Recently a famous actress accused an AI company of using her voice without her permission. She says this company approached her about using her voice as the voice of a new product. She declined the offer.
Now she claims the voice of the product is a dead ringer for her voice and is suing the AI company for using her voice without her permission. What could have happened is that this company could have hired an impersonator and used their voice to develop their product. I think this is the most likely thing that happened.
This sparked an interesting idea in my mind. What LLM are doing is imitating. We all do it all the time. Musicians do it when they write songs. We all do it when we write. We can't help but be influenced by others. Of course there are even professional impersonators. Under current IP "law" I do not believe that an impersonator can be sued for stealing the likeness of those they impersonate. So, given that LLM simply use information/data that is publicly available how can what they are doing be unlawful or even immoral?
Imagine a world like this. I color my hair and cut it in a certain way that is new and different. Does it seem reasonable that I could use the government to prevent anyone else from doing what I have done? Its absurd right? Why? Because a hair style can't be stolen. Its not tangible. It can be copied or imitated though.
This cuts to the core of the logical flaws in idea of intellectual property. Most people really only look at the utility of things like IP instead of reasoning about them. You can make arguments about why IP is needed to protect something but when you really break it down logically it is full of contradictions. It falls apart. Its arbitrary.
If I write something on my own web site on the Internet and do not specify a license legally you are not allowed to duplicate it. Once I publish it though I have zero control over it. Anyone can read it and "steal" it. But they can't really steal it right? I mean, I don't even have possession of it. Anything that can be infinitely copied cannot be stolen. It can be copied. It can be copied and changed. You see theft requires the possession of an object to change. When you copy what I have written here what I wrote does not cease to exist. No matter how much I don't like that the only way this can be stopped is for me to never share it.
The only reason IP even exists is the state. The state arbitrarily decides who has the "right" to ideas and intangible things like songs and prose. And we know how the state enforces things. Violence and the threat of violence.
I am really looking forward to watching all of the absurdities that will come out of AI companies copying and imitating things broadcasted online. Grab the popcorn. Its gonna be fun.
If you find this interesting I suggest you check out the work of Stephan Kinsella.
reply
Here's another way of thinking about IP.
If I go outside in front of a crowd of people and share an idea I have, is it rational to think I have any right to restrict what those people do with that idea? If I do not want someone to know/copy my ideas I should not broadcast them.
Let's change the situation a bit.
If I have a conversation with a friend and share something in confidence. Then they tell others what I shared what has happened? My "friend" has violated a trust. You see, I trusted them. They didn't steal from me, they simple violated an agreement we had. You see, this is how contracts should work. This has nothing to do with IP. IP doesn't exist. It is a illogical idea that many have been tricked into believing.
What if I had a company and we developed something revolutionary. As a condition of employment you agree to not disclose this development with others. You agree to honor this agreement. Then some company approaches you and offers you 1 bitcoin to break your agreement. You spill the beans. Has theft occurred? OR has a violation of a contract occurred.
Its the later, not the former. Information has been shared to a broader group of people. The ideas cannot be deleted. They can't be held in your hand. Two people can separately come up with them independent from each other.
Most of the objections to my position on IP can be answered by contracts and a working legal system that is not manipulated by the state.
reply
This was the scarlett johansson thing with openai, right? The company leader seems kind of scummy.
reply
Kinda? Dude is super shady.
reply
Yeah. Eventually things will catch up with him. Im sure it will be another CEO with a golden parachute.
reply
He's the guy behind world coin. The eye scanning scam.
reply
55 sats \ 2 replies \ @mo 5 Jul
I agree! We constantly get inspired, learn, copy, reformulate and use. Copyright and Patents are just a tool to feed the current system.
Everything should be open source, with accreditation, supported by the V4V model
reply
That's what I think too. I would only add that if someone wants to keep something private there is nothing wrong with that. Everything being open is not something I think you mean. But if you do put something out there it is out there. I don't trust close source stuff.
reply
55 sats \ 0 replies \ @mo 6 Jul
Yep definitely. When I say everything I mean everything you want to share publicly.
The fact that people aim to monetise ideas just create friction in evolution and knowledge development. Big egos also play a big role in this dirty game.
reply
💯If AI was stealing, the neural network from a human brain and randomness from a hand out of flesh would be stealing too.
reply
Excellent take. IP is a fool's errand. Check out what people are doing with WebSim if you haven't already; pretty exciting indeed.
reply
For the record. I do not like these AI companies nor do I like the companies that are suing them. Its just entertaining to watch the increasingly absurd world be exposed.
reply
That is totally true... everyone has something different and personal peculiarity that distinguishes them from others... and nothing can be done... now with artificial intelligence, issues like this come to light where some accuse others of copying their voice and I don't know what... we all imitate all the time or are influenced by others, that's how it has always been to live in society... I think that one should be oneself and that's it💪
reply
"I invent nothing, I rediscover" A.Rodin
reply
to me it depends because In many jurisdictions, intellectual property laws govern the use and protection of innovative ideas, algorithms, and technologies. If AI companies replicate or use another company's technology without permission, it can potentially constitute infringement, which is legally considered stealing.
reply
The use of an actress's voice by an AI company without her permission raises significant ethical and legal questions about intellectual property and the boundaries of imitation.
reply
Let's say I wanted the intro to my podcast to sound like some famous person. So I hire an impersonator. How would that be different.
reply
You are responding to a bot. How ironic.
reply
That's funny
reply
Hiring an impersonator to mimic a famous person for the intro to your podcast could potentially infringe on intellectual property rights, particularly if the impersonation is too close to the original and could confuse listeners into thinking they are hearing the actual famous person. This could lead to legal issues related to identity rights, trademarks, or copyrights depending on the jurisdiction and the laws governing impersonation and intellectual property.
If you are considering such an approach, it's advisable to consult with a legal expert who specializes in entertainment law or intellectual property to ensure that your use of an impersonator is within legal bounds and doesn't infringe on any rights associated with the famous person you are trying to mimic.
reply