ŷ������

We debate whether we want dead celebrities to read our audiobooks. How long is too long for a series? And our non-spoilery takes on Cursed Bunny.

Veronica Belbot will read all the books and mispronounce all the names.
Seriously though, it seems like everyone's first reaction to anything AI these days is abject horror. I remember when the Star Trek TNG holodeck recreated famous people and we all thought it was amazing. Well, now we're one step closer and suddenly it's creepy?
It'll be fine. Culture tends to preserve value. We still have TV despite the Internet, we still have radio despite TV, we still have live plays despite radio. The forms and uses change over time but it can be argued that they would have changed anyway. That's just the nature of human beings to reinvent old ideas to fit changing circumstances. AI will find its place in the scheme of things, although there may be growing pains along the way.

Granted, profiting off someone without their or their estate's permission is a heinous act of piracy. Still it raises the question �� when does a person become public domain?

Like all of these large-scale AI projects it is based on theft.

The estates of the famous dead actors are paid while the audio book narrators that have their work stolen to train the AI on how to read the books get nothing.

The idea that it will be fine in the future ignores the quite real effects of the implementation of new technologies that can disadvantage large swathes of society for the benefit of the very few. It can take decades for these changes to start to benefit the masses.

Sean Lookielook wrote: "Still it raises the question �� when does a person become public domain?"

Never.

Trike wrote: "Sean Lookielook wrote: "Still it raises the question �� when does a person become public domain?"

Never."

I both agree, and disagree. Both morally, and legally for the majority of folks out there I think you are correct. But we as a society have a long history of using impersonations of both historic and current day public figures in fiction both for entertainment, but also for satire. And this has been seen as legal by the courts. Falwell v. Penthouse being one of the more famous cases. I agree the stakes change when it is almost impossible, or actually impossible to tell the difference between the real thing and the impersonation. And that is going to be an issue going forward. And one I'm not sure there is an easy answer for.

I also wonder if legally copyright law could be used to justify impersonating an individual. For a public performer would their likeness fall into public domain 70 years after death? I'm not sure, but I could see some arguments being made justifying it based on this.

John (Nevets) wrote: "Trike wrote: "Sean Lookielook wrote: "Still it raises the question �� when does a person become public domain?"

Never."

I both agree, and disagree. Both morally, and legally for the majority of fo..."

I think you have to look at the worst case scenario. If someone decides, for whatever reason or even for no reason, to destroy your reputation and it’s impossible to tell an AI construct from the real thing, then we can’t allow anyone to have access to a person’s likeness.

Because that doesn’t just damage the reputation of the person in question it also tars their family and everyone associated with them.

We’ve seen this time and again where some asshat will ruin someone’s life by doxxing them, SWATting them, creating fake photos and spread malicious rumors. Now imagine someone doing this to you for all time. Maybe the person in question will be dead and beyond caring, but their kids and grandkids will still have to deal with it.

It’s one thing to stage a one-man play about Mark Twain using his writing as the basis for the script. It’s another to create a simulacrum that engages in pedophilia and murder. To guard against the latter we have to lock that down now.

Tom mentioned that a Seanan McGuire book was read, as a big fan on her work I raced to the wiki to remember what was read and I couldn't find anything. Was this one I don't remember or Tom read and forgot it wasn't for the show?

I don't see it there either.

Peter wrote: "Tom mentioned that a Seanan McGuire book was read, as a big fan on her work I raced to the wiki to remember what was read and I couldn't find anything. Was this one I don't remember or Tom read and..."

I don’t think we’ve read Seanan McGuire, aka Mira Grant, as an official pick, but maybe it was an alt read?

I definitely recall a lot of discussion about Every Heart a Doorway, so maybe that’s what ge’s thinking of.

How far does it go? Should drag performers pay for likeness rights to celebrities? How about cosplayers? I mean, informally the BBC gets my money from merchandise when I cosplay Pertwee, but yanno. Whole lot of dressup / impersonation being done already.

Trike wrote: "Peter wrote: "Tom mentioned that a Seanan McGuire book was read, as a big fan on her work I raced to the wiki to remember what was read and I couldn't find anything. Was this one I don't remember o..."

I found Feed on the books almost chosen page on the wiki as it was in the 2017 march madness tournament. She was also interviewed way back on episode 103.

We read Seanan McGuire for Vaginal Fantasy so that's probably what V was thinking of. Rosemary and Rue was in Sept 2015 #45. We also read Every Heart a Doorway in Sept 2018 shortly after the hangouts ended.

John (Taloni) wrote: "How far does it go? Should drag performers pay for likeness rights to celebrities? How about cosplayers?."

For fictional characters? No. For real people? Yes.

I think there are two things at play and both are, to some extent, already covered re: AI.

Defamation is the act of presenting false information as fact in a way that damages a person. Using AI to create false videos that damage somebody - celebrity or not - would already be covered by existing defamation laws. You can’t create and publish a fake video of a celebrity standing on a street corner hurling racial insults and not expect repercussions.

Publicity rights cover the brand value of public figures and they can be passed on to descendants (not sure if there is a limit on how long.) You can’t make a movie with Shelley Duvall in it - or a commercial with her selling Coke Zero - without her estate’s agreement. This is no different with AI than it would have been in the past making a print ad and putting a picture of her on it endorsing the product.

Oaken wrote: "I think there are two things at play and both are, to some extent, already covered re: AI.

Defamation is the act of presenting false information as fact in a way that damages a person. Using AI to..."

Those of us who aren’t celebrities and who don’t have heirs or estates run by powerful lawyers will be screwed.

There are tens of millions of people in that exact situation. So no, those two scenarios don’t cover everyone.

We can’t even stop things like revenge porn *now* when people are alive and able to fight it. It will be impossible to keep someone from using your likeness to say whatever vile thing they want the day after you die.

Yeah, lots to go over here re AI. It's too late to get too into it but my hot take is that I find the use of AI to recreate the likeness of dead people to be icky in a vaguely necromantic kind of way. Dead people aren't our puppets.

In response to Oaken's statement: "This is no different with AI than it would have been in the past making a print ad and putting a picture of her on it endorsing the product." I completely disagree. These people were imaging worst case scenarios where an old promo pic is slapped on some cheap product. Now we can digitally recreate them in ways they could never have imagined. Put words in their mouths that they might have refused to say (and it doesn't have to be racial slurs or anything particularly egregious). There's no way I can conscionably imagine bridging that gap to apply that consent to this technology.

Matthew wrote: "Yeah, lots to go over here re AI. It's too late to get too into it but my hot take is that I find the use of AI to recreate the likeness of dead people to be icky in a vaguely necromantic kind of w..."

Yeah, I find the whole thing very icky. I don’t want a dead person to read me an audiobook, thank you.
Beyond the ick factor, there’s the environmental impact to consider. I don’t know how power-hungry this specific application is, but I’ve seen a lot of stuff about the huge amount of electricity (and water) things like ChatGPT consume. (Eg this article ).
It feels like we should be trying to *reduce* our power consumption, not increase it.

Ruth wrote: "Beyond the ick factor, there’s the environmental impact to consider"

High five! I rarely see this aspect brought into the conversation but it is really important. I hate seeming like some sort of neo-luddite but can we just smash the machines?

I tried to read that Guardian article, but got to the part in the first paragraph that read "the infrastructure used by the “cloud�� accounts for more global greenhouse emissions than commercial flights", threw up a little, and had to stop.

I have no problem with using AI to recreate someone's voice or image (as long as that person pre-approved it before death) or their estate approves it.

As long as it is clearly marked as AI and not presented as an actual creation by that person.

I mean it's not much different than having an actor/impersonator do a pitch perfect performance as that person.

There are already plans in place for an AI Elvis concert next year. We've already had the ABBA concerts (Not AI, but a similar concept using motion capture. Which means they can continue to perform after they all die)

As others have said, I have zero interest in it. I’m not going to buy “the new David Bowie AI generated album�� (do people still buy albums?) just because they trained an AI that sounds like him. If an artist is good enough to write songs like that they should put out their own music. If they aren’t then lending it Bowie’s voice isn’t going to make it great. To some extent I think that is one of the risks - imagine a dystopia where all entertainment is done using AI-generated celebrities from the past. Where is the room for new talent to develop?

Regardless, if the owner of the publicity rights chooses to endorse their use, more power to them. The whole point of vesting those rights in your heirs - or whoever - is allowing them to continue to profit off of the goodwill you built.

Corporations making money off of celebrities isn’t the issue. Those people are protected. It’s the twisted little creep on whatever passes for 4chan these days using your likeness to portray you as a pedophile. That’s what people will remember. They never seem to get the retraction or exoneration, just the initial accusation.

There is literally zero protection against someone doing that to you right now, today. You will be investigated, humiliated, and fired from your job, even though it’s all fake. In the future it will be impossible to tell deepfake from realfact. So once you’re dead, people can drag your name through the mud, and we’ve already seen that they don’t need a reason. They just do it for the “lulz�� as they say.

That's a different issue. Making deep fakes to make nude images, revenge porn, ruin reputations etc is already illegal. If they can be caught, then they should be punished.

We are talking about using AI for legitimate entertainment purposes. Is that ok without the person's wishes made known before they die.

The legal uses are still to be fully ironed out. How long does the estate have rights to the celebrities image? 70 years from death? Forever?

How many generations should that extend to? Children? Grandchildren?

and what should be allowed? Should the estate be able to endorse the uses for something the person would not have supported while they were alive?

John (Nevets) wrote: I also wonder if legally copyright law could be used to justify impersonating an individual. For a public performer would their likeness fall into public domain 70 years after death?..."

As a bit of a copyright nerd, this one really grabbed my attention. Could people like, for example, William Shatner, argue that their manner of speaking in one of their character's roles is their Intellectual Property (IP) as an actor in the same way that a writer's script is their IP?
If so, he could then restrict people from using his voice until 70 years after he dies, after which point, anyone with StarTrek fan-fiction can have William Shatner speak their audiobook.
Of course, copyright exceptions would also apply, so people can impersonate him (or use AI to) for the sake of satire or academic research... Whatever that might be.

One of my favourite takeaways from this podcast was the idea that the dead celebrities in question couldn't have conceived of putting in their will some protection of their likeness from being digitally exploited, so it is left to their estate to make the decision.

This brings up an excellent sci-fi question: What would you put in your will to protect your post-living self or properties from being exploited?
Should you specify that you do not want your brain to be preserved in a jar? Dictate that you do not want your genome to be shared publicly? Restrict the social media algorithms that were curated to your preferences from being passed around to train future AIs? Prohibit people from creating an android recreation of yourself?
I think this group could come up with some good suggestions.

Oh, and the longest series I've completed has been the Expanse, with 10 books (including all the shorts as 1 book). I lose steam with most series after 3 or 4.

Wwwwwwaaaaaiiiitttt....so if parody is allowed, can we have a (bad) Shatner impersonator read the parody book Treks Not Taken? (Which, if you haven't read, is an oh-my-god hilarious riff on Star Trek in the style of classical authors.) Crusher In The Rye alone is worth the price.

If you go to Steven Boyett's website you can download a PDF with two stories from Treks Not Taken

Fandom Shrugged, not by Ayn Rand
All the Pretty Humans, not by Cormac McCarthy

They are Next Generation stories so I'm not sure if Shatner would be the best narrator. Patrick Stewart and most of his co-stars are still alive so I don't think we really need AI audio for this book.

Tassie Dave wrote: "The legal uses are still to be fully ironed out. How long does the estate have rights to the celebrities image? 70 years from death? Forever?

How many generations should that extend to? Children? Grandchildren? ..."
They are covered by existing statutes and/or common law and most of those questions have been addressed. I don't think anything in the use of AI changes those existing laws (it is not copyright law, that is a separate thing, so the 70 year limitation does not apply.) For example,



Existing laws on publicity rights in California cover the use of an individual's name, photo, signature, voice or likeness. Putting a celebrity into a movie using a look-alike actor and voice dubbing is already covered under voice and likeness restrictions. Using AI to do the same would be covered in the same way. California state law restricts publicity rights to a period of 50 years after the person's death.

Publicity rights automatically pass to a person's spouse or children but can be explicitly sold or transferred as property otherwise. There was a case where Bob Ross (the painter) had assigned those rights to an organization before his death. His children tried to use them and lost the case because they had no right to them. As freely transferable property rights, there would be no limitation on how far down the line of descendants they go - subject to the 50 year limitation and assuming your parent or whoever had them before you didn't assign them elsewhere.

What may change are Paul's questions where, given the use of AI and under existing laws, celebrities may become much more cognizant of and take steps to limit what can be done with those rights rather than allowing their heirs to decide. Because, as others have pointed out, AI raises the stakes on what is possible.

Parody should be OK because it is clear that the performer is pretending to be someone.

The step in AI is that there is a clear muddying of the boundaries of being an interpretation of someone to trying to act as though this is an exact replica of the person (this is where fraud comes in).

I am more upset with the rampant theft of creators work that s use to train AI.

I am pretty sure the creators of this AI have used existing audio books to train the models on the cadence and rhythms of a good read. They steal the narrator's voices and skill to reduce their worth in the future.

Tassie Dave wrote: "That's a different issue. Making deep fakes to make nude images, revenge porn, ruin reputations etc is already illegal. If they can be caught, then they should be punished.

We are talking about us..."

Except those protections are flimsy at best. Look at what Quentin Tarantino did to Bruce Lee in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. He made Lee look like a real asshole, the opposite of the way he was in real life according to everyone who knew him. Tarantino’s defense is that his movies exist in a parallel universe�� which allowed him to skate by with a portrayal that does Lee dirty. Multiply that by a billion when the deepfake looks and sounds exactly like the person and whoever made it can just say “parody!�� or “parallel universe!��

Paul wrote: "This brings up an excellent sci-fi question: What would you put in your will to protect your post-living self or properties from being exploited?
Should you specify that you do not want your brain to be preserved in a jar? Dictate that you do not want your genome to be shared publicly?"

Larry Niven’s Known Space addresses a lot of this, and the terrifying thing was that the governments of the world basically declared “eminent domain�� over human bodies, nullifying any and all protections the people had set up in their wills.

In Known Space it was breaking people up for parts as the need for the rich to have access to human organs to extend their lives superseded the wishes of the frozen dead, or “corpsicles��. But the end result is the same: there’s no guarantee you’ll have any rights at all, no matter what your will declares.

Pretty sure China and Russia aren’t going to go along with any protections Western nations give to their citizens, since they’ve demonstrated that repeatedly in real life.

I liked the AI talk. There's a whole lot of technology running faster than logic and philosophy, and especially outrunning the law, right now. Saw a link to the company Created by Humans:



It will apparently handle the author/AI interface to make sure authors are compensated when their works are used by AI - I'm sure it will also make money itself somehow too. Seems hard to know if the course of "They're using my work anyway, I might as well get paid," is the correct one or not.

Also, I love it when the Sword and Laser picks books from series. Finding what to read next is not always easy. If I read a series-starter and don't like it, it doesn't bother me that it was a series-starter. But if I do like it, I get a bunch of other books to put on my list.

I don't mind series. What I don't like is books that claim to be part of a series, but have at best a passing relationship to the others �� be that the story of a very minor character from another book or just being set in the same universe for example. Sometimes, you want to see the perspective of a supporting character and read their story, but all too often this winds up being two entirely different books crammed together for marketing purposes. (Romantasy is the worst offender.)
Similarly, I actively hate books that don't end properly because the story continues in the next book. That's not a cliffhanger; it's a cop out. And it always feels like a cash grab. Make your damn book 800 pages if it needs to be 800 pages. If you don't think you can sell a book that long, you haven't met GRRM or Sarah Maas.

Sean Lookielook wrote: "I don't mind series. What I don't like is books that claim to be part of a series, but have at best a passing relationship to the others �� be that the story of a very minor character from another book or just being set in the same universe for example..."

Interesting. I find that style of storytelling over a series to be fascinating if done well. The first time I encountered that was in grade school when we read The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton. I liked that so much I immediately read the sequel That Was Then, This Is Now. The main characters of one book are minor characters in another. We get a deeper understanding of that world by seeing both sides.

Peter V. Brett used this same tactic to great effect in the Demon Cycle books, where Arlen is the main character of The Warded Man but a secondary one in The Desert Spear, which focuses on Ahmann. The third book then shifts focus to Ahmann’s wife, Inevera, and Renna, the woman who will marry Arlen. Fortunately he doesn’t keep going over the same ground in subsequent books, even though he had enough interesting characters to do that.

One of the best examples is the Pelbar Cycle by Paul O. Williams, starting with The Breaking of Northwall, where each book has a mostly-new set of characters who step into the limelight from the background of the previous book. Then he ties it all together in a big finale that has a particularly satisfying coda.

I just read Paladin’s Grace and Paladin's Strength by T. Kingfisher, who uses the same technique. Not quite as successfully as the above series, but we do get to see more of the world she’s created without having a main character becoming ridiculously well-traveled.

I don't think it can't be done, just that it often isn't. A sequel implies it's a continuation of a story or theme. An author who follows different members of a family to cover events over generations might be a good example. If they're completely divorced to the point where the stories have only the most tenuous connection, it's deceptive to call it a sequel. Maybe we need a different word for it. (Don't say equal, don't say equal)

Coming from someone who always confuses terms and categories, I strongly disagree that we need a new word similar to sequel! There's already prequels, reboots, requels, and whatever the eff you'd call Star Wars: The Force Awakens, which seemed to be all of the above. Same goes for Trike distinguishing series from loosely-connected series and universes.

How about this: if it's the next thing that happens in the main character or characters' life/lives, or otherwise completes a story, it's a sequel. If it's anything else, it's "another book in the series". Like Dune: Dune Messiah = sequel, all other Dunes = another book in the series.

Maybe that's too simple for some, and as someone who works in libraries, maybe it's even blasphemous to suggest such a simple organizational scheme, but I mean, it's fiction, so there's no need too get complicated. All a reader needs to know is: Does the next book continue the story, or is it just some version of "more of the stuff that I liked about the last book"?

Paul wrote: "Coming from someone who always confuses terms and categories, I strongly disagree that we need a new word similar to sequel! There's already prequels, reboots, requels, and whatever the eff you'd c..."

I just think categories like genres and subgenres mostly just help us find things we like. “If you liked X, you might like Y.��

I’ve seen several people call The Martian a Space Opera. Which is inaccurate to the point of being ludicrous. If you wanted something similar to Star Wars then mislabeling The Martian is worse than unhelpful, it’s aggravatingly useless.

It’s like if you need to rent a moving van and they give you a Honda Accord. You’re like, “I need to move two couches!�� And they reply, “It says right on the website the Accord has the most storage in its class.�� It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how categories work.

Beyond that it’s just an academic exercise to put things into a box and order them for easy reference, because it doesn’t materially change what you’re searching for. So calling something a “reboot�� or “reimagining�� is basically just marketing buzzwords to either garner interest or avoid a perceived negative.

Trike wrote: "I’ve seen several people call The Martian a Space Opera. Which is inaccurate to the point of being ludicrous..."

Oh, I 100% agree with the genre/sub-genre categorizing for marketing/explanatory purposes.
It was very specifically Sean's suggestion of a new sequel-ish word for other books in the same world that I was objecting to. If it's another book in the series, just leave it at that. No need to specify "prequel" "requel" "semi-sequel" etc. If they need more detail, they can read the synopsis.

I had to look up "requel" and "semi-sequel". I might have to let them marinate a bit more but I don't immediately see that they are very useful.

"Prequel" can be useful as it flags that you aren't getting a continuation of an existing story.

I think most people use sequel and series interchangeably (sequel or course referring to the individual story continuing the series) and there's little chance of reversing that.

What I find useful is to speak about "narrative sequels", which continue the plot/character arcs of the original, and "thematic sequels", which are a little more vibes based in their relationship with the original.

There isn't much point in using marketing terms if nobody knows what they mean. "Sequel" and "prequel" are, I think, widely enough known that they can serve as a useful shorthand; sure, you could work it out by reading the full blurb, but if it tells you what you want to know in one word, why not?

But "requel" and "semi-sequel", much less so (unless they catch on more than they have so far). Of course, looking them up led me to the existence of "coquel" and "midquel" as synonyms for "semi-sequel", and then to the rather pedantic concepts of interquels, postquels, and pre-sequels.

I'm not sure many of these are much help...

Coming soon�� based on an idea a guy had while mishearing a line in a movie while reading his phone�� The Fat & The Furbiest�� a freequel!

Jamie wrote: "But "requel" and "semi-sequel", much less so (unless they catch on more than they have so far). Of course, looking them up led me to the existence of "coquel" and "midquel" as synonyms for "semi-sequel"..."

Sorry Jamie, I made up the term semi-sequel (or thought I did) while rambling. I didn't know that people would take it seriously enough to investigate 😅

We're making up ...quel words now? I'm on board for that!

equel - a book in a series that's as good as the first one and hooks a reader back for at least one more

sleequel - a book that's a lot thinner than others in the series

obliquel - a book that appears only tangentially related to the series

creequel - a book where the series is starting to feel old

committequel - a book written by a group of people around a table playing hot topic bingo

LGBTQuel - a book that adds one or more non-straight characters and /or has an established character come out

teaquel - a book where the author of an established series tries to woo the cosy audience with scenes involving hot drinks and pastries

freaquel - a book where the author of an established series tries to seduce the romantasy audience with awkward descriptions of non-vanilla sex acts

Anyone got any others?

Haaa, love these! And I think Gail Carriger does at least three of them...

Pumpkinstew wrote: "We're making up ...quel words now? I'm on board for that!."

Wish there was a thumbs up button, but here's a reply in lieu of that letting you know this is funny.

Pumpkinstew wrote: "We're making up ...quel words now? I'm on board for that!
"

��🏻

seaquel - the second book takes place on water

mequel - a choose-your-own-adventure follow-up

treacle - the second book takes place in England and is full of sweet and sticky sentiment.