Ich verstehe, dass du dich irgendwie gestört fühlst. Man könnte die Gesetze ändern. Aber was genau will man damit erreichen? Warum ist es so wichtig zu kontrollieren, was andere Leute mit ihren Geräten machen?
Mir geht es bei dieser Frage um diesen Willen zur Machtausübung. Es gibt ja schon ultra-viele Vorschriften, sodass man Computer-technisch kaum was machen kann. Ich glaube nicht, dass es Lemmy-Instanzen in der EU gibt, die rechtskonform sind. Was soll sowas?
can exercising one’s agency over their body really be considered “rent-seeking”?
First of all, I am not impressed by this kind of emotional manipulation. You are talking about exercising agency, power, over other people’s bodies. If someone, whether a VFX artist or a hobbyist, would use a likeness without a license, you want them stopped. At the end of the day that means that LEOs will use physical force. You may not think of something like copyright being enforced through physical force, but that is what happens if someone steadfastly refuses to pay fines or damages.
Enforcing intellectual property, like a likeness right, means ultimately exercising power over other people’s bodies. The body whose likeness it is, may not be involved at all. In the typical case of a Hollywood star, they would be completely unaware of what the enforcers are doing.
Rent-seeking is an economics term. Rent-seeking is as rent-seeking does. You may feel that society - the common people -have to suffer for “justice”, like people were expected to suffer for the diving rights of kings. But you can’t expect people not to remark the negative consequences. Well, I guess if I were living in such a monarchy, subject to the divine right of a king, I would be quite circumspect. I wouldn’t want to be tortured or imprisoned, after all. And yet it moves.
Usually, rent-seeking involves property, and yet the right to own property is internationally recognized as a human right.
to alienate workers from their labor and exploit them.
We’re probably not on the same page regarding terminology. This sounds like a Karl Marx idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx’s_theory_of_alienation
Obviously that’s not what you mean. I guess I’m just surprised to see these hints of leftism mixed in with conservative economics.
SAG-AFTRA
…is fundamentally a conservative organization. It’s no coincidence that Ronald Reagan was president of SAG, before becoming president of the US. They will favor the in-group over the out-group and the top over everyone at the bottom. That’s what the doctrines you are repeating are designed for.
The memory feature of ChatGPT is basically like a human taking notes. Of course, the AI can also use other documents as reference. This technique is called RAG. -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrieval-augmented_generation
Sidenote. This isn’t the place to ask technical questions about AI. It’s like asking your friendly neighborhood evangelical about evolution.
I have the distinct impression that a number of people would object to the purpose of re-hosting their content as part of a commercial service, especially one run by Google.
Anyway, now no one has to worry about Google helping people bypass their robots.txt or IP-blocks or whatever counter-measures they take. And Google doesn’t have to worry about being sued. Next stop: The Wayback Machine.
Wenn dich die NPCs in einem Spiel als Milchtrinker beleidigen, wirst du damit leben müssen. Das heißt aber nicht, dass es eine Ausnahme für Programme gibt. So funktioniert das nicht.
Er hat eine Maschine bedient, die Texte generiert. Mit der Maschine hat er einen Text erzeugt, der ihn verleumdet. Soll er sich selber anzeigen?
Nicht vergessen, dass die KI kein Mensch ist. Und wenn, wäre es Beleidigung, wenn nicht nachgewiesen wird, dass die Falschbehauptung auch gegenüber anderen gemacht wurde.
Ich denke, die Hersteller sollten deutlicher auf die Schwächen der Anwendung hinweisen. Ein älterer Mensch weiß ja nicht, was das ist, wenn auf einmal Copilot im Edge Browser auftaucht. Aber ob sowas Schadenersatz wegen seelischer Grausamkeit oä rechtfertigt, glaube ich eher nicht.
Are you really conflating people who make their living based upon their acting skills and likeness with landlords?
No. I am talking about rent-seeking.
Rent-seeking is the act of growing one’s existing wealth by manipulating the social or political environment without creating new wealth.[1] Rent-seeking activities have negative effects on the rest of society. They result in reduced economic efficiency through misallocation of resources, stifled competition, reduced wealth creation, lost government revenue, heightened income inequality,[2][3] risk of growing corruption and cronyism, decreased public trust in institutions, and potential national decline.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
You could argue to what a degree landlords or Elon Musk are engaged in rent-seeking. Likeness rights are a clear example, though.
Imagine in the near future. Some famous person licenses their likeness for a show, game, movie. Maybe the producer hires an unknown actor that is then digitally altered into the famous person, like a more advanced version of Gollum. Or maybe the VFX artists can do it on their own. These guys work. The famous person does nothing. They might be dead, while the rights-owners still collect license fees.
Knowing people who are not famous but are SAG-AFTRA actors, I’m going to have to disagree very much on that.
How do likeness rights benefit non-famous people?
Turning likeness into an intellectual property implies the right to sell it. Apparently you want to argue for likeness, so I don’t see why you would use such clauses as an argument.
That’s a poor and fallacious argument there.
It’s not an argument, as you have recognized. I hoped it would make you think.
You know that not everyone in Hollywood is part of SAG-AFTRA, right? Have you ever wondered what happened to them during the strike? I guess they just have to fend for themselves. If the “union” doesn’t care about those guys, do you think the leadership cares about the small members?
Actors are a conservative lot. At the bottom, you have the “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” and at the top… Well, you know. It’s not common on lemmy to cheer for such a system.
Shocked? You’d think all the people outraged at having their websites scraped would be delighted. That’s probably the real reason for this.
There’s probably not many people here who understand the connection between Invidious and scraping.
Meh. As a german, it just doesn’t make me tingle quite like sending tanks to the east.
I wonder how many of them would actually stand in solidarity with, say, warehouse workers.
Why do you believe that?
That probably indicates a problem with the estimates.
Yes. Also, Europeans work fewer hours per year. There are big differences between EU countries, though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_annual_labor_hours
From the source:
Our primary approach calculates training costs based on hardware depreciation and energy consumption over the duration of model training. Hardware costs include AI accelerator chips (GPUs or TPUs), servers, and interconnection hardware. We use either disclosures from the developer or credible third-party reporting to identify or estimate the hardware type and quantity and training run duration for a given model. We also estimate the energy consumption of the hardware during the final training run of each model.
As an alternative approach, we also calculate the cost to train these models in the cloud using rented hardware. This method is very simple to calculate because cloud providers charge a flat rate per chip-hour, and energy and interconnection costs are factored into the prices. However, it overestimates the cost of many frontier models, which are often trained on hardware owned by the developer rather than on rented cloud hardware.
https://epochai.org/blog/how-much-does-it-cost-to-train-frontier-ai-models
It’s like with people who are stuck in traffic. They are frustrated and so they wish for for change. They wish for more lanes and more roads (and bigger cars, faster cars, more cars). The natural human reaction when something doesn’t work is: Try the same thing harder! It’s not to try something else.
I think we have all been in situations where we failed to push a door open, and so we angrily pushed again harder before easily pulling the door open.
I see lots of people agreeing that there is a problem, as evidenced by the popularity of the term “enshittification”. But the reaction is to double down on the policies that got us here.
You can see that in AI threads here. People call for more intellectual property, more silo-ing of data. Of course, that won’t work and Doctorow has explained that on several occasions. https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/09/ai-monkeys-paw/#bullied-schoolkids https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2024-05-13-spooky-action-at-a-close-up-invisible-hand-5c873636eb47
Other institutions that are apparently considered trustworthy also “side with AI companies”, in that they understand that fair use is in the interest of society. For example, libraries including the Internet Archive. https://www.librarycopyrightalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/AI-principles.pdf https://blog.archive.org/2023/11/02/internet-archive-submits-comments-on-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence/
“framework wherein a programmer would have more decision over how their code is used” <> “governing tech democratically”
That’s a bit of a contradiction, no?
You do realize that the vast majority of voice actors are not famous right?
Yes, that’s the point. You are not defending voice actors by demanding likeness rights.
I am not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Maybe there is some confusion about the technology. You only need a few seconds of audio to clone a voice. You don’t need hours of audio from a professional. That’s why the tech can be used for scams. Likeness rights won’t create jobs for voice actors. Only free money for famous people. You can also generate random voices.
Leading AI voice companies like Elevenlabs require you to have permission to clone a voice. But how can they check if their customers are being truthful? In practice, it simply means that famous people, whose voices are known, may not be imitated. Likeness rights, by their nature, can only be enforced, with any kind of effectiveness, for the rich and famous.
OpenAI tried to hire Johansson. When she declined, they hired a different, less famous actress. Maybe they did that to defend against lawsuits, or maybe it gives better results. If they had engineered a nonexistent voice, it would be almost impossible to make the case that they did not imitate Johansson. But still, everyone is talking about that poor famous, rich person who got ripped off. What about the actress who actually provided the voice? I guess she can look for another job, because Johansson owns that voice type.
one of the few influential unions in the US
You mean Ronald Reagan’s old outfit? Do you even know who Ronald Reagan was?
Das wird so nicht funktionieren. Es ist ziemlich egal, wie du die Verleumdung verbreitest. Es kommt darauf an, dass du es tust.
In diesem Fall ist es ziemlich unwahrscheinlich, dass irgendjemand bei OpenAI jemals auch nur von diesem Mann gehört hat. Wie können sie ihn dann verleumden?
Sollte sein Ruf durch das Produkt gelitten haben, dann gäbe es wahrscheinlich die Möglichkeit Schadenersatz zu verlangen. Der Artikel gibt aber keinen Hinweis auf so einen Schaden. Ich sehe nicht mal einen Hinweis, dass sonst irgendwer ChatGPT über den Mann befragt hätte, geschweige denn die Aussage geglaubt hat.