Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say that the key difference is that Switzerland has compulsory military service in which you're taught how to operate a weapon properly. Therefore, everyone that has one has gone through months of training. Vs the US, where there are loopholes that you can use to avoid even a basic background check, and then use it for the very first time to shoot someone.
Biggest difference is that you have only rich people in Switzerland. Almost no crime and hardly any immigration issues.
They stole my voice with AI
381–390 of 461 posts
Re: They stole my voice with AI
#382Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Does this mean people can own the patterns of vibration in air? It's completely nonsensical. If you argue similarly, then the whole juridical system is nonsensical, because everything is just particles and waves, and different configurations thereof - not to mention the many protected things that are acts, which are neither particles nor waves, and are completely made up. I'd say it's desirable to regulate something…
That wasn't my point. We can own physical items, land etc. Because it's a scarce resource. If me "owning" something doesn't prevent you from also "owning" it, the concept of ownership of that item is absurd.
My voice is even more scarce, there is only one of them in the whole world! I think. Also, we can both own the same land.
I do understand rivalry in economics, but that's not the issue here. The issue is the need to protect individuals from abuse, part of which is the one's right to their own likeness. This likeness is not free for the taking. Now, we can call this owning the likeness, or we can call it something else, but having something, that is not free for taking, sounds an awful lot like owning something.
Re: They stole my voice with AI
#383Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
> You can own your likeness. How?
Re: They stole my voice with AI
#384Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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 n…
> Is it not meaningful that these dangerous things can now be done far more cost effectively?
It is meaningful. Humans can publish 10 books with 10 mistakes inside, A.I. can publish a trillion books with countless mistakes. Radically different scale.
Imagine this: A writer after he finishes writing a book, he goes to a government office, and stamps electronically the hash signature of the book as "Human Approved". Then anyone can search the Book stamp in an internet database. Everything else is labeled as A.I.
Is it so difficult for a government to use a software like that? How about an open source software? (It doesn't exist, but it could be implemented by some people.)
> In fact, public sentiment against AI (in the US) seems to be rapidly increasing, and is bipartisan
That cannot be true. A massive poll of at least 10.000 people could demolish that myth. The poll should be organized by the age of participants, rather than political parties. Candidate ages are, 18-30 years old, 30-60, and 60-Rest.
Ages 18-30 will be 80% in favor of A.I.
Re: They stole my voice with AI
#385I want to ask and answer two of my own questions here: 1. Why clone Jeff's voice? When I was messing with stable diffusion using Automatic1111's interface, I noticed it came with a big list of artists to add to the prompt to stylize the image in some way. There was a big row in the media about ai art reproducing artists work and many artists came forward feeling it was a personal attack. But... I mean the truth is mo…
>I think what they really wanted was a good and cogent narration with the tenor of a person. Not a machine making noises that sound like english. If they had an easy way to get that, we wouldn't be talking about it here.
I think the general assumption is that they wanted to, at the very least, strongly imply his endorsement of the product or video.
Which I would say they did effectively. If I had happened on a clip of one of these videos outside the context of this controversy, I could have easily gotten the impression he was working with the vendor.
Re: They stole my voice with AI
#386Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Theft is undefined for objects with .copy() interface. > Computers replaced computers, now voice acting replaces voice actors. It's incredible what web development does to someone's ability to communicate ideas.
Or understand ideas. We all web develop sometimes and as the follow up shows, it’s actually your share of web developness in action ;) On a serious note, please refrain from using “webdev makes dumb” theme here. It’s a beaten cliche that does nothing good to any forum. Have a nice day!
No, I don't think I'll be telling nice sounding lies about web development.
Re: They stole my voice with AI
#387I 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.
The case is only applicable to states under the aegis of the 9th circuit. A number of other states have a patchwork of legislation and rulings related to the issue of so-called personality rights. How and if such a notion should be acknowledged and delineated is quite a ways away from universal recognition and agreement among the states.
Re: They stole my voice with AI
#388I 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.
The court explicitly limited their decision to the voices of professional singers in that case: > ...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…
Ah, good point.
Re: They stole my voice with AI
#389Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
The problem that to make a right query, one has to know at least part of the answer. To search for exif modification tool, it's essential to understand:
- what is image file, and how information stored in it.
- the concept of `metadata`, and exif in particular.
- the concept that any file can be modified in place, or when you make a copy.
- know what where's ecosystem of open/free/custom tools that can do an unusual tasks.
The small percentage has all that knowledge at the hand to even get an idea of possibility to modify image timestamp
Re: They stole my voice with AI
#390Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm very sorry to say this but if you live in a country that is killing others for what they say, AI is probably not your biggest problem. And I don't believe an easy solution exists.
"You can't refuse this brand new technology but you must change your society's culture that's been around for centuries so you are compatible with it." is a repulsively Silicon Valley answer.
culture has overlap with religion, but culture != religion.
Most (not all) religions are like a cancer, their main contribution to society is dividing people into US vs THEM.
If your religion encourages you to kill someone, MAYBE that’s a problem (not AI)?