Vanity Fair reports that in 2022, Lucasfilm and Skywalker Sound hired a Ukrainian startup called Respeech to recreate Darth Vader’s voice for its upcoming mini-series “Obi-Wan Kenobi.” The recently departed James Earl Jones was then alive but 91 and his voice was waeker and not as resonant as in his “THIS is CNN!” days. Using AI, Respeech used archived “Star Wars” sound tracks footage to recreate Jones’ iconic Darth Vader’s tones from the original 1980s trilogy. Jones was satsified with the fake version of him, and signed off on using his archival voice recordings for future (lousy) “Star Wars” spin-offs. When “Obi-Wan Kenobi” premiered, nobody guessed that Darth Vader’s voice was AI generated.
Who would have expected the AI metaphorical tidal wave to have an influence on the Presidential election? Memes are a breeze to make using artificial intelligence, and while I got heartily sick of my Facebook friends bombarding me with political ones, I have to admit that the technology has the silver lining of taking blunt and biased punditry out of the political cartoonist monopoly and letting some very witty people make satirical political statements.
So far, at least, it appears that conservatives have mastered meming before the Left has, and in this race for President, that is having impact, though how much and how significant is impossible to tell. However, it is clear that the Kamala-Harris-as-a-Communist memes are getting under the skin of some Democrats—one of my Trump-Deranged relatives was complaining about those just yesterday—and so now there are calls for “something to be done” about anti-Harris memes. On MSNBC’s “The Sunday Show,” NPR’s Maria Hinojosa was very upset about AI images of Harris presented in Maoist uniforms:
The scientists argue that longer flights could be offset by more efficiently organized airports with fewer holdups. Apparently these people haven’t flown recently. Can distinguished scientists also be deluded morons? It’s a rhetorical question.
My editor fed ChatGPT the same prompts I was writing from and asked it to write a story of the same length “in the style of Curtis Sittenfeld.” (I’m one of the many fiction writerswhose novels were used, without my permission and without my being compensated, to train ChatGPT. Groups of fiction writers, including people I’m friends with, have sued OpenAI, which developed ChatGPT, for copyright infringement. The New York Times has sued Microsoft and OpenAI over the use of copyrighted work.)
The essay describes a contest between the bot and the human novelist, who also employed suggestions from readers. I do not see how an AI “writer” being programmed with another author’s work is any more of a copyright violation than a human writer reading a book or story for inspiration. Herman Melville wrote “Moby-Dick” after immersing himself in the works of William Shakespeare. Nor is imitating another author’s style unethical. All art involves borrowing, adopting, adapting and following the cues and lessons of those who came before. In “Follies,” Stephen Sondheim deliberately wrote songs that evoked the styles of specific earlier songwriters. He couldn’t have done this as effectively as he did without “programming” himself with their works. Continue reading →
Here we have another one of these stories that should be waved obnoxiously in anyone’s face who lectures you about blindly “following the science.”
For decades—really as long as I can remember—researchers have been telling us that moderate consumption of alcohol was not just safe but in fact beneficial. This wonderful news was welcomed by those who “needed a drink” after a hard day, or self-medicated with a glass of wine (or good scotch) before bedtime, or who tended to have just a bit more than a moderate amount of alcohol now, then, or frequently, but who’s counting?
Along comes a report from the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada, that appeared a week ago in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs published by the Center of Alcohol & Substance Use Studies at Rutgers University in New Jersey. It announced, in essence, “Oopsie! All of us trained scientific researchers made just a teeny mistake in our previous studies on this topic, repeatedly, over and over, and for half a century or more!”
I usually don’t elevate to Comment of the Day status comments that illustrate common fallacies and lack of perception. I’ve done it a few times: I know it can seem mean. But Cici’s Comment of the Day so exemplifies the abysmal level of comprehension and critical thought so many of our fellow citizens suffer from, thus making them prime targets of misdirection in this election year, that I felt attention should be paid.
“Third parties decide what you read and hear all the time. And I’m not even arguing for that so I’m not sure where you got that from. I trust that people in charge of these platforms are able to factcheck properly.
I don’t share in your mistrust of “institutions.” I think that leads to people not knowing what’s even true or not. You’re free to disagree with that notion.”
The ruling found that Google acted illegally to maintain a monopoly in online search. Ya think? The statistics showed that Google had about 95% of the online search market, that “google” had become synonymous with “online search,” and that internal memos showed that executives acknowledged that Google’s quality of search could decline without having any negative impact on the company.
This is essentially the attitude and conditions that prevailed before the court-ordered break-up of Bell Telephone’s monopoly. “Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In” had a running joke with Ernestine the Bell Operator (Lily Tomlin) snorting and responding to complaints with “We don’t care! We don’t have to care: we’re the phone company.” The D.C. District Court found that Google is like that.
The ruling doesn’t come soon enough to stop Google from trying to manipulate voter opinions and votes as November approaches, and the company that once had the motto “Don’t be evil” has been turned to the Dark Side for a long time. Nonetheless, this development is an important steep toward disassembling an unethical and dangerous source of power and influence in American society.
Google pulled that ad after a wave of criticism on social media.
Is the ad encouraging children to use AI instead of writing their own messages and letters? Is it an invitation to cheat in school? Does it suggest that robots are better at expressing genuine human feelings than humans are? Is having someone, or something, write your fan letters to a personal hero a cop-out? A lie?
Is the commercial “Ick!”, unethical, or just ominous?
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
Is that Google AI ad irresponsible, corrupting—unethical? Did an ethics alarm fail to sound that should have?
This ridiculous section of an as yet undated Harris speech (or appearance, or nervous breakdown) would have once fallen into the Ethics Alarms Julie Principle category. Yes, yes, we all know that the Vice President is a babbling idiot, and there’s no point in pouncing on every time she proves it; after all, fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly. That, however, was before the Democratic Party, in its desperation after being caught deceiving the American people (with the aid of its propaganda organs, the biased and unethical news media) that President Biden wasn’t teetering on the brink of total senility, decided to make Kamala its nominee for President while bypassing primaries, debates, voting, competition—you know, that whole democracy thingy they claim to be protecting.
Now, however, the various emerging examples of Harris talking off the top of what we generously call “her head” becomes suddenly relevant, and not to be ignored out of pity and kindness. As I wrote in installment #1 of “This is Kamala Harris” last week…
“Evidence like this will be buried, ignored, or denied by the mainstream media, just like Hunter Biden’s laptop, until enough Americans have been deceived to put Harris in the White House….Harris’s distorted values, cracked logic, obnoxious character and arrogance are all intolerable, and most normal people will see that, if they only are allowed to read, watch and hear. “
Why is this particularly ludicrous example of Kamala being Kamala (I know, we have been told that using her first name is sexist and racist. Bite me.) significant? Several reasons, including the fact that almost all the major news sources now know about it but have refused to mention it, just as they continue to hide the substance of Harris’s extreme policy positions. Yet if Joe Biden, at least once the order had gone out to bring him down, had babbled like this the MSM might well have cited it as more proof that there were squirrels in his attic, metaphorically speaking or in actuality. And in contrast, as we all know and as I wrote in the earlier post, “each word out of Donald Trump’s ever-open mouth will be spun and fact-checked to put him in the worst light possible.”
I supposed technically Margeret Renkl isn’t a film reviewer for the Times: officially she’s a “contributing opinion writer who covers flora, fauna, politics and culture in the American South.” I don’t care: she criticizes an action movie that audiences are enjoying because it doesn’t deliver the progressive agenda propaganda that she thinks good little Big Brotherites should jam into the brains of the trusting public at every opportunity.
Renkle can bite me, and so can the Times for publishing her dreck.
Renkl and the Times concede that “Twisters,” which appears to be the non-superhero hit that Hollywood desperately needs, “ is a humdinger of a summer blockbuster that delivers exactly what theatergoers want in an action film: plenty of explosions, destruction, high-speed chases and heroism, all with a dash of wit and sexual tension thrown in. It is not — and does not aspire to be — high cinematic art.” However, it is, she argues, a missed “golden opportunity to talk about what scientists know and don’t know about how climate change might be affecting the formation, strength, frequency and geographic distribution of tornadoes, or why they now tend to develop in groups.”
No, it’s really not. A movie people want to see for escape and entertainment isn’t a “golden opportunity” for the writers and producers to bombard them with favored and faddish data related to progressive public policy. The Ethics Alarms standard response to the “Why are you talking/writing/singing about what you want to instead of what I want to” is “Write your own blog, direct your own play, produce your own movie or sing your own song.
Ethics Alarms 