indeed, which is a bad thing. Those with less visibility and less resources (money) are open to exploitation by these tech industries who seem to believe content which others have invested their own labour to cultivate and develop - including celebrities who I myself am also cynical of for other less relevant reasons - are a free resource to plunder for their own profit at a net loss to society. Sam had a boner for the film with her voice in it - interestingly theres plenty to be critical of with film industry’s treatment of labour and talent also, but even that industry manages to arrive at a compromise where the celebrity actor applies her skill to the process and her celebrity helps sell the product. So an industry with less moral fibre than the arguably corrupt virtually mafia like film industry is running what some fear may be an existential threat (eventually) to human life? Yikes. OpenAI attempted to pilfer it for free after being denied in the first place. so imagine the disdain they must have for individuals such as you and I. The strange thing is I generally don’t believe in copyright , or the gatekeeping of intellectual property. This is not really the issue here - it only touches on and indicates a larger one.
Cum guzzling Sam Altman is the new cum guzzling Elon Musk
chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net
on 01 Jun 22:50
collapse
From the article itself:
The researchers found that Sky was also reminiscent of other Hollywood stars, including Anne Hathaway and Keri Russell. The analysis of Sky often rated Hathaway and Russell as being even more similar to the AI than Johansson.
I’ve watched Her many years back, and I’ve been following a lot of Johansson’s work in the MCU franchise; I don’t hear her in Sky beyond both voices being similarly aged “female” (can’t really assume the gender of the AI model) voices.
If there are statistical analyses that says otherwise, and aligns with at least some anecdotal evidence, then it isn’t “very obvious”.
Also, people calling out dissimilarities from their anecdotal observations, along with statistical evidence against your personal view doesn’t equate to siding with the company, or against some popular celebrity; but rather, simply calling out their observations. This is just a discussion as to whether or not the voice is similar, try not to get too personally attached to either parties.
Ok, then: why are you siding against the very clear and damning evidence to defend an extremely exploitative company with zero regards from anyone else’s rights when it’s very clear that they’re in the wrong?
chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net
on 01 Jun 23:44
nextcollapse
I’m not taking sides. I’m saying I don’t hear the similarities and there’s stats supporting it. That’s all. That’s what I said earlier. No need to take sides.
Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off, or as emojis: "🤔🤔🤔"[1]) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one’s opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.
The tactic is closely related to loaded questions or leading questions (which are usually employed when using it), Gish Gallops (when asking a huge number of rapid-fire questions without regard for the answers), and Argumentum ad nauseam (when asking the same question over and over in an attempt to overwhelm refutations).
chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net
on 01 Jun 23:51
collapse
Yeah… you’re the one asking questions. I’ve not asked any.
You mean the bullshit flows like a waterfall, and I’m not an idiot, so I don’t buy it. Why do you?
Really: explain to me why you wanna suck shit from the literal asshole that is covering all of us in diarrhea while trying to convince me your breath smells like mint?
I can see the reality we live in. You’d rather live in a fantasy.
I’ve seen what copyright abuse can do. I’m not interested in a world where scarjo can issue take down requests on every video with someone in it that sounds close to her.
I don’t think scarjo deserves to own all voices that are mildly like hers nor do I think the movie owns the concept of a bubbly ai assistant.
If we go down this path and give ownership to vast spectrums of tonality to every celebrity, singer and voice actor, we will quickly end up with most of it owned by someone or another.
I’m also for open source, so I’m not interested in simping for Scarlet or Altman. I also suggest you listen to a comparison of both voices.
I’ve heard a few different comparisons between her and the AI in question and, personally, the AI sounds almost exactly like Siri and not really like Johansson other than being a female voice.
Which doesn’t really change the case against the company, just who the victim is. Because Siri is also based on a real actress. Who didn’t even agree to the most of the shit her voice was used for with Siri, either. This new AI voice seems, to me, to be built off Siri’s voice so they’re essentially still using a real person’s likeness without permission.
threaded - newest
Literally a non issue to the entire world except 1 person and a company…
<img alt="" src="https://lemm.ee/pictrs/image/e455632b-4d72-47ba-b3d2-06cae21991a0.webp">
Cool beans, still a non issue.
Must be why people all over the world are terrifically concerned about it. Kind of negates your whole assertion that nobody cares.
People are concerned about non issues all the time.
Kinda shitty to tell people that their legitimate concerns regarding their freedoms are “non issues”. What incredible privilege you must have.
Must be nice.
Thoughts and prayers for scarjo.
Only because ‘celebrity’…is this was your average person, nobody would care.
indeed, which is a bad thing. Those with less visibility and less resources (money) are open to exploitation by these tech industries who seem to believe content which others have invested their own labour to cultivate and develop - including celebrities who I myself am also cynical of for other less relevant reasons - are a free resource to plunder for their own profit at a net loss to society. Sam had a boner for the film with her voice in it - interestingly theres plenty to be critical of with film industry’s treatment of labour and talent also, but even that industry manages to arrive at a compromise where the celebrity actor applies her skill to the process and her celebrity helps sell the product. So an industry with less moral fibre than the arguably corrupt virtually mafia like film industry is running what some fear may be an existential threat (eventually) to human life? Yikes. OpenAI attempted to pilfer it for free after being denied in the first place. so imagine the disdain they must have for individuals such as you and I. The strange thing is I generally don’t believe in copyright , or the gatekeeping of intellectual property. This is not really the issue here - it only touches on and indicates a larger one.
Why are you trying to side with the company who very obviously did the bad thing then?
Cum guzzling Sam Altman is the new cum guzzling Elon Musk
From the article itself:
I’ve watched Her many years back, and I’ve been following a lot of Johansson’s work in the MCU franchise; I don’t hear her in Sky beyond both voices being similarly aged “female” (can’t really assume the gender of the AI model) voices.
If there are statistical analyses that says otherwise, and aligns with at least some anecdotal evidence, then it isn’t “very obvious”.
Also, people calling out dissimilarities from their anecdotal observations, along with statistical evidence against your personal view doesn’t equate to siding with the company, or against some popular celebrity; but rather, simply calling out their observations. This is just a discussion as to whether or not the voice is similar, try not to get too personally attached to either parties.
Ok, then: why are you siding against the very clear and damning evidence to defend an extremely exploitative company with zero regards from anyone else’s rights when it’s very clear that they’re in the wrong?
I’m not taking sides. I’m saying I don’t hear the similarities and there’s stats supporting it. That’s all. That’s what I said earlier. No need to take sides.
Just asking questions
The tactic is closely related to loaded questions or leading questions (which are usually employed when using it), Gish Gallops (when asking a huge number of rapid-fire questions without regard for the answers), and Argumentum ad nauseam (when asking the same question over and over in an attempt to overwhelm refutations).
Yeah… you’re the one asking questions. I’ve not asked any.
Good luck with your life.
Yet you refused to explain why you’re siding with those clearly in the wrong.
If you read the article, the evidence indicates it isn’t her.
You mean the bullshit flows like a waterfall, and I’m not an idiot, so I don’t buy it. Why do you?
Really: explain to me why you wanna suck shit from the literal asshole that is covering all of us in diarrhea while trying to convince me your breath smells like mint?
I can see the reality we live in. You’d rather live in a fantasy.
I’ve seen what copyright abuse can do. I’m not interested in a world where scarjo can issue take down requests on every video with someone in it that sounds close to her.
I don’t think scarjo deserves to own all voices that are mildly like hers nor do I think the movie owns the concept of a bubbly ai assistant.
If we go down this path and give ownership to vast spectrums of tonality to every celebrity, singer and voice actor, we will quickly end up with most of it owned by someone or another.
I’m also for open source, so I’m not interested in simping for Scarlet or Altman. I also suggest you listen to a comparison of both voices.
I’ve heard a few different comparisons between her and the AI in question and, personally, the AI sounds almost exactly like Siri and not really like Johansson other than being a female voice.
Which doesn’t really change the case against the company, just who the victim is. Because Siri is also based on a real actress. Who didn’t even agree to the most of the shit her voice was used for with Siri, either. This new AI voice seems, to me, to be built off Siri’s voice so they’re essentially still using a real person’s likeness without permission.