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.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 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.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 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.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 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 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.

        • aesthelete@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 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.

          • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            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?

            AI assisted works are, funnily enough, mostly a human production at this point. If you asked AI to make another George Carlin special for you, it would suck extremely hard. AI requires humans to succeed, it does not succeed at being human. And as such, it’s a human work at the end of the day. My opinion is that if we were being truthful, this comedy special would likely be considered AI assisted rather than fully AI generated.

            You seem really sure that I think this is fully (or largely) AI generated, but that’s never been a question I answered or alluded to believing before. I don’t believe that. I don’t even believe fully AI generated works to be worthy of being called true art. AI assisted works on the other hand, I do believe to be art. AI is a tool, and for it to be used for art it requires humans to provide input and humans to make decisions for it to be something that people will actually enjoy. And that is clearly what was done here.

            The primary beneficiary of all of the AI hype is Microsoft. Secondary beneficiary is Nvidia. These aren’t tiny companies.

            “The primary beneficiaries of art hype are pencil makers, brush makers, canvas makers, and of course, Adobe for making photoshop, Samsung and Wacom for making drawing tablets. Not to mention the art investors selling art from museums and art galleries all over the world for millions. These aren’t tiny entities.”

            See how ridiculous it is to make that argument? If something is popular, people and companies who are in a prime position to make money off it will try to do so, that is to be expected under our capitalist society. But small artists and small creators get the most elevation by the advance of open source AI. Big companies can already push out enough money to bring any work they create to the highest standards. A small creator cannot, but they can get far more, and far better results by using AI in their workflow. And because small creators often put far more heart and soul into their works, it allows them to compete with giants more easily. A clear win for small creators and artists.

            Just to be extra clear: I don’t like OpenAI. I don’t like Microsoft. I don’t like Nvidia to a certain degree. Open Source AI is not their piece of cake. They like proprietary, closed source AI. The kind where only they and the people that pay them get to use the advancements AI has made. That disgusts me. Open Source AI is the tool of choice for ethical AI.

            • aesthelete@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              See how ridiculous it is to make that argument?

              What argument? A completely different, ridiculous argument? Yeah I agree it is ridiculous to make that other argument that you purposely made with the intention of being ridiculous.

              • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Well then we agree. Lets leave ridiculous arguments out of it. There are far better arguments to make.

                • aesthelete@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  Sure so maybe respond to what I actually said and what’s actually happening. Which isn’t all small artists suddenly enjoying a new, free, easy to use tool and is much more like Microsoft, Nvidia, and Adobe making lots of money off of “AI”.

                  • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    11 months ago

                    I mean, you ignored the entire rest of my comment to respond only to a hyperbole to illustrate that something is a bad argument. I’m sure they are making money off it, but small creators and artists can relatively make more money off it. And you claim that is not ‘actually happening’. But that is your opinion, how you view things. I talk with artists daily, and they use AI when it’s convenient to them, when it saves them work or allows them to focus on work they actually like. Just like how they use any other tool to their disposal.

                    I know there are some very big name artists on social media who are making a fuss about this stuff, but I highly question their motives with my point of view in mind. Of course it makes sense for someone with a big social media following to rally up their supporters so they can get a payday. I regularly see them speak complete lies to their followers, and of course it works. When you actually talk to artists in real life, you’ll get a far more nuanced response.