Hey, everyone! Pretty new here and first time posting.
I have some questions regarding two odd scenarios. Let’s assume there is no AI takeover to the Yudkowsky-nth degree and that AGI and ASI goes just fine. (Yes, that’s are already a very big ask).
Scenario 1: Hyper-Realistic Humanoid Robots
Let’s say AGI helps us get technology that allows for the creation of humanoid robots that are visually indistinguishable from real humans. While the human form is suboptimal for a lot of tasks, I’d imagine that people still want them for a number of reasons. If there’s significant market demand for such robots:
Would each robot face need to be unique from existing humans to avoid infringing on the likeness rights of existing humans?
Are celebrity faces or the faces of public figures protected in a way that would prevent their replication in robotic form?
How might current copyright law, which typically applies to creative works, extend to the realm of robotics and AI?
Scenario 2: Full-Dive Virtual Reality Simulations
Now, let’s say further in the future, ASI helps us create full-dive virtual reality technology, allowing users to experience Matrix-level realistic simulations:
If someone wants to simulate living in present-day Beverly Hills, complete with celebrity encounters, what are the legal implications of including accurate representations of these public figures?
In a more personal use case, if an individual wishes to re-experience their childhood or high school years in VR, would they legally need permission from every person who was part of their life to include them in the simulation?
How might we balance the right to one’s own memories and experiences with the privacy and likeness rights of others?
Curious to learn about everyone’s thoughts on the matter.
The questions seem underspecified. You’re haven’t nailed down a single world, and different worlds could have different answers. Many of the laws of today no longer make sense in worlds like you’re describing. They may be ignored and forgotten or updated after some time.
If we have the technology to enhance human memory for perfect recall, does that violate copyright, since you’re recording everything? Arguably, it’s fair use to remember your own life. Sharing that with others gets murkier. Also, copyright was originally intended to incentivize creation. Do we still need that incentive when AI becomes more creative than we are? I think not.
You can already find celebrity deepfakes online, depicting them in situations they probably wouldn’t approve of. I imagine the robot question has similar answers. We haven’t worked that out yet, but there seem to be legal trends towards banning it, but without enough teeth to actually stop it. I think culture can adapt to the situation just fine even without a ban, but it could take some time.
TL;DR I think increasing the fidelity of partial reconstructions of people is orthogonal to legality around the distribution of such reconstructions, so while your scenario describes an enhancement of fidelity, there would be no new legal implications. --- Scenario 1: Hyper-realistic Humanoid robots CMIIW, I would resummarise your question as ‘how do we prevent people from being cloned?‘ Answer: A person is not merely their appearance + personality; but also their place-in-the-world. For example, if you duplicated Chris Hemsworth but changed his name and popped him in the middle of London, what would happen? - It would likely be distinctly possible to tell the two Chris Hemsworths’ apart based on their continuous stream of existence and their interaction with the world - The current Chris Hemsworth would likely order the destruction of the duplicated Chris Hemsworth (maybe upload the duplicate’s memories to a databank) and I think most of society would agree with that. This is an extension of the legal problem of ‘how do we stop Bob from putting Alice’s pictures on his dorm room wall’ and the answer is generally ‘we don’t put in the effort because the harm to Alice is minimal and we have better things to do.‘
Scenario 2: Full-Drive Virtual Reality Simulations 1. Pragmatically: They would unlikely be able to replicate the Beverly hills experience by themselves—even as technology improves, its difficult for a single person to generate a world. There would likely be some corporation behind creating beverly-hills-like experiences, and everyone can go and sue that corporation. 1. Abstractly: Maybe this happens and you can pirate beverly hills off Piratebay. That’s not significantly different to what you can do today. 2. I can’t see how what you’re describing is significantly different to keeping a photo album, except technologically more impressive. I don’t need legal permission to take a photo of you in a public space. Perplexity AI gives: ``` In the United States, you generally do not need legal permission to take a photo of someone in a public place. This is protected under the First Amendment right to freedom of expression, which includes photography ``` 3. IMO a ‘right to one’s own memories and experiences’ would be the same as a right to one’s creative works.
Hey, everyone! Pretty new here and first time posting.
I have some questions regarding two odd scenarios. Let’s assume there is no AI takeover to the Yudkowsky-nth degree and that AGI and ASI goes just fine. (Yes, that’s are already a very big ask).
Scenario 1: Hyper-Realistic Humanoid Robots
Let’s say AGI helps us get technology that allows for the creation of humanoid robots that are visually indistinguishable from real humans. While the human form is suboptimal for a lot of tasks, I’d imagine that people still want them for a number of reasons. If there’s significant market demand for such robots:
Would each robot face need to be unique from existing humans to avoid infringing on the likeness rights of existing humans?
Are celebrity faces or the faces of public figures protected in a way that would prevent their replication in robotic form?
How might current copyright law, which typically applies to creative works, extend to the realm of robotics and AI?
Scenario 2: Full-Dive Virtual Reality Simulations
Now, let’s say further in the future, ASI helps us create full-dive virtual reality technology, allowing users to experience Matrix-level realistic simulations:
If someone wants to simulate living in present-day Beverly Hills, complete with celebrity encounters, what are the legal implications of including accurate representations of these public figures?
In a more personal use case, if an individual wishes to re-experience their childhood or high school years in VR, would they legally need permission from every person who was part of their life to include them in the simulation?
How might we balance the right to one’s own memories and experiences with the privacy and likeness rights of others?
Curious to learn about everyone’s thoughts on the matter.
The questions seem underspecified. You’re haven’t nailed down a single world, and different worlds could have different answers. Many of the laws of today no longer make sense in worlds like you’re describing. They may be ignored and forgotten or updated after some time.
If we have the technology to enhance human memory for perfect recall, does that violate copyright, since you’re recording everything? Arguably, it’s fair use to remember your own life. Sharing that with others gets murkier. Also, copyright was originally intended to incentivize creation. Do we still need that incentive when AI becomes more creative than we are? I think not.
You can already find celebrity deepfakes online, depicting them in situations they probably wouldn’t approve of. I imagine the robot question has similar answers. We haven’t worked that out yet, but there seem to be legal trends towards banning it, but without enough teeth to actually stop it. I think culture can adapt to the situation just fine even without a ban, but it could take some time.
TL;DR I think increasing the fidelity of partial reconstructions of people is orthogonal to legality around the distribution of such reconstructions, so while your scenario describes an enhancement of fidelity, there would be no new legal implications.
---
Scenario 1: Hyper-realistic Humanoid robots
CMIIW, I would resummarise your question as ‘how do we prevent people from being cloned?‘
Answer: A person is not merely their appearance + personality; but also their place-in-the-world. For example, if you duplicated Chris Hemsworth but changed his name and popped him in the middle of London, what would happen?
- It would likely be distinctly possible to tell the two Chris Hemsworths’ apart based on their continuous stream of existence and their interaction with the world
- The current Chris Hemsworth would likely order the destruction of the duplicated Chris Hemsworth (maybe upload the duplicate’s memories to a databank) and I think most of society would agree with that.
This is an extension of the legal problem of ‘how do we stop Bob from putting Alice’s pictures on his dorm room wall’ and the answer is generally ‘we don’t put in the effort because the harm to Alice is minimal and we have better things to do.‘
Scenario 2: Full-Drive Virtual Reality Simulations
1. Pragmatically: They would unlikely be able to replicate the Beverly hills experience by themselves—even as technology improves, its difficult for a single person to generate a world. There would likely be some corporation behind creating beverly-hills-like experiences, and everyone can go and sue that corporation.
1. Abstractly: Maybe this happens and you can pirate beverly hills off Piratebay. That’s not significantly different to what you can do today.
2. I can’t see how what you’re describing is significantly different to keeping a photo album, except technologically more impressive. I don’t need legal permission to take a photo of you in a public space.
Perplexity AI gives:
```
In the United States, you generally do not need legal permission to take a photo of someone in a public place. This is protected under the First Amendment right to freedom of expression, which includes photography
```
3. IMO a ‘right to one’s own memories and experiences’ would be the same as a right to one’s creative works.