The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence

Tools    





Speculation alone on this issue is already effecting the movie industry in a big way, no less the early application of A.I. in movies.

So many questions, it's difficult to know where to begin.

We can already see A.I. invasively effecting the Internet, television, advertising and even music.

We have to assume actors will copyright their images & voices as a form of insurance, but what about deceased actors? Will they be fair game or will their families / descendants have a say?

Will real actors even be needed in 20 years or is their profession endangered?



Will real actors even be needed in 20 years or is their profession endangered?
Sets and locations have already been replaced with the green screen, and since it's in human nature to advance knowledge and technology (not because we need it, but just because we can) I wouldn't be too surprised if actors are going to be replaced with AI.

I don't think it will affect me personally, but still I think we're in the process of taking technology one step too far. On the other hand, future generations will have their own set of standards so maybe it's going to work out just fine for them.



Where is all of this going?

Hold on a sec, let me ask ChatGPT....



We accepted CGI so why not this??
Because with this, apparently the artist gives up all control... there is no artist, only a machine, doing what it "wants."

It's still fairly easy to pick out CGI, but they say with A.I. that soon may not be the case - and that means they can put anyone on a screen saying or doing anything (even when they never did).

The implications are scary. Will juries be able to differentiate a real crime caught on video and one created by A.I. in order to frame someone?

I don't pretend to understand A.I. I'm not even sure where the line is drawn between CGI and A.I. except that the former requires an artist. But isn't there still an element of humanity in A.I.? I mean someone needs to tell it what they want it to produce, don't they? Someone needs to program it, don't they?

I think the danger lies in the time when A.I. no longer requires a human to tell it what they want it to do.



Speculation alone on this issue is already effecting the movie industry in a big way, no less the early application of A.I. in movies.

So many questions, it's difficult to know where to begin.

We can already see A.I. invasively effecting the Internet, television, advertising and even music.

We have to assume actors will copyright their images & voices as a form of insurance, but what about deceased actors? Will they be fair game or will their families / descendants have a say?

Will real actors even be needed in 20 years or is their profession endangered?

Lucasfilm/Disney is being sued for using Peter Cushing's image in Star Wars: Rogue One.

https://www.ign.com/articles/lucasfi...tar-wars-story

Disney subsidiary Lucasfilm is being sued over its recreation of Grand Moff Tarkin actor Peter Cushing's image in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story.

As reported by The Times, a friend of Cushing has alleged Disney did not have permission to recreate the actor's image with special effects for Rogue One. Disney tried and failed to have the case dismissed for a second time on September 9, 2024.

The plaintiff Kevin Francis is suing Lucasfilm through his film company Tyburn Film Productions and also brought claims against Rogue One producer Lunak Heavy Industries, the late executors of Cushing's estate, and Cushing's agency Associated International Management.

Francis claimed he must give authorization for any recreation of Cushing's image following an agreement made between him and the actor in 1993, one year before his death at age 81.

Lucasfilm claimed it didn't think it needed permission to recreate Cushing's image due to his original contract for Star Wars (the 1977 film which became Star Wars: Episode 4 - A New Hope) and the nature of the special effects. It also paid around $37,000 to Cushing's estate after being contacted by his agent about the recreation.

On September 9, deputy High court judge Tom Mitcheson dismissed the appeal, stating the case should go to trial. "I am also not persuaded that the case is unarguable to the standard required to give summary judgment or to strike it out," he added. "In an area of developing law it is very difficult to decide where the boundaries might lie in the absence of a full factual enquiry."

Star Wars spans many eras and, having started in 1977, features actors throughout many stages of their lives. It has used special effects to de-age the likes of Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker, for example, and this technology has been used to put deceased actors in its films too.

This includes Cushing's Tarkin, of course, but also Carrie Fisher's Princess Leia. The actress died in 2016, after just two of the three Sequel Trilogy films had been filmed, and Disney used special effects alongside repurposed footage to include her in Star Wars: Episode 9 - The Rise of Skywalker.
__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.



Oprah Winfrey did a TV special about AI a couple of weeks ago called "AI and the Future of Us". It had a lot of interesting information. I recommend watching it if you can find it streaming somewhere. (I think they said it would be available to watch on Hulu the next day.)


https://techcrunch.com/2024/09/12/op...he-highlights/

Late Thursday evening, Oprah Winfrey aired a special on AI, appropriately titled “AI and the Future of Us.” Guests included OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, tech influencer Marques Brownlee, and current FBI director Christopher Wray.

The dominant tone was one of skepticism — and wariness.

Oprah noted in prepared remarks that the AI genie is out of the bottle, for better or worse, and that humanity will have to learn to live with the consequences.

“AI is still beyond our control and to a great extent … our understanding,” she said. “But it is here, and we’re going to be living with technology that can be our ally as well as our rival. … We are this planet’s most adaptable creatures. We will adapt again. But keep your eyes on what’s real. The stakes could not be higher.”



In an ideal world we would be able to handle and control AI (and the consequences thereof).

But then maybe we should ask ourselves: what was the last time we lived in an ideal world?
We pride ourselves in wanting to learn from past mistakes, and yet, despite our superior intelligence, that's the only thing humans are incapable of.
Because we always come up with the same old argument: "this" is a different situation, this time we will be able to control it.
I'm afraid that, once again, there's going to be a big price to be paid.



Trouble with a capitial 'T'
"So many questions, it's difficult to know where to begin."...You got that right! I don't know where to begin in my response? I'm very interested in this thread and topic and will keep an eye on the replies.

For now, I'll say with all the mergers of the big Hollywood studios, looking at you Disney, the major studio companies have enough clout to sway copyright laws to their advantage so that they can use images of dead actors and manipulate said images to bring the actors 'back to life'. That is all kinds of wrong. Especially as it's hypocritical...there's been several copyright laws that further extended the length of movie copyrights (congressional copyright acts of 1976 & 1998) which were done under the guise of protecting the film industry from changing technology (first VCRs & laser disc, then DVD & Blu Ray and now streaming). So it's quite hypocritical that dead actors families & estates don't have the same increased protection from changing technology. Quite simply, it's the golden rule.


I hope the lawsuit against Disney's Lucasfilm over the use of Peter Cushing's image in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, is find in favor of the Peter Cushing representative.



the major studio companies have enough clout to sway copyright laws to their advantage so that they can use images of dead actors and manipulate said images to bring the actors 'back to life'.
Please.

The studios didn't have enough clout to stop the California legislature from passing a sweeping AI safety bill last month.

The California State Assembly and Senate have passed the Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act (SB 1047), one of the first significant regulations of artificial intelligence in the US.



Trouble with a capitial 'T'
Please.

The studios didn't have enough clout to stop the California legislature from passing a sweeping AI safety bill last month.
Who says the studios wanted to kill that bill? I just read that link and it doesn't address alleged copyright infringements of dead actors images. That bill has nothing to do with that.

The CA legislation in the link has to do with safety precautions for 'releasing' new AIs. Which I assume is so that they don't impact web traffic and cause web sites to stall from new AI's scraping during their training process.



Who says the studios wanted to kill that bill? I just read that link and it doesn't address alleged copyright infringements of dead actors images. That bill has nothing to do with that.
Then why are the actors and directors fully supporting it?


Hollywood is squaring off against Silicon Valley in the battle over SB 1047, California’s first-of-its-kind AI safety bill. Amid doubts about whether Governor Gavin Newsom will sign the legislation, a wave of star-studded endorsements mark the first organized celebrity effort to advance AI regulations beyond the direct interests of the entertainment industry.

On Tuesday, over 125 big Hollywood names published an open letter urging Newsom to sign the AI safety bill. Signatures include Ava DuVernay, Jane Fonda, J.J. Abrams, Shonda Rhimes, Alec Baldwin, Pedro Pascal, Jessica Chastain, Adam McKay, and Ron Perlman. “We fully believe in the dazzling potential of AI to be used for good. But we must also be realistic about the risks,” the letter reads. In a sign of genuine enthusiasm, the letter was written by one of the signatories, according to a person in contact with the celebrities.

SB 1047 is the US’s most significant AI safety legislation to date, and Newsom’s signature would break the precedent of letting the industry police the development and deployment of its most powerful models via voluntary commitments. The core of the bill mandates that the largest AI developers implement safeguards of their own choosing to reduce the chance their model causes or enables a disaster, like a severe cyberattack or pandemic. It would apply to any covered AI company doing business in California, which is home to the top five generative AI companies and the world’s fifth-largest economy. This makes it a de facto national regulation in a country that has trailed the EU, China, and the UK in efforts to regulate AI.



The answer is right there in the quote: precedent. They might be concerned about other uses of AI, and support restrictions on it in general, even if this particular bill does not do what was described above.



Trouble with a capitial 'T'
@FilmBuff...what Yoda said.
Also I like you but I don't like arguing for the sake of arguing. But thanks for the link it was an interesting read and to know about that legislation.



Here's hoping Newsom signs the bill into law!



Because with this, apparently the artist gives up all control... there is no artist, only a machine, doing what it "wants."

It's still fairly easy to pick out CGI, but they say with A.I. that soon may not be the case - and that means they can put anyone on a screen saying or doing anything (even when they never did).

The implications are scary. Will juries be able to differentiate a real crime caught on video and one created by A.I. in order to frame someone?

I don't pretend to understand A.I. I'm not even sure where the line is drawn between CGI and A.I. except that the former requires an artist. But isn't there still an element of humanity in A.I.? I mean someone needs to tell it what they want it to produce, don't they? Someone needs to program it, don't they?

I think the danger lies in the time when A.I. no longer requires a human to tell it what they want it to do.
I guess if a movie has all original AI characters then the audience will decide whether to watch or not. This happens more of less now with animated characters. The issue becomes tricky when characters are based on or are similar to real actors.



To be honest, actors aren't needed now. All the really good stuff is in the past.



I guess if a movie has all original AI characters then the audience will decide whether to watch or not. This happens more of less now with animated characters. The issue becomes tricky when characters are based on or are similar to real actors.
I pretty much agree with this.

Some viewers will care whether the actors are real people, some won't.

But it's a big push of course from where we are now to where you can't tell if the actors are real or computer generated. If we ever get there.

I was asked recently actually, whether I would go to a concert of a hologram of a singer I'm a fan of. At first I thought yes of course that would be amazing. But the more I thought about it, the more I thought it wouldn't be amazing. It would just be a computer projection of an image. Sigh.

....ummm....maybe it's a bit different with a particular singer, where you are going to see that singer specifically, rather than a movie with some actors in, but I still think that it has some bearing. I'm sure there are plenty of people who will want to see real actors. And I'm sceptical that AI can ever perfectly reproduce actors anyway. Maybe a Brad Pitt, but not so much a Daniel Day Lewis/Philip Seymour Hoffman/Nicole Kidman etc.

The comparison to animation is also a great point.