41–50 of 94 posts
So this is basically an ad for https://www.windsor.io/ , I guess. Wonder what sort of deal they worked out? Shame it leaves such a sense of disgust in most people here, to judge by the comments so far. They may have picked the wrong crowd.
https://angel.co/company/windsor-2/funding He's an investor.
This seems at least a little unethical. At the very least, I would think worse of a company that sent a video to me that seemed personalized, but later turned out to be mass-produced. He has an ethics section in the article, but doesn't doesn't go very deep and (unsurprisingly) concludes that his own actions were perfectly fine. The root of the problem is why customers respond well to these videos: they're surprised…
This seems at least a little unethical. At the very least, I would think worse of a company that sent a video to me that seemed personalized, but later turned out to be mass-produced. He has an ethics section in the article, but doesn't doesn't go very deep and (unsurprisingly) concludes that his own actions were perfectly fine. The root of the problem is why customers respond well to these videos: they're surprised…
> And the fact is: the CEO did not. It's deception, plain and simple. Not big, evil, Theranos-level deception, but deception still. If you think the blog post is bad, just watch the video on windsor's website: https://www.windsor.io/#video The CEO plainly says he has time to work on other important things. Jesus, even creating the video in the first place, requires you to say Hey First Name
This seems at least a little unethical. At the very least, I would think worse of a company that sent a video to me that seemed personalized, but later turned out to be mass-produced. He has an ethics section in the article, but doesn't doesn't go very deep and (unsurprisingly) concludes that his own actions were perfectly fine. The root of the problem is why customers respond well to these videos: they're surprised…
The fact that there is no disclaimer on this video shouldn't be worse than the fact that there is no disclaimer on emails saying "this email was automatically generated."
This gives me the same warm fuzzy feeling that I'd get when I read an email with my name in it even though 99% of times I'm sure it's not really sent just to me and is auto-generated.
Over time auto-generated videos will become as common as auto generated emails.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And the fact is: the CEO did not. It's deception, plain and simple. Not big, evil, Theranos-level deception, but deception still. If you think the blog post is bad, just watch the video on windsor's website: https://www.windsor.io/#video The CEO plainly says he has time to work on other important things. Jesus, even creating the video in the first place, requires you to say Hey First Name
That video is one of the scariest things I've witnessed in less than 60 seconds. The future of communication will be opt-in, I suppose.
Sure, it's going to improve a lot, but since the first iteration of automated, personalized video messaging is so low-effort, I actually think people will just be inoculated against the whole idea. As in, don't watch the videos at all.
This seems at least a little unethical. At the very least, I would think worse of a company that sent a video to me that seemed personalized, but later turned out to be mass-produced. He has an ethics section in the article, but doesn't doesn't go very deep and (unsurprisingly) concludes that his own actions were perfectly fine. The root of the problem is why customers respond well to these videos: they're surprised…
> In a few years, people will know this can easily be done and the value of personal videos will drop. Or put another way, people will have to do different things (which aren't easily automated) to earn that value.
I think this is no different than a photocopied signature from the CEO in a personalized letter. We have a Microsoft Certified Partner plaque with a Bill Gates signature that is a reproduction. I'm not losing sleep over it.
Next level is having that signature in blue printer ink. The next level above that is automating a pen to write the copied signature onto paper. The next level above that is to use a mechanical hand to grasp a pen and apply the same Bill Gates movements for the signature. The final level is cyborg Bill Gates itself.
This seems at least a little unethical. At the very least, I would think worse of a company that sent a video to me that seemed personalized, but later turned out to be mass-produced. He has an ethics section in the article, but doesn't doesn't go very deep and (unsurprisingly) concludes that his own actions were perfectly fine. The root of the problem is why customers respond well to these videos: they're surprised…
Mostly this is just creepy and weird. I bet all those text blocks from people responding positively to it are from people who don't have any practice or previous context experience in distinguishing AI/generated content from authentic content.
Recipients take time to respond to what is in essence a spam email. If anyone sends this stuff to me, they'll go on the block list - but if it gets widespread enough then its the 'future' - an inbox full of 'personal' video /audio messages..
Quick someone make a spamfilter for AI videos :)