all 35 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 35 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

In before

We had no idea the performer in the advertisement for our product was AI-generated. We outsource our marketing to a third party agency and had no involvement in the production of this content.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 3 months ago

    This is likely primarily targeting political ads. It's pretty hard to argue this if you made a political ad with a generated imposter of your opponent saying something they never said.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 31 points 3 months ago (11 children)

    There are specific carve outs listed in the law to exempt ads for movies, television shows, streaming content, video games and other works that feature synthetic performers in the entire work.

    That seems like a pretty big carve out.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Any ad that isn't for a piece of fiction does not have any excuse to use fictitious performers

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago* (4 children)

    I agree - ads that depict dentists, firefighters, etc to sell things should use real dentists, firefighters, etc. not actors pretending.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    I meant fake persons, not real persons faking their jobs, but I do agree with you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    I know. I just think it's disingenuous to disapprove of fakery using AI but approve of fakery people do on their own. To me it's like saying you're evil if you use a ladder instead of asking a tall person to reach things for you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I'd assume it's for things like (e.g. Pixar) films, or stuff like GTA6 where there obviously isn't any actual people in the end result but hoping they've actually spelled out that constraint in the law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago

    I wonder if Hatsune Miku ads in New York need a disclaimer after this change...

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (7 children)

    Yeah, that'll work.

    Edit: Truth in advertising .. there's a novel concept.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Every ad will have a disclaimer. Like the invest in stock markets at your own risk or this thing may cause cancer

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    Just like every website has a cookie alert. Meaningless, annoying and extra work for everyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    The amount of times I got a comment for one of my personal sites that told me I’d be breaking the law, because I had no cookie banner…

    No! I’m not breaking the law - and if you had investigated for like 2s before notifying me about it, you’d have realized that

    a) it’s a static site and
    b) it uses no cookies

    So… even no cookie banners is more work for everyone involved apparently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    I guess a warning that says "contains AI slop" would be too much to ask for.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    How much Mar-a-Lago face do you need to be considered a "synthetic performer"?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    Sure yea they gonna lie in your face and replace the one who said they must.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Needs a minimum pixel ratio size.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    Would love a rebrand to "Artificial Labor"

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -5 points 3 months ago* (3 children)

    Actually seems ironic since they've never had to label actors as synthetic housewives, synthetic grocery clerks, synthetic friends, or anything else. Why has it always been acceptable to present unreal scenarios to convince people to buy stuff?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    When was the last time a digital NPC could have conceivably done real world laundry or ate a real world sandwich? At least a meatspace actor could actually do things that no AI could.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    Actors onscreen usually don't really eat the food. It's usually fake food that's been created to look perfect, because real food doesn't do well under camera lighting. Fake food can look fresh all day. And if they bit into a sandwich they'd need a new sandwich for each retake. The actors would also gradually get full, and spills would cause costume and set problems. Some directors do real food but generally it's just asking for trouble. And actors certainly don't do real laundry or other domestic things on camera lol. Sppliances usually aren't even plugged in. It's all phony.

    There was one famous heartwarming Coke commercial where a kid gives his Coke to a tired football player, who downs it and then tosses the awestruck kid his jersey. I remember the player saying they did 15 or 16 takes and he drank the whole Coke each time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    That wasn't what I meant but I do recall that factoid. Although I know that Robert Downey Jr had a habit of just leaving snacks around on set during the first Avengers movie filming, and that's why he's constantly snacking on something during the film.

  • source
  • parent