31–40 of 461 posts
This whole argument rests on the absurd assumption that you can "own" a voice as if it's property. Does this mean people can own the patterns of vibration in air? It's completely nonsensical.
In about 5 years AI voices will be bespoke and more pleasant to listen to then any real human: they're not limited by vocal cord stress, can be altered at will, and can easily be calibrated by surveying user engagement.
Subtly tweaking voice output and monitoring engagement is going to be the way forward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they should owe you for stealing your likeliness without your awareness to promote their products. This isn’t for satire purposes.
How much? This IP/copyright mentality is so 90s/2000s. Brings back memories of Napster. This Jeff Geerling which I have never heard of will cry until some Spotify of AI appears and pay him some pennies. Maybe he wants to be the James Hetfield/Metallica of this generation. This guy doesn't have 1/10000 of the relevance Metallica had at the time tho.
What happens when this "AI" is used to sway an election?
Last month a family got hospitalized after eating mushrooms they found and identified from a AI generated book. They didn't know it was AI generated. What happens when and this is not if, alas but when people die from this?
This shit is a danger to democracy and human lives. Napster was not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they should owe you for stealing your likeliness without your awareness to promote their products. This isn’t for satire purposes.
How much? This IP/copyright mentality is so 90s/2000s. Brings back memories of Napster. This Jeff Geerling which I have never heard of will cry until some Spotify of AI appears and pay him some pennies. Maybe he wants to be the James Hetfield/Metallica of this generation. This guy doesn't have 1/10000 of the relevance Metallica had at the time tho.
This guy doesn't have 1/10000 of the relevance Metallica had at the time
It's weird that you seem to think a person's level of fame is relevant to a discussion of their legal rights.
This whole argument rests on the absurd assumption that you can "own" a voice as if it's property. Does this mean people can own the patterns of vibration in air? It's completely nonsensical.
However, in this situation, the right of publicity is probably more applicable.
This whole argument rests on the absurd assumption that you can "own" a voice as if it's property. Does this mean people can own the patterns of vibration in air? It's completely nonsensical.
Describing a reasonable legal principle in terms of physics phenomena does not make it unreasonable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much? This IP/copyright mentality is so 90s/2000s. Brings back memories of Napster. This Jeff Geerling which I have never heard of will cry until some Spotify of AI appears and pay him some pennies. Maybe he wants to be the James Hetfield/Metallica of this generation. This guy doesn't have 1/10000 of the relevance Metallica had at the time tho.
> This Jeff Geerling which I have never heard of This guy doesn't have 1/10000 of the relevance Metallica had at the time It's weird that you seem to think a person's level of fame is relevant to a discussion of their legal rights.
This whole argument rests on the absurd assumption that you can "own" a voice as if it's property. Does this mean people can own the patterns of vibration in air? It's completely nonsensical.
This whole argument rests on the absurd assumption that you can "own" a voice as if it's property. Does this mean people can own the patterns of vibration in air? It's completely nonsensical.
You can own your likeness. Does that mean you can own the photos that represent your face? Yes, yes you can. Why should you voice be different?
/s