Category Archives: culture

Rights

Posted on by
Reply

The ongoing dispute between the actress Scarlett Johansson on the one hand and OpenAI and its MFWIC Sam Altman on the other highlights a broader problem concerning rights, property, and rights in property.

The dispute itself concerns Altman’s attempt to get Johansson to participate in and lend her voice to OpenAI’s development of a talking assistant, ultimately named Sky. Johansson declined to participate, Sky was developed and offered to the public—and Sky sounds remarkably like Johansson.

[Johansson’s agent and of Artists Agency co-chairman Bryan] Lourd and the actress spent the morning fielding calls and emails from friends and associates, some of whom worried that OpenAI had simply appropriated Johansson’s voice without permission.

And

Emails to the actress from friends and associates streamed in asking if she’d participated in the OpenAI project.

The question extends far beyond this glorified NIL dispute, though.

Altman says that

Artists should also be able to opt out of allowing AI systems to mimic their work….

And in Tennessee,

Governor Bill Lee (R) signed into law the Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Securities (ELVIS) Act in March, which makes people’s voices protected personal rights.

No. Altman is dead wrong. Artists—and anyone else—should not have to affirmatively act to opt out of anything. Those who want to use an attribute of someone, their voice, their likeness, their DNA, should have to convince that someone to opt in.

The Tennessee law is on the right track, but it stops woefully short. People’s voices, or any other of their attributes, are not personal rights to be protected, or not, by the vagaries of government.

These attributes are not merely a facet of a person’s civilly-granted property. People’s attributes are their personal property, imbued in them by their Creator, an aspect of their unalienable Right to their pursuit of Happiness. Here’s John Adams:

All men are born free and independent, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

A person’s personal attributes are inextricably intertwined with—unalienable from—those certain rights that are essential to our lives and our liberties. Technological advances have no impact on that beyond enhancing that person’s own Happiness.

That understanding badly wants renewal today.

Trust

Posted on by
Reply

Harvard’s governing body, the Harvard Corporation, has overruled the recommendation of the school’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences to confer graduation on 13 students who were suspended over their participation in riots protests in support of Hamas as Israel committed the heinous sin of defending itself against Hamas’ war of extermination against Israel. Harvard Corporation has decided not to allow the 13 to graduate—at least not yet. Both the students and the FAS have chosen, so far, not to go through the school-mandated process of appeal of the suspensions, which could result in one or some (or all) of the suspensions being lifted, thereby allowing those students to graduate.

Then, there’s this response by Steven Levitsky, Professor of Government in the FAS:

I would expect a faculty rebellion, possibly a faculty rebellion against the entire governance structure, because there’s already a fair amount of mistrust toward the Corporation to begin with….

Trust is a two-way street. It’s not possible to trust faculty members who so openly support terrorists and who so openly disdain Israel and, apparently, Jews in general. And who appear to disregard school procedure when the procedure becomes inconvenient. If there is the faculty rebellion, the participants will be self-identifying as ready for termination for cause. Hopefully, the Harvard Corporation will have the moral, as well as legal, courage to carry out the firings promptly.

They’re Not Journalists

Posted on by
Reply

Just the News had a Saturday article that debunked the claims—claims actively supported by the press—by a plethora of insurers that climate change is responsible for their changing policies, increases in premiums and deductibles, and growing numbers of exclusion clauses in the policies they do sell.

I’m interested in one apologia for the press offered by Ryan Maue, a research meteorologist [emphasis added].

Journalists aren’t equipped to go into the studies. They’re not economists. They’re not climate scientists. They’re journalists. They’re supposed to ask questions and dig deeper by going to ask all the sources, or go find experts either to talk on the record or off the record. And for whatever reason, this field just does not do that.

No, they’re not journalists. Among other criteria for journalism and those who claim to practice the form was a long ago editorial criterion requiring a journalist to produce two (or more) on-the-record sources to corroborate any number of anonymous claims the journalist might include in his piece. The journalism practice, the practice’s editors, and the practice’s writers have long since walked away from that criterion.

The question then becomes: what concrete, publicly measurable standard of journalistic integrity is used today in the practice of journalism? The answer is none. At least that’s the implication from the myriad times I’ve asked that question of a number of those claiming to be journalists, and the zero times I’ve gotten a response.

The current crop are not journalists; they are proselytizers when they’re not being propagandists.

Sort of Firm Talk, Timid Action

Posted on by
Reply

Two letter writers in Sunday’s Letters section of The Wall Street Journal responded concretely to the WSJ‘s editorial of the prior Tuesday.

I can’t agree with you that President Biden offered the “right words” when he said, “‘Never again,’ simply translated for me, means never forget” (“How Not to Remember the Holocaust,” Review & Outlook, May 8). While historical memory is important, it is the easy part of “never again.”
The hard part, for President Biden at least, is understanding that “never again” means that Israel and the Jewish people will never again tolerate—and should never have to tolerate—threats to their existence such as the “ring of fire” ignited against Israel by Iran and its proxies.
With his watered-down and tortured definition, Mr. Biden betrays the clear meaning of “never again.” With his denial of critical military support, he betrays Israel and the Jewish people in their hour of need.
Ben Orlanski
Beverly Hills, Calif.

And

Your editorial reminds me of an experience I had roughly 20 years ago at a meeting of the members of the European Union in Berlin. I was a representative of Hadassah, the Women’s Zionist Organization of America. The meeting was to establish antisemitism as an evil condemned by the EU members. At the meeting, each country recounted its efforts to establish Holocaust memorials.
When they were finished, Elie Wiesel, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, asked, “That’s what you are doing for dead Jews. What are you doing for Jews living in your country?” Stunned silence followed.
Karen Venezky
Chicago

What they said. And it particularly applies to Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s current betrayal of Israel.

A Legislative Proposal

Posted on by
Reply

Congresswoman and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R, WA) and Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone Jr (D, NJ) described a bill they’re proposing that would purport to reform Internet controls and Big Tech’s control over those controls.

Our measure…would require Big Tech and others to work with Congress over 18 months to evaluate and enact a new legal framework that will allow for free speech and innovation while also encouraging these companies to be good stewards of their platforms. Our bill gives Big Tech a choice: work with Congress to ensure the internet is a safe, healthy place for good, or lose Section 230 protections entirely.

18 months is far too long, with far too much time and opportunity for Big Tech to weasel-word saccharine pseudo-reform.

Better would be to give them 6 months, with a hard deadline written into this legislation: satisfactory reform of 230, or 230 is rescinded. A Critical Item that must be included in this proposed legislation is a concrete, publicly measurable definition of “satisfactory reform.”

Another, Highly Useful Item, that could be beneficially included in the bill’s Purpose paragraph, would be a clear and blunt statement that the bill is intended to supplement parental responsibility for their children’s time and activity on the Internet; it does not replace that responsibility.