What makes those considerations significant enough to be worth the effort of evaluating though? It's too late to stop the tech from existing, there's no individuals actually being harmed, and even if you find a framework for arguing harm that's compelling the end-game is just going to be updated contracts which demand rights to use the performer's likeness for these sorts of purposes. The dialogue just seems like a lot of opining for the sake of itself with a fashionable hint of 21st century doom-cult luddism. I guess maybe the unions might have a reason to worry but I don't have a lot of sympathy for unions representing millionaires.
I have no qualms with the tech existing, assuming I do is you creating an argument I don't have. In fact I work in ML generative modeling. But just because a tool exists doesn't mean you shouldn't be thoughtful about how you use it. Technology isn't really good or bad on its own.
> there's no individuals actually being harmed
This is debatable. I think a lot matters on how you think of dead people. I believe most people would take the stance that it is unethical to use someone's image to promote things they did not stand for. You're right that it is very difficult to impossible to harm a dead person, but there's still respect. There's also a family that lives with how you portray said person. They _can_ be harmed.
> the end-game is just going to be updated contracts which demand rights to use the performer's likeness for these sorts of purposes
If there's (informed) consent then what's the issue? (If we assume that said person knows what they have consented to)
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but your response seems in bad faith and to operate on many assumptions about me that just do not hold true. Frankly this is not the kind of conversations I want to have on HN or expect to have. I'm happy to argue about the ethics and have differing opinions, but I do not appreciate my image being depicted with a broad brush. As long as the conversation is in good faith we can discuss a lot of controversial things and disagree all day and everything will be fine. But turning
> Bourdain likely would not have liked this
into
> a fashionable hint of 21st century doom-cult luddism
Is just ridiculous. That's far too large of a leap and such comments are not welcome here. You're welcome to try again but you'll need to update your priors.
I think that is a fair question to ask but I don't agree with your conclusions.
You are essentially asking why bother investigating and forming opinions and value judgements on the the use of new technology. Humans use opinions and values to decide how they want to interact with the outside world. Even if the technology exists and no living are harmed, people can find it distasteful. people can decide not to support what they find distasteful. They can decide to voice support actors unions if the issue ever comes up. They can tell their friends and family how they would like their likeness used as these technologies become more prevalent.
As always, the question is who's going to do better? The Americans already gave it their best shot and this is where they ended up. Certainly not any of the members of the EU, it'd get hobbled by regulation as they've never cared about actual free speech of the kind the Americans value. It's sure not going to be coming out of anywhere in SEA or NAME with the way governments in those regions tend to operate. So who's left to do better at a scale that matters?
