351–360 of 1001 posts
I really hope she sues the company to hell and back. She has the resources to fight back and make an example of them, and they have the resources to make it worthwhile.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I often wonder why tech people think so positively about companies they idolise who are Uber-ing their way through regulations. Where do they think it stops? Why would people not want laws? The answer is so they can do the things that the laws prevent. This is POSIWID territory [0]. "The purpose of a system is what it does". Not what it repeatedly fails to live up to. What was the primary investment purpose of Uber?…
But like, Uber gave us taxis on our phones. No taxi company was going to do that without a force like Uber making them to it.
You can cheer on "forces" like Uber all you like but I would prefer it if progress happened without criminal deception:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak...
I don't see how anyone can read this and think the uber app is a net positive.
Imitating a movie AI was a cool idea and imitation was the only legal way to do it.
Do you pull your hair when companies advertise with Elvis impersonators?
Nobody was significantly harmed by this, I can guarantee the rich people that use hacker news consume things from much less savory standards than imitating a celebrity.
Nestlé is strong but you pull the plug at THIS?
Pg has done worse and he owns this forum.
Have some perspective.
I found the whole ChatGPT-4o demo to be cringe inducing. The fact that Altman was explicitly, and desperately, trying to copy "her" at least makes it understandable why he didn't veto the bimbo persona - it's actually what he wanted. Great call by Scarlett Johansson in not wanting to be any part of it. One thing these trained voices make clear is that it's a tts engine generating ChatGPT-4o's speech, same as before.…
This doesn't make any sense. If it's a speech to speech transformer then 'training' could just be a sample at the beginning of the context window. Or it could one of several voices used for the Instruct-tuning or RLHF process. Either way, it doesn't debunk anything.
"Sky" voice has been the default for about 8 months now, I think, if it resembles Scarlett Johansson so much, why does no one seem to have mentioned it before?
What if the model asks the user to input an audio sample of the person they'd like to hear, and use that? Would that be legal?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Sam is very clearly in the wrong here, but is your argument for why he sucks seriously that he said “we should not brand people as heretics for disagreeing with my point of view?”
Inherent to the functioning of debate is that debates are settled, just like exchanges in a market. That's their only function. Constant debate of an ever-increasing number of talking points, by definition, renders any notion of progress impossible. So when Sam draws on Galileo as a figure, the conclusion is not, we need to listen to him because he's a human being but, we needed to listen to him because he made a substantiated point. The reverse is obviously silly, nobody in physics argues that we need to debate geocentrism in the year 2024 to advance modern physics.
Likewise not debating someone who just makes random homophobic remarks doesn't impede the progress of the sciences, it doesn't even impede the progress in ethics. Even the reverse is true, horrible regimes with no free exchange whatsoever still produced a lot of novel physics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I often wonder why tech people think so positively about companies they idolise who are Uber-ing their way through regulations. Where do they think it stops? Why would people not want laws? The answer is so they can do the things that the laws prevent. This is POSIWID territory [0]. "The purpose of a system is what it does". Not what it repeatedly fails to live up to. What was the primary investment purpose of Uber?…
> I often wonder why tech people think so positively about companies they idolise who are Uber-ing their way through regulations. Where do they think it stops? Because they don't think about the consequences, and don't want to. Better to retreat into the emotional safety of techno-fantasy and feeling like you're on the cutting edge of something big and new (and might make some good money in the process). Same reason…
Same people who got into NFTs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scarlet owns the voice of a stranger that happens to sound like her? That seems absurd. Just find someone who sounds like her, then hire them for the rights to their voice.
It’s really hard to assume in good faith that you are unfamiliar with the concept of impersonation. Just in case: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impersonator There is no doubt that the hired actor was an impersonator, this was explicitly stated by scama himself.