If they had used a voice actor to recite the Bourdain letter --- would that be the same sacrilege as using an AI?
I think it would feel less weird/unsettling, but I'd still want a disclaimer at least, like any other recreation/reenactment.
Voice clone of Anthony Bourdain prompts synthetic media ethics questions
61–70 of 202 posts
Re: Voice clone of Anthony Bourdain prompts synthetic media ethics questions
#62They probably knew some people wouldn't like it, which is exactly why they used it, because look at all the free publicity they're getting now.
This statement perfectly describes the last decade in America.
Re: Voice clone of Anthony Bourdain prompts synthetic media ethics questions
#63There are ethical concerns but I think we'll just learn to live with it. Forging signatures are easy and have been around forever but signatures are still used for very important purposes (even electronically now!). It may take a while for the legal system to catch up and using voice recordings as evidence may be tricker than before. But on a more exciting front, I think synthetic voice can be made like fonts. Celebr…
Signatures used for very important purposes are only decoration. They must be used in conjunction with something else (a notary, an independent exchange that confirms that the signature is actually binding, etc.).
The electronic signature is completely different: there is no visible artefact anymore, but a process that seals a document and (under appropriate legislation), certifies that the signer is who he is. A visual object is sometimes added for aesthetic purposes.
Re: Voice clone of Anthony Bourdain prompts synthetic media ethics questions
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't get immunity to photoshop in the "I can tell from some of the pixels" sense, but we gain immunity in the sense that we no longer accept every image as representing absolute truth. Plenty of people today still think that video manipulation more sophisticated than an instagram filter takes a Hollywood budget or a lot of expertise. Once people get more experience seeing and creating deepfakes on their own they'…
Are there any studies on "I can tell from some of the pixels"? Over the years I keep coming across both people (and myself) on internets being correct on 'shopped photos while masses belivied in. Is this just down to familiarity with software and a health bit of skepticism?
I think it's the healthy skepticism that's more important than being able to detect some minute detail in an edit. For a while photos were considered strong proof, not so much today.
There has been research on detecting photo manipulation and there's plenty of things people can watch out for if they're trying to "prove" an image was altered, but a lot of edits I see are so bad/obvious that the people making them aren't really trying to "fool" anyone with them. They just think it makes the photo look better. They'll do things like jack up color saturation to impossible/unnatural levels, or remove every pore from their skin, etc.
Re: Voice clone of Anthony Bourdain prompts synthetic media ethics questions
#65I don't get why this is controversial. Documentaries constantly have someone reading a written document while imitating the voice of the author, and none of them come out and say "This is not the actual voice of Abraham Lincoln". Why is having a computer imitate someone's voice different from having a person do it?
Because Lincoln has been dead for 172 years, and lived before audio recording, so no one who could fog a mirror would think that it was his voice.
Bourdain didn't die that long ago, and made many recordings. It certainly is confusing.
Re: Voice clone of Anthony Bourdain prompts synthetic media ethics questions
#66I think Neville went by a common motto: "All publicity is good publicity."
Because he didn't need to do it. Using a voice actor would have been completely standard and they would get a credit at the end, which I'm sure they'd appreciate.
And Bourdain definitely would not have liked it.
Re: Voice clone of Anthony Bourdain prompts synthetic media ethics questions
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be interesting to see if recreating songs is possible, if so i would like to hear the voice of Jim morrison and Curt Cobain.
Would you settle for Ronald Reagan? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAZVp-n-5TM
Re: Voice clone of Anthony Bourdain prompts synthetic media ethics questions
#68I don't get why this is controversial. Documentaries constantly have someone reading a written document while imitating the voice of the author, and none of them come out and say "This is not the actual voice of Abraham Lincoln". Why is having a computer imitate someone's voice different from having a person do it?
It's pretty obvious why you will never hear any recordings of Lincoln's voice. In comparison, it most certainly could be Bourdain's voice here so it's not at all obvious that it isn't.
Re: Voice clone of Anthony Bourdain prompts synthetic media ethics questions
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a machine with two GPUs and a frozen OS with a tensorflow python app that clones voices, and I'd say the quality passes if you run it through a phone bandpass filter. I've had an idea to use propellerhead recycle to chop the output cloned voice into syllables, and then "play" the chopped parts in rhythm, through autotune. The issue is you get Eifel 65 sounding autotune if your base vocals are monotonic or way…
You should message @echelon on HN. ;) https://vo.codes/
Oh hi!
I've had a new version of this in the works for a few months. It'll launch maybe this weekend? It supports user-trained data sets, which should be pretty neat.
Your approach sounds kind of like unit selection or vocaloid. Do it!! :)
Re: Voice clone of Anthony Bourdain prompts synthetic media ethics questions
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've had Photoshop for 3 decades and airbrushing for even longer and it's had far-reaching impacts across society... no one is really immune to it because it isn't obvious and it has arguably poisoned realistic ideals around body image. IMO we need to mandate disclosures around deepfakes. It's impossible on a peer-to-peer level, but commercially it should be clearly disclosed.
We don't get immunity to photoshop in the "I can tell from some of the pixels" sense, but we gain immunity in the sense that we no longer accept every image as representing absolute truth. Plenty of people today still think that video manipulation more sophisticated than an instagram filter takes a Hollywood budget or a lot of expertise. Once people get more experience seeing and creating deepfakes on their own they'…
>we no longer accept every image as representing absolute truth
That's not true for many people (I'd go as far to say most), and we're so inundated with it that unedited media is the minority. Ad campaigns get PR for being "unedited" and even then they're heavily art directed (casting, lighting, styling, etc) to compensate.
The effects are so widespread that they're subliminal, even if you're conscious of the scope that they occur. Billboards, tv, movies, newspaper, magazines, products on shelves, menus at restaurants, wedding photos, family christmas postcards... it's inescapable.
Even if you're some paragon of mindfulness and truth in image editing and can somehow isolate yourself from its influence, you're still subject to it because of how it impacts the way everyone else behaves and sees the world.
We should learn from these mistakes.