There are uses of AI that are proving to be more than black and white. While voice actors, have protested their performances being fed into AI against their will, we are now seeing an example of this being done, with permission, in a very unique case.
How very cyberpunk, except for the fact that permission was given.
Permission from the family, not the person who died. Is it okay for ai actors if the actors are dead and the family wants to get paid?
I really don’t like the idea of doing it for entirely new performances but it doesn’t seem about the money in this case.
Well, that’s where we are going.
The reaction this is getting is simply going to fuel execs who now see that people are okay with it. And if they are okay with dead actors, they will be okay with live actors in a few years after they are used to that.
The correct answer to all of this was the same answer we have had for as long as humans have performed, everyone acknowledges that the character won’t continue and the media pays respect in some way for the performance the actor actually gave.
This resurrects the actor without the permission of the actor just of their family who may or may not have understood what was happening. Which is likely going to be the norm from here on out.
I don’t want an AI ressurectiin of Lance Riddick in the next Horizon game either. Do you want that?
This is nothing new. Let’s not forget Wagons East or that Pink Panther movie from the 70s.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
This is nothing new.
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
To be fair it is notoriously difficult to get permission from someone who has died.
If we can’t have necromancy in real life, then this will be the best we can get to bringing the dead back to life.
Do you have a problem with the family of a deceased writer who inherited the rights to their work given the writer’s will deciding on the publishing agreements for that writer’s work?
Should we have to resort to necromancy in order to even touch any new agreements regarding the work of the deceased?
This isn’t the creators work. This is using ai to create new things. This is akin to having an ai write a new lord of the rings sequel.
Oh, so you’d take issue with something like writing Lord of the Rings scripts based on the books, and then making movies based on the scripts?
Or maybe you have a problem with something like the family agreeing to the creation of a TV series covering time periods outside the author’s original scope of work?
What a horrid world we might end up living in if things like that were allowed to happen…
I likely lead you astray by being short on my phone, let me alter my statement to say
No, it really isn’t.
The actor agreed to voice the character in the base game. As far as I’m aware there is no evidence of a soured relationship with the developers, no reason to deduce he would have refused to continue voicing the character were he still alive.
It would be unethical to use a dead actor’s voice in a way they would have a good reason to object to if they could, but this doesn’t seem to be the case here.
I disagree with this entirely. You can not say"well they worked with them in the past so they must have been totally okay with an ai resurrection post death"
Similar situations come all the time for deceased musicians and writers. that get work released after they die. You can also see the family being proud of the legacy. It’s always a mix of greed and pride, some cases go more to one side that other.