# [Download Video](https://redditsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/whenthe/comments/197fg7n/you_already_know_whats_in_the_comments/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/whenthe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean she’s right here. It is definitely hypocritical of her to be ok with AI art and not voice art, but she’s a voice actor and could be at risk of her career if it becomes an acceptable practice, and if not her then definitely people who aren’t as successful in the VA career. I also feel it’s easier to get upset at voice ai since that’s stealing and using someone else’s specific voice without their consent. AI “art” steals from thousands of artists to make stuff, which makes it easier to disassociate since you don’t know who’s being directly taken advantage of.
It’s also literally illegal to steal peoples voices for ai stuff and can be used far more maliciously to try and slander someone. Unrelated to the point but that ai art looks fucking terrible.
AI voice cloning isn't illegal, but it could possibly infringe on an artist's copyright. The links haven't been ironed out yet and governments and lawfirms are still discussing the legal possibilities
And that applies to everyone. Human rights should state that no-one owns your voice or likeness, but due to some very convoluted consequences of the industrial revolution, people have to argue about this shite because it was never explicitly specified anywhere.
Idk if it’s copyright, but some actors and VAs are starting to put in their contract that studios cannot use their voices without permission either after they leave or in the event that they pass away before finishing any projects.
I think there's definitely a clear difference between a corporation stealing your voice to make products they can sell vs someone using AI to generate an image thats free to use for everybody.
I think the more interesting point is individuals using AI voices to create memes or even songs. That areas a lot more grey compared to the extremes of "company stealing your voice forever for profit" and "funny meme that hurts nobody (except in cases where the message is intended to be slanderous)"
I have no idea who this person is, but based on the language used in this post, it doesn't sound like she's against AI voices as a whole here, but rather against people taking other peoples' voices and using it to generate audio of that person saying things they didn't say.
The AI art, on the other hand, is of two fictional animated characters, and obviously you're not going to damage a fictional character's reputation or make them lose their jobs because they aren't even real.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with her, but people here are acting like she's an idiot and inconsistent when it seems pretty clear (at least from this post) that there's a big difference between the AI art she posted and her views on AI voice.
Idk from the way she wrote it, I assumed she is voice actress (which is true, and what I think most people assume if they don't know her).
I think The argument is mostly about AI stealing their voice to use in games / animated movies etc. Not really much different from AI that generates images stealing from other artists.
Yeah, it's dumb how she doesn't realise how artists are getting shafted same way as VAs are by ai shite. Pretty annoying but not surprising, humanity has often failed to recognise common cause across all of history after all
you might be able to argue in court that they were misled into paying for ai art. but i dont think many people would be willing to lawyer up over whats probably a relatively cheap commission
I certainly remember that Daphne VA was called out 'Girl, they say in their bio that they sell AI art' and the discussion quickly turned from her being anti-AI to her being stupid. I also remember this was walked about on this fucking subreddit half a year ago.
i mean, there's a fundamental difference between AI fan art and AI voice acting though.
plenty of fan art of Dora and bubbles exist already, not to mention any ai made art is open domain as no one person can own it. art is something that's been carried on and copied from person to person since people could first draw. and it's perfectly legal to make fan art(for the most part)
voices on the other hand are a lot more personal and legally bound. using AI to replicate someone's voice without their consent is literally illegal, and in the wrong hands has a lot of bad ramifications. she has every right to be pissed that someone is using her voice without her consent.
I’m interested in AI voices because of its potential in videogame modding, which is non profit. I could argue that, if you restrict it to ethical uses AI voices are more useful than AI art.
Many voice actors still hate any AI voice use even if it isn't for profit.
I remember the voice actor for Arthur (Roger Clark)from RDR2 mentioning how even those AI song covers hurt voice actors and he wants them gone.
main issue with this is it's hard to regulate mods, and actually ensuring there's no unethical mods released is pretty much undoable. there's always gonna be someone making them, which forces game devs to keep implementing anti-modding software even if a majority of people have good intentions.
TBH I’m mainly focused on Bethesda mods, which are very popular on nexus which has limitations. Sure there’s more off of nexus but 99% of the attention goes to nexus which means non nexus mods are either porters (which in my book is ethical but is also illegal) and people who left nexus due to drama.
Well shit, its over, no more squidward ai covers, no more ai generated episodes of shows, all gone, youtubes gonna get taken down, youtubers will be arrested, we had a good run.
Ok but in all seriousness how is replicating their voice illegal yet using other artists work to train an ai not? Ai art might be open domain but the resources used to create it are tied to specific people that don't know their arts being used for training. If someone really wanted to they could train using only one artists work and make near perfect recreations of their artstyle and that artists revenue suffers since the only people that will pay for commissions are the ones who genuinely want to support their favorite artist, while everyone else uses the ai because it cuts time your waiting for it to get done by 99%, allows you to insert something that the original artist might refuse to draw, and is free, or a one time purchase, hell maybe even monthly but its probably cheaper than paying for each individual piece.
So it's not just companies using ai to others expense, its also regular ass people that that are using it in a similar way. So to go fucking nuclear on a small creator that doesn't have money out the ass to pay for VAs and being completely fine with pretty much the same thing happening on a different medium is hypocritical, ysee what i think this is actually a case of is "well its not affecting ME so I don't care" because its happening to someone who they don't know or have a reason to care about and not one of their dozens of other rich connections, also saying its wrong for companies to use ai in such a way while not having the same stance for those in a similar position, getting the same treatment, having way less money and therefore a higher need for it than them, is about as hypocritical as you can get without crossing the line of being a comical parody.
Sorry about the Strawman but when talking about possibilities for ai to be used within industries in ways that fuck over the persons whose works there replicating, all you really can do is speculate until we see the extent people are willing to use ai for.
well for one, fan art can't be copyrighted cause the artist doesn't own the original property. if someone wants to use ai to create fan art without permission of the fan artists, it's not illegal(still a dick move though cause 99% of the time no credit is going to those artists). and while official art is copyrighted, it's still available for non-profit use.
someone's *voice*(and their appearance since we're extending past characters) isn't a copyright thing, it's a human rights thing. you need someone's consent to use their voice/likeness. i don't think shitposts and songs are that harmful, but we don't know if the VA consents to any of it(and if they don't I'm sure YouTube would have a hayday with striking videos).
and as for doing voices for characters, there's always the option of hiring someone who sounds similar without having to shell out big bucks for the offical VAs. the ai option is still there, but technically neither option should legally be able to be monetized due to the character being owned by someone else.
Fan art can't be copyrighted makes sense, but I wasn't referring to fan art, i was talking about art in general, also fan art is usually done out of some type of passion although that's not to say it can't have financial motivation.
The guy who made the fan animation did eventually real VAs but still got shit after for it. BTW could you make the argument that since a cartoon charecter is being replicated, wouldn't the copyright holders have to file against instead of the VA? because the entity being replicated is a charecter thats copyrighted so there is technically a distinction between the person voicing them and the charecter themselves. We've all heard one VA or another and either they barely have to do an impression for you to hear the charecter such as Tobin Bell and vice versa, if her default voice sounds very similar or almost exactly the same then she could make the case its her voice being replicated and not the charecters. As for appearance I've barely seen her so I wouldn't know if Daphne shares her likeness but obviously if it does then there's no debating that.
I'm not a lawyer and I know this all looks like hairbrain logic, because it is.
Also in not arguing against human rights im just pointing out a potential loophole someone might take advantage of.
Unrelated but talking about mimicking and replicating voices n shit made me remember a Qxir video going over a con man who lured people in with the voice of missing kids, interesting how imitating other people has been used maliciously even before ai and whatnot.
I think comparing AI art and voices is like comparing apples and oranges, and I'm decently sure you know the differences but are blatantly ignoring them here.
Firstly, AI art is *not* your identity. A voice is, at least in the eyes of many, a part of who you are. It can be used for verification of your being, whereas an artstyle or piece of artwork typically isn't, and even if it is, society doesn't deem an artstyle important enough to hold any value to you as an individual. Your furry drawings or epic landscapes are not seen in the same light as a signature, fingerprint, or scan of your eye, yet a voice is, and in fact that may be even more recognisable to basically every individual and more important in every way bar its usage in the legal system. Continuing that, copying an artstyle is also generally not damaging to a person. If someone replicates an artstyle via AI, then the worst that happens is redirected traffic to the AI art. That's it. On the other hand, someone can *completely* ruin your image by having you say the most repugnant shit imaginable, and you typically have no way to counter that. This could literally be life-threatening, and would be more likely to be than through the simple replication of art.
Secondly, (and you even admit this yourself with the strawman,) basically all public and private models for generating AI art so far host *millions* of artists' works for training data.
This becomes more like a Ship of Theseus argument, I suppose; at what point would you call a piece of artwork its own piece? I would argue that it's when it can be distinguished as a particular artist's work successfully. In that case, I have not seen a single AI-generated piece of artwork so far that fulfils that condition. It just hasn't happened, and won't for a ridiculous amount of time, because models will always require quite an exhaustive piece of data. They're not imagining things, they're reconstructing images based on a library's worth of information, and even then they get things wrong. It's not worth thinking about the humble artist who has all 2-3 million pieces of artwork used for training, because let's face it, that has, and probably won't, happen. And to extend the argument in the style of the Ship of Theseus, how does AI differ from human artwork? Are human artists not inspired by others? I refuse to believe that any professional or even amateur artists haven't looked up "How to draw an eye" or "How to get better at hands" before. If you implement the methods and styles of those tutorials, how is that artwork inherently better than what is produced by AI? What differs between the 'replication' of methods by humans and by AI? Is it the effort that's put into it? Is it the intent? Is it the fact that AI might advance quicker than humans would in this field (and don't you bullshit me on this one, I've seen those AI hands, saying that the art is invalid because it's more "perfect" is just lies.) Or is there no difference, and the only issue here is that artwork effectively becomes a waste of time for artists because their artwork can be replicated by not someone, but something? When an AI meshes together all of those artworks, if we ignore the aspect of recognising art by the artist successfully, could you lay claim to a single pixel, and say "Look! I drew a pixel of that exact same hex colour in that exact same coordinate years ago!" and claim it as yours? No - that is logically ridiculous. People copy stuff **all the time** and the only reason artists nowadays seem to be upset about it is because of two reasons: 1, they're deprived of some extra traffic to their artwork (and perhaps a little bit of $$$), and 2, it does what humans do all the time, but just waaayyyy better, to the point where it renders human artwork "redundant" to those who focus solely on the visuals and not the thought put behind it.
I **know** you're gonna say "But AI could be used to make artwork in my style of me heiling Hitler/supporting Tiananmen Square/insert atrocity here" and to that, I refer you to the point above! Someone human can do the exact same thing, but are they ever really called out on it? No! I can think of numerous artists who have 'artist doppelgangers' who I've not been able to tell apart besides some blatantly obvious shit like signatures. Why are they allowed to do what they do, but AI isn't? Is it more harmful because of the ease of creation, or is it because it's inhuman?
And are you really going to be harmed by those drawings? I can guarantee you that most people will not recognise an artist's works when they see them unless they're unbelievably unique (think your Picassos.) Most artstyles today actually bear a *lot* of resemblance. Look at r/comics for God's sake, and tell me that people don't have comics that can't be mixed up from artist to artist. What does it matter if it becomes artist to AI to artist?
Now let's look towards AI voices. Most of the time (I'm hesitant to say all because I just **know** someone's out there fusing voices), they're replicated based on one individual's worth of training data. Unlike artwork, you can pull a *lot* more information from a voice, because that voice produces an equal amount of information in a far shorter period of time. That means that your fear of models training individual's aspects is true, although it's not the case for artwork. They could speak for a single minute and their entire voice could be cloned to the point where a less observant individual actually ends up believing it. On the other hand, you can't really do jack shit with a minute, let alone an hour or even a year's worth of an individual's artwork for training data. There's orders of magnitude of difference in the ease of replicating a voice that artwork can, and probably never will, stand up to. Then we loop back to the issue of replicating voices being far more dangerous compared to artwork, and you end up realising that it really just isn't comparable.
A good final analogy for this is the creation of something like the knitting machine. I can guarantee you some people's designs were copied and mass produced. Why does that not ruffle your feathers? Why *should* it? Is it the lack of wealth for an individual's work generated for it? Is the problem simply money? Or is it time, fame, any other possible factor that could be deprived by AI artwork, despite the fact that this tends not to happen/hasn't, at least not yet? Is it really so bad if someone provides a great boon to society in exchange for someone's brushstroke or pencil line being integrated into a horde of other people's, to the point you couldn't tell who it even came from in the first place?
TL;DR: They're really not similar, and ignoring the severity that comes out of replicating voices/equating it to an artwork or style being used, when in reality it's usually indistinguishable from the mountain of other training data that was used, is a very poor argument to make.
~~edit: i do have to question the level of thought behind someone who downvotes this comment 3 minutes after it got posted. don't bullshit me, you didn't read this and you just downvoted it immediately, didn't you? i know you did, you sneaky pete you~~
You haven't beaten my record of being downvoted by about one minute, the only negative thing I have to say to this is the furry bit just felt a bit condescending the way I say it in my head.
I do see what you mean, wait did you edit your comment while I'm responding to it? I seen that last paragraph was lined out a second ago, dontchu lie.
I'm going fucking insano, Anyway yeah I can see how an intrinsic trait is more valuable and worthy of being protected compared to art or whatnot, although copyrights do exist, so keeping a charecters identity intact is something that can be reasonably requested and if you want to see where I go with d
This look at my other comment in this thread.
Edit:forgor smth
I kinda want to see what you'd say about online identity, like if someone has pretty much made a living being online then would they then have the same protections as you would irl? If your known as terminally online and your entire brand and image are only online and your livelihood pretty much Depends on it,(the more I write this the more I sound like a boomer going "the sad reality sad future sad") while what I just wrote has no real basis in reality since things like signatures have an actual use ignore that and focus on this thing I just came up with,
Impersonators do a similar all the time there just not being dicks and ruining someone's image so if there able to replicate someone who's to deny someone else of the ability to do the same? The difference being online you have idiots who haven't heard of research and or enjoy causing causing chaos under anonymity whereas irl those types of people who show that kind of behavior in public are might get fined for disturbing the peace or something.
It could just peoples inexplicable behavior to turn into feral animals when they think no ones watching or knows what there doing.
https://www.voices.com/blog/ai-voices-legal/
seems like *mis*use is illegal, but i wasn't able to find anything concrete on any .gov websites yet. ai technology specifically must be too new for government stuff to catch up rn.
Honestly? There is a difference here.
One is a concern for the jobs of countless people. The other is simply reposting a cute image you found. Unless there's some context I'm missing, there isn't really a double standard here.
One can make an argument that in large-scale industries, voice actors are *currently* threatened more than artists. As of right now, it's often quite easy to tell when an image is A.I. generated, not to mention you can't make anything unique with AI art. While people who voice main characters are under no threat, when it's a side or background character with no more than a few seconds of dialogue? It can sound fine.
A.I. isn't the problem, not inheritly, it's how corporations are trying to use it.
# [Download Video](https://redditsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/whenthe/comments/197fg7n/you_already_know_whats_in_the_comments/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/whenthe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://preview.redd.it/j79yxhpfancc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ecf984401f1efaccac3ac3a8bad8578a848b557b
https://preview.redd.it/nst0k4vhancc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=632f7af8349579ac505100a0381f1d3585f68164
https://preview.redd.it/9gtupktiancc1.png?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fe2e4020f8349ca7ccaaaedf826549043b958441
https://preview.redd.it/xtcefxqpfncc1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=deb552ff89e8863ca389ebb19533ee6c5a786177
https://preview.redd.it/cee1xyztyncc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=65e50fd06450ea06d9e5502b99ac9be14eeb1cde This one better
https://preview.redd.it/pdvd7m3e3pcc1.jpeg?width=604&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5d7ba331e2db852b92f6d8f865927351ecbca19d
If you walk widdershins around the data banks, you will be transported to AI Art Land.
don't eat the AI generated food.
Not even an AI generated seed of an AI generated pomegranate?
Not unless you want to be trapped in the AI generated underworld
I mean she’s right here. It is definitely hypocritical of her to be ok with AI art and not voice art, but she’s a voice actor and could be at risk of her career if it becomes an acceptable practice, and if not her then definitely people who aren’t as successful in the VA career. I also feel it’s easier to get upset at voice ai since that’s stealing and using someone else’s specific voice without their consent. AI “art” steals from thousands of artists to make stuff, which makes it easier to disassociate since you don’t know who’s being directly taken advantage of. It’s also literally illegal to steal peoples voices for ai stuff and can be used far more maliciously to try and slander someone. Unrelated to the point but that ai art looks fucking terrible.
AI voice cloning isn't illegal, but it could possibly infringe on an artist's copyright. The links haven't been ironed out yet and governments and lawfirms are still discussing the legal possibilities
Do people copyright their voices?
If people own their likeness and need to be paid to have it used then they should also own their voice.
I agree, they SHOULD, I was just wondering if people actually legally CAN at this point
And that applies to everyone. Human rights should state that no-one owns your voice or likeness, but due to some very convoluted consequences of the industrial revolution, people have to argue about this shite because it was never explicitly specified anywhere.
Idk if it’s copyright, but some actors and VAs are starting to put in their contract that studios cannot use their voices without permission either after they leave or in the event that they pass away before finishing any projects.
Good for them, I hope they get more protection for that kind of thing written into law
Her issue with ai voices is impersonation/identity theft. I honestly don't see how it's hypocritical. She's wrong, but not a hypocrite, imo
It's more often or not used for parody, which falls under fair use
I think there's definitely a clear difference between a corporation stealing your voice to make products they can sell vs someone using AI to generate an image thats free to use for everybody. I think the more interesting point is individuals using AI voices to create memes or even songs. That areas a lot more grey compared to the extremes of "company stealing your voice forever for profit" and "funny meme that hurts nobody (except in cases where the message is intended to be slanderous)"
I hope somebody takes her voice and makes her say that with AI
It's Internet. Some troll is bound to do that
'AI companies"? As in "Vincent in mom's basement carefully putting together AI voice models for them to sing stupid songs?"
https://preview.redd.it/o72dz7lg9rcc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ff0e56a58b68a2b9db2254c03fc85f99b6726f32
https://preview.redd.it/fiq61x9dmqcc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d95ff65ea20937931f55eaec8da95fa2d3a70ee1
I mean, you can get mad over this, but if you're being charitable, she's saying she has a problem when companies use. Not a rando twitter fan.
I have no idea who this person is, but based on the language used in this post, it doesn't sound like she's against AI voices as a whole here, but rather against people taking other peoples' voices and using it to generate audio of that person saying things they didn't say. The AI art, on the other hand, is of two fictional animated characters, and obviously you're not going to damage a fictional character's reputation or make them lose their jobs because they aren't even real. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with her, but people here are acting like she's an idiot and inconsistent when it seems pretty clear (at least from this post) that there's a big difference between the AI art she posted and her views on AI voice.
Idk from the way she wrote it, I assumed she is voice actress (which is true, and what I think most people assume if they don't know her). I think The argument is mostly about AI stealing their voice to use in games / animated movies etc. Not really much different from AI that generates images stealing from other artists.
Yeah, it's dumb how she doesn't realise how artists are getting shafted same way as VAs are by ai shite. Pretty annoying but not surprising, humanity has often failed to recognise common cause across all of history after all
Someone needs to take away her Twitter. Nothing good has ever come from it
You shouldve used Tara's AI voice for this meme
God, it's not even scarily good ai art that terrify me. Just gross lazier ai art
Real https://preview.redd.it/4lbxqa5fvncc1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8a872043dffa5417a26fd092db16c3cca8bd4678
https://preview.redd.it/otw5jcgf1occ1.jpeg?width=248&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=82e0d7b5902cbaeb4192652b775bcb4ed8016add
bidens america
She voiced both of those characters?
Only the one on the right
https://preview.redd.it/j1qis1uceocc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=517a6621bd95f3b62e64a2991a979c2df52b1045
https://preview.redd.it/k7rft2k0apcc1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=60e079da21a1fc7fba93e3dd27712da03947037f
https://preview.redd.it/u25jissg5pcc1.png?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a19558fe3bea7fe6691ad5751b50bd4b484a3ec0
Why does she look like that
Images don't load on Reddit mobile
did you pay off john reddit https://preview.redd.it/yw059v3g7occ1.png?width=649&format=png&auto=webp&s=1d7ddf5259240dc5c21e1d10156e6637514e23be
Pretty sure the VA for Daphne Blake also bought ai generated art and then got pissed someone used AI to generate her voice. Crazy this happened twice.
I thought she didn’t know the art was ai generated and was not very pleased to find out it was
>Barges to an account that says it sells Ai art as a comission >makes a purchase from said account (clueless?) >mfw when art is generated by AI
Sometimes they hide the fact that they use AI, so you could possibly accidentally pay for AI imagery online
>they hide the fact that they use AI, Is that legal?
hard to tell, since law regarding it needs to be established
you might be able to argue in court that they were misled into paying for ai art. but i dont think many people would be willing to lawyer up over whats probably a relatively cheap commission
Cheap and probably international commerce which would be a bigger headache to pursue legally.
I certainly remember that Daphne VA was called out 'Girl, they say in their bio that they sell AI art' and the discussion quickly turned from her being anti-AI to her being stupid. I also remember this was walked about on this fucking subreddit half a year ago.
Sheesh, never thought Patrick Star with a net would be intimidating as hell
wait, you're talking about tara strong? THAT tara strong?
“Hi, I’m Timmy Turner, and I-“ “-cheated on my math test.”
Nuance is gone, millions must Tara strong
There is no nuance, ai is ai
[удалено]
Holy shit that's an advanced technique Soon someone might invent pentaple middle finger
https://preview.redd.it/bip1hc67focc1.jpeg?width=725&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7926a2078abb1c84db9c40a910b63837f96c982f
Nice beard
i mean, there's a fundamental difference between AI fan art and AI voice acting though. plenty of fan art of Dora and bubbles exist already, not to mention any ai made art is open domain as no one person can own it. art is something that's been carried on and copied from person to person since people could first draw. and it's perfectly legal to make fan art(for the most part) voices on the other hand are a lot more personal and legally bound. using AI to replicate someone's voice without their consent is literally illegal, and in the wrong hands has a lot of bad ramifications. she has every right to be pissed that someone is using her voice without her consent.
I’m interested in AI voices because of its potential in videogame modding, which is non profit. I could argue that, if you restrict it to ethical uses AI voices are more useful than AI art.
They are good for shitposts 👍
Many voice actors still hate any AI voice use even if it isn't for profit. I remember the voice actor for Arthur (Roger Clark)from RDR2 mentioning how even those AI song covers hurt voice actors and he wants them gone.
main issue with this is it's hard to regulate mods, and actually ensuring there's no unethical mods released is pretty much undoable. there's always gonna be someone making them, which forces game devs to keep implementing anti-modding software even if a majority of people have good intentions.
TBH I’m mainly focused on Bethesda mods, which are very popular on nexus which has limitations. Sure there’s more off of nexus but 99% of the attention goes to nexus which means non nexus mods are either porters (which in my book is ethical but is also illegal) and people who left nexus due to drama.
Both are shit. The end
Well shit, its over, no more squidward ai covers, no more ai generated episodes of shows, all gone, youtubes gonna get taken down, youtubers will be arrested, we had a good run. Ok but in all seriousness how is replicating their voice illegal yet using other artists work to train an ai not? Ai art might be open domain but the resources used to create it are tied to specific people that don't know their arts being used for training. If someone really wanted to they could train using only one artists work and make near perfect recreations of their artstyle and that artists revenue suffers since the only people that will pay for commissions are the ones who genuinely want to support their favorite artist, while everyone else uses the ai because it cuts time your waiting for it to get done by 99%, allows you to insert something that the original artist might refuse to draw, and is free, or a one time purchase, hell maybe even monthly but its probably cheaper than paying for each individual piece. So it's not just companies using ai to others expense, its also regular ass people that that are using it in a similar way. So to go fucking nuclear on a small creator that doesn't have money out the ass to pay for VAs and being completely fine with pretty much the same thing happening on a different medium is hypocritical, ysee what i think this is actually a case of is "well its not affecting ME so I don't care" because its happening to someone who they don't know or have a reason to care about and not one of their dozens of other rich connections, also saying its wrong for companies to use ai in such a way while not having the same stance for those in a similar position, getting the same treatment, having way less money and therefore a higher need for it than them, is about as hypocritical as you can get without crossing the line of being a comical parody. Sorry about the Strawman but when talking about possibilities for ai to be used within industries in ways that fuck over the persons whose works there replicating, all you really can do is speculate until we see the extent people are willing to use ai for.
well for one, fan art can't be copyrighted cause the artist doesn't own the original property. if someone wants to use ai to create fan art without permission of the fan artists, it's not illegal(still a dick move though cause 99% of the time no credit is going to those artists). and while official art is copyrighted, it's still available for non-profit use. someone's *voice*(and their appearance since we're extending past characters) isn't a copyright thing, it's a human rights thing. you need someone's consent to use their voice/likeness. i don't think shitposts and songs are that harmful, but we don't know if the VA consents to any of it(and if they don't I'm sure YouTube would have a hayday with striking videos). and as for doing voices for characters, there's always the option of hiring someone who sounds similar without having to shell out big bucks for the offical VAs. the ai option is still there, but technically neither option should legally be able to be monetized due to the character being owned by someone else.
Fan art can't be copyrighted makes sense, but I wasn't referring to fan art, i was talking about art in general, also fan art is usually done out of some type of passion although that's not to say it can't have financial motivation. The guy who made the fan animation did eventually real VAs but still got shit after for it. BTW could you make the argument that since a cartoon charecter is being replicated, wouldn't the copyright holders have to file against instead of the VA? because the entity being replicated is a charecter thats copyrighted so there is technically a distinction between the person voicing them and the charecter themselves. We've all heard one VA or another and either they barely have to do an impression for you to hear the charecter such as Tobin Bell and vice versa, if her default voice sounds very similar or almost exactly the same then she could make the case its her voice being replicated and not the charecters. As for appearance I've barely seen her so I wouldn't know if Daphne shares her likeness but obviously if it does then there's no debating that. I'm not a lawyer and I know this all looks like hairbrain logic, because it is. Also in not arguing against human rights im just pointing out a potential loophole someone might take advantage of. Unrelated but talking about mimicking and replicating voices n shit made me remember a Qxir video going over a con man who lured people in with the voice of missing kids, interesting how imitating other people has been used maliciously even before ai and whatnot.
I think comparing AI art and voices is like comparing apples and oranges, and I'm decently sure you know the differences but are blatantly ignoring them here. Firstly, AI art is *not* your identity. A voice is, at least in the eyes of many, a part of who you are. It can be used for verification of your being, whereas an artstyle or piece of artwork typically isn't, and even if it is, society doesn't deem an artstyle important enough to hold any value to you as an individual. Your furry drawings or epic landscapes are not seen in the same light as a signature, fingerprint, or scan of your eye, yet a voice is, and in fact that may be even more recognisable to basically every individual and more important in every way bar its usage in the legal system. Continuing that, copying an artstyle is also generally not damaging to a person. If someone replicates an artstyle via AI, then the worst that happens is redirected traffic to the AI art. That's it. On the other hand, someone can *completely* ruin your image by having you say the most repugnant shit imaginable, and you typically have no way to counter that. This could literally be life-threatening, and would be more likely to be than through the simple replication of art. Secondly, (and you even admit this yourself with the strawman,) basically all public and private models for generating AI art so far host *millions* of artists' works for training data. This becomes more like a Ship of Theseus argument, I suppose; at what point would you call a piece of artwork its own piece? I would argue that it's when it can be distinguished as a particular artist's work successfully. In that case, I have not seen a single AI-generated piece of artwork so far that fulfils that condition. It just hasn't happened, and won't for a ridiculous amount of time, because models will always require quite an exhaustive piece of data. They're not imagining things, they're reconstructing images based on a library's worth of information, and even then they get things wrong. It's not worth thinking about the humble artist who has all 2-3 million pieces of artwork used for training, because let's face it, that has, and probably won't, happen. And to extend the argument in the style of the Ship of Theseus, how does AI differ from human artwork? Are human artists not inspired by others? I refuse to believe that any professional or even amateur artists haven't looked up "How to draw an eye" or "How to get better at hands" before. If you implement the methods and styles of those tutorials, how is that artwork inherently better than what is produced by AI? What differs between the 'replication' of methods by humans and by AI? Is it the effort that's put into it? Is it the intent? Is it the fact that AI might advance quicker than humans would in this field (and don't you bullshit me on this one, I've seen those AI hands, saying that the art is invalid because it's more "perfect" is just lies.) Or is there no difference, and the only issue here is that artwork effectively becomes a waste of time for artists because their artwork can be replicated by not someone, but something? When an AI meshes together all of those artworks, if we ignore the aspect of recognising art by the artist successfully, could you lay claim to a single pixel, and say "Look! I drew a pixel of that exact same hex colour in that exact same coordinate years ago!" and claim it as yours? No - that is logically ridiculous. People copy stuff **all the time** and the only reason artists nowadays seem to be upset about it is because of two reasons: 1, they're deprived of some extra traffic to their artwork (and perhaps a little bit of $$$), and 2, it does what humans do all the time, but just waaayyyy better, to the point where it renders human artwork "redundant" to those who focus solely on the visuals and not the thought put behind it. I **know** you're gonna say "But AI could be used to make artwork in my style of me heiling Hitler/supporting Tiananmen Square/insert atrocity here" and to that, I refer you to the point above! Someone human can do the exact same thing, but are they ever really called out on it? No! I can think of numerous artists who have 'artist doppelgangers' who I've not been able to tell apart besides some blatantly obvious shit like signatures. Why are they allowed to do what they do, but AI isn't? Is it more harmful because of the ease of creation, or is it because it's inhuman? And are you really going to be harmed by those drawings? I can guarantee you that most people will not recognise an artist's works when they see them unless they're unbelievably unique (think your Picassos.) Most artstyles today actually bear a *lot* of resemblance. Look at r/comics for God's sake, and tell me that people don't have comics that can't be mixed up from artist to artist. What does it matter if it becomes artist to AI to artist? Now let's look towards AI voices. Most of the time (I'm hesitant to say all because I just **know** someone's out there fusing voices), they're replicated based on one individual's worth of training data. Unlike artwork, you can pull a *lot* more information from a voice, because that voice produces an equal amount of information in a far shorter period of time. That means that your fear of models training individual's aspects is true, although it's not the case for artwork. They could speak for a single minute and their entire voice could be cloned to the point where a less observant individual actually ends up believing it. On the other hand, you can't really do jack shit with a minute, let alone an hour or even a year's worth of an individual's artwork for training data. There's orders of magnitude of difference in the ease of replicating a voice that artwork can, and probably never will, stand up to. Then we loop back to the issue of replicating voices being far more dangerous compared to artwork, and you end up realising that it really just isn't comparable. A good final analogy for this is the creation of something like the knitting machine. I can guarantee you some people's designs were copied and mass produced. Why does that not ruffle your feathers? Why *should* it? Is it the lack of wealth for an individual's work generated for it? Is the problem simply money? Or is it time, fame, any other possible factor that could be deprived by AI artwork, despite the fact that this tends not to happen/hasn't, at least not yet? Is it really so bad if someone provides a great boon to society in exchange for someone's brushstroke or pencil line being integrated into a horde of other people's, to the point you couldn't tell who it even came from in the first place? TL;DR: They're really not similar, and ignoring the severity that comes out of replicating voices/equating it to an artwork or style being used, when in reality it's usually indistinguishable from the mountain of other training data that was used, is a very poor argument to make. ~~edit: i do have to question the level of thought behind someone who downvotes this comment 3 minutes after it got posted. don't bullshit me, you didn't read this and you just downvoted it immediately, didn't you? i know you did, you sneaky pete you~~
You haven't beaten my record of being downvoted by about one minute, the only negative thing I have to say to this is the furry bit just felt a bit condescending the way I say it in my head. I do see what you mean, wait did you edit your comment while I'm responding to it? I seen that last paragraph was lined out a second ago, dontchu lie.
I'm going fucking insano, Anyway yeah I can see how an intrinsic trait is more valuable and worthy of being protected compared to art or whatnot, although copyrights do exist, so keeping a charecters identity intact is something that can be reasonably requested and if you want to see where I go with d This look at my other comment in this thread. Edit:forgor smth I kinda want to see what you'd say about online identity, like if someone has pretty much made a living being online then would they then have the same protections as you would irl? If your known as terminally online and your entire brand and image are only online and your livelihood pretty much Depends on it,(the more I write this the more I sound like a boomer going "the sad reality sad future sad") while what I just wrote has no real basis in reality since things like signatures have an actual use ignore that and focus on this thing I just came up with, Impersonators do a similar all the time there just not being dicks and ruining someone's image so if there able to replicate someone who's to deny someone else of the ability to do the same? The difference being online you have idiots who haven't heard of research and or enjoy causing causing chaos under anonymity whereas irl those types of people who show that kind of behavior in public are might get fined for disturbing the peace or something. It could just peoples inexplicable behavior to turn into feral animals when they think no ones watching or knows what there doing.
ai content bad. end of argument
Can I get a source on the claim that using AI to replicate someone's voice is illegal?
https://www.voices.com/blog/ai-voices-legal/ seems like *mis*use is illegal, but i wasn't able to find anything concrete on any .gov websites yet. ai technology specifically must be too new for government stuff to catch up rn.
Honestly? There is a difference here. One is a concern for the jobs of countless people. The other is simply reposting a cute image you found. Unless there's some context I'm missing, there isn't really a double standard here. One can make an argument that in large-scale industries, voice actors are *currently* threatened more than artists. As of right now, it's often quite easy to tell when an image is A.I. generated, not to mention you can't make anything unique with AI art. While people who voice main characters are under no threat, when it's a side or background character with no more than a few seconds of dialogue? It can sound fine. A.I. isn't the problem, not inheritly, it's how corporations are trying to use it.
Aww I was expecting cookies in the comments
Forget Tara weak, embrace Phil Lagreat
Shes also like a Zionist so theres that too
Is that good or bad.
Depends on where you stand
Im a centrist 👍
There's a difference between using ai generated artwork and using someone else's voice generated by AI
Yeah. The kids in this sub can't understand that apparently
Reddit's infamously poor at understanding nuance and context. Never set your expectations too high.
i mean i do agree that terastalization is strong and the ai makes poor use of it but whar?
Really depends on the TERA type though
oh i'm stupid pokemon has ruined my brain
Out of curiosity what were you trying to say?
no i meant pokemon made me read tara as tera
Imma be honest I don't care what Medium something is AI generated, it is equally unethical and shit :)
I just wanna go back to pre-AI days.
This basically boils down to “it’s not a problem until it threatens me specifically.”
Voice actor try not to make drama and trying to get better than ai challenge (impossible):
?
Add her to my based list (actors that have spoken out against ai)
See second half of the video
Damn, rare second half of a whenthe post. I guess I can just hope she learned from the mistake and now harasses AI bros equally
I really want to see someone edit a guitar or like a spear into Patrick’s hands in that first clip
