Its the reverse turing test: can a human convince another human (or bot screener) that they are human?

We need legislation banning ai from imitating/impersonating humans and creating confusion about whats real. And people using ai to make their art need to label it or else theyre just plagarizing

I mean, even ghost writers arent making the world a better place

▲

AnthonyMouse a day ago | parent | next [-]

> We need legislation banning ai from imitating/impersonating humans and creating confusion about whats real.

The obvious problem is that if there is an unambiguous way to tell that something is AI-generated then you don't need the law, and if there isn't then you can't enforce it.

▲

derektank a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>I mean, even ghost writers arent making the world a better place

I think people should be allowed to put their name on anything, be that hired work or AI generated. It’s only their own credibility and good name at stake.

	▲	nkrisc a day ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, but I disagree when you’re selling that thing. In a large society trust is necessary because you can’t know everyone. So I think it’s reasonable that at least if you’re selling something you can’t lie about it, including whether you wrote it or not. And yes, I’m aware ghost writing is a long established practice and I think it’s always been deceitful.

▲

fantasizr a day ago | parent | prev [-]

it seems like a slam dunk that we should own our likeness legally, but the scam lobby is very powerful at the moment

▲

AnthonyMouse a day ago | parent [-]

Is that a slam dunk? Why should someone have a right to prevent you from criticizing them by using their likeness? Should a billionaire be able to sue the newspaper for a satirical editorial cartoon?

▲

fantasizr 17 hours ago | parent [-]

With appropriate disclosure of AI use and non monetization. But I should not be able to clone elvis' voice and make new songs and music videos for my personal financial gain, in my opinion.

	▲	AnthonyMouse 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> non monetization You think the billionaire should be able to sue the newspaper for the satirical cartoon because the newspaper sells ads or has paid subscribers? > But I should not be able to clone elvis' voice and make new songs and music videos for my personal financial gain, in my opinion. Elvis is dead. He can't consent or not consent to anything anymore. At which point your options are "the evil corporation who makes the artist sign their rights away while they're alive gets to do it after they're dead", "anybody gets to do it after their dead" (i.e. dead people are in the public domain), or nobody can do it even if the artist wanted them to. What you presumably want is for the artist to be able to decide for themselves while they're alive, but that consistently leads to the evil corporation making them sign the paper in order to get the recording contract. Also, what do you want to do with people who died a long time ago? The chain of title for the likeness of Caesar is going to be trouble. At which point the "dead people are in the public domain" option doesn't really seem that bad, because screw the evil corporation and their ill-gotten monopoly on the dead.