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

401–410 of 461 posts

Re: They stole my voice with AI

#401

Post by kube-system »

carmackfan wrote: post #373
throwaway0123_5 wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ownership as a whole is a social/legal construct, no? [1] You only "own" something insofar as you control it. Societies build frameworks that aid people in controlling things based on who they think deserves control of those things. This clearly can vary widely between societies; the USA used to think owning people was perfectly OK and some places still do. Nobody has absolute control over (almost?) anything, and I t…

Many social/legal constructs are for lack of a better term, idiotic. Step back for a second and think about what ownership actually implies? Exclusive control over a scarce resource. If a resource isn't scarce, where your control over it doesn't impede or restrict other peoples control over it, there is no feasible model that explains why one person has control or ownership of it over another. Social/legal constructs…

This is part of natural human behavior. The idea of owning people as physical property is absurd as well, but if you kiss someone's girlfriend you might get punched in the face. The reason this happens is entirely a social construct, but the reality of the situation is no less real.

Social constructs don't not exist just because they are social constructs. The physical world not the extent of reality. Social constructs are also real because we make them real as a part of our own human experience.

Re: They stole my voice with AI

#402

Post by kube-system »

carmackfan wrote: post #371
kube-system wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intellectual property is, in fact, recognized by many legal jurisdictions. And audio works are typically included in that. However, in this situation, the right of publicity is probably more applicable.

Appeal to law fallacy.

The fact that 93% of the world's legal jurisdictions, including the entire democratic world, doesn't agree with your assertion of absurdity, is pretty good evidence that you are the one with a radical opinion.

Re: They stole my voice with AI

#403

Post by bufferoverflow »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #380
bufferoverflow wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

OR any number of non-racist forces at work e.g. the internet, movies and social norms changing everywhere.

Those are the mobs. Your average "non-racist" force is just racist to some other race.

Re: They stole my voice with AI

#404

Post by deepsun »

sugarkjube wrote: post #347
deepsun wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

And judge's job is not to find the truth. It's to convince the public that ruling was just.

Re: They stole my voice with AI

#405

Post by consteval »

visarga wrote: post #107
wpm wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was fine 10 years ago because I would, if I wanted to get an impersonator of someone's voice who carries a lot of weight, I'd have to go through to the work of hunting them down, finding out if they were willing, paying them, or I guess having tons of children and waiting decades and hoping their voice is right for what I need. Now I can sit at a computer and spend a few hours doing it. You are completely blowin…

This is not about impersonation, it's about having a similar voice while using it to create new things.

> This is not about impersonation

It's 100% about impersonation. We've already seen AI voices get used for impersonation countless times.

Because, in a typical fashion of what AI proponents miss, the voice itself doesn't matter. What matters is the human quality the voice represents! If a voice sounds like person X and person X is trustworthy, then I (either implicitly or consciously) will believe the product they're endorsing is probably good.

This is why we get famous people and experts in commercials. This isn't new, we can just do it without any honesty now.

Re: They stole my voice with AI

#406

Post by consteval »

scotty79 wrote: post #364
sourraspberry wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They reached out to Scarlett Johanssen. She said no. So they found a soundalike and Tweeted out references to the movie Her (starring Scarlett Johanssen as an AI chat bot) in the days leading up to launch. Scummy as fuck from OpenAI regardless of the technical legal rights and issues involved.

What's scummy about it? If you want a specific kind of voice and approach one person about it but she doesn't agree what's wrong with asking another one? If there were just two blonds in the world, one famous and the other not and you wanted a blonde actress for the role and she said no is it scummy to hire the other one? Is it scummy to hire "discount" Matt Damon instead of Matt Damon?

> what's wrong with asking another one?

It's illegal, you can't hire an impersonator and allude to it being the real deal. That's the issue.

> Is it scummy to hire "discount" Matt Damon instead of Matt Damon?

If you imply you've hired Matt Damon by tweeting something about Matt Damon and your "discount" had a profession as a Matt Damon impersonator, yes. Yes 100%.

This is illegal with or without AI. We've literally had these laws longer than the tech.

Re: They stole my voice with AI

#407

Post by consteval »

meiraleal wrote: post #74
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What legal rights? TIL voice imitators are criminals. /s

> TIL voice imitators are criminals. /s

First off, this reddit speak needs to go in a fire and die. Seriously, stop typing like this, nobody likes it.

Secondly, yes voice imitators CAN be criminals. If they attempt to or allude to being the real deal. You can't get on a phone interview with the news and say you're Barack Obama, even if your impression is really good. Yes, that's illegal and has been since before AI of this form existed.

Re: They stole my voice with AI

#408

Post by consteval »

scotty79 wrote: post #363
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…

> What happens when this "AI" is used to sway an election? It already happened and the world went merrily on its way towards wherever the hell it goes.

This doesn't mean it's good or even fine. The world also had a holocaust, and we moved on. But it would've been preferable to not have a holocaust.

Re: They stole my voice with AI

#409

Post by consteval »

carmackfan wrote: post #371
kube-system wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intellectual property is, in fact, recognized by many legal jurisdictions. And audio works are typically included in that. However, in this situation, the right of publicity is probably more applicable.

Appeal to law fallacy.

You can't just say "Appeal to law fallacy", nothing else, and then move on. You haven't made an argument.

In order for this to be a FALLACY, you have to explain how an appeal to law doesn't work here. Simply appealing to law itself isn't a fallacy.

Re: They stole my voice with AI

#410

Post by barryrandall »

pjc50 wrote: post #154
vasco wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best we can hope for is that one personally avoids this for the first 5 years or so, and then it gets so widespread and easy that everyone will start doubting any videos they watch. The same way it took social media like reddit a few years of "finding the culprit" / "name and shame" till mods figured out that many times the online mob gets it wrong and so now that is usually not allowed. But many people will suff…

> everyone will start doubting any videos they watch. This kills the medium. Just as ubiquitous scam calls have moved people away from phones, this moves people away from using media which cannot be trusted. Done enough this destroys reporting and therefore democracy. I wonder when the first nonexistent candidate will be elected.

The market for content that reassures people their preexisting views are right and valid is huge, evergreen, and held to the lowest possible standard.
Post reply on HN