Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

They stole my voice with AI

jeffgeerling.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 461 posts

Re: They stole my voice with AI

#341

Post by kyboren »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #333
shevekofurras wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't nuke your account. You can close it but your comments remain on the site. They'll delete your account and assign your comments and posts to a random username. Yes this violates any EU citizen's right to be forgotten under GDPR. Welcome to silicon valley.

How would one report this to the EU and force HN to follow the GDPR?

AFAIK Y Combinator does no business in the EU and HN is hosted in a US data center.

Under which legal theory does EU law apply here?

Re: They stole my voice with AI

#342

Post by smusamashah »

ryzvonusef wrote: post #135

Everyone has their own fears about AI, but my fears are especially chilling; what if AI was used to imitate a person saying something blasphemeous? My country is already has blasphemy lynching mobs based on the slightest perceived insult, real or imagined. They will mob you, lynch you, burn your corpse, then distribute sweets while you family hide and issue video messages denouncing you and forgiving the mob. And thi…

I can absolutely relate with your fear, but I think this will eventually be helpful to dismiss those mobs. Might even desensitize people boiling over 'blasphemy'. Yes, for the first few instances it will hurt. Then, eventually it will become common enough to be known by common folk. Enough that those people themselves will be sceptic enough to not act.

I recall photoshop blackmailing stories where usually woman were the target. Now literally "everyone" knows pictures can be manipulated/photoshopped. It will take a while yes, but eventually common folk will learn that these audios/videos can't be trusted.

Re: They stole my voice with AI

#343

Post by 8n4vidtmkvmk »

chx wrote: post #229
8n4vidtmkvmk wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's kind of a different thing. Making the best AI possible for recognizing mushrooms and trying to produce the most factually correct answers is different than letting AIs run rampant, generating fiction. Also, I'd want some kind of verification before using the mushroom app. Who made the app? Do they have people on their team familiar with mushrooms? Botanists or whatever you call them. Some random dude with free…

LLMs can not produce factual answers. That's not a property of them. What people call "hallucination" is the only thing they can do. Even if it occasionally happens to deliver a correct results that's just the broken clock being right twice a day. The typical ones sound authorative and so people believe it's authorative, this is well documented in Thinking Fast & Slow. As Aza Raskin put it, they hit a zeroday in huma…

I wasn't referring specifically to LLMs when talking about the mushrooms. You could do something more sophisticated. I'm not an expert on it, but you could probably compare the images against a known, validated dataset to give you a baseline and then use some fancy AI algorithm to hone in on the best match, or do it the other way around -- let the AI take a first guess and then validate that its not hallucinating.

They're already trying to use AI for breast cancer scans and what not, I don't see why we can't do it for mushrooms.

Re: They stole my voice with AI

#344

Post by bufferoverflow »

berniedurfee wrote: post #323
kmlx wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what if AI was used to imitate a person saying something blasphemeous? > My country is already has blasphemy lynching mobs in your case the problem is not AI, it’s your country.

What country is immune to this? As far as I can tell the collective conscious of every country is swayed by propaganda. A written headline is enough to incite rage in any country much less a voice or video indistinguishable from the real thing. Folks in “developed’ countries have their lives destroyed or ended all the time based on rumors of something said or done.

Any country that doesn't have executions by mobs. Used to be most nordic countries. Till they changed their immigration policies.

Re: They stole my voice with AI

#345

Post by tga_d »

tikkun wrote: post #282
HeatrayEnjoyer wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is idealistic. People still haven't fully learned that images can be photoshopped in its twenty years of its existence. (Deep)faked porn is still harmful which is why it's a crime. Worse, there isn't an attitude of default skepticism in many areas/cultures. If a person is suspected of violating the moral code the priority will be punishment and reinforcing that such behavior isn't acceptable. Whether or not the…

I'll note that both photoshop and changing the timestamp of images (mentioned below) are only easy for a very small percentage of the population. It'd likely be different if >30% of people could easily do these things.

Changing an image timestamp -- as in, exif metadata -- is trivially easy for anyone with a computer or phone, a quick search will tell you how to do it on any device with no skill involved. There's a difference between "easy for a small percentage of people" (modify the content of a photo in an undetectable way, find a software vulnerability, etc.) and "only a small percentage know how to do it" (modify exif values, do a simple magic trick, etc.). Just because someone doesn't know anyone can do it if they tried doesn't mean it's not trivial and pervasive.

Re: They stole my voice with AI

#346

Post by throwaway0123_5 »

emporas wrote: post #42
chx wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The danger of this shit can not be understated. Four years ago already there was a video where a deepfake of a president of the USA read a speech: In Event of Moon Disaster https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWLadJFI8Pk we of course know Nixon never gave this speech. 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 ge…

>Last month a family got hospitalized after eating mushrooms they found and identified from a AI generated book. Yeah, mushrooms are very dangerous, but the argument here is that the book could be written by a human. So what's the best way forward? Ban A.I. books, and human books? A.I. also, is the best way IMHO to identify mushrooms. Mushrooms are drastically different from one another by magnifying their spores usi…

> the book could be written by a human.

I don't understand why so many people in these discussions are so keen to ignore the impact of scale and accessibility when it comes to new technology, and specifically this new technology. Yes, most dangerous things that can be done with AI can also be done by humans.

Is it not meaningful that these dangerous things can now be done far more cost effectively? It would've made no financial sense in the past to spend hours/days creating a fake mushroom identification book. You'd almost certainly never get enough sales to make it worth it, especially once people realized your book was nonsense and potentially dangerous (getting you delisted, as it seems like the seller did with this book). Now you can just ask an AI to "generate 100 book ideas, scripts, and images." Who cares if almost all of them make very little money when the time and $ cost to creating them is near zero (it looks like this book was physical but especially for digital books, videos, etc.).

Is it not meaningful that dangerous things can now be done (or may soon be able to be done) by more people with less skill? The time/money investment required to learn skills with the potential for destructive use is IMO a strong filter against the people who would do those destructive things in the first place.

OpenAI and I think Google have talked about making intelligence "too cheap to meter." I'm not sure that is a good thing. I could be convinced, but every poorly thought out dismissal of AI dangers only makes me increasingly sure that we aren't ready for it.

For those who are less concerned about AI dangers, consider maybe that premature reckless deployment of AI also has serious potential for generating social backlash that might end up slowing or halting the adoption of AI for positive purposes. The average non-tech person I know thinks of AI as a useful improvement over Google, and maybe thinks AI generated images are cool, but they aren't in love with it. It could disappear tomorrow and they'd shrug. In fact, public sentiment against AI (in the US) seems to be rapidly increasing, and is bipartisan [1]. If the promise of AGI is achieved this will go into overdrive should (when?) mass-unemployment happens. Look how far right-wing politicians are able to go by drumming up fears about immigrants stealing jobs.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/11/21/what-the-...

Re: They stole my voice with AI

#347

Post by sugarkjube »

deepsun wrote: post #259
HeatrayEnjoyer wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is idealistic. People still haven't fully learned that images can be photoshopped in its twenty years of its existence. (Deep)faked porn is still harmful which is why it's a crime. Worse, there isn't an attitude of default skepticism in many areas/cultures. If a person is suspected of violating the moral code the priority will be punishment and reinforcing that such behavior isn't acceptable. Whether or not the…

Yep, had a lawyer telling me that image timestamp cannot be faked. While it's literally a right-click away.

Well, thing is, most people can't.

In a lawyers view, and a judge's view, some skilled expert "hackers" can, and its called hacking. (so i guess we're all hackers)

I once discussed these things with a (knowledgeable) lawyer. He explained you can just present almost anhthing in a court case, and when it isn't refuted, well then it's valid.

In a case my lawyer (same one) presented a printed out email. Other party did not claim it was false, so it's suddenly just as valid as a registered letter. (it was a genuine email).

In another unrelated case, the other party suddenly introduced a forged picture. If I hadn't been there at that moment (I wasn't supposed to actually), then suddenly it would have been proof.

Court cases are not about truth, and not about justice. They are about convincing the judge.

Re: They stole my voice with AI

#348

Post by Havoc »

donatj wrote: post #19

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'd say it is close enough to be quite certain that cloning was the intent

Re: They stole my voice with AI

#349

Post by rustcleaner »

adityaathalye wrote: post #89

If LLMs are the ultimate remix machine, then is anyone with a RAG a digital DJ? 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,…

There is no theft, there are only letters of marque to pillage people for using memes and memeplexes you claimed first, who didn't pay you for your claim, to buy immunity from you so they can use claimed meme.

Theft requires the loss of benefit of the stolen object to the victim. Copy & paste just blows over the house of cards that is the system which threatens people with cages and poverty if they use the claimed meme and not pay. I will jury nullify all copyright infringement cases I end up on, where the defendant is human and not a corporation.

Re: They stole my voice with AI

#350

Post by godelski »

microtonal wrote: post #155
godelski wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There should be a way to cryptographically sign posts (everywhere). This just confirms it is me. Which yes, reduces the problem of me being replicated, but does not do anything for my anonymity. That part may not seem important to you, considering you use your real name, but it is to me. It allows me to be more open. Key signing will not be the solution because it isn't addressing the problem. It exacerbates it.

This just confirms it is me. Which yes, reduces the problem of me being replicated, but does not do anything for my anonymity. That part may not seem important to you, considering you use your real name, but it is to me. It allows me to be more open. Ah, think I see your point. Your worry is that language use, etc. could be use to deanonymize you, by correlating with text that was not written anonymously. But that's…

  > I wonder if someone studied how unique writing style is.
Since I teach I can tell you that I can usually tell who wrote something by their language and it even works with code. There's also the Enron dataset, which is a common dataset for first time ML students where you do exactly this task.

Your language is in fact a fingerprint. And like you suggest, topics too. Much of our freedom of anonymity comes from the fact that it is hard or not worth it to dox people.

I do agree that verification is a different issue though. I'm not sure keys will solve it because you're not going to sign anything that is scandalous, so it might even give evidence for those that want to falsely claim foul play. And how do you sign a leak?

The problem with signing is that it seems to work for the cases we don't care about and do nothing for the ones we do. That is unless we sign literally everything, including our voice, but then you kill anonymity (why I connected it) and you could then probably clone that too.

Post reply on HN