this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2024
476 points (97.0% liked)
Technology
60074 readers
3313 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I listened to the whole special, and I can agree with much of what the Carlinbot had to say. I think that's fun.
I know there's overwhelming hatred towards the idea of AI doing stuff like this, but I'm curious as to why exactly that is. I hate this about as much as I hate impressionists, which is a somewhat apt comparison. That is to say, I think it's pretty neat and I'm curious what all went into making it happen, so I can't say I hate it. Could someone break down why this is awful? Is it a "let the dead lie" kind of thing, keeping the dead sacred? Do we want the AI to be completely original, despite it being derivative in nature? Do we simply want AI not to exist at all? Is it just in poor taste? If so, who do we let define what constitutes good or poor taste?
I see AI as a philosophical issue, as it's a technology seeking to cross the uncanny valley and simulate consciousness as we understand it, which has serious implications regarding the nature of consciousness, the concept of the self, how we define life and understanding, how much control we grant this artificial life, what rights artificial life should have, and plenty of other conundrums along the way. I honestly don't think it's as simple as "Carlin wouldn't like this", as this video is ultimately an unsatisfactory impression of a man that only goes on for one hour. There are worse things in the world we could be lambasting (as the Carlinbot points out mid-video), but there are clearly some implications involved that people are very upset by. So, where do we go from here?
For me it's a let the dead lie kind of thing. This kind of stuff just means that once a comedian or celebrity dies, a company can continue to squeeze their likeness to death in a money grab. Sure if they could stop at half assed AI shows just as a "can it really be done" thing, then it's not so terrible. But each time they're going to be doing their damnedest to improve it.
Eventually we will reach a dystopia where 1) just because you're dead doesn't mean it's over and 2) why get new talent and new blood when there's dead blood to keep squeezing. Next up stars will have issues where when they go to sign a contract, they have to make sure their families get portions of profits from AI content for literal decades after their death. Otherwise the big companies get to keep making money off them with no protection for their family.