TheDankHold

As with every big technological advancement, the powerful rush to consolidate their control over it and prioritize how it can benefit them over how it can benefit society at large.

A true classic. Thanks for sharing

deleted by creator

It’s actually crazy how purposely terrible they’re running these stores.

The lack of humanity in Republican politicians is so frustrating.

Like you said, language evolves. People are deciding that the definition you follow is very limited and constrains dialogue by being needlessly exclusionary. So they’re seeking to expand the definition to its logical conclusion.

You can throw a fit about other Semitic people being recognized or you can accept that language changes to fit our current understanding of the world.

Antisemitism still refers to prejudice against Jewish people. It’s also being extended to all Semitic people as to disallow them the ability to categorize prejudice against them is to obfuscate and to an extent even deny their own reality.

That’s not an answer to the question.

Interesting that you use the idea that English is a living language to push back against people using a term in a way you’ve decided is incorrect. Seems like you don’t think English is that alive after all if you refuse to incorporate all Semitic people into the concept of antisemitism.

You can’t cite descriptivist arguments to defend your prescriptivist attitude towards the term antisemitism. It betrays your own bias and deflates your argument.

Language evolves, just like you said. Which is why people are realizing the double speak nature of this idea that antisemitism is only when you’re prejudiced against a specific Semitic people group and the others don’t get a term to describe prejudice against them. Your position is an Orwellian attempt to deny a group of people the ability to specifically identify their oppression and it’s sad.

If Israel is any indication, oppressed groups are just as likely to oppress when power is acquired. Your belief otherwise is evidence to f your own bigotry. Humans are humans. Changing the gender doesn’t change geopolitics and thinking otherwise is painfully naïve.

You have, LLMs don’t read because they aren’t intelligent or alive. They aren’t comparable to humans.

If you’re using new voices then congrats. That’s not the issue. The issue is people using existing voices to create audio the person didn’t consent to record. You gave an example of it being done right. Not to mention I’m pretty sure the Serena dialogue isn’t ai generated so it’s not even close to relevant in actuality.

But since you seem to love the potential of AI would you be willing to send me an audio file of you pronouncing every possible phonetic sound the human mouth can make? I promise there won’t be audio of you talking about eating babies afterward because as you say, there’s no practical reason to require consent for these things. No one could possibly abuse technology to hurt other people. It’s never happened in history.

AI is indeed a powerful tool that can be used to let more people explore their creativity. Your assumption that I felt otherwise is because you’re on the opposite end of the spectrum. So self assured of it’s value that you’re blind to real shortcomings and abusable points.

I would describe my position more like: AI, like any new technology, is neutral. It’s usable for good and for bad. Thus it’s important to watch for ethical pitfalls that we may not have had to consider before due to the drastic way the new technology impacts society.

You should not be able to use someone else’s biometrics (voice is one) to generate content without their consent. Your example would be similarly illegal because it is unethically using a persons personal data without their consent for commercial or other purposes.

It’s “novel” in that it’s an approximation of all its input data, tweaked to match the specifics of the request given. It still needs to use the data of real people or it can’t create anything. You have a surface level understanding if you don’t understand the importance of that seeding data.

You don’t seem to value consent when it comes to the systematic harvesting of personal data for another persons benefit. I’ve been very clear that the issue is the lack of consent combined with current and future capabilities of the technology.

It’s like you just skipped past the “with consent” caveat to go on your diatribe.

So now that I’ve reiterated that it wouldn’t be entirely illegal, can you explain how that requirement will cause there to be no more VAs? In this world you’re imagining, how are these computational models creating voices? You talk about a “safe way to use” it in these circumstances but again, these companies still need data to generate voices. And this data would be protected through active seeking of consent.

You aren’t “[creating] a novel voice from scratch, that’s just not how the technology works. It needs a human to extract data from and compile something intelligible. Unless you want every animated feature to use the robotic assistant voices. Another aspect to why your perspective makes no sense and seemingly shows a complete lack of understanding of how these computational models work and how that comes together with my proposition.

Then your last paragraph is just a confirmation that no, you haven’t fully read what I wrote. So one more time with gusto:

Using computer generation to imitate a person using their own biometric data should be illegal unless explicit consent is given.

Ai voice impressions should be rendered illegal without explicit consent from the entity being imitated. Simple.

Also your extrapolation of potential events feels ridiculous. Tech is banned so it’s used more in commercial projects heavily subject to such legislation?

You write laws for the future. Unless you think ai generated content has plateaued. Which is again, naive. Just because social media wasn’t popular at first doesn’t mean we should’ve waited on passing data privacy legislation like we have. It’s good to identify potential issues and attempt to mitigate them early. So we don’t get situations like our current climate status.

It’s not though. That’s you naively ignoring the aspects that are different. Computer generated imitation is easier to create, can be created at a scale far eclipsing human action, and can be finely tuned to make it harder to discern.

You can look up impressionists and you’ll find it’s a rather small club when looking for the true greats. Computers remove this barrier and allow any asshole with an internet connection to create a video of you screaming racial epithets if your voice is easy enough to access.

The vast difference in scale can’t be ignored.

Everyone has takes like this like we can’t just draw the line at making it illegal for a computer or algorithm to do this.

Sounds like it falls under the monopoly abuse they mentioned.