261–270 of 338 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I told my wife that if I ever mention while on a phone call, she should know that I am in trouble an unable to speak freely. Sound like we'll all need more things like this eventually :(
It would make sense to have another word that indicates it is genuinely you and you are genuinely speaking freely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I told my wife that if I ever mention while on a phone call, she should know that I am in trouble an unable to speak freely. Sound like we'll all need more things like this eventually :(
how do you pronounce the symbols? i mean, 'redacted' is already a pretty strange thing to say by itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Images of us can be sourced from any number of places: social media, government surveillance, private surveillance. Video less so but from the same sources. Audio from phone companies, VoIP services, surveillance, etc. Health data easily from a number of private companies if you use new-age "health" services, or less easily (illegally) from health records. Maybe we can find solace in the fact that is or will soon be…
“Don’t worry, just about anyone can steal your soul and there’s nothing you can practically do to stop it” That doesn’t seem like a message of solace to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wholeheartedly agree. I don't answer the phone for unknown numbers unless I'm expecting a call from an unknown number; the expectation will have been set up via prior correspondence. Unfortunately, not everyone can do that. Some people are legally required to answer the phone, even if they don't recognize the number. And unfortunately many businesses only communicate via the phone system. So, unfortunately, our ent…
Why are there people who are legally required to answer the phone? On what grounds? Why? (Assuming private persons here)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People had the exact same concerns when digital image manipulation software became popular, including the "we will never be able to trust an image again" question. To answer your question, I think the biggest step we took in adapting to the ever-present risk that an image may have been manipulated is acknowledging that it's possible. As soon as people knew that something could be faked, they realized that having a pu…
Luckily now people don't ever believe photographs as sole evidence in the court of public opinion, and always corroborate that evidence. Wait. No. I had that backward. How long has photo manipulation been around? And people still fall for it every minute of every day. I have zero faith these tech developments will lead to anything good, or that we'll even learn how to deal with them effectively.
Verifying an image is not impossible. You just have to consider:
* Who took the image
* Do they have any reasons for wanting to fake it?
* Was anyone else able to verify they saw or took a photo of the same thing
* Is anyone in disagreement with the content of the image
We don't need image manipulation to fool people on facebook. Recently a random image of a park full of rubbish was used with the caption that this was the result of a recent environmental protest but the image was actually months old from a totally unrelated event. People believed and shared it because they wanted to. You could just as easily write a text post saying you saw a bunch of rubbish after the event and you would have almost the same effect.
It seems anti-human
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nit: this is more design/engineering than science. There is no hypothesis being tested about how the world works.
Did you read section 3 of the paper where they evaluate their system? > We primarily rely on crowdsourced Mean Opinion Score (MOS) evaluations based on subjective listening tests. All our MOS evaluations are aligned to the Absolute Category Rating scale [14], with rating scores from 1 to 5 in 0.5 point increments. We use this framework to evaluate synthesized speech along two dimensions: its naturalness and similarit…
There’s no investigation of the physical or natural world going on, unless they really think they’re modeling how humans are able to talk. But they’re not — they’re trying to create a system that works no matter how unnatural it is.
I once got a call while I was lecturing some students. It was repeated three times in three minutes - I assumed it was an emergency and stepped out. I was greeted by someone explaining that my father had caused a car accident, and they were calling on his behalf. That someone would need to send over some money for repairs or they’d call the police. Sure. They added that their cousin, the driver, is a parolee now hold…
I once got a call while I was lecturing some students. It was repeated three times in three minutes - I assumed it was an emergency and stepped out. I was greeted by someone explaining that my father had caused a car accident, and they were calling on his behalf. That someone would need to send over some money for repairs or they’d call the police. Sure. They added that their cousin, the driver, is a parolee now hold…
I live in Houston. I recently read a Houston Chronicle article describing very similar scenario. I don't have the exact link (it was from 2019), but here's one from 2013 [0]. Combined with the inability to verify the actual phone number displayed on caller ID has led me to tell all of my family to not ever accept a phone call from a number they don't recognize. There's literally zero trust in our phone system upon wh…
Who is legally required to do that? Are they not allowed to sleep or be otherwise indisposed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>business texting You mean Slack?
B2C - not team internal chats. It will have “jumped the shark” once there’s an SMS button on the business listing that Google Maps displays. Instead of the wonky/creepy Google demo which did speech to text and then analysis and then text to speech relayed over to the business, every business will just communicate directly with customers over text. It’s not that this isn’t already done (to some extent). And more so in…
Twilio has given the ability to programmatically text anyone for years. Why hasn't this hypothetical B2C text business developed yet?