A new comedy special starts with the quote, “I’m sorry it took me so long to come out with new material, but I do have a pretty good excuse. I was dead.”

The voice sounds like comedian George Carlin, but that would be impossible, as Carlin died in 2008. The voice in the special is actually generated by an artificial intelligence (AI).

“This is not my father. It’s so ghoulish. It’s so creepy,” Carlin’s daughter, Kelly Carlin-McCall, told As It Happens host Nil Köksal.

The YouTube account Dudesy, which is described as a podcast, artificial intelligence and “first of its kind media experiment,” released the hour-long special on Jan. 9. CBC reached out to the producers of Dudesy and its co-host Will Sasso for comment, but did not get a response.

Sasso and co-host Chad Kultgen say they can’t reveal the company behind the AI due to a non-disclosure agreement, according to Vice. The channel launched in March 2022.

Carlin-McCall said the channel never reached out to the family or asked for permission to use her father’s likeness. She says her father took great pride in the thought and effort he put into writing his material.

  • FrickAndMortar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    Not OP but for me, I think it pivots on the permission of those who knew the comedian best and who might be hurt the most by not asking.

    Whether AI writes the jokes, some 3rd party, or the comedian themself did, does the family want that out there, or would it be painful for Robin Williams’ family (remember that he killed himself) to watch a computer ape Williams’ comedy? If you’ve had a loved one pass away, would you want to be asked before someone made an AI of them performing jokes? And would it make it better or worse if the AI did an inferior job of replicating the original person?

    Even if Carlin had planned a show, if the wishes of the family were that it be performed by Carlin himself or nobody, then I don’t think anyone had the right to turn an AI loose on the material to “give it a shot”.

    Beyond that, I wonder if they have the legal right to use Carlin’s likeness, mannerisms, etc.

    • HACKthePRISONS@kolektiva.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      when you’re dead, you can’t claim your rights are infringed. it might be macabre but what-fucking-ever. don’t watch it if you don’t want to.

      • FrickAndMortar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 months ago

        I’m certainly no legal expert, but I think it’s the rights of the family that are being infringed upon. I don’t know a thing about the Carlins specific situation, but I think it’s customary for a famous person to leave control of their “intellectual property”, use of their likeness and whatever else, to their next of kin or a trusted friend or someone. And it sounds like the family have those rights, because they’re looking into “what their rights are” (which sounds a lot like “legal options” to me).

        I personally think it’s in bad taste specifically BECAUSE the person is deceased - they can’t make the call and go “yeah go ahead” or “I don’t like this, please stop”. Kind of like how someone can’t consent to sex if they’re unconscious (weird parallel, I know).

        I feel like the YouTubers are assuming Carlin’s consent, when they don’t really have it. If they’d asked his family, they could have maybe had it. But instead they decided to just go ahead and hope that they can get away with it.

        I think Carlin’s daughter has every right to be pissed about not getting asked for her permission, especially if she owns the rights to his material.

        • HACKthePRISONS@kolektiva.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          > I think it’s customary for a famous person to leave control of their “intellectual property”, use of their likeness and whatever else, to their next of kin or a trusted friend or someone.

          it might be common, but it’s utterly immoral.

      • HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        No, but many still living people can and do consider the fact that a giant media corporation is puppeting a dead man to squeeze the last bit of profit out of him to be more than a little fucked up. Not an infringement of his rights specifically, but IMO an infringement of ethics and decency.

      • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        since you seem to be down with necrophilia please announce it in your will so people know whos corpse is a consenting fuck.