Welcome to The Upgrade

Welcome to my weekly newsletter, which focuses on the intersection of AI, media, and storytelling. A special welcome to my new readers from UCLA, AffinityX, Silicon Humanism, and many other top organizations — you’re in good company!

In today’s issue:

• The Week’s Top AI Stories 📰

• 🎤 Comedian George Carlin back from the dead? 🤖

• 🎓 Last chance: enroll in my AI Fundamentals course!⚡️

• 🎙️The Big Interview: John Biggs, Co-founder of The Media Copilot, Discusses AI's Scary Impact on Journalism and PR

The Week’s Top AI Stories

Top AI Headlines

• OpenAI’s custom GPT Store is now open for business — The Verge

• AI Is Everywhere at CES 2024. Here's the Coolest Tech We've Seen So Far — CNET

• McAfee Unveils Advanced Deepfake Audio Detection Technology at CES 2024 — Yahoo Finance

• Artificial intelligence and new technology featured at CES 2024 — CBS (Video)

Regulation & Policy

• The Right Way to Regulate AI — Foreign Affairs

• Regulators Are Finally Catching Up With Big Tech — WIRED

Ethics & Safety

• George Carlin’s daughter lambasts AI-generated video of late comedian — The Guardian

• How the U.S.'s top intel agencies are thinking about AI — NPR

Legal & Copyright

• AI-generated ads using Taylor Swift's likeness dupe fans with fake Le Creuset giveaway — CBS

• How Adobe is managing the AI copyright dilemma, with general counsel Dana Rao — The Verge

• What’s ‘impossible’ when it comes to AI and copyright — Fortune

In the Workplace

• ‘Constantly monitored’: the pushback against AI surveillance at work — The Guardian

• Workers Who Use Artificial Intelligence Are More Likely To Fear That AI May Replace Them — Forbes

🎤George Carlin back from the dead?🤖

The recent AI-generated comedy special "George Carlin: I’m Glad I’m Dead" has sparked an ethical firestorm. More than 15 years after his death, the legendary comedian was "revived" through AI by Dudesy, an AI comedy platform. The special, featuring an AI impression of Carlin's voice and style, tackled contemporary issues like mass shootings, social media, and AI itself. However, the creators of the YouTube video hadn’t run the project by his heirs or estate. Kelly Carlin, the comedian's daughter, has openly criticized the special. She argued that AI cannot replicate her father's unique genius and urged support for living comedians instead.

This incident raises profound questions about the ethical boundaries of posthumous content creation. While the technology to recreate the voices and styles of past artists is advancing, the moral implications are complex. Last month, the Calm app released an AI-generated Jimmy Stewart reading of a bedtime story. Notably, this was with the explicit consent and approval of his estate. The use of Carlin's persona without his family's consent highlights a growing concern in the entertainment industry: the rights and wishes of artists and their estates in the age of AI.

Looking ahead, the industry faces a critical juncture. As AI continues to evolve, so must our understanding and regulation of its use in creative fields. The Carlin case is a stark reminder of the need for clear guidelines and ethical norms for respectful practices when dealing with the legacies of artists. It's not just about what technology can do but what it should do, respecting both the art and the artist. As we stand at the forefront of this new era, the decisions made today will shape the future of entertainment and the preservation of artistic integrity.

Source: Variety

🎓 AI Fundamentals: Last Chance! 💻

AI Fundamentals for Professional Communicators and Marketers covers the essentials of Generative AI for media and marketing professionals with novice and beginner-level experience with AI tools. The live 90-minute sessions will take place on Wednesdays, starting on January 17th, at 7pm ET / 4pm PT. Only a few spots left!⚡️

SAVE 20% WITH CODE: THEUPGRADE20

🎙️Interview: John Biggs of The Media Copilot

John Biggs is the co-founder of The Media Copilot, a media and training company that helps media pros navigate the post-GenAI world. John is a veteran media entrepreneur and tech editor, including major roles at Gizmodo, Coindesk, and TechCrunch.

Note: This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Peter: Tell me about The Media Co-pilot and what you guys are working on.

John: My co-founder Pete Pachal and I have been working on giving the tools of generative AI to marketers, journalists, and PR people. So one of the biggest issues I'm seeing right now is that, first off, PR people and journalists and marketers are scared of this stuff, right? So historically, their bread and butter has been trying to convince humans to do things. And if you can teach a robot how to convince somebody to do stuff, it is very similar to how we've taught robots to spread misinformation or to advertise and target us in almost insidious ways.

Then you're going to lose a lot of jobs. You're going to lose a lot of humans in the mix. And I think humans are vital to AI, to journalism, and to media. Losing that will damage the industry in a way that might not be reversible. So, our goal is to help newsrooms, PR folks, marketers, and writers traverse this bizarre terrain and understand what is going on.

Peter: Tell me a little bit about how you guys do that. I know you have a few different offerings besides the fantastic newsletter I've been reading for months.

John: The newsletter is the loss leader, and it keeps our audience abreast of the latest vital info. We also have a consulting arm where we're building out tools for PR professionals. For example, one guy we're talking to needs a research bot. Essentially, what you would use to hire an intern or a researcher can be done now with generative AI. It's not as good as a researcher, and it's not as savvy as a researcher yet, but we're headed that way.

Our goal is to consult and build out AI tools. I wrote a tool called sublimewire.com that lets you rewrite press releases into blog posts. That's what I used to do at Gizmodo in the aggregation days. I used to write 28 posts a day, and now I can have the robot write 28 posts a day. So, I'm trying to recreate myself.

Peter: So you're turning your former robot self into an actual robot…

John: Yeah, I mean, look, aggregation wasn't a job for a human anyway. That was the only way you could get traffic. And I think that's still the case. The only way to get traffic these days is to blast out the content and constantly produce. We also have to understand whether traffic is a valuable metric, etc., that kind of qualitative versus quantitative argument of creativity.

Table stakes is to get a lot of posts on the site. Back then, it was 28 posts a day written by one kid in a basement, and now it's 28 posts a day written by a robot. Sublimewire lets you do that. You can pick out stories, rewrite them instantly, and post them on your WordPress site. We will add some things to the web that support HubSpot and some other things. The mission there is to make it super easy to automate content creation. We have a waiting list for our Beta now.

Peter: What are you guys most excited about for AI and media in 2024?

John: What I'm least excited about is the fact that 2023 was probably the worst year for journalism ever. Many publications are on the verge of folding right now. A lot of independent publications are limping along. Substack has become a de facto place where if you're a laid-off journalist, you land there until you get hired again if that ever happens, which is super scary to many journalists. We're in this sort of dead zone where AI, like tools like mine, will change how journalism is performed. A lot of the associated rules and mores involved in being a journalist have changed drastically.

A lot of the ethical considerations that we used to have back in the 2000s have gone out the window. The notions that you're not supposed to take ad money and write about the product or be both a salesperson and a journalist are becoming outdated fast. Look, if you want to make a lot of money, you got to sell yourself. You’ve got to sell your product. And potentially, you got to sell paid posts and all this other junk. The business model is broken. I think the firehose of constant content can be replaced with AI.

Peter: So it sounds like you're not very excited about this AI revolution for media…

John: Oh, look, I am. I am. I'm definitely not a pessimist, nor am I cynical. I'm trying to be a realist about this. And anybody who isn't a realist about this will lose their shirt. The AI revolution is very exciting, but it's also extremely dangerous in times of disruption like this one. Lots of people get broken, and it's super dangerous, and it's super scary. Hopefully, we can get through it okay, but we'll see.

Peter: I want to talk about the larger impacts of this GenAI revolution on economics and business models for publishers and writers. I loved your recent post looking at the 2005 Google Books case. That was when Google was digitizing millions of copies of real physical books, putting them online, and essentially allowing people to access specific snippets of them for free. And there was a huge case where they reached a settlement with several author's guilds and organizations to pay for that. And we're at a similar inflection point regarding AI and copyright for publishers – though on a different level. Tell me more about how that example resonates today.

John: The beginning of digitization was really something. They had these machines that would cut the spines off books and digitize them. When I was researching for a book, it was incredible. You could just search and find anything and maybe even buy the book if you wanted. But here's my problem: the Authors Guild and similar organizations haven't kept up. They're stuck in this loop of arguing and settling, but it's self-defeating. They're always about not changing anything. And look at authors and writers – a recent study showed that the average book writer makes $2,000 a year from their books. There are exceptions, of course, like Stephen King, but generally, it's a bad place to be. Has the Authors Guild helped? Not really. Maybe AI can change this, helping authors write more, faster. That might be the trick.

If we look at what happened when writers pushed back, they got a settlement. Then everything basically continued as before. Google put up some safeguards like you can't download the whole book, but who cares? You practically can. What this did, though, was it destroyed the publishing industry. From 2005 to 2008, there was a complete contraction. Bookstores started dying out. You didn't need a physical bookstore anymore because everything was online. We're in the same situation with The New York Times’s lawsuit against OpenAI over ChatGPT.

Peter: Right, there are so many parallels to The New York Times’ lawsuit against OpenAI. What’s your take on the current landscape for publishers?

John: Media and PR organizations need a major rethink on monetization strategies. We need some control over our content because, let's face it, generative AI thrives on our work. It's essentially a copy of a copy, and that's not an exaggeration. Like ASCAP charges for song plays, there should be a way for writers to earn, say, two cents every time AI uses their work. With today's technology, like cryptocurrency, this is trivial. The real issue is that companies like OpenAI don't see its importance and continue their practices without such compensation.

The current model is unsustainable. OpenAI and others need to collaborate with content creators and overhaul their business models. We're looking at a future where everything is subscription-based, and consumers pay for content. Look at Twitter and Facebook – they're filled with low-quality, free content that's essentially just ad-driven. Remember the free news weeklies in cities? They were cool, alternative papers, but primarily vehicles for ads. We've managed to work around being ad-driven, but now we're at a breaking point.

Don’t be shy—hit reply if you have thoughts or feedback. I’d love to connect with you!

Until next week,

Peter

Psst… Did someone forward this to you? Subscribe here!