George Carlin's estate has filed a lawsuit against the creators behind an AI-generated comedy special featuring a recreation of the comedian's voice.

George Carlin Estate Files Lawsuit Against Group Behind AI-Generated Stand-Up Special: ‘A Casual Theft of a Great American Artist’s Work’::George Carlin’s estate has filed a lawsuit against the creators behind an AI-generated comedy special featuring a recreation of the comedian’s voice.

  • ClamDrinker@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    10 months ago

    We can argue their motives all we want (I’m pretty uninterested in it personally), but we aren’t them and we don’t even know what the process was to make it

    Yes, that is sort of my point. I’m not sure either, but neither did the person I responded to (in my first comment before yours). And to make assumptions with such negative implications is very unhealthy in my opinion.

    and I think that is because the whole thing sure would seem less impressive if they just admitted that they wrote it.

    It’s the first time I hear someone suggest they passed of their own work as AI, but it could also be true. Although AI assisted material is considered to be the same as fully AI generated by some. But again, we don’t know.

    I laughed maybe once, because the whole thing was not very funny in addition to being a (reverse?) hack attempt by them to deliver bits of their own material as something Carlin would say.

    I definitely don’t think it meets George’s level. But it was amusing to me. Which is about what I’d expect of an homage.

    • aesthelete@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      10 months ago

      to make assumptions with such negative implications is very unhealthy in my opinion

      Healthy or not, my lived experience is that assuming people are motivated by the things people are typically motivated by (e.g. greed, the desire for fame) is more often correct than assuming people have pure motives. The actions a person takes also count a great deal and if these bozos truly wanted to create an homage to Carlin, they would have talked to his living family members and started the process with a conversation rather than throwing it up on YouTube.

      George Carlin worked his ass off in his last years on Earth purposefully to provide for his family and relatives and to create a legacy that he could pass onto them…not consulting them at all is at least a little bit of a piss on his grave.

      Watch “George Carlin’s American Dream” which was made with the full consent and involvement of his family by a person who truly admired him and you will see the difference in material. George wasn’t perfect by any stretch of the imagination, and his material was often dark…but he was clearly motivated to continue working long after most people would have retired, and that had to do in large part with his family and the role he felt he needed to play within it.

      • ClamDrinker@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        10 months ago

        Healthy or not, my lived experience is that assuming people are motivated by the things people are typically motivated by (e.g. greed, the desire for fame) is more often correct than assuming people have pure motives.

        Everyone likes praise to a certain extent, and desiring recognition for what you’ve made is independent from your intentions otherwise. My personal experience working with talented creative people is that the two are often intertwined. If you can make something that’s both fulfilling and economically sustainable, that’s what you’ll do. You can make something that’s extremely fulfilling, but if it doesn’t appeal to anyone but yourself, it doesn’t pay the bills. I’m not saying it’s not possible for them to not have that motivation, but in my opinion anyone ascribed to be malicious must be to some point proven to be that way. I have seen no such proof.

        I really understand your second point but… as with many things, some things require consent and some things don’t. Making a parody or an homage doesn’t (typically) require that consent. It would be nice to get it, but the man is dead and even his children cannot speak for him other than as legal owners of his estate. I personally would like to believe he wouldn’t care one bit, and I would have the same basis as anyone else to defend that, because nobody can ask a dead man for his opinions. It’s clear his children do not like it, but unless they have a legal basis for that it can be freely dismissed as not being something George would stand behind.

        I’ve watched pretty much every one of his shows, but I haven’t seen that documentary. I’ll see if I can watch it. But knowing George, he would have many words to exchange on both sides of the debate. The man was very much an advocate for freedom of creativity, but also very much in favor of artist protection. Open source AI has leveled the playing field for people that aren’t mega corporations to compete, but has also brought along insecurity and anxiety to creative fields. It’s not black and white.

        In fact, there is a quote attributed to him which sort of speaks on this topic. (Although I must admit, the original source is of a defunct newspaper and the wayback machine didn’t crawl the article)

        [On his work appearing on the Internet] It’s a conflicted feeling. I’m really a populist, down in the very center of me. I like the power people can accrue for themselves, and I like the idea of user-generated content and taking power from the corporations. The other half of the conflict, though, is that, traditionally speaking, artists are protected from copyright infringement. Fortunately, I don’t have to worry about solving this issue. It’s someone else’s job.

        August 9, 2007 in Las Vegas CityLife. So just a little less than a year before his death too.

        EDIT: Minor clarification

        • aesthelete@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          10 months ago

          Open source AI has leveled the playing field for people that aren’t mega corporations to compete, but has also brought along insecurity and anxiety to creative fields.

          I’m sorry but…no.

          The people making money off of this are the same people making money off of everything.

          The primary beneficiary of all of the AI hype is Microsoft.

          Secondary beneficiary is Nvidia. These aren’t tiny companies.

          There’s another thing here which is that you seem to believe this was actually made in large part by an AI while simultaneously stating the motivations of humans. So which is it?

          If this was truly AI generated, they could release a new one every week, or do something like that perpetual Seinfeld wannabe thing or the endless Biden Trump debate.

          There’s a reason it’s more coherent than anything you’d get from ChatGPT. There’s a reason why it’s not “endless Carlin”. There’s a reason why the people that supposedly created it aren’t already in a technical field but are instead in comedy. It’s because it’s a fraud. It’s a mechanical Turk.