[joe-collins]

It's the same ethical gap that dogs virtually any AI art project. In your example, some other actor did work in exchange for some satisfactory payment (possibly free). In the case of AI synthesis, actors' work is plagiarized without even compensation.

[orbital-decay]

> In your example, some other actor did work in exchange for some satisfactory payment (possibly free).

In that example, someone else was paid instead of the original actor while using their voice, doing the job that neither the original voice actor nor copyright holder approved (in the context of NSFW mods the article is talking about). What makes it more ethical all of a sudden? What makes it less of a plagiarism?

It seems to me that the actors in the article don't want their names to be associated with NSFW mods in particular (which is understandable), and the AI part is a red herring.

[GalahiSimtam]

This isn't a new debate in the modding community. There were all kind of opinions voiced. Robbie is not fond of AI voices, but he tracks NSFW mods because they are a natural concern.

Anyways, it is the custom there that Nexusmods moderation reacts to suspected mod asset stealing and such an issue can be raised by any website user (as mod authors often leave and are no more around). However, for the voice cloning/impersonating, it requires a notification from the original VA, or some other credible confirmation that the particular VA is against this.

[justinclift]

The actors statements seem to be about their voices being used without permission in any context (AI, etc).

Someone or some group on a crusade against NSFW material seems to be trying to use those actors in their witch hunt.

[JCharante]

The work is plagiarized? They already got paid and it isn’t even work for the actor because it’s a deepfake.

This is like hating libraries because they buy a book once and let everyone read it.

[haswell]

If we want to compare this to libraries, it’s necessary to redefine the role of libraries.

For the analogy to work, libraries now provide the service of generating new books/stories based on works under the library’s care. As a library patron, you’ll give the librarian a prompt, and they’ll generate a book for you.

This book will be intrinsically dependent on the authors of all of the books in the library, but those authors will not be credited or paid for the new work.

“Librarian, please generate a fantasy novel in the style of George R. R. Martin that continues where A Dance with Dragons left off”.

If this is what libraries did, authors would not want their books there.

This is not what libraries do, and the analogy does not hold up.

[stuckinhell]

brilliantly put!

[rcarr]

The library doesn’t have the potential to end the career of every author in existence. If anything it assists their career.

[cyanydeez]

It's worse then that, LOnce that's legal, AI will have no need for fresh input. It'll takeover the business, surround the talent in sheer volume so even if someone wants "real" there's no metric to easily find it without huge effort.

It plagiarizes then effectively puts them out of business.

[imiric]

> It plagiarizes then effectively puts them out of business.

Isn't that a concern for any artist? We've had this discussion with digital art and photography, and decades ago with electronic music, remixes and sampling.

AI is just enabling this on a larger scale, which will disrupt many fields, but copyright law will broaden, and artists will find ways to adapt or change careers.

[haswell]

> We've had this discussion with digital art and photography, and decades ago with electronic music, remixes and sampling

We had very different discussions about all of those things.

There is a certain structural similarity between AI and these past advanced in the form of: new thing disrupts old thing.

But I think it’s deeply problematic to take that analogy much further. Take digital art. I don’t think it’s fair to compare the impact of the advent of digital painting tools with the advent of tools that systematically ingest all paintings and the remove the need for the original artist entirely.

If removing the artist entirely was part of that discussion, I suspect the tooling and legal landscape would look rather different today.

> AI is just enabling this on a larger scale, which will disrupt many fields

“This” and “larger scale” are doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

Nuclear weapons just enable this (blowing things up) at a larger scale. But these weapons also show us that scale introduces risks and factors not present in any prior iteration of the profession of blowing things up.

My point is not that AI art tools are as dangerous as nuclear weapons, obviously, but that “it’s just x at larger scale” breaks down when the shift in scale is large enough.

The result is something entirely new, for which the past rules of engagement no longer apply.

[imiric]

I do agree in part. Scale matters, and the challenges humanity faces with AI are much greater than with any disruptive technology of the past.

That said, we've had similar challenges before, and society has adapted. I'm pessimistic about the long-term existential risks of AI, but the short-term disruptions to jobs and the legal changes that will be required seem manageable, and are not the doomsday scenario that the media makes them up to be.

> But I think it’s deeply problematic to take that analogy much further. Take digital art. I don’t think it’s fair to compare the impact of the advent of digital painting tools with the advent of tools that systematically ingest all paintings and the remove the need for the original artist entirely.

The invention of photography in the 19th century certainly had the same, if not greater, impact for painters. Yet artists adapted, and paintings were able to coexist with the new technology. Photography opened up new avenues for art, but it didn't eliminate the demand for the traditional art form.

So will happen with AI-produced art as well, I think. The markets and our media feeds will be flooded with it, but the demand for human-produced digital art will still exist. It will be challenging to filter and curate human art, especially as the line will be blurred, and many human artists will take advantage of AI. But I don't think any of it will entirely make human artists obsolete.

Anyway, this is all speculation from my side, so I concede that I may be wrong, but it's interesting to think about, and time will tell.