The actor told an audience in London that AI was a “burning issue” for actors.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah me and the Harvard Business Review are wrong about existing precdent because you have very strong feelings.

      Guess the SAG strike should end then, since this is all settled!

      Fun fact: by your current interpretation, since movie companies own the likeness of characters within movies, they can reuse those characters, and potentially even those actors in some instances (since they can claim they are representative of similar archetypes) forever and the movie stars don’t need to get paid. Writers are flat fucked so long as the studios train AI on prior scripts they own.

      This is why semantics are important in law.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You don’t know what ad hominem means if you think I’ve attacked you at all. Idk what you think a straw man is, but maybe just leave those words for another day when you know what they mean.

          Your points are wrong on their own merit, and you have no case law to back you up. Quite the opposite.

          • gregorum@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Your “nuh uh” arguments are as ineffective here as they would be in your pretend court scenario.

            Again, I say, good day, sir