• salta@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    10 months ago

    Article seems to miss the point, it’s not that some celebs are unhappy like Attenborough and others are fine with it and participating in its development. It’s that some celebs are in control of how they are being used and represented and some are not. We are entering a period where we all need stronger legal protections, to ensure that we remain in control of what makes each of us unique, whether that’s DNA or a copy of our voice

    • RandoCalrandian@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      DNA is highly likely to be unique, not guaranteed to be so.

      This is a terrible idea. No one owns DNA or genes, and we already have problems with shitty company’s trying to patent or copyright genes we all already have. It’s bullshit that only benefits those at the top, and prevents others from getting there by restricting their rights.

      Voices are the same. You can’t complain about an impressionist imitating you because you don’t like it, that childish nonsense. Everything we do is in some way a copy and recreation of what other people have done. AI just automated that process and people are upset it’s harder to rent seek and gate keep things that never belonged to them in the first place.

      Seriously, the future you’re imagining has twins sueing each other for rights to their unique “identity”. It’s dumb as hell.

      • salta@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Sorry man but control over your own image, voice etc is not dumb, why should giant corporations be allowed to replicate and use it to make money without your consent. The fact that it can be so easily automated now just makes it worse. I’m not talking about copyright though just control and privacy. With regards to DNA I’m saying the exact opposite and there we probably agree, companies should absolutely not be able to patent or copyright genes. They shouldn’t be able to use them at all without explicit consent.

        • RandoCalrandian@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          why should giant corporations be allowed to replicate and use it to make money without your consent

          Because it wasn’t yours to begin with

          Biometrics belong more to humanity than any individual person

          Your argument would make it so even facial recognition would be illegal, because they scan and use your facial info without consent

          Same with drivers license databases

          You can’t say “this particular use of this existing practice bothers me, everyone else needs to change now so I feel better”

          Rules on these things need to be consistent, and if they shouldn’t be allowed to use unique information that you consider yours without your consent you’ve just eliminated advertising, security checkpoints, drivers license pictures, filming cops, and a million other things both good and bad that all rely on using your likeness without your consent.

          • salta@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            On that we completely disagree, I would argue they are some of the only things that are intrinsically yours.