• RandoCalrandian@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    DNA is highly likely to be unique, not guaranteed to be so.

    This is a terrible idea. No one owns DNA or genes, and we already have problems with shitty company’s trying to patent or copyright genes we all already have. It’s bullshit that only benefits those at the top, and prevents others from getting there by restricting their rights.

    Voices are the same. You can’t complain about an impressionist imitating you because you don’t like it, that childish nonsense. Everything we do is in some way a copy and recreation of what other people have done. AI just automated that process and people are upset it’s harder to rent seek and gate keep things that never belonged to them in the first place.

    Seriously, the future you’re imagining has twins sueing each other for rights to their unique “identity”. It’s dumb as hell.

    • salta@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sorry man but control over your own image, voice etc is not dumb, why should giant corporations be allowed to replicate and use it to make money without your consent. The fact that it can be so easily automated now just makes it worse. I’m not talking about copyright though just control and privacy. With regards to DNA I’m saying the exact opposite and there we probably agree, companies should absolutely not be able to patent or copyright genes. They shouldn’t be able to use them at all without explicit consent.

      • RandoCalrandian@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        why should giant corporations be allowed to replicate and use it to make money without your consent

        Because it wasn’t yours to begin with

        Biometrics belong more to humanity than any individual person

        Your argument would make it so even facial recognition would be illegal, because they scan and use your facial info without consent

        Same with drivers license databases

        You can’t say “this particular use of this existing practice bothers me, everyone else needs to change now so I feel better”

        Rules on these things need to be consistent, and if they shouldn’t be allowed to use unique information that you consider yours without your consent you’ve just eliminated advertising, security checkpoints, drivers license pictures, filming cops, and a million other things both good and bad that all rely on using your likeness without your consent.

        • salta@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          On that we completely disagree, I would argue they are some of the only things that are intrinsically yours.

          • RandoCalrandian@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            So police can’t keep images of criminals faces (recreated and distributed to every cops computer in the nation through computer automation and often ai) without their consent?

            And a private company can’t set that up and sell it to cops for profit?

            Because I have some terribly bad news for you…

      • locuester@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I agree with you 100% but it’s hard to convert others.

        Same with art - AI mimicking your art after looking at all art is no different than a human looking at all art and having a style that mimics their favorites.

        Same with imitation of face and voice.