At 10/15/25 11:46 PM, alsoknownas1 wrote:Two honest questions:
All of the clock voices are based on Texas Instruments and AT&T data sets that were obtained under false pretenses. Many of the voice actors (most prominently Mitch Carr who actually sued Texas Instruments) have expressed that they did not consent to their voices being used as training data. The phoneme system used in those voices is one of the earliest examples of generative AI, neural networks, and machine learning. Given that the same ethical and legal concerns are in play (if not more so since many of the clock voices have copyright claims in effect unlike most voices from--say--ElevenLabs), would you support reporting and/or taking down all clock content? If not why not? Is there a bright line distinction between the two cases for you?
Very good point, I wasn't aware about the clock voices thing actually :o
Well easiest answer is that it definitively wouldn't be a good idea to report them all lol, it's too much stuff and it would probably be better to make an active thread to see what everyone's opinion on the matter is. Bringing stuff to staff's attention is the most we can do and they are the ones who can decide the fate of the videos...
If you ask me though... It is obviously very sad to have a lot of portal history gone just because of this oversight, as I imagine most didn't know about this complication when using it. I am not sure if this is a just reason to let them live in this case, but I always tend to lean towards the side of preservation. I need more time to think about it but, if preserving these older videos meant we'd have to excuse newer ones using generative AI voice, I'd have to concede and agree with allowing them around. Hope would then be at hands of the voters who are able to use common sense to discern tradition from slop!
And in terms of bright line distinctions, I think people bring up stock footage because a) it isn't created by the movie author and thus isn't their own creativity and b) almost all stock footage used on NG is in license violation and thus has the same ethical (no author consent) and legal (copyright violation) concerns as AI. I'd be interested to see why you think it's such a different case prima facie.
I wasn't the one to particularly comment on the stock footage stuff, but I will answer this one anyways!
I have commented about this on another thread but truthfully, it's my belief that the guidelines on the website concerning copyright are meant to make new and unexperienced users to err towards the safer side. After all, up to today we are uploading a bunch of stuff every day with characters and things we have no rights to. If we followed a "No copyrighted stuff" rule to risk we would likely have days where nothing is uploaded! Obviously parodies and spoofs are a cornerstone of the website. All that an uploader has to be wary of is that depending on what you make or use there's varying grades of risks and you need to be willing to own up to those risks.
The carefulness with GenAI however is that it has only recently got popular and it's still kinda out of govern in regards to actual copyright laws, and allowing stuff like that until one day there's specific laws to it and the content on newgrounds is not abiding to it, it could become a haywire nightmare very quickly. With simply putting on stock images or stuff from videogames or whatever you can at least trace it back. GenAI stuff is pretty much untraceable so it make things much more difficult.
In fact I'd argue that using stock images at least pays respects to the original work, you can find it on the web yourself, it can lead you to learn something you didn't before (There's a lot of media I was exposed to thanks to mixed sources in flashes). If you use generative AI for things rather than just take from anywhere else you kind of pollute this stream of multimedia knowledge. I hope this didn't sound very tacky, but it's the only way I can describe it XP
At 10/16/25 07:51 AM, Anamonator wrote:
:I really don’t understand why some of the community let this submission slide despite going against everything we stand for (i.e Ai generated content being used in the majority). I honestly believe that this person’s submission should have been already blammed.
GenAI being kinda new has people not being very savvy in identifying it. Combine this with the fact that many voters just don't watch/play past the first 10 seconds to vote and it sometimes lets some definitively blam-worthy stuff to go through! I guess that's just how things are I suppose (Recently I rarely vote 0.5-2 because of that, if I'm voting towards the blam range I always go 0 to even things out)
At 10/16/25 07:56 AM, Anamonator wrote:Have they responded yet?
It hasn't even been a day! Patience...
