Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Wednesday, January 24, 2024
Was The NO AI FRAUD Act Written By A Fraudulent AI? Because Whoever Wrote It Is Hallucinating
Techdirt: A couple of weeks ago, a friend sent me Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar’s and Rep. Madeleine Dean’s proposed NO AI FRAUD Act, which purports to “protect Americans’ individual right to their likeness and voice against AI-generated fakes and forgeries.”
Firstly, whoever wrote that heading, amazing job. Second, there is no way in hell that this bill will pass both houses of Congress and the President without major alterations. It's very common for the initial draft of a bill to be as broad as possible and then get whittled down to specific terms. This also puts into question whether the Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore of the Senate even put the bill on the schedule to even be voted on. There are so many implications of this bill that the more legal trained members of congress will see it's inherit flaws and point them out (hopefully). The fear of this bill is all hinging on the fact that it might be voted on, which is basically chance. I want to reiterate that this bill would have to go through so many people that there's no way it goes through unaltered.
Obviously this is a terrible bill, there's no questioning that. but that's not adding anything to the conversation that wasn't already stated in the article. However, there is one point that I think the article doesn't quite cover to the degree it should and that's the fact that some of these Impressions or likenesses that are used in things like South Park where you wouldn't want to ban it outright is far too similar to the previously mentioned instance of a bodybuilder being used in a video game without any acknowledgment. These instances where something that is making money features a real person without their knowledge or consent are an issue. It is really odd that a show can just use any imitation of a real person but not of a fictional person created by that person. Shows like South Park should continue to be able to use likenesses of public figures for jokes and general commentary but if they can they should also be able to use popular fictional characters for the same purpose.
This act is really deceptive in a way that I didn’t understand until reading this article. While the title makes it sound like exactly what the Writer’s Guild and SAG-AFTRA were fighting for when they striked in 2023, the wording makes me feel like this bill will be used almost entirely by massive corporations to silence parody or commentary on their intellectual property. So many of the definitions and language used in the bill is far too vague, and like the article mentions, look to be written by someone who a) is looking for a way to take advantage of anti-AI sentiment to go after free speech, or b) someone who doesn’t understand technology in the slightest. As someone with no legal experience whatsoever, even I can see how horribly worded this act is. The bar is so far underground that I think I could write a better bill myself. As a passionate AI hater, to accuse an AI of writing this is insulting to the AI. At least the AI might know what words mean.
3 comments:
Firstly, whoever wrote that heading, amazing job. Second, there is no way in hell that this bill will pass both houses of Congress and the President without major alterations. It's very common for the initial draft of a bill to be as broad as possible and then get whittled down to specific terms. This also puts into question whether the Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore of the Senate even put the bill on the schedule to even be voted on. There are so many implications of this bill that the more legal trained members of congress will see it's inherit flaws and point them out (hopefully). The fear of this bill is all hinging on the fact that it might be voted on, which is basically chance. I want to reiterate that this bill would have to go through so many people that there's no way it goes through unaltered.
Obviously this is a terrible bill, there's no questioning that. but that's not adding anything to the conversation that wasn't already stated in the article. However, there is one point that I think the article doesn't quite cover to the degree it should and that's the fact that some of these Impressions or likenesses that are used in things like South Park where you wouldn't want to ban it outright is far too similar to the previously mentioned instance of a bodybuilder being used in a video game without any acknowledgment. These instances where something that is making money features a real person without their knowledge or consent are an issue. It is really odd that a show can just use any imitation of a real person but not of a fictional person created by that person. Shows like South Park should continue to be able to use likenesses of public figures for jokes and general commentary but if they can they should also be able to use popular fictional characters for the same purpose.
This act is really deceptive in a way that I didn’t understand until reading this article. While the title makes it sound like exactly what the Writer’s Guild and SAG-AFTRA were fighting for when they striked in 2023, the wording makes me feel like this bill will be used almost entirely by massive corporations to silence parody or commentary on their intellectual property. So many of the definitions and language used in the bill is far too vague, and like the article mentions, look to be written by someone who a) is looking for a way to take advantage of anti-AI sentiment to go after free speech, or b) someone who doesn’t understand technology in the slightest. As someone with no legal experience whatsoever, even I can see how horribly worded this act is. The bar is so far underground that I think I could write a better bill myself. As a passionate AI hater, to accuse an AI of writing this is insulting to the AI. At least the AI might know what words mean.
Post a Comment