Posted by CharlesW 15 hours ago
I don't remember seeing any RW content, but there was some John Lennon stuff. He was mostly in good taste, but I remember seeing something and being, uncomfortable with it.
I don't really see why Bob Barker should be any less protected, then John Lennon or Robin Williams. None of these people were saints.
But there is or at least used to be deference provided to certain people or establishments.
I haven't seen this video that was so upsetting, but perhaps it's not the reanimation so much as the content. Some of it is so obviously satire it's not to be taken seriously.
But, I remember somebody used Bruce Lee as a vessel to spread the gospel on Sora. I had to frown at that, as it was not how he would have behaved.
So… ok? You can go and knock over headstones in graveyards too. So what? It doesn’t prove anything except you’re a jackass.
If what you mean is “She is wrong to ask for this, our entertainment is more important than her grief”, then, well, I guess that’s an argument you can make, but you haven’t actually made the argument.
No, they really don't.
Sorry it doesn’t make sense to you.
i mean.. i get it. (point 1) i'd never do it. (point 2)
i also said, it is the internet and people will do that because famous people are... famous... and if there's an AI video of a famous person that I do like, i will give it a like.
if Robin Williams was some guy who worked as a cashier at Trader Joe's his whole life nobody would care
maybe Robin Williams should have never been an actor then he'd be unknown to the masses, like 99% of us on HN
And?
> i also said, it is the internet and people will do that because famous people are... famous... and if there's an AI video of a famous person that I do like, i will give it a like.
Essentially: it happens a lot so it must be OK. Lovely morals.
> if Robin Williams was some guy who worked as a cashier at Trader Joe's his whole life nobody would care
People don't care about a random murder victim as much as they care about Rob Reiner; murder is still wrong and deplorable.
> maybe Robin Williams should have never been an actor then he'd be unknown to the masses, like 99% of us on HN
Whiny bullshit.
incants magical spell so that I'm always right!
Checkmate atheists, or something.
(No. Come on.)
i see AI edits of people who aren't here anymore like that guy charlie kirk or george floyd (to pick examples from "both" sides), i saw ai edits of alan rickman (guy who played Snape in happy Potter), and there are edits of napoleon or others.
if my dad was a famous actor known by literally 100s of millions of people, that was my dad's choice to bring that on himself. just being real.
people trying to compel other people is just an L take
If you're consuming "AI edits" of Sam and Dario "every day", that explains a lot about your comments here.
You have low empathy, in case you didn't know.
However, RW was going through hell on earth with his diagnoses and the progression of this disease. Many of us don't view what he did as a willful destruction of the life that God gave him.
Zelda is not exercising power or suppressing a controversy. This is just old fashioned dickheadedness. A generous interpretation would be juvenile trolling since they know their mark is vulnerable.
With a reasonably more generous definition, this case can indeed be considered a Streisand effect, if the problem gets worse by calling attention to it because now more idiots know about it. But a lawsuit would seal the deal!
But shazbot to anyone who goes rule 34 on him.
1. You appreciate Robin Williams and were he here right now judging you for how you honor his memory, would he approve?
2. Robin Williams is not here, or anywhere, so then if he were would he approve of you bringing pain to someone he loved dearly? Why would you do that to Robin Williams?
3. Robin Williams is not here, or anywhere, so then nothing matters and I bet I could get some views.
It's difficult to see love in these acts when they seem to be fundamentally selfish. Not at all what Robin Williams would do.
What about when poking fun at Hitler, such as Kung Fury and Jojo Rabbit do? Off limits?
Can one paint Bob Ross in a sci-fi setting? Is that unethical? Is it okay so long as a "real" artist does it and not an "AI artist"? Or can we seriously never depict him again because someone might get angry?
"Mr. Rogers in a blood-stained sweater"?
Come on!
And we can't animate Bruce Lee? Or put him on stickers? Or have him in new movies? (Nevermind how Quentin Tarantino did him wrong.)
When I grew up Elvis effigies were everywhere. And I mean everywhere. The people who liked this stuff are mostly dead or retired now so you don't see it as much, but it used to be a big deal. Really big deal.
So we can't do that anymore?
Abraham Lincoln hunts vampires for Christ's sake...
Also, this a good list of false equivalences. Robin Williams, when public, was empathetic, emotional, and arguably humanist. His memory isn't a caricature from people who have never known him, as you would see from Star Trek holo-deck episodes featuring Leonardo Da Vanci. His memory is something that is deeply important to people who are living. Some of those people simply appreciated his art and his behavior. One of those people is his daughter. You don't get to say what is right or wrong here. No one's going to stop you if you want to make a video of Robin Williams taking the Siegfried Oath, but you should understand why it is wrong.
It sucks for Zelda this saddens her so much, but if I were in her shoes it’s something I know I can’t control and so I’d try to embrace or ignore it.
This has nothing to do with impersonating a deceases person but about rewriting (personal) history she finds shameful.
Emphatically yes.
Just as freely as you use the words and language of dead people.
One day you won't even think about it. Well, your descendants won't. The aversion dies with you.
Squeamishness over thinking and speaking is pretty rare. Visual creation is just a new dimension of our conversation, and it'll be as accessible and common as writing words down.
You know the old generation called the world wide web satanic? They died and we stopped worrying about it.
I think you're the only person here who really gets it.
We already have dozens of methods commonly used for preserving/impersonating/representing people who aren't in the room, and who are possibly deceased. These mediums have evolved over time, from spoken word and song and music, to scribbles and drawings and painting and sculptures, to acting and plays, to writing and printing, to audio and video, to computerized media, to AI-generated computerized media.
Of course any medium can be used tastefully or distastefully. But what the people in this comment section are overwhelmingly reacting to (and attempting to moralize) is their distaste for the medium itself. Distaste for a new medium is extremely common throughout history, and if history is any indication, this distaste tends to disappear quickly as older generations die and are replaced by newer generations for whom this "newfangled contraption" feels like a natural part of the world.
I mean I quite like jokes, metaphor, and libel, but one should probably have some restraint, details TBD.
Maybe you're worrying about social pressure? I can see how general agreement that it's wrong to do XYZ can lead to forcibly preventing anybody at all from doing XYZ.
"glove slap I demand satisfaction. Pistols at dawn. This is how we settle problems and there's no going back now." God made man and Colt made them equal, yes?
The current usage of AI is similarly unrefined and out of hand.
Would people still make AI videos of him like this if the attention economy didn’t exist or clicks wouldn’t generate money?
I hate to break it to you, but I think the genie from Aladdin counts.