1
00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:04,440
Speaker 1: There's another article here from Billboard dot com. New Senate

2
00:00:04,480 --> 00:00:08,560
bill could protect artists from AI deep fakes. And this

3
00:00:08,599 --> 00:00:11,759
is of course part of our ongoing discussions about AI.

4
00:00:13,080 --> 00:00:14,839
We discussed it a lot on the show, but also

5
00:00:14,919 --> 00:00:18,480
the music industry is having an ongoing discussion about it.

6
00:00:18,519 --> 00:00:22,480
And this is called the No Fakes Act, first introduced

7
00:00:22,519 --> 00:00:25,559
as a draft bill last October, aims to provide federal

8
00:00:25,600 --> 00:00:30,039
protection on one's voice and likeness for the first time.

9
00:00:30,760 --> 00:00:33,600
And this is something you know something about from your

10
00:00:33,640 --> 00:00:35,119
own experience as a state legislator.

11
00:00:35,200 --> 00:00:37,759
Speaker 2: Yes, I've worked on this issue specifically.

12
00:00:38,439 --> 00:00:41,000
Speaker 1: It says here. A bipartisan group of US Senators introduced

13
00:00:41,039 --> 00:00:44,679
the highly anticipated No Fakes Act on July thirty one,

14
00:00:44,880 --> 00:00:49,320
which aims to protect artists and others from AI deep

15
00:00:49,359 --> 00:00:54,079
fakes and other non consensual replicas of their voices, images,

16
00:00:54,119 --> 00:00:59,479
and likeness. If passed, the legislation would create federal intellectual

17
00:00:59,479 --> 00:01:02,439
property for detections for the so called right of publicity

18
00:01:02,479 --> 00:01:05,599
for the first time, which restricts how someone's name, image,

19
00:01:05,719 --> 00:01:10,319
likeness in voice can be used without consent. Currently, such

20
00:01:10,400 --> 00:01:12,799
rights are only protected at the state level, leading to

21
00:01:12,840 --> 00:01:17,159
a patchwork of different rules across the country. Unlike many

22
00:01:17,159 --> 00:01:20,680
existing state loss systems, the federal right, Yes, the federal

23
00:01:20,760 --> 00:01:24,000
right that the No Fakes Act would create would not

24
00:01:24,200 --> 00:01:27,480
expire at death and could be controlled by a person's

25
00:01:27,480 --> 00:01:33,120
heirs for seventy years after their passing. The balance personal

26
00:01:33,120 --> 00:01:37,079
publicity rights, I'm sorry, to balance personal publicity rights and

27
00:01:37,120 --> 00:01:39,640
the First Amendment right to free speech. The No Fakes

28
00:01:39,680 --> 00:01:44,079
Act also includes specific carve outs for replicas used in

29
00:01:44,159 --> 00:01:50,879
news coverage, parody, historical works, or criticism. Now, yes, yeah,

30
00:01:51,120 --> 00:01:55,280
tell us about your experience with the bill about JD. Salinger.

31
00:01:55,560 --> 00:01:58,359
Speaker 3: Right, So this in the articles one hundred percent correct.

32
00:01:58,400 --> 00:02:02,159
The laws are patchwork across the nation. Here in New Hampshire,

33
00:02:02,480 --> 00:02:04,760
as an artist, you have the right to protect your

34
00:02:04,799 --> 00:02:07,920
image and your likeness until you die. The moment that

35
00:02:07,959 --> 00:02:11,840
you did, you have no protections anymore, nor does your family.

36
00:02:12,280 --> 00:02:16,520
Nobody can control that or take ownership over your likeness.

37
00:02:16,879 --> 00:02:20,280
It becomes fair game. So what happened in New Hampshire

38
00:02:20,319 --> 00:02:24,199
is JD. Salinger's family has tried to protect his image.

39
00:02:24,199 --> 00:02:29,280
You know, Catcher in the Rye, famous American author. And

40
00:02:30,159 --> 00:02:33,080
there's a place, it's like a store or something that's

41
00:02:33,199 --> 00:02:36,800
near where the Salinger family. It has been in New

42
00:02:36,800 --> 00:02:40,520
Hampshire and they put JD. Salinger's face on toilet paper

43
00:02:41,639 --> 00:02:43,120
something wasn't too happy about that.

44
00:02:43,199 --> 00:02:44,319
Speaker 2: I don't blame him, but.

45
00:02:44,280 --> 00:02:46,759
Speaker 3: They were putting dad's face on things that weren't very

46
00:02:46,840 --> 00:02:49,520
respectable and they weren't happy about it, and they wanted

47
00:02:49,520 --> 00:02:52,039
to have control over their dad's image. But New Hampshire

48
00:02:52,080 --> 00:02:54,599
law didn't allow it. So the effort was to change

49
00:02:54,639 --> 00:02:57,759
the law to allow that to happen, because it does

50
00:02:57,879 --> 00:03:01,080
exist in many, many, many other states. California, it's a

51
00:03:01,159 --> 00:03:05,199
hundred years, so it's that patchwork. So what I say years,

52
00:03:05,240 --> 00:03:09,639
I'm talking about when you die, so you are you

53
00:03:09,680 --> 00:03:13,840
are a public persona you Matt Connorton on this show.

54
00:03:15,080 --> 00:03:18,879
In theory, you would have the ability to control your

55
00:03:18,879 --> 00:03:22,840
image up until the point that you die. In some states,

56
00:03:22,879 --> 00:03:26,639
when you die, whoever is your bequeathed or you're next

57
00:03:26,639 --> 00:03:29,360
to kin has the right to continue that control over

58
00:03:29,400 --> 00:03:32,439
your image, your likeness, your voice for a certain amount

59
00:03:32,439 --> 00:03:37,400
of time. In legislature, it's usually been around lifetime, thinking

60
00:03:37,479 --> 00:03:40,479
basically like we want your kids and your grandkids to

61
00:03:40,520 --> 00:03:44,000
be able to control your image. But after that it's

62
00:03:44,039 --> 00:03:49,280
been enough. But still allowing for people to be criticized

63
00:03:49,360 --> 00:03:52,879
or be satired, so narrowing the intent of the bill

64
00:03:52,919 --> 00:03:56,680
of that control like it is in other states. We

65
00:03:56,840 --> 00:03:59,520
got a lot of pushback trying to do this, like

66
00:03:59,560 --> 00:04:01,879
this was a huge fight, a bigger fight than I

67
00:04:01,879 --> 00:04:05,120
ever thought it would be. And I did manage to

68
00:04:05,120 --> 00:04:06,879
get it out of committee and I almost got it

69
00:04:06,919 --> 00:04:10,080
passed into the law, but the Republicans on the House

70
00:04:10,120 --> 00:04:14,960
side would not have it and trashed it because I

71
00:04:15,000 --> 00:04:17,560
was in a supermajority at the time as a Republican.

72
00:04:17,600 --> 00:04:21,040
Mind you, they wanted industries to be able to utilize

73
00:04:21,040 --> 00:04:23,360
people however they wanted to. And my argument was, if

74
00:04:23,399 --> 00:04:26,439
you look at the New Hampshire State House, it's across

75
00:04:26,480 --> 00:04:29,079
the street from an adult store. So I would give

76
00:04:29,079 --> 00:04:32,759
the example of you know, you die and the next

77
00:04:32,839 --> 00:04:35,720
day your kids see your face on an adult toy

78
00:04:35,759 --> 00:04:38,240
in the adult store being advertised in the window.

79
00:04:38,959 --> 00:04:41,240
Speaker 2: How do you feel about that? Should that be allowed?

80
00:04:41,240 --> 00:04:46,120
Speaker 3: Should a pub person's image belong ownership of that image

81
00:04:46,120 --> 00:04:49,240
belong to the next of ken? I think it should.

82
00:04:49,399 --> 00:04:52,240
I believe it should. You're a public figure, you're making

83
00:04:52,240 --> 00:04:55,199
money off of your image, you have created a brand

84
00:04:55,399 --> 00:04:58,639
of you, and you should be able to becreath that

85
00:04:58,839 --> 00:05:02,600
brand to your next to kin. In my opinion, this

86
00:05:02,720 --> 00:05:05,800
law gets into that because now it has to. Now

87
00:05:05,839 --> 00:05:08,480
we're adding this whole new animal into the mixture of

88
00:05:08,519 --> 00:05:11,800
AI and the ability to mimic people, to pretend to

89
00:05:11,839 --> 00:05:15,480
be people, to convince people that that really is that person.

90
00:05:15,519 --> 00:05:18,639
These deep fakes are pretty bad, Like you really can't

91
00:05:18,879 --> 00:05:22,120
necessarily tell the difference between one person or another. You

92
00:05:22,120 --> 00:05:25,759
could take somebody's image that you love and means the

93
00:05:25,759 --> 00:05:28,079
world to you and have them say the most horrific

94
00:05:28,160 --> 00:05:32,680
things and have no control over that, or we allow

95
00:05:32,720 --> 00:05:35,199
that to be controlled. I think you should be able

96
00:05:35,240 --> 00:05:36,800
to do that, and that's what I advocated for, and

97
00:05:36,839 --> 00:05:39,839
that's what I fought for. Unfortunately, the bill died thanks

98
00:05:39,879 --> 00:05:43,879
to House Republicans because the Senate was ready to pass it.

99
00:05:43,920 --> 00:05:47,000
The Salinger family is very respected in New Hampshire and

100
00:05:47,040 --> 00:05:49,519
we usually take pride in our in our in our

101
00:05:49,720 --> 00:05:51,959
in the successes that come out of our state. J. D.

102
00:05:52,079 --> 00:05:55,800
Salander is one of the most amazing American writers that

103
00:05:56,000 --> 00:05:58,519
is known throughout our country and around the world for

104
00:06:00,120 --> 00:06:04,199
or his Fourth Catcher in the Ryan his works. So

105
00:06:04,240 --> 00:06:05,959
you see what I'm saying about but.

106
00:06:05,959 --> 00:06:09,720
Speaker 1: It gets so these things do get complicated though, because

107
00:06:09,759 --> 00:06:13,959
he do. Because so this happened a few months ago

108
00:06:14,040 --> 00:06:16,160
and we never got to it on the show. But

109
00:06:17,240 --> 00:06:20,439
do you remember the Scarlett Johansson thing. Yes, it was

110
00:06:20,439 --> 00:06:23,120
in the news. Yes, I found an article from the

111
00:06:23,120 --> 00:06:25,279
Hollywood Reporter. Again, this is from a few months ago.

112
00:06:25,360 --> 00:06:30,000
But Scarlett Johansson's AI legal threat set stage for actors

113
00:06:30,120 --> 00:06:35,800
battle with tech giants. So here's what this was about. Artists.

114
00:06:35,839 --> 00:06:37,319
This is a little bit of a side street, but

115
00:06:37,360 --> 00:06:41,959
it's relevant. So artists were first to sue. Then authors

116
00:06:42,040 --> 00:06:45,480
hit generative artificial intelligence companies with a valley of lawsuits,

117
00:06:45,480 --> 00:06:48,079
followed by publications. As battle lines over the use of

118
00:06:48,079 --> 00:06:51,040
AI tools in Hollywood are being drawn, actors maybe the

119
00:06:51,079 --> 00:06:54,920
next group of creators to open another front in what

120
00:06:55,079 --> 00:06:58,120
would be an industry defining legal battle against AI firms

121
00:06:58,160 --> 00:07:02,160
over the use of copyrighted works in personal data to

122
00:07:02,439 --> 00:07:06,720
power their human mimicking chat bots. On Monday, and again

123
00:07:06,720 --> 00:07:09,439
this is from the end of May, Scarlett Johansson threatened

124
00:07:09,519 --> 00:07:14,000
legal action against open ai, which is who created chat gpt,

125
00:07:14,720 --> 00:07:19,560
for allegedly copying and limiting I'm sorry imitating her voice

126
00:07:20,199 --> 00:07:23,800
after she refused to license it to the company. According

127
00:07:23,839 --> 00:07:27,600
to the actress, Open Ai asks her to be one

128
00:07:27,600 --> 00:07:31,800
of the voices called Sky for its newest AI system.

129
00:07:32,279 --> 00:07:36,560
She declined, though she said that didn't stop chief executive

130
00:07:36,600 --> 00:07:37,439
Sam Altman.

131
00:07:39,879 --> 00:07:42,319
Speaker 3: And that's part of it right there, like for example,

132
00:07:42,600 --> 00:07:47,480
sports heroes in games and making sure that they have

133
00:07:47,560 --> 00:07:50,279
control over that imaging and that money in a game. Yeah,

134
00:07:50,279 --> 00:07:52,519
so that's where this legislation.

135
00:07:53,120 --> 00:07:56,199
Speaker 1: But here's here's the problem though. Well, okay, so this

136
00:07:56,279 --> 00:07:58,120
is what she said in her statement, and then I'm

137
00:07:58,160 --> 00:08:02,519
gonna play Devil's advocate as I like to do because

138
00:08:02,560 --> 00:08:04,399
this because I when I first heard this, I was

139
00:08:04,480 --> 00:08:07,399
very skeptical that she had a case. Okay, so she

140
00:08:07,480 --> 00:08:10,959
wrote in a statement, quote, when I heard the released demo,

141
00:08:11,199 --> 00:08:14,920
I was shocked, angered, and in disbelief that mister Altman

142
00:08:14,959 --> 00:08:18,759
would pursue a voice that sounded so eerily similar to

143
00:08:18,839 --> 00:08:22,160
mine that my closest friends and news outlets could not

144
00:08:22,360 --> 00:08:30,000
tell the difference. Unquote. Okay, here's the problem. So from

145
00:08:30,040 --> 00:08:34,799
her perspective, so she feels they asked her, she said no,

146
00:08:35,200 --> 00:08:37,519
So they just generated a voice that sounded.

147
00:08:37,399 --> 00:08:39,360
Speaker 2: Well, we'll go to court and deal with it in court,

148
00:08:39,399 --> 00:08:40,360
but we got it.

149
00:08:40,440 --> 00:08:44,879
Speaker 1: But here's the problem. What did they Does Scarlett Johanson

150
00:08:45,360 --> 00:08:48,879
have such a distinct voice? Is there no one else

151
00:08:48,879 --> 00:08:50,519
who sounds like her? I?

152
00:08:50,879 --> 00:08:54,600
Speaker 3: Ah, yeah, come on, now, come on, we want you

153
00:08:54,679 --> 00:08:55,240
to be our voice.

154
00:08:55,240 --> 00:08:57,120
Speaker 2: We want you to be a voice. No no, no

155
00:08:57,120 --> 00:08:59,000
no no, So we make one up that sounds just

156
00:08:59,039 --> 00:08:59,240
like you.

157
00:08:59,360 --> 00:09:04,080
Speaker 1: Come on if I if so, if I go and

158
00:09:04,120 --> 00:09:09,039
hear this, am I going to say? Oh, that's Scarlett Johansson?

159
00:09:09,360 --> 00:09:12,639
Speaker 3: I mean according to her, she's saying yes, she's saying

160
00:09:13,000 --> 00:09:16,399
that news to her. According to her, So who are

161
00:09:16,440 --> 00:09:19,159
these news outlets and did they really feel that way

162
00:09:19,200 --> 00:09:19,960
and contact her?

163
00:09:20,039 --> 00:09:23,799
Speaker 2: If that is true, then she absolutely has a case.

164
00:09:24,200 --> 00:09:25,159
Speaker 1: I'm very skeptical.

165
00:09:25,240 --> 00:09:28,320
Speaker 3: The thing is, even even the Motion Picture Association is

166
00:09:28,320 --> 00:09:29,480
getting in behind this bill.

167
00:09:29,519 --> 00:09:31,120
Speaker 2: And I do want to say one thing about the bill.

168
00:09:32,000 --> 00:09:35,600
Speaker 3: Senator Blackburn is on it, who's a Republican, and Senator

169
00:09:35,639 --> 00:09:40,240
Clovisha and Senator they So this bill is bipartisan in

170
00:09:40,440 --> 00:09:45,360
effort to try and protect artists, athletes, people who have

171
00:09:45,399 --> 00:09:50,120
a public persona from being turned into some kind of

172
00:09:50,159 --> 00:09:50,720
an AI.

173
00:09:52,879 --> 00:09:55,960
Speaker 1: Now, and you know, I'll always advocate on the side

174
00:09:56,000 --> 00:09:58,080
of artists at the end of the day. But I'm

175
00:09:58,120 --> 00:10:00,000
just saying though from a pra again from a practice

176
00:10:00,200 --> 00:10:06,080
and pragmatic standpoint. So if somebody sounds like you, now

177
00:10:06,440 --> 00:10:07,559
you can go and get suit film.

178
00:10:07,799 --> 00:10:11,559
Speaker 3: If this suit, if this actually sounds a lot like her,

179
00:10:11,720 --> 00:10:15,840
or sounds like her period after them turn after she

180
00:10:16,159 --> 00:10:20,919
turned them down, that's that's not coincidental.

181
00:10:21,399 --> 00:10:25,360
Speaker 2: That's not a coincidence. That's intention. But they're gonna get.

182
00:10:25,200 --> 00:10:27,960
Speaker 3: What they wanted because they figure tied up in court,

183
00:10:28,480 --> 00:10:29,639
they get away with it.

184
00:10:29,840 --> 00:10:31,240
Speaker 2: But who they get away with it?

185
00:10:31,320 --> 00:10:32,200
Speaker 1: But who's to say.

186
00:10:33,919 --> 00:10:37,360
Speaker 3: Unless she gets a stay of some kind and some

187
00:10:37,440 --> 00:10:40,279
kind of emergency injunction to stop them from using it.

188
00:10:40,399 --> 00:10:43,399
They're getting to utilize it while you're going through court.

189
00:10:43,519 --> 00:10:47,840
Speaker 1: But so this company though, so because that conversation was

190
00:10:47,960 --> 00:10:54,240
had with Scarlett Johansson, now this company can never ever

191
00:10:54,399 --> 00:10:56,320
use any voice that might.

192
00:10:56,600 --> 00:10:59,960
Speaker 2: Sound like yeah, I'm gonna say yes.

193
00:11:00,240 --> 00:11:01,679
Speaker 1: See that to me sounds.

194
00:11:01,399 --> 00:11:04,240
Speaker 3: If it sounds just like her, like you can't tell

195
00:11:04,240 --> 00:11:07,279
the difference. No, they shouldn't be able to.

196
00:11:07,440 --> 00:11:12,320
Speaker 1: There's not another actor somewhere who has a voice like her.

197
00:11:12,159 --> 00:11:14,200
What is so distinct about her voice?

198
00:11:14,960 --> 00:11:18,080
Speaker 3: If it sounds just like her and you can't tell

199
00:11:18,120 --> 00:11:21,320
the difference. After they went to her trying to get

200
00:11:21,440 --> 00:11:24,639
usage and she said, no, I don't know. We have

201
00:11:24,720 --> 00:11:27,399
to put some kind of limitations on AI or it

202
00:11:27,480 --> 00:11:30,519
will run rampant. Where is your line, Where is your

203
00:11:30,559 --> 00:11:32,720
line in the stand that you're protecting the artist?

204
00:11:32,799 --> 00:11:34,639
Speaker 1: Yeah, but I do think there's I do think there's

205
00:11:34,720 --> 00:11:36,559
the uh. And this is why I bring this up.

206
00:11:36,559 --> 00:11:38,720
I do think there's the risk of abuse in the

207
00:11:38,759 --> 00:11:39,440
other direction.

208
00:11:39,559 --> 00:11:43,120
Speaker 3: Man, there is, which is why this is why this Yeah,

209
00:11:43,120 --> 00:11:45,399
and it's why these kinds of laws are difficult to

210
00:11:45,440 --> 00:11:48,159
pass because you do have to narrow the scope because

211
00:11:48,159 --> 00:11:52,639
you still have to allow for perspective, sorry, for protected speech.

212
00:11:53,399 --> 00:11:55,360
You've got to allow for There's got to be you know,

213
00:11:55,639 --> 00:11:57,600
we have to be able to have sat tire of people.

214
00:11:57,639 --> 00:11:58,600
Speaker 2: We have to be able to.

215
00:11:59,399 --> 00:12:02,120
Speaker 1: Well that that's the right thing about That's a big thing.

216
00:12:02,080 --> 00:12:05,440
Speaker 2: I'm worried about is part of But that's been done.

217
00:12:05,519 --> 00:12:07,399
It's done in many places.

218
00:12:06,960 --> 00:12:11,360
Speaker 1: Because satirical works are generally protected and that's already and

219
00:12:11,399 --> 00:12:12,639
I'm worried about that no longer.

220
00:12:12,639 --> 00:12:14,639
Speaker 3: There's a lot, but it's already been on the books

221
00:12:14,679 --> 00:12:18,600
for forever, especially in California, there's laws on the books

222
00:12:18,600 --> 00:12:22,919
that protect artists but allow for satire. California protects your

223
00:12:22,919 --> 00:12:25,840
image for one hundred years after your death. Some states

224
00:12:25,879 --> 00:12:29,519
are seventy five. New Hampshire is no time. New Hampshire

225
00:12:29,559 --> 00:12:31,759
is you're dead, You're done. Your family doesn't get to

226
00:12:31,799 --> 00:12:33,799
control it. You show up in the middle of some

227
00:12:33,960 --> 00:12:37,919
adult stores window too bad, too sad, don't show your kids.

228
00:12:38,559 --> 00:12:40,080
Speaker 2: I don't like that.

229
00:12:40,159 --> 00:12:42,639
Speaker 3: I think people should be able to control their image,

230
00:12:43,120 --> 00:12:47,399
their persona, and when they die that shouldn't just die

231
00:12:47,480 --> 00:12:49,799
with them if they you know you're you are a

232
00:12:49,840 --> 00:12:53,799
commodity of your own, and you've established this commodity. You

233
00:12:53,840 --> 00:12:56,320
get to bequeath that to whoever you wish, and they

234
00:12:56,360 --> 00:12:58,960
get to contain that ownership for however many years the

235
00:12:59,039 --> 00:13:02,879
law allows. But like our state doesn't. Our state gives

236
00:13:02,960 --> 00:13:06,600
no protection at awe when death happens.

237
00:13:07,279 --> 00:13:11,320
Speaker 2: This law is going way, This law has to happen.

238
00:13:11,639 --> 00:13:12,799
This stuff has to happen.

239
00:13:13,080 --> 00:13:17,399
Speaker 3: AI is exponentially growing on a daily basis. Let's face it,

240
00:13:17,440 --> 00:13:20,360
technology is amazing. It grows every day. There's good and

241
00:13:20,399 --> 00:13:25,279
bad about it. The ability to mimic someone's image, likeness, voice,

242
00:13:25,480 --> 00:13:27,840
there's a lot of danger involved in that. There's a

243
00:13:27,840 --> 00:13:31,360
lot of nasty, underground, criminal things that can be done

244
00:13:31,399 --> 00:13:32,480
with that, you know.

245
00:13:33,000 --> 00:13:34,200
Speaker 2: I mean, I worry.

246
00:13:33,960 --> 00:13:38,039
Speaker 3: About that somebody puts a video of somebody making it

247
00:13:38,080 --> 00:13:40,759
look like they've committed a crime, that person goes to jail.

248
00:13:41,200 --> 00:13:46,559
This kind of technology can be so horrifically abused that

249
00:13:46,639 --> 00:13:50,039
if we don't put safeguards now, it's going to be

250
00:13:50,080 --> 00:13:51,639
too late when it's out of the box.

251
00:13:53,320 --> 00:13:54,919
Speaker 1: For all you know, I might not really be here.

252
00:13:54,919 --> 00:13:55,879
I could be a deep fake.

253
00:13:56,519 --> 00:13:58,200
Speaker 2: Well I know, because I'm here.

254
00:13:58,279 --> 00:14:00,000
Speaker 1: Oh that's true.

255
00:14:00,039 --> 00:14:01,919
Speaker 2: Listeners could be listening to two deep pakes.

256
00:14:02,000 --> 00:14:04,720
Speaker 1: They could be listening to an AI generated version of

257
00:14:04,759 --> 00:14:05,039
the show.

258
00:14:05,080 --> 00:14:07,080
Speaker 2: Maybe we're not here, maybe we're in Aruba.

259
00:14:07,600 --> 00:14:09,159
Speaker 1: I do want to do that sometime. I think it'd

260
00:14:09,200 --> 00:14:11,840
be fun make an AI generated version of the show,

261
00:14:11,879 --> 00:14:13,399
just to see what it comes up with. They did

262
00:14:13,399 --> 00:14:15,480
that once on The Howard Stern Show. It's pretty well

263
00:14:15,600 --> 00:14:18,879
the conversation between Howard and Robin and the AI version

264
00:14:18,919 --> 00:14:21,240
that they did. It was funny because it was so

265
00:14:21,679 --> 00:14:23,679
it was so it was like, you know, Howard's like

266
00:14:23,759 --> 00:14:27,240
asking Robin, Robin, how was your weekend? And Robin's like

267
00:14:27,279 --> 00:14:29,440
mine was good, Howard, how was you know, It's just

268
00:14:29,480 --> 00:14:31,840
like a conversation they would never have, but it was

269
00:14:31,879 --> 00:14:34,600
like it was the best that the AI could come

270
00:14:34,679 --> 00:14:34,960
up with.

271
00:14:35,080 --> 00:14:38,120
Speaker 3: There is an organization called their Human Artistry Campaign that's

272
00:14:38,120 --> 00:14:40,080
out there that's actually trying to work on these issues

273
00:14:40,159 --> 00:14:43,279
to protect artists. We're talking about When you talk about

274
00:14:43,320 --> 00:14:48,759
artis you talk about everybody. We're talking about music, actors, painters, everyone.

275
00:14:50,360 --> 00:14:52,519
If we I'm serious, Like, so, I want to know

276
00:14:52,559 --> 00:14:58,159
from you, Devil's Advocate, where's your line where is it

277
00:14:58,240 --> 00:15:01,000
that we are protecting? Where do you put that line

278
00:15:01,039 --> 00:15:02,039
to protect the artists?

279
00:15:03,919 --> 00:15:06,200
Speaker 1: Well, I don't know. I mean, that's that's the thing

280
00:15:06,240 --> 00:15:10,120
we're kind of That's what's so fascinating about the subject

281
00:15:10,120 --> 00:15:13,120
to me is it's it's complicated. It's it's complex, and

282
00:15:13,120 --> 00:15:16,039
we're kind of trying to find our way through it. Now.

283
00:15:16,159 --> 00:15:20,080
I do tend to be I might be lenient on

284
00:15:20,159 --> 00:15:23,159
a lot of this, though I might have an internal

285
00:15:23,200 --> 00:15:27,440
bias because so you know, I'm a co host on

286
00:15:27,480 --> 00:15:30,440
Retrospect and Radio with Polic on Friday nights, and one

287
00:15:30,480 --> 00:15:32,919
of the things that one of the uh, if you've

288
00:15:32,960 --> 00:15:35,519
never heard the show, every week Paul picks a different subject,

289
00:15:35,840 --> 00:15:37,879
and one of the subjects that we've done a few

290
00:15:37,879 --> 00:15:42,039
times that Paul has shows in his plagiarism where he'll

291
00:15:42,600 --> 00:15:45,200
play a song and then yeah, and then it's a

292
00:15:45,240 --> 00:15:49,279
song where there was some sort of perhaps someone said, hey,

293
00:15:49,360 --> 00:15:51,600
they you stole my song. I'm going to sue you,

294
00:15:51,759 --> 00:15:53,720
and there was litigation or the threat of litigation or

295
00:15:53,759 --> 00:15:56,399
just accusations of plagiarism and so forth. Led Zeppelin, by

296
00:15:56,399 --> 00:16:02,080
the way, the most plagiaristic band ever. But when we're

297
00:16:03,200 --> 00:16:06,440
when Paul plays these examples for us, I'm usually the

298
00:16:06,480 --> 00:16:09,240
one in the room who says not guilty. I'm like,

299
00:16:09,360 --> 00:16:13,440
I'm the most lenient when it comes to these accusations

300
00:16:13,440 --> 00:16:16,440
of plagiarism, because I'm the guy who says, yeah, I

301
00:16:16,480 --> 00:16:19,799
know that song sounds like this other song, but that's

302
00:16:19,879 --> 00:16:23,080
because it's using a chord progression that is very common

303
00:16:23,080 --> 00:16:25,279
in rock music and shows up in a lot of songs.

304
00:16:25,639 --> 00:16:29,559
I'm the most lenient one. So maybe maybe because I

305
00:16:29,679 --> 00:16:32,600
tend to maybe maybe I have an internal bias that's

306
00:16:32,600 --> 00:16:34,960
making me say, hey, let's be a little bit careful

307
00:16:35,000 --> 00:16:38,039
about what we assume that's different is copying something else?

308
00:16:38,080 --> 00:16:40,200
Speaker 3: I want to challenge you on that. That's different because

309
00:16:40,240 --> 00:16:44,159
you're comparing what's coming out of a human mind to

310
00:16:44,639 --> 00:16:47,480
a computer pretending to be somebody else.

311
00:16:47,960 --> 00:16:51,159
Speaker 1: But what is the same is this notion of copying,

312
00:16:51,320 --> 00:16:57,120
this notion of hearing something or reading the data of something. However,

313
00:16:57,120 --> 00:16:58,879
you want to think about it the way a large

314
00:16:59,159 --> 00:17:03,600
learning model works machine learning. The part that's similar is

315
00:17:03,639 --> 00:17:05,440
taking something and replicating it in some.

316
00:17:05,359 --> 00:17:08,039
Speaker 3: Way, true, but without the human element. And that's that's

317
00:17:08,039 --> 00:17:11,799
a big difference. There's the difference between the human being

318
00:17:11,960 --> 00:17:12,920
and the computer.

319
00:17:14,079 --> 00:17:16,480
Speaker 1: Well, but it depends on the situation, right, I mean,

320
00:17:16,480 --> 00:17:18,319
if I take a if I take somebody else's song

321
00:17:18,359 --> 00:17:20,519
and I just basically copy it and I barely change it,

322
00:17:20,519 --> 00:17:24,119
and I've plagiarized it, that's actually worse.

323
00:17:24,000 --> 00:17:27,200
Speaker 2: Than that plagiarism not a deep fake, right.

324
00:17:27,119 --> 00:17:28,880
Speaker 1: No, But I'm just saying, though, that's actually worse than

325
00:17:28,920 --> 00:17:31,319
if I type an AI prompt and I say make

326
00:17:31,359 --> 00:17:32,799
a song that kind of sounds like this.

327
00:17:33,000 --> 00:17:37,559
Speaker 3: Yeah, No, that is worse because it's a direct right copyright.

328
00:17:37,599 --> 00:17:41,319
Who's the Who's the rapper that did that? With David

329
00:17:41,359 --> 00:17:46,319
Bowie's song Queen under Pressure? Who's stole from under pressure.

330
00:17:46,599 --> 00:17:50,839
Vanilla Vanilla ice, that's what it was. Yeah, yep, but

331
00:17:50,920 --> 00:17:54,000
see that's that's plagiarism. That's stealing somebody's work.

332
00:17:54,960 --> 00:17:58,440
Speaker 1: Well that's not technically, it's not plagiarism. It's it's a

333
00:17:58,880 --> 00:18:01,759
it's ample, it's an unclear sample. Yeah, because he didn't

334
00:18:01,759 --> 00:18:04,079
ask permission and then he got held over a balcony

335
00:18:04,119 --> 00:18:06,319
by Suge Knight. It's a whole thing. Geez, we can

336
00:18:06,400 --> 00:18:09,039
do a whole show about vanilla Ice. What a fascinating man.

337
00:18:09,559 --> 00:18:12,519
Speaker 2: This is true. Yes, but you don't want to anger anyone.

338
00:18:12,720 --> 00:18:14,720
Speaker 1: No, that's true. We don't want Sugar Knight to come

339
00:18:14,720 --> 00:18:15,400
and hurt me.

340
00:18:15,480 --> 00:18:18,319
Speaker 3: Hang you over or we do have a balcony. Yes,

341
00:18:18,440 --> 00:18:20,680
he could hang you over a balcony by your ankles.

342
00:18:20,960 --> 00:18:23,720
Speaker 2: That would be terrible. Well, it's it's a very I mean,

343
00:18:24,680 --> 00:18:27,839
I support the effort. I think this bill should pass.

344
00:18:28,640 --> 00:18:29,559
I think it should be long.

345
00:18:29,599 --> 00:18:34,680
Speaker 3: I think there should be protections against We have to start.

346
00:18:34,720 --> 00:18:37,000
If we don't, we're already kind of late to the

347
00:18:37,480 --> 00:18:38,400
late to the Gamia.

348
00:18:38,680 --> 00:18:39,240
Speaker 2: We need these.

349
00:18:39,200 --> 00:18:43,079
Speaker 3: Laws on the books like yesterday. Because technology grows and

350
00:18:43,160 --> 00:18:48,079
leaps and bounds by the day, AI especially, we don't

351
00:18:48,119 --> 00:18:51,200
we need we need this stuff now right, not before

352
00:18:51,640 --> 00:18:54,240
before it gets too far out of the bag. But

353
00:18:54,400 --> 00:18:56,680
you know, I'm sorry, but I still I have to

354
00:18:56,720 --> 00:19:01,160
disagree with you on Johansson issue. She was approached, she

355
00:19:01,319 --> 00:19:04,000
was asked, they wanted her, they courted her, she said no.

356
00:19:04,799 --> 00:19:08,000
Then they created something that sounded just like her. Yeah,

357
00:19:09,160 --> 00:19:10,920
I don't, I don't see.

358
00:19:10,920 --> 00:19:13,880
Speaker 1: I don't even know, though, I would have to hear

359
00:19:13,960 --> 00:19:17,079
it and make my own determination to really have an

360
00:19:17,079 --> 00:19:19,759
opinion a hundred, which I have not. It's like with

361
00:19:19,799 --> 00:19:24,279
the George Carlin thing. Remember all these guys who made

362
00:19:24,319 --> 00:19:26,720
an AI version of a George Carlin album, a new

363
00:19:26,720 --> 00:19:30,839
George Carlin album. Yeah, And I remember I played a

364
00:19:30,880 --> 00:19:34,160
little bit of it on the show that and and

365
00:19:34,480 --> 00:19:37,279
well I ended up listening to the entire hour, and

366
00:19:37,359 --> 00:19:39,480
I thought it was good. I actually thought it was funny.

367
00:19:39,519 --> 00:19:42,079
And George Carland's one of my all time favorite Duck comedians,

368
00:19:42,119 --> 00:19:45,599
of course. But but I remember saying to you, Jesse

369
00:19:45,759 --> 00:19:46,920
was with us on the show that day, and I

370
00:19:47,000 --> 00:19:51,240
remember saying, my observation was, you know, yeah, it sounds

371
00:19:51,359 --> 00:19:54,440
a lot like him, but not exactly. And if you

372
00:19:54,480 --> 00:19:56,480
were to play this for me, and I'm sure it's

373
00:19:56,480 --> 00:19:58,680
still on YouTube. If you don't know what we're talking about,

374
00:19:58,720 --> 00:20:01,240
just look up George Carlin AI. You'll find it and

375
00:20:01,279 --> 00:20:04,680
it's actually funny, like the jokes are good. But I'm

376
00:20:04,720 --> 00:20:07,920
skeptical that it's all AI generated because some of those

377
00:20:08,000 --> 00:20:10,079
jokes don't sound like they could have been generated by AI.

378
00:20:10,119 --> 00:20:13,519
They're actually too clever. But but I remember saying to

379
00:20:13,559 --> 00:20:15,880
you and Jesse that if you, if you just played

380
00:20:15,880 --> 00:20:18,680
this for me and said to me, didn't tell me

381
00:20:18,680 --> 00:20:20,480
anything about it, and just said, Matt, who is this comedian?

382
00:20:20,519 --> 00:20:24,720
Do you recognize this? I might say it reminds me

383
00:20:24,759 --> 00:20:27,240
of George Carlin, or it kind of sounds like George Carlin.

384
00:20:27,319 --> 00:20:29,599
I would not say, oh, that's George Carlin.

385
00:20:29,839 --> 00:20:31,279
Speaker 2: Well guess, because you know he's dead.

386
00:20:31,359 --> 00:20:33,279
Speaker 1: No, no, no, But I'm just saying. I'm saying, if if,

387
00:20:33,359 --> 00:20:34,160
if you, if you.

388
00:20:34,240 --> 00:20:36,359
Speaker 2: Just played that for me, you would have it out

389
00:20:36,440 --> 00:20:36,920
right away and.

390
00:20:37,079 --> 00:20:39,920
Speaker 1: Tell me anything about it. I I probably would have

391
00:20:39,920 --> 00:20:41,839
said it reminds me of George Carlin, but I would

392
00:20:41,839 --> 00:20:44,599
not have said that's George Carlin because it didn't sound

393
00:20:44,720 --> 00:20:46,960
enough like him to me. The AI version.

394
00:20:47,039 --> 00:20:47,960
Speaker 2: That's one example.

395
00:20:48,240 --> 00:20:51,680
Speaker 1: It is, It's just one example. It's anecdotal, but I'm

396
00:20:51,720 --> 00:20:55,720
just saying I would have to hear the the Scarlett

397
00:20:55,799 --> 00:20:59,799
Johanson which is not which is not available. They they

398
00:21:00,000 --> 00:21:02,720
took it down, avoided a lawsuit, and all of that.

399
00:21:02,720 --> 00:21:03,440
That's all been saying.

400
00:21:03,440 --> 00:21:06,519
Speaker 2: So you in favor or opposed to the legislation.

401
00:21:08,359 --> 00:21:10,799
Speaker 1: I'm generally in favor of protecting artists. I don't know

402
00:21:10,920 --> 00:21:14,440
enough about exactly what the legislation is to really have

403
00:21:14,680 --> 00:21:17,920
a firm opinion, but I'm generally in favor of protecting artists.

404
00:21:18,039 --> 00:21:19,440
At the end of the day, I will always advocate

405
00:21:19,480 --> 00:21:22,160
on behalf of artists. Having said that, I'm also always

406
00:21:22,680 --> 00:21:26,400
worried about abuse, I will say, and frivolous lawsuits and

407
00:21:26,440 --> 00:21:26,839
all of that.

408
00:21:27,279 --> 00:21:30,640
Speaker 3: There are a whole host of organizations that agree with you,

409
00:21:30,720 --> 00:21:35,400
that are representing artists. Organizations like the Nashville Songwriters' Association

410
00:21:36,039 --> 00:21:39,799
or the Production Music Association, the Recording Academy are all

411
00:21:39,920 --> 00:21:43,920
joining together in support of this bipartisan legislation, which is

412
00:21:44,000 --> 00:21:46,359
nice to see. I just hope that the sun doesn't

413
00:21:46,359 --> 00:21:48,440
sit on it forever and that they actually do get

414
00:21:48,440 --> 00:21:49,279
it passed into.

415
00:21:49,160 --> 00:21:51,440
Speaker 2: Law sooner rather than later.

416
00:21:51,519 --> 00:21:56,200
Speaker 3: To protect artists is not artists, culture, art everything needs

417
00:21:56,240 --> 00:22:02,559
to be protected from AI. It really does. If we

418
00:22:02,599 --> 00:22:04,799
don't get these laws in place now, it's just going

419
00:22:04,880 --> 00:22:07,759
to be too late. And I really do think there

420
00:22:07,799 --> 00:22:11,000
needs to be laws, and especially in regards to deep fakes,

421
00:22:13,119 --> 00:22:13,559
perhaps