FaceDeer@kbin.social 9 months ago
His voice wasn't stolen, it's still right where he left it.
If you made a painting for me, and then I started making copies of it without your permission and selling them off, while I might not have stolen the physical painting, I have stolen your art.
Just because they didn't rip his larynx out of his throat, doesn't mean you can't steal someone's voice.
Well, I just printed a picture of the Mona Lisa.
Did I steal the Mona Lisa? Or did I just copy it? Reproduce it?
You’re also not causing da Vinci to potentially miss out on jobs by copying it. You’re also not taking away his ability to say no to something he doesn’t want to be associated with.
That’s fine. I’m not arguing this is a bad thing, I’m just being pedantic about the word theft.
Having your voice used to say things you didn’t say is a terrifying prospect. Combined with deep faking takes it one step further.
The idea obviously doesn't apply to the public domain.
We’re getting into samantics but it’s counterfeit not stolen.
It would be more like if you made a painting for me, and I then used that to replicate your artistic style and used that to make new paintings without your permission and passed it off as your work.
Jfc the pedantty.
I think it was a joke
No, the use of words matter when having a debate. "Theft" is an emotionally charged word that has a lot of implications that don't actually map well to what's going on here. It's not a good word to be using for this.
Seems to map pretty well. I’ve looked up a handful of definitions of theft and looking at it from an emotionless perspective it seems to fit. To take something without permission or the right to. I don’t really see where the removal of a finite resource is required.
FaceDeer stop being an inhuman techbro about ai for 5 minutes challenge
What word or phrase would you prefer is used to describe the harm done to him?
"Copied" or "mimicked" would be more accurate.
Hornswaggled?
I’ll go for ‘captured’ which is both figuratively and literally accurate
Copyright infringement
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Fair enough. It’s not theft, it’s something else.
But that’s just semantics, though.
The point is that his voice is being used without his permission, and that companies, profiteering people, and scammers will do so using his voice and the voices others. He likely wants some kind of law against this kind of stuff.
Hubi@feddit.de 9 months ago
How is this different from a human doing an impersonation?
photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 months ago
Because it can be done fast, reliably and at scale.
ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 months ago
Our entire society would collapse if we couldn’t do things fast, reliably, and at scale.
cloudy1999@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
This, and it’s not a human. All these analogies trying to liken a learning algorithm to a learning human are not correct. An LLM is not a human.
Laticauda@lemmy.ca 9 months ago
You know what the difference is, trying to act otherwise is just being obtuse.
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Can you seriously not answer that question yourself?
tillimarleen@feddit.de 9 months ago
well, you seem to have trouble doing it
stopthatgirl7@kbin.social 9 months ago
You could say it’s not, which means in US law at least, it’s settled and they could be sued.
echodot@feddit.uk 9 months ago
There was a difference between complete duplication and impersonation for the purposes of satire.
Fordiman@programming.dev 9 months ago
Largely? The lack of convincing emotional range.
RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Can’t fake timbre.
FaceDeer@kbin.social 9 months ago
It's emotionally charged semantics.
idiomaddict@feddit.de 9 months ago
It’s emotionally charging to hear your own voice saying things you did not. Dismissing a victim describing what happened because they’re emotional about how they were wronged doesn’t make sense to me.