
Originally Posted by
Cilvaringz
I wasn't doing it to settle a score... hell no. I'd let them know about it first for sure. It's just natural progression from the single copy album to NFTs to AI. If you want to be a distruptor you have to do things that kick the tires on debate. Mine would solely be on the question, can we or can we not patent/copyright a voice. Right now, image, likeness, lyrics, text, etc can be copyrighted and patented. But not voices, not yet at least. How do you lock a voice down in law, especially as voices are ever changing with age. Would we allow such a thing so endeared voices such as Sir David Attenborough's continue to be used under the license of his estate for example so we can always, by choice, have animal related doc's narrated by the greatest to ever do it? Is this something we cherish enough to safeguard or do we let go and move on.
Imagine, eventually, an AI machine is fed all of DaVinci's work. It studies it, digests it and then it's linked to a robot with a paintbrush who's prompted to paint something as Leo would've done. Is this right, or wrong? Do we allow such a thing?
That's the debate my AI Clan project would solely focus on incentivizing. But you have to do something radical first to spark that debate. Just like the single copy sparked the debates about value and privitization and other matters.
Natural progression + disruption.
Can't be scared of reprecussions... or you'll never do anything or add on or change things....
Bookmarks