81–90 of 461 posts
Maybe I am crazy but I don't really think it sounds that much like him. It's a little similar but different. It's slightly higher pitch, more nasal, and the intonation is a little different.
I don't see why using AI would get around Midler vs. Ford. If anything, there is even less of an argument to be made in your defense when you use AI to replicate a voice, instead of using another voice actor to replicate the voice.
> ...these observations hold true of singing, especially singing by a singer of renown. The singer manifests herself in the song. To impersonate her voice is to pirate her identity...
> We need not and do not go so far as to hold that every imitation of a voice to advertise merchandise is actionable. We hold only that when a distinctive voice of a professional singer is widely known and is deliberately imitated in order to sell a product, the sellers have appropriated what is not theirs...
Initially I'd say well if you're a public figure and upload your own voice online, of course this will happen. So its something to expect, however, this shouldn't be a problem for Jeff to solve... instead it should be YouTube's problem as they profit from the video monetization. Eventually they'll have to have some kind of detection for all uploaded content.
I strongly disagree. I don't know the rights around one's own voice, but the idea that you suddenly lose ownership of something because you shared it online is the exact thing that many people take issue with when it is written in the terms of service for social networks, creator tools (adobe), etc.
The idea that stolen voice tones are going to matter at all is one of the shortest sighted bits of AI investment - powered by Hollywood "never make anything new" thinking. 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…
Stolen voices matter because what's being stolen here is the authors likeness, his reputation that he's build in the YouTube tech space and used for commercial products he had already reviewed. They chose exactly his voice for that reason. While AI voices will aesthetically be indistinguishable or even preferable they aren't going to carry any reputation or authenticity, which by definition is scarce and therefore va…
There is absolutely zero evidence for this. I find it infuriating that this keeps being stated as a fact. So they go and hire a voice actor and clearly use her voice to train, but then they also scrape Scarlett Johansson from youtube and splice it into the training data to make the voice a bit more like hers? Really does that sound realistic?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stolen voices matter because what's being stolen here is the authors likeness, his reputation that he's build in the YouTube tech space and used for commercial products he had already reviewed. They chose exactly his voice for that reason. While AI voices will aesthetically be indistinguishable or even preferable they aren't going to carry any reputation or authenticity, which by definition is scarce and therefore va…
Again: this literally only matters currently in people trying to steal a voice. There's already VTubers who's whole visual identity is synthetic. Why wouldn't the same happen in any other space where performance can affect the perception of content, but you can now simply engineer the performance? Like I said: give it 5 years and you'll have influencers who no one has ever heard the voice of, because they don't make…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
California recently signed some legislation into effect. It’s a start. Congress is working on “No Artificial Intelligence Fake Replicas And Unauthorized Duplications Act.” Still in dev in the House, but has bipartisan support. Call your congressperson, ask them to co-sponsor and/or vote for it. https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/california-bills-pro... https://salazar.house.gov/media/press-releases/salazar-intro…
Seems silly. What if I train my model on somebody who sounds like a somebody?
If you got Bob who sounds awfully like Mr Very Famous Guy to record vocal that you then use to train your AI and use that vocal clone to sell your nutritional yeast extract as though it’s Mr Very Famous Guy selling it that would likely be a problem.
If you used the vocal clone to sell it, but said something like “oh hey it’s Bob here lots of people tell me how much I sound like Mr Very Famous Guy but I’m not him” then Mr Famous might have a case for his name being used without permission, but probably not the vocal clone.
But it’s all so new and there’s no precedent.
Given the lawyers are all busy working out whether using copyright protected books and music to train generative AI is legal or not - and have good arguments on both sides - it’s all a bit unclear how stuff like this will work out in the end.
One can't help but wonder what theft even means any more, when it comes to digital information. With the (lack of) legal precedent, it feels like the wild wild west of intellectual property and copyright law.
Like, if even a superstar like Scarlett Johansson can only write a pained letter about OpenAI's hustle to mimic her "Her" persona, what can the comparatively garden-variety niche nerd do?
Like Geerling, feel equally sad / angry / frustrated, but merely say "Please for the love of all that is good, be nice and follow an honour code.".
It’s the Wild West and will be for some time but I agree, they should have the decency to use only voices of the dear departed. The library should be open source and hosted on GitHub. the talking dead seems like a good name for it. Obviously we will have to put it to a vote among the living.