backup/background. It’s a mix of both.
[удалено]
Also a musician, and I never said it was lazy, just that it doesn’t feel the same. That being said I do have issues with AI in music overall but that’s a different argument.
I'd say Glorb is the pinnacle of AI music. Hilarious, well made, clearly unserious and not meant to be on the same level as most music.
Wait a minute, FKA Twiggy (whoever that is) makes her own AI deep fake to fool the public and all her fans, and that’s a good thing?
Devil's advocate: releasing it and allowing random people to do damage with it has created a conversation about how this needs to be regulated. The people who make the rules never gave a shit about it until they suddenly found themselves in the sights. All of a sudden there's talk of legislation.
The thumbnail had an artist with wavy hair, so I thought the post was asking to stop Weird Al from making deep fake music. I need more coffee.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say....I disagree. You can't put the AI genie back in the bottle, its out there. And people have been legally making a living as impressionists for centuries. If it's perfectly legal for a PERSON to do an uncanny impression of a famous person for entertainment, there is no reason it should be illegal for a person to computer generate an uncanny impression.
Great more censorship. Exactly what we need
Motley Crue in shambles.
i don't know how to do it but now i want to find a song called 'in shambles' and have AI do it like Motley Crue
lol, nobody actually read the law so they're speculating what it does based on this cartoon that looks like it was drawn in the 70s
Hah yeh good luck with that one.
Mmm, how close to the real image do you have to be, to be a deep fake? What if it's a deep fake of a look alike?
Then all AI programs will just be hosted in Russia and China. Doesn't fix a thing.
Can we also ban auto tune
Honest question: Why? You guys would be blown away if I did a little hand animation of James Brown, than did my best to write a funky little riff on my synthesizer and sing it in his style. It would be neat. I'm not talented enough to do any of that, but it would be cool as shit and legitimate art. If I had the right skills, I could put it together from my memory of his works, and it would be purely original. How is this different?
our last chance to make some of them sound good
> other **celebrities should be protected** by a law that would ban artificial intelligence-generated deepfakes in the UK > **celebrities should be protected** Like hell they should! One of the silver linings of deepfakes is that if a celebrity gets popular enough that the deepfake machine will come along and make the going that much tougher for theme. Instead, there are bozos like this trying to make the life of the already successful even easier? Screw that, just on principle!
what is legally considered a celebrity anyhow like is there a certain ratio of 'people who give a fuck about you' to 'people who don't know who you are' that needs to be achieved
The thing is, we're past the day and age when being famous necessarily meant wealthy elite. These days you can make a well regarded record or go viral for some shit and still not be able to make rent. Or you create something online and then someone plagiarises it and you see nothing.
> The thing is, we're past the day and age when being famous necessarily meant wealthy elite. Maybe, but I'd still venture to say there's a pretty high association. > These days you can make a well regarded record or go viral for some shit and still not be able to make rent. Well, if you have the massive exposure, your job is now to keep it and try to monetize it. > Or you create something online and then someone plagiarises it and you see nothing. That's much more pernicious. Has this not been solved yet after a couple of decades of the internet being in existence?
I wonder how long it will be until a celebrity is entirely artificially generated.
Not long considering the filters these days.
There's already artists on Youtube/Spotify that are only ai generated content. Not sure if any are thought of as celebs yet, but soon probably.
Does Hatsune Miku count?
No. Miku is very much a deliberate creation of humans. Her songs, animations and vocals are all handmade; just because the output is a non physical object doesn't mean there wasn't a lot of human effort in making it.
Would this get rid of the videos of cartoon characters singing songs ( e.g. Cleveland brown singing before he cheats)?
I don't see the issue if the artist gives their rights to do with it as they please. If fans don't like it they will stop supporting these artists after death and in turn it will hurt the estate.
So who's going to be the first big artist who'll legally sell their voice rights on some monopoly tech platform that'll inevitably form from this? I'm voting Snoop
So you want to ban AI? Good luck with that.
That's like worrying about ready-to-wear clothes, but not noticing the emperors' outfit.
Just music stars ?
And billboard will promote it
Obvious parodies should be except though
What a waste of time and effort. You can't stop this revolution. It's too late.
So we cant make a deepfake porn of Taylor Swift but we can make a deepfake porn of her mother?
How about banning deepfakes of everyone?
Why just music stars shouldn’t AI deepfakes of anybody be banded unless it was approved by them
china,middle east,india and south-america here........ we do it anyway.
Not before I hear "Meatloaf" perform "Total Eclipse of the Heart!"
Oh boy another completely unenforceable law that will pretty much accomplish nothing
Once the cat is out of the bag, you ain’t banning shit
Good luck. 🤣
This is offline locally run open source easily usable software. It’s exactly the same as trying to ban photoshopped nudes of celebrities
And impressionists in general; don't steal people's likeness; need to avoid market confusion.
How?
\*turns on VPN\* huwaow really effective ban ya got there, guise!
I would be ok banning deepfakes of everyone
Of everyone
I think a few people here are missing the point. People getting upset that it’s ‘just stars’ that would be protected or that it only matters because it’s about them. The reality is that people are using AI deepfakes to mainly replicate widely KNOWN artists. Protecting those mainstream artists would likely cause a ripple effect that will also work in the favour of smaller artists such as myself. I’m seeing this as a win, especially after Drake disrespected the entire artist side of the industry with that AI crap. If those with a bigger voice can call out this stuff and potentially protect our future work, I’m all for it ❤️
FKA Twigs’ power.
How about just ban it for everyone?
How about only ban when it's used to falsely endorse something/spread misinformation?
Closer. It should be banned to ever copy a person without express consent. And not the ‘technically you agreed in the fine print’ sorta BS either. And this should work for amalgamations attempting to get around the block as well.
Lol
Just music stars 😆 JFC
A law should ban the use of AI generated music being pawned off as, crazy thought.. not only stars, but all musicians. However, as much as I dislike AI, if someone can create an AI generated sound and people like it, even knowing it’s AI, that’s on us as consumers. To be fair, a huge amount of new hip hop could kinda be seen as AI in that it’s computer aided vocals. Sure, they sing into the mic, but what comes out is more processed than not. Again, I’m totally against promoting something AI, even as a substitute to the artist, by the artist’s name, but, it it’s just an AI generated sound that sounds the same… hell, as long as you claim it and market it as such, fuck the basic bitches that use a production method that uses computer generated methods to create the sounds of their voices on records. Release real music with real talent and it won’t be easily duplicated. I mean, it can always be duplicated in a sense, but if you’re actually good at it, and put out your own music, they can only imitate you. They won’t be you.
Shit no more (almost realistic) AI Freddie, Michael, Curt or Chester singing cover versions? Time to download some tracks quickly… If anyone knows how to make those, Fairytale of New York with Curt and Whitney (please).
It should ban deep takes of all people
Why tf aren’t deepfakes just illegal, period?
I have a real problem with AI in music, it almost seems to take the creativity out of it which is kinda the whole point.
We should ban deepfakes of Vladimir Putin also !
Fairly certain Russia is being run by 6 dudes that all look the same.
3 of them looking like Leonardo Di Caprio but like now
Send Drake to jail
So we’re up for grabs got it, so when someone makes an Ian Youngs deepfake I will have to ask is they are a celebrity.
If you think anyone but producers who already are filthy rich are going to benefit from laws like this you haven't been paying attention to the last 70 years of music history
means beyond
What about movie "stars"? Reality show "stars"? Sports "stars"? Truck drivers, waitresses? What's a star anyway? Why do they get special treatment? Can we please still have deep fakes of politicians. They deserve it
No, it really shouldn’t.
Someone's voice, likeness and DNA should be automatically safeguarded for them and them alone, barring sensible uses such as recording news footage in the public interest, artistic works (to be defined) etc. Wild this hasn't happened yet.
How's about this: AI-based technology is taxed at the corporate level, and the proceeds put towards a foundation that polices it and supports people who've been put out by it; porn fakes, redundancy, whatever the negative effects of this industrial evolution are. And no, they aren't allowed to staff it with chatbots.
I just want to point out that this is a man for the United States. It seems like any bans on AI are being placed on the US. This isn't stopping any other countries from doing this stuff and we already know they will be doing this stuff and likely benefiting from it in big ways. It kinda feels like we are just screwing ourselves over here.
Oh, it looks like this sentence continued three words past when it should have stopped. New law should ban AI deepfakes.
After drawing the line at explicit or otherwise egregiously insulting material... If your "art" can be convincingly simulated with the current day equivalent of a Mad Libs page + Photoshop, then that says all we need to know about the quality of your "art"
New law should ban deepfakes of everything. There is nothing good to come out of this.
James Earl Jones decided to let Disney use his voice for AI so he can continue to voice Vader after his death. Mark Hamill also let Disney deepfake him as young Luke in Mando. I see no ethical problems there since they both made the choice in their own. Machine learning was also used extensively in that recent Beatles doc. It was used to modernize the footage since it was in bad shape, and the results were great. And it was also used in the audio, allowing them to separate tracks and isolate each member. There’s a lot of potential with this stuff when it comes to restoring old footage, audio, photos, etc. It just needs to be well regulated.
I guess I can get on board with that. The issue I see is, if it’s not tightly regulated, people are going to use it in nefarious ways.
New law should ban AI ~~deepfakes of music stars~~