George Carlin AI comedy special is 'ghoulish' and 'creepy,' his daughter says ( www.cbc.ca )

A new comedy special starts with the quote, "I'm sorry it took me so long to come out with new material, but I do have a pretty good excuse. I was dead."

The voice sounds like comedian George Carlin, but that would be impossible, as Carlin died in 2008. The voice in the special is actually generated by an artificial intelligence (AI).

"This is not my father. It's so ghoulish. It's so creepy," Carlin's daughter, Kelly Carlin-McCall, told As It Happens host Nil Köksal.

The YouTube account Dudesy, which is described as a podcast, artificial intelligence and "first of its kind media experiment," released the hour-long special on Jan. 9. CBC reached out to the producers of Dudesy and its co-host Will Sasso for comment, but did not get a response.

Sasso and co-host Chad Kultgen say they can't reveal the company behind the AI due to a non-disclosure agreement, according to Vice. The channel launched in March 2022.

Carlin-McCall said the channel never reached out to the family or asked for permission to use her father's likeness. She says her father took great pride in the thought and effort he put into writing his material.

Fedizen , (edited )

this is what I thought about the post mortem carrie fisher scene as well. It feels ghoulish.

The Carlin script is clearly written by people as there's phrases he liked to use to describe power that simply weren't used but it did capture his rhythm pretty well. My guess is they fed the AI with jokes they wrote and had it rewrite them in his style

doctorcrimson ,

I just realized Stephen Colbert doesn't own the rights to himself, so there could be that trainwreck soon as well.

Rooter ,

So it's boomer humor? Wow, who would have thought.

HiddenLayer5 , (edited )
@HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml avatar

Standup comedy is meant to be relatable, the best standup material makes fun of the writer's real experiences and/or common experiences of the audience. This is just my hot take, but I think an AI writing standup comedy is and always will be completely soulless because the AI has never experienced anything and is just putting words together that it doesn't even know the significance of, and is doing so purely based on the statistics of how real human standup uses those words. Even with AI acting out standup written by humans, they still don't understand what they're saying and the emotions they supposedly show are still based on statistics. If you find AI standup funny, you have that right, but I personally don't and that's just me.

MrSusan ,

I think this applies to all forms of art.

captain_aggravated ,
@captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works avatar

I've long held this idea of art vs decoration.

For example, my kitchen table has turned legs with a series of convex and concave details along their length. This is not art, it is decoration. It's unnecessary and merely added a few lengthy steps to the manufacture of the table, but it's there to look nice. and I think AI can manage that.

I have on my walls a series of lithographs from an artist by the name of Ed Berger, who spent the majority of his career as a civil engineer in Washington DC before retiring to North Carolina to persue his art...which took the form of a series of rural scenes of old and dilapidated homes and farm buildings/equipment in a style I've taken to calling "It was dreary when it was new, and NOW look at it." I'm not sure a computer can create something that says "100 years ago was completely miserable, which is why we abandoned it so thoroughly" as viscerally ol' Ed did. That's art.

Showroom7561 ,

This was honestly funnier than most comedy specials I've watched on Netflix.

Did AI write the content or only impersonate the voice?

Either way, it worked at making me laugh. It didn't even need to be "George Carlin", and it would have been just as funny as just some old guy complaining.

littlecolt ,
@littlecolt@lemm.ee avatar

I watched about a third of it. It's actually not too bad. It has some of that Carlin wit to it. I like the transition from God inventing cancer to "America gets a special way to die, though, MASS SHOOTINGS" - that was the big one that made me say "Wow. George would have definitely done a skit about mass shooting like this."

The reality TV bit, though, I dunno. George was a BIG fan of "the freak show" that was life, so he might have actually been a bit more positive about it. Also, the parts about your vote not mattering, that was pretty spot on. George admitted he doesn't vote and it was because he felt it didn't matter, and he also didn't want to take part in society the way it is

zanyllama52 ,
@zanyllama52@infosec.pub avatar

Interesting concept. I watched the first 10 minutes or so. The video goes to great lengths to clearly describe that this is neither Carlin's voice or jokes. The material is roughly George Carlin-ish, but not great. The AI voice is not quite believable either.

It's not really for me, and also not a crime in my view. Just a weird thing someone did.

CeruleanRuin ,

Honestly it came off on the level of a pretty decent impressionist. Not quite on Carlin's level, but evocative enough of his patter and sensibility to make me wish it was the real thing, and there were moments in it where I could almost pretend that it was.

Man, I miss Carlin.

FaceDeer ,

It seemed spot-on to me. I'd love to see some double-blind tests done with this, perhaps take an existing Carlin recording and give the AI the transcript to impersonate from. Then let people pick which is which without knowing ahead of time.

Ataraxia ,
@Ataraxia@sh.itjust.works avatar

Finished watching the second one and it's actually really good.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I don't care about the technology. I don't even care if it's funny. It's in terrible taste.

If you have a funny standup set, do your routine yourself. If you want funny topical comedy, there are literally dozens of comedians alive today you can watch right now on multiple streaming services and YouTube.

There is no reason to do this other than to be tasteless.

I don't believe in blasphemy, but if I did, putting words in the mouth of an incredibly insightful genius and presenting it as his words would be blasphemy.

Kbobabob ,

There is no reason to do this other than to be tasteless.

Greed?

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I'd call greed being tasteless, but I guess we could count it as a second reason.

Pretzilla ,

Jay Leno bitched that he was annoyed when someone would put on a comedy album for friends, and 'try to take the credit' for being funny.

This kind of feels like a logical extension of that.

elbarto777 ,

If Carlin himself approved it before dying, I might listen to it. But nope. You said it yourself. Plenty of living talent right now.

TheMightyKracken ,

They should have done this with the last Norm MacDonald special that he recorded during the pandemic. Use the same words, but put him in front of an audience.

Mrderisant ,

I agree with you on that. I do wonder how you would feel if GC had written all the material himself and they used the ai to bring his last planned show to life?

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I don't know because I really don't think that sounds like Carlin would do. It's kind of like asking what if the Pope was a Muslim.

Mrderisant ,

Suppose it's a different comedian then, or entertainer

FrickAndMortar ,

Not OP but for me, I think it pivots on the permission of those who knew the comedian best and who might be hurt the most by not asking.

Whether AI writes the jokes, some 3rd party, or the comedian themself did, does the family want that out there, or would it be painful for Robin Williams’ family (remember that he killed himself) to watch a computer ape Williams’ comedy? If you’ve had a loved one pass away, would you want to be asked before someone made an AI of them performing jokes? And would it make it better or worse if the AI did an inferior job of replicating the original person?

Even if Carlin had planned a show, if the wishes of the family were that it be performed by Carlin himself or nobody, then I don’t think anyone had the right to turn an AI loose on the material to “give it a shot”.

Beyond that, I wonder if they have the legal right to use Carlin’s likeness, mannerisms, etc.

bigMouthCommie ,
@bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social avatar

when you're dead, you can't claim your rights are infringed. it might be macabre but what-fucking-ever. don't watch it if you don't want to.

FrickAndMortar ,

I’m certainly no legal expert, but I think it’s the rights of the family that are being infringed upon. I don’t know a thing about the Carlins specific situation, but I think it’s customary for a famous person to leave control of their “intellectual property”, use of their likeness and whatever else, to their next of kin or a trusted friend or someone. And it sounds like the family have those rights, because they’re looking into “what their rights are” (which sounds a lot like “legal options” to me).

I personally think it’s in bad taste specifically BECAUSE the person is deceased - they can’t make the call and go “yeah go ahead” or “I don’t like this, please stop”. Kind of like how someone can’t consent to sex if they’re unconscious (weird parallel, I know).

I feel like the YouTubers are assuming Carlin’s consent, when they don’t really have it. If they’d asked his family, they could have maybe had it. But instead they decided to just go ahead and hope that they can get away with it.

I think Carlin’s daughter has every right to be pissed about not getting asked for her permission, especially if she owns the rights to his material.

bigMouthCommie ,
@bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social avatar

> I think it’s customary for a famous person to leave control of their “intellectual property”, use of their likeness and whatever else, to their next of kin or a trusted friend or someone.

it might be common, but it's utterly immoral.

HiddenLayer5 , (edited )
@HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml avatar

No, but many still living people can and do consider the fact that a giant media corporation is puppeting a dead man to squeeze the last bit of profit out of him to be more than a little fucked up. Not an infringement of his rights specifically, but IMO an infringement of ethics and decency.

mojofrododojo ,

since you seem to be down with necrophilia please announce it in your will so people know whos corpse is a consenting fuck.

bigMouthCommie ,
@bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social avatar

>you seem to be down with necrophilia

I didn't say that

mojofrododojo ,

you seem to be happy to see Carlin desecrated. not much difference from my view.

bigMouthCommie ,
@bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social avatar

i said it's macabre

bigMouthCommie ,
@bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social avatar

>people know whos corpse is a consenting fuck.

it makes no sense to talk about corpses consenting any more than doors or chairs.

mojofrododojo ,

found the corpse fucker

bigMouthCommie ,
@bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social avatar

wrong

mojofrododojo ,

George Carlin was a dedicated wordsmith. After he dropped the Hippy Dippy Weatherman schtick, he realized if he was going to be a comedian he needed to find an angle and chose language; the way we manipulate language to influence and oppress people fascinated him and he dedicated the rest of his career to exploring it on his specials, standup and in his books. He went from using the same act every time, to intentionally starting from scratch for each new project - he forced himself to build new content instead of reusing stuff, and it made him a much better comedian.

George Carlin did write all the material, the 'developer' of this trained it on his standup shows.

GC was not a fan of technology for it's own means, and he very much appreciated craft.

I think he'd start by giving this shit two big middle fingers.

ediculous ,

Well they aren't trying to pass this off as Carlin's material. The video starts and ends with a disclaimer saying that it's an AI generated impersonation.

What if this set was entirely written and performed by a human but in the style of George Carlin? Is that as tasteless?

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

A little, but not as much as if they were pretending to be George Carlin. I don't think a disclaimer somehow doesn't make it tasteless. Imagine it wasn't Carlin or even a comedian. Imagine if it was, since his day is coming up, Martin Luther King, Jr.? An AI MLK that delivers a speech that is an original speech but similar to one of his, but with a disclaimer that it wasn't a real MLK. Tasteless? I sure as hell think so.

ediculous ,

That makes sense. I think what confuses me about this reaction more than anything is the fact that we've had all these different AI recreations of other dead artists that are being met with either a neutral or even positive reception.

I've seen a bunch of Kurt Cobain and Chester Bennington songs created by AI where the comments are all talking about how much they love/miss the artist, then this drops and everybody loses their shit.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I would call those equally tasteless. Digital necromancy, as a whole, is a pretty tasteless endeavor with only one exception I can think of- https://fortune.com/2023/10/12/cyberpunk2077-voice-actor-video-game-ai/

Speculater ,
@Speculater@lemmy.world avatar

I'm sorry, but all the reactionary anger is absurd! This is a fucking beautiful work of art. The publisher didn't pretend to make this anything more than an obvious AI impersonation and people are acting crazy in response. The jokes were on point and the voice was a little off, but it was a fun experiment.

perslue ,

This will be considered a work of art in ten years and the people who down voted will wonder how their customer service role got replaced.

Speculater ,
@Speculater@lemmy.world avatar

The people who hate AI or rather LLMs and machine learning, are the same people who were against color television or radio. I don't mind the down votes, history will mock these types as well.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

No. This is not a "fucking beautiful work of art." This is mediocre comedy put in the mouth of a dead genius.

If you want a fucking beautiful work of art, here's 58 of them: https://www.discogs.com/artist/435995-George-Carlin

Speculater ,
@Speculater@lemmy.world avatar

I'm not saying the standup is genius. The experiment is! If you ever worked with LLMs or reinforced machine learning, you don't recognize the talent of the poster. This was not produced with off the shelf commercial products, the creator did a nice job creating a mediocre stand-up, using tech genius.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I still don't find it genius, I find it tasteless.

FaceDeer ,

Those are not incompatible.

Art is subjective, sure. You can dislike a piece of art that took a ton of technical skill to accomplish and still recognize how impressive the technical skill was.

Speculater ,
@Speculater@lemmy.world avatar

Thank you! This is exactly how I appreciate this piece and people act like they stole something from society by flexing their tech talent for a video.

_wizard ,
@_wizard@lemmy.world avatar

I LOL'd on more than one occasion. I am at conflict with the lack of permission, but I don't disagree that it sounded like Carlin.

jopepa ,

Stuff like this makes me think we’re witnessing so many crimes that we don’t have a names for yet.

RedditWanderer ,

You wouldn't download a person!

jopepa ,

Some might, I think we’re coming up on an interesting ethical impasse with this tech

graff ,

You wouldn't upload a person to the cloud

gAlienLifeform , (edited )
@gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world avatar

Eh, I think this is just intellectual property right infringement with a side of being an insensitive dumbass and not really that new. Like, how is this any different than someone dressing up in a George Carlin costume and doing their George Carlin impression for an hour? Shouldn't be using George Carlin's name to sell your stuff, but it's not like anyone got enslaved or he dug up Carlin's corpse or anything.

e; I'm not sure if this detail changes anything, but did the AI write these jokes or just do the voiceover work? I was under the impression that it just did the voice and another human wrote the material

ThankYouVeryMuch ,
@ThankYouVeryMuch@kbin.social avatar

Why is this or should be a crime? You wouldn't call an Elvis impersonator a criminal, why is it different when it comes from a piece of technology?
I get why his daughter finds it creepy, but I just listened to it and I liked it, they don't seem to be trying to fool anyone and make very clear it's an ai impersonation. I see it more like a kind of homage or something, it's not like they're putting his face on an ad. I don't think you should need permission from the dead person's family for this kind of things.

dustyData ,

Because it doesn't come from a person. Sure, a person wrote the script and handles the generator. But we haven't decided yet as humans whether something made entirely by the machine with minimum human input counts yet as agency.

When a human impersonates a celebrity, it's partially imperfect. There's a person underneath that can't hide and, most importantly, someone we can engage with in good faith to discern intent. They can tells us whether it's satire, admiration, greed or whatever. Things we can relate to.

When a machine does it, it usually is way too pitch perfect. And it's separate one or two degrees from the initiator, the person running the model, posting, etc. This makes it fall on the uncanny valley. The machine cannot be asked for its intention, it has no emotions, it conceals no motive, it posses no goal. You have to hunt down the owner and this makes it so the machine is perceived as a soulless puppet. You cannot relate nor empathize with its product. It's a nothing imitation, with no art or passion.

Part of this is because he is not doing a Carlin comedy routine, he's writing and putting words, implying thoughts and beliefs into Carlin's voice. This is fundamentally different and more transgressing of Carlin's legacy. An Elvis impersonator, sings Elvis songs as Elvis had sung them. They don't write new original songs then try to pass them at if Elvis is now singing, and implicitly endorsing, new material.

Then on the topic of whether it's a crime, it's only if there's genuine intent. Entertainment and satire are some of the valid reasons. And even then, there are people who disagree and find them tasteless and disrespectful. This is not new, not everyone is happy to see their passed away loved ones or idols be mocked or reanimated as puppets.

EatATaco ,

Unless I'm mistaken, the ai wrote the jokes itself. Basically it was fed Carlin material and attempted to mimic his style, cadence, and voice.

And I'm not sure how you can claim they are trying to imply he made these jokes, its introduced with the ai being very clear that this is not the case.

This is basically an Elvis impersonator, except it wrote it's own Elvis songs. And, of course, it isn't human.

I feel like your argument boils down to it not being human. This might be a distinction that we have to and should make, but your argument for that distinction seems pretty arbitrary right now.

dustyData ,

Yes, welcome to humankind. Most of emotional matters are arbitrary. And yes, the argument is that it was not, attributable, made by a human.

EatATaco ,

Most of emotional matters are arbitrary.

The question the previous poster asked was "Why is this or should be a crime?"

You answered "Because it doesn't come from a person."

I wasn't responding to a claim about emotional matters, but legal matters.

FaceDeer ,

Things aren't crimes until they're actually made illegal.

Waluigis_Talking_Buttplug ,

That was implied, yeah

LastoftheDinosaurs ,
@LastoftheDinosaurs@lemmy.world avatar

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    FaceDeer ,

    Sounded fine to me. I'd like to see double-blind tests of this sort of thing.

    PugJesus ,
    @PugJesus@kbin.social avatar

    We really need stronger restrictions on AI usage.

    neurogenesis ,

    Yea, we totally should let corporations protect us.

    PugJesus ,
    @PugJesus@kbin.social avatar

    ... what

    queermunist ,
    @queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

    Government restrictions 🙄

    BruceTwarzen ,

    We need the puppets of the corperations to protect us.

    queermunist ,
    @queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

    Cynicism.

    Corporations are creations of government. They can be brought under government control.

    Might need a new government though lol

    neurogenesis ,

    Which government? Where I live that's still a synonym for corporation.

    queermunist ,
    @queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

    China probably, America sure as fuck won't lol

    PugJesus ,
    @PugJesus@kbin.social avatar

    Ah, yes, the CCP. Don't you have Uyghur genocide to apologize for or something, tankie?

    queermunist ,
    @queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

    Compare Xinjiang province with Gaza if you want to see how fucking stupid the genocide claims against China are, and yet the same countries are defending Israel as it commits open genocide before our eyes. The lies are so fucking obvious at this point, do you not have any shame?

    Also, CPC you fucking dork. Communist Party of China. CCP is redscare bullshit meant to make people think of the CCCP lol

    PugJesus ,
    @PugJesus@kbin.social avatar

    Did you know more than one genocide can be happening at once in the world? Surprising, I know!

    Fucking tankies. Operating literally on a child's understanding of the world.

    queermunist ,
    @queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

    There's a reason none of China's accusers are trying to take them to the International Court of Justice.

    And those same accusers, again, are defending Israel as it commits genocide. Why do you think that is?

    PugJesus ,
    @PugJesus@kbin.social avatar

    There’s a reason none of China’s accusers are trying to take them to the International Court of Justice.

    The International Criminal Court announced in December last year that it would not investigate the allegations because China, as a non-member, was outside of its jurisdiction.

    Meanwhile, the International Court of Justice can only take a case that has been approved by the UN Security Council, over which China has veto power.

    Fucking dumbass.

    queermunist ,
    @queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

    The ICC and ICJ are different entities and China is an ICJ member state.

    What are you talking about dronie?

    PugJesus ,
    @PugJesus@kbin.social avatar

    It would help if you could read what I posted.

    Meanwhile, the International Court of Justice can only take a case that has been approved by the UN Security Council, over which China has veto power.

    I guess literacy is too much to ask from a tankie.

    queermunist ,
    @queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

    You edited your comment. I guess honesty is too much to ask from a dronie.

    The ICJ can still hold a trial, but the Security Council would be able to override whatever judgement it reached. That's why Israel is being tried in the ICJ even though the US is obviously going to override a guilty verdict. Yet no one even bothered. Why?

    PugJesus , (edited )
    @PugJesus@kbin.social avatar

    Yet no one even bothered. Why?

    Because China is economically important, unlike Israel, and can retaliate? Because China doesn't recognize the ICJ's jurisdiction? Because bringing a case against someone who directly has veto power is significantly fucking stupider than bringing a case against someone whose ally has veto power?

    That the UN has already recognized the position of Uyghurs in China, of course, is beyond the capability of tankies to understand, since you cretins are only interested in licking fascist boots.

    queermunist ,
    @queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

    Because China, unlike Israel, doesn’t recognize the ICJ’s jurisdiction?

    China has a judge on the ICJ!

    That the UN has already recognized the position of Uyghurs in China, of course, is beyond the capability of tankies to understand, since you cretins are only interested in licking fascist boots.

    Last I checked, the U.N. rights council voted down the motion brought by United States, Canada and Britain to debate the matter.

    And as I keep pointing out, those same member states which accuse China of genocide are defending Israel. There's no credibility to the accusations.

    PugJesus ,
    @PugJesus@kbin.social avatar

    China has a judge on the ICJ!

    And so does the US, yet the US doesn't recognize the ICJ's jurisdiction over itself either. I see international politics are too complex for you to understand. Perhaps you should try something more like checkers.

    ThankYouVeryMuch ,
    @ThankYouVeryMuch@kbin.social avatar

    But it's the governments the ones using AI for the most evil things. Impersonating a dead comedian is a pretty benign use in my opinion.

    ThankYouVeryMuch ,
    @ThankYouVeryMuch@kbin.social avatar

    We need but not for this, I would prefer restricting governments and corporations from using it to spy on people.

    girlfreddy OP ,
    @girlfreddy@lemmy.ca avatar

    Why can't we have both?

    DoucheBagMcSwag ,

    Only for corporate use. Leave the people doing fun non profit parody things alone. Its the people doing this...or stealing someones likenesses to sell a product that need to be regulated

    CeruleanRuin ,

    The conversation shouldn't be about restrictions as much as it should be about compensation. AI "art" like this only exists by ripping off original artists.

    SnotFlickerman ,
    @SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    Think of how stupid the average AI is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.

    fsr1967 ,

    🪙🪙🪙

    pineapplelover ,

    I watched it and it was pretty good. Yeah, it's not the same as the real George Carlin but a few of them certainly got be chuckling and resembled reusing his past work in today's context. The video did start off prefacing that this was an AI and not truly George Carlin so nobody would be fooled that it's not actually him.

    FaceDeer , (edited )

    "Carlin" also makes references to his deceased not-really-Carlin state throughout the show, so if you crop off the preface it still wouldn't fool anyone for long.

    Edit: there's a whole section of the special starting at the 38 minute mark that's about being dead, and "Carlin" reflecting on what exactly he is and what that means. Just got to that bit, it's rather good.

    jungle ,

    It doesn't sound at all like him and the laugh track is just the insult cherry on top.

    Nusm ,
    @Nusm@lemmy.zip avatar

    I was thinking it kinda did, but kinda didn’t, and I couldn’t put my finger on why. Someone in another post nailed it for me. Whoever made this used all of George’s stand up specials to train the AI on his voice and cadence, so George of course sounded young in his early work and old in the later ones. The AI mixed that together, so you get a voice that’s not quite his younger voice and not quite his older voice either. That made perfect sense to me why it sounds like George, but still a little off.

    Gork ,

    Carlin-McCall said the channel never reached out to the family or asked for permission to use her father's likeness.

    I smell a lawsuit incoming.

    Rusticus ,

    I hope so. It’s so evil to do this without permission.

    neurogenesis ,

    Evil is a concept created by bronze age illiterates. I don't see how that has anything to do with this.

    Rusticus ,

    Lmao. Evil didn’t exist before 3000 BC? Non sequitur post of the year.

    jmcs ,

    It would depend on where the podcasters are based. Some places have really shitty personality or publicity rights laws that expire at death, for example.

    MrJameGumb ,
    @MrJameGumb@lemmy.world avatar

    I don't understand why anyone who was a fan of George Carlin would ever do this... It seems like something someone who didn't like Carlin would do. What was the point?

    Pons_Aelius ,

    What was the point?

    Money.

    Some also-ran hacks who aren't fit to be in the same room as Carlin are using him to make a name for themselves and drive views to their bullshit channel.

    It is grift, pure and simple.

    FaceDeer ,

    The show is on Youtube, searching "Duesy Carlin" gets it easily. I'm listening to it and it does seem to be Carlin's style of humor.

    Pons_Aelius ,

    it does seem to be Carlin's style of humor.

    That is irrelevant.

    It was not made by Carlin, it is not his work and he or his family did not consent to the production.

    FaceDeer ,

    I'm saying that in reference to the question of whether a fan of Carlin is doing this. It's Carlin's style of humor, so it's likely a fan of Carlin. If it was someone who didn't like him why would he be accurately emulating his style of humor?

    MrJameGumb ,
    @MrJameGumb@lemmy.world avatar

    I meant that anyone who ever had an ounce of respect for George Carlin wouldn't do this. This seems like the exact sort of thing Carlin would have been strongly against if he were still alive

    FaceDeer ,

    Fans make fanfiction about stuff they have respect for, this could be considered as an extreme sort of fanfiction.

    My basic point is that you're making assumptions about the motivations here that may not be warranted. Whoever made this could well be a genuine George Carlin fan and just wanted to have another new special "by" him.

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    This is not fan fiction. Furthermore, the idea of standup comedy "fan fiction" that is just a comedy routine is absurd.

    FaceDeer ,

    You haven't seen the broad diversity of forms that fanfiction takes.

    CeruleanRuin ,

    You're not wrong to compare this fanfiction.

    In that light it's important to note that fanfiction writers don't have the right to make money off of their fanfiction without an explicit agreement with the original creator. This shouldn't be treated any differently.

    AI creation is incredible in what it can do, but when it's this direct of a ripoff, the person it's ripping off should be granted a share of any money it makes. In this case, that person is dead, and I suspect Carlin didn't have a high opinion of inheritance and intellectual property estates, but it still feels wrong to profit off of the life work of somebody who was still around in your lifetime.

    Pons_Aelius ,

    How close it is does not matter.

    They are making money off of him, they may be doing it out of fandom but that does not change the fact they do not have the right to do it.

    EatATaco ,

    And why would they need to consent to it? Do Elvis impersonators need to get consent from his family to dress and and sing and act like him? This is especially true if it isn't performing his work but new stuff in his style. Comedians learn from each other all the time. Carlin himself had listed a bunch of comedians who have influenced his style.

    CeruleanRuin ,

    Your heart is in the right place, and I understand what you're saying. Impressionists have always been a thing. People who emulate the art styles of greater artists have always been a part of the culture, and should be.

    But there's a critical difference with AI, because it is quickly approaching a point where it can create copies so high-fidelity that they are indistinguishable from the originals. Crucially, they will be doing this with a relatively small amount of actual effort from those who wield them. We need to put protections in place for original creators, or before we even understand what's happened, all of culture will be driven by AI-produced remixing, and as those technologies are controlled by mega-corporations, everything about art we hold dear will be sold to appeal to algorithms. It's not too late to put the brakes on yet, but that won't be true for long.

    EatATaco ,

    I think the question as to whether or not it should be illegal is a different question. I could easily be convinced it should. However, I'm hesitant to support making something illegal, especially when it so closely resembles something that is currently legal, simply because of fear of what might happen.

    I share your concerns for sure tho.

    Chozo ,
    @Chozo@kbin.social avatar

    What was the point?

    Like most current demonstrations of AI, it's just a tech demo. All it's really meant to do is show off its capabilities. This wasn't meant to be taken as somebody's true artistic vision or something.

    MrJameGumb ,
    @MrJameGumb@lemmy.world avatar

    If it was a tech demo then wouldn't the company that made it want to take credit? The article said they wouldn't say which AI they used due to a non disclosure agreement

    Astarii_Tyler ,

    Why would the company want all this controversy over a tech demo?

    CeruleanRuin ,

    Boy though I would love to hear Carlin's opinion on all this AI shit. I think he would get a perverse kick out of seeing himself poorly re-created in such a manner, but I also think he would tear to shreds the kind of people who think it's a good idea to use it like this.

    FaceDeer ,

    Skip to 38:00 in "I'm Glad I'm Dead", there's a whole segment about it and AI recreations in general.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • news@lemmy.world
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •