31–40 of 471 posts
How do you assert that the cloned voice has been truly permitted by the voice owner? I've had my voice cloned without my consent by other people using Descript and Eleven Labs. What is your process for verifying consent?
This is the first startup here where I think the tech should essentially be illegal. It's cool tech, yes I'm impressed at the achievement. Nuclear weapons are impressive too. OTOH this kind of thing is getting easier and easier to do, so what's a realistic way forward?
What if the voice sample is somebody saying they give specific consent to be cloned by that service? You could of course clone a voice to generate that "consent" -- but at that point there's no additional harm done because they'd already have the clone. It's unrealistic that this tech won't exist somewhere, even if the big actors stay away for ethical reasons. A voice auth practice strikes me as a good compromise.
But this possibility renders the idea unviable in the first place, does it not?
Are you though? You might just be computer-generated.
While I'm very impressed with this technically (and as a pro-audio person I feel validated to see my predictions of a few years back coming true so dramatically), I don't see anything about risk management in here. Your tech absolutely will get used by scammers, given the overabundance of voice data on the open internet. How are you going to hedge against that?
This is the first startup here where I think the tech should essentially be illegal. It's cool tech, yes I'm impressed at the achievement. Nuclear weapons are impressive too. OTOH this kind of thing is getting easier and easier to do, so what's a realistic way forward?
>This is the kind of thing that should be illegal. Now, any Plebian could essentially write a letter to anyone, impersonating anyone. Forged letters could drag us into a war with Persia - for Jupiter's sake!
This is the first startup here where I think the tech should essentially be illegal. It's cool tech, yes I'm impressed at the achievement. Nuclear weapons are impressive too. OTOH this kind of thing is getting easier and easier to do, so what's a realistic way forward?
But what is a realistic way forward? Do you think that scammers won't have this technology in 2 years? Can we really prevent any illegal use of neural networks at this point? With weapons that you actually have to physically buy, you can intervene on a country level (to some degree). But already with those 3D printed ones, we are basically doomed. Of course it's a tragedy of the commons type of situation. But banning…
The difference between "the paper is out there" and "there's a button to do this" is quite obvious in cases like software exploits. A report of finding a vulnerability rarely leads to a massive automated exploitation campaign, but if that report also contains a proof of concept the amount of automated attacks radically increase. I believe the same is true for many other types of crime: even a mild bar to entry will prevent a significant amount of criminals from advancing their techniques.
I think the negative impact of these voice changers is much bigger than the advantage we gain as a society. Criminals will always exist, even crafty ones, but "we can't prevent crime so let's not bother trying to do anything about it" is not a great take in my opinion.
This is the first startup here where I think the tech should essentially be illegal. It's cool tech, yes I'm impressed at the achievement. Nuclear weapons are impressive too. OTOH this kind of thing is getting easier and easier to do, so what's a realistic way forward?
But what is a realistic way forward? Do you think that scammers won't have this technology in 2 years? Can we really prevent any illegal use of neural networks at this point? With weapons that you actually have to physically buy, you can intervene on a country level (to some degree). But already with those 3D printed ones, we are basically doomed. Of course it's a tragedy of the commons type of situation. But banning…
TOTC is about resource depletion. GYI. It's not applicable here.
This is the first startup here where I think the tech should essentially be illegal. It's cool tech, yes I'm impressed at the achievement. Nuclear weapons are impressive too. OTOH this kind of thing is getting easier and easier to do, so what's a realistic way forward?
This is the first startup here where I think the tech should essentially be illegal. It's cool tech, yes I'm impressed at the achievement. Nuclear weapons are impressive too. OTOH this kind of thing is getting easier and easier to do, so what's a realistic way forward?
I guess eventually people will go back to only meeting face to face for important communications. I don't know what the way forward is for news. I truly do not understand people like these founders, obviously they understand the future they're creating. "If not us, someone else would do it" is not an excuse. Neither is "I like money".
Next, normal people will adopt the Mafia's 'cover the mouth while pretending to use a tooth-pick whilst talking to prevent lip reading from remote viewers (same thing sports people do currently.
-
My granmother was deaf for the latter half of her life. She became an expert lip reader.
It was fun going to restaurants with her as she would tell me what people at the tables far away were talking about "oh that couple isnt having a happy time..."