A new comedy special starts with the quote, “I’m sorry it took me so long to come out with new material, but I do have a pretty good excuse. I was dead.”
The voice sounds like comedian George Carlin, but that would be impossible, as Carlin died in 2008. The voice in the special is actually generated by an artificial intelligence (AI).
“This is not my father. It’s so ghoulish. It’s so creepy,” Carlin’s daughter, Kelly Carlin-McCall, told As It Happens host Nil Köksal.
The YouTube account Dudesy, which is described as a podcast, artificial intelligence and “first of its kind media experiment,” released the hour-long special on Jan. 9. CBC reached out to the producers of Dudesy and its co-host Will Sasso for comment, but did not get a response.
Sasso and co-host Chad Kultgen say they can’t reveal the company behind the AI due to a non-disclosure agreement, according to Vice. The channel launched in March 2022.
Carlin-McCall said the channel never reached out to the family or asked for permission to use her father’s likeness. She says her father took great pride in the thought and effort he put into writing his material.
Why is this or should be a crime? You wouldn’t call an Elvis impersonator a criminal, why is it different when it comes from a piece of technology?
I get why his daughter finds it creepy, but I just listened to it and I liked it, they don’t seem to be trying to fool anyone and make very clear it’s an ai impersonation. I see it more like a kind of homage or something, it’s not like they’re putting his face on an ad. I don’t think you should need permission from the dead person’s family for this kind of things.
Because it doesn’t come from a person. Sure, a person wrote the script and handles the generator. But we haven’t decided yet as humans whether something made entirely by the machine with minimum human input counts yet as agency.
When a human impersonates a celebrity, it’s partially imperfect. There’s a person underneath that can’t hide and, most importantly, someone we can engage with in good faith to discern intent. They can tells us whether it’s satire, admiration, greed or whatever. Things we can relate to.
When a machine does it, it usually is way too pitch perfect. And it’s separate one or two degrees from the initiator, the person running the model, posting, etc. This makes it fall on the uncanny valley. The machine cannot be asked for its intention, it has no emotions, it conceals no motive, it posses no goal. You have to hunt down the owner and this makes it so the machine is perceived as a soulless puppet. You cannot relate nor empathize with its product. It’s a nothing imitation, with no art or passion.
Part of this is because he is not doing a Carlin comedy routine, he’s writing and putting words, implying thoughts and beliefs into Carlin’s voice. This is fundamentally different and more transgressing of Carlin’s legacy. An Elvis impersonator, sings Elvis songs as Elvis had sung them. They don’t write new original songs then try to pass them at if Elvis is now singing, and implicitly endorsing, new material.
Then on the topic of whether it’s a crime, it’s only if there’s genuine intent. Entertainment and satire are some of the valid reasons. And even then, there are people who disagree and find them tasteless and disrespectful. This is not new, not everyone is happy to see their passed away loved ones or idols be mocked or reanimated as puppets.
Unless I’m mistaken, the ai wrote the jokes itself. Basically it was fed Carlin material and attempted to mimic his style, cadence, and voice.
And I’m not sure how you can claim they are trying to imply he made these jokes, its introduced with the ai being very clear that this is not the case.
This is basically an Elvis impersonator, except it wrote it’s own Elvis songs. And, of course, it isn’t human.
I feel like your argument boils down to it not being human. This might be a distinction that we have to and should make, but your argument for that distinction seems pretty arbitrary right now.
Yes, welcome to humankind. Most of emotional matters are arbitrary. And yes, the argument is that it was not, attributable, made by a human.
The question the previous poster asked was “Why is this or should be a crime?”
You answered “Because it doesn’t come from a person.”
I wasn’t responding to a claim about emotional matters, but legal matters.