Zelda Williams is understandably upset about AI recreations of her father
Robin Williams' daughter warns that AI will be used to create "a horrendous Frankensteinian monster"
Aux News Zelda Williams
Modern society is so busted that idiots with more money than intelligence are backing AI technology that will replace artists faster than stupider jobs that would make more sense to replace (like… meteorite miner or toxic gas collector?), which is why AI has been such a sticking point in the Hollywood strikes this summer. The WGA managed to secure protections in its big contract (assume it gets ratified by the union’s membership, which should happen later this month), and the still-striking SAG-AFTRA members are looking for something similar in their own fight with the major Hollywood studios—to say nothing of the worthless scammers using AI shit to try and make a quick buck, like whoever made the “Tom Hanks sells you dental insurance” ad that he complained about this weekend.
Now, Zelda Williams has offered a new perspective on the threat of AI, specifically that of someone who doesn’t want to see soulless AI replicas of people “who cannot consent,” like her father, Robin Williams. In a post on her Instagram Story, Zelda Williams said that she has already seen AI used to make “his ‘voice’” say “whatever people want,” and while she finds that “personally disturbing,” she says she’s not the only one who should be worried about what this tech could be used for. She says actors deserve to be able to “create characters” with their own choices and to “put their HUMAN effort and time into the pursuit of performance.” She adds that these recreations are, “at their very best, a poor facsimile of greater people” and, “at their worst, a horrendous Frankensteinian monster, cobbled together from the worst bits of everything this industry is, instead of what it should stand for.”
During his life, Robin Williams was famously protective of his voice and likeness, publicly feuding with Disney back in the ‘90s after the company allegedly went back on a deal they had not to use any aspect of his Genie performance in Aladdin to “sell stuff.” There are also potentially apocryphal stories going around that he legally barred Disney from using the many, many hours of Genie dialogue he recorded to create new Aladdin films (basically preemptively preventing the kind of thing Lucasfilm did to Carrie Fisher after her death).
So, in the span of two days, both Zelda Williams and Tom Hanks have pointed out that AI tech is bad and is being used for evil. Meanwhile, on the pro-AI side, we have… people who bought blue checkmarks on Twitter? Hmm, who to side with… which one seems better… hmm….
21 Comments
Yeah. He would have fucking hated this and so do I.
Seems like common sense but I’ve seen numerous folks go to the rhetorical mat for AI “art” that was generated using original works w/out permission or compensation of any sort. Perhaps the more personal element changes things for a lot of folks but… I think a scary number of people will see no issue with this.
oh, AV Club, you’re so understanding.
Given they’re using AI to create listicals and other shit for this website, I find it hilariously ironic that they’re taking a strong stance against it otherwise.
I mean, tbf, they’re not making a dead guy narrate their video content or anything… I think… I haven’t watched any of the videos they keep trying to feed us.
Forcing journalists to write more with AI and impersonating an actual person are 2 very different issues.The first one is morally reprehensible and will damage an entire profession. The second one should be illegal, plain and simple.
Yeah why can’t everyone just be a steaming pile of shit like kinja spider
Since the article mentioned it, the story of Williams’ post-Aladdin beef with Disney is really interesting and I would encourage anyone who doesn’t know that history to watch this video
Yup a whole history of capitalist fuckery is the reason why people should be anti-Disney, not because hIsPAnIC wOMaN Is pLaYiNG snOw WHiTE11
Lindsay Ellis always does great work.
Always did.
The people responsible for this should be put to death.
And their remains should be reanimated to provide endless years of amusement for children
The only important question here is : when are governments going to step up and make AI impersonation illegal? Seems like a no-brainer.
Yeah. I mean, there was a stir in the not-too-distant-past about deepfakes potentially being able to manipulate/alter elections and used as propaganda, etc… how is using AI recreations of people any different?
In America, I’d think it stands to be a very tricky case given free speech laws and the body of precedence around parody. I’d think there’d be a place to carve out using that speech commercially, but someone would have to figure out how to slice the pie that thin.
What makes AI representation in advertisements fundamentally different from the older form of simply hiring a look-alike actor of a dead celebrity? It’s one thing, as in the Tom Hanks case because Hanks could argue that the advertiser was intentionally trying to imply that he was actually endorsing the product, but obviously a dead person can’t actually endorse anything and it is just part of the standard fiction of advertising that Ben Franklin or Humphrey Bogart or whomever are in favor of your product.
As long as the rights to a person’s likeness is held by an estate, I believe that it’s required to get permission to use the likeness. Of course, that leaves Franklin open for abuse, but at least modern figures are protected. I know that the Elvis estate controls his like ness tightly.
when are governments going to step up and make AI impersonation illegal?Never, as long as there is money to be made.
AI tech *can be* bad and *can be* used for evil. Or it can be good and used for good. It’s a tool. Kind of like the hypocritical operators of this site.
While I agree that AI is busted for the most part, it still has a better understanding of grammar, sentence structure and punctuation than the author of this article.