this post was submitted on 22 May 2024
91 points (85.3% liked)

Technology

58061 readers
31 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 103 points 3 months ago (3 children)

The moment word was that Reddit (and now Stackoverflow) were tightening APIs to then sell our conversations to AI was when the game was given away. And I'm sure there were moments or clues before that.

This was when the "you're the product if its free" arrangement metastasised into "you're a data farming serf for a feudal digital overlord whether you pay or not".

Google search transitioning from Good search engine for the internet -> Bad search engine serving SEO crap and ads -> Just use our AI and forget about the internet is more of the same. That their search engine is dominated by SEO and Ads is part of it ... the internet, IE other people's content isn't valuable any more, not with any sovereignty or dignity, least of all the kind envisioned in the ideals of the internet.

The goal now is to be the new internet, where you can bet your ass that there will not be any Tim Berners-Lee open sourcing this. Instead, the internet that we all made is now a feudal landscape on which we all technically "live" and in which we all technically produce content, but which is now all owned, governed and consumed by big tech for their own profits.


I recall back around the start of YouTube, which IIRC was the first hype moment for the internet after the dotcom crash, there was talk about what structures would emerge on the internet ... whether new structures would be created or whether older economic structures would impose themselves and colonise the space. I wasn't thinking too hard at the time, but it seemed intuitive to that older structures would at least try very hard to impose themselves.

But I never thought anything like this would happen. That the cloud, search/google, mega platforms and AI would swallow the whole thing up.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 3 months ago

Well that's a happy note on which to end this day

(Well written though, thank you)

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Especially coming from Google, who was one of the good guys pushing open standards and interoperability.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago

Power corrupts. Decentralize.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

We ruined the world by painting certain men or groups as bad. The centralization of power is the bad thing. That's the whole purpose of all Republics as I understand it. Something we used to know and have almost completely forgotten

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Well said! I’m still wondering what happens when the enviable ouroboros of AI content referencing AI content referencing AI content makes the whole internet a self perpetuating mess of unreadable content and makes anything of value these companies once gained basically useless.

Would that eventually result in fresh, actual human created content only coming from social media? I guess clauses about using your likeness will be popping up in TikTok at some point (if they aren’t already)

[–] [email protected] 55 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

"AGI is going to create tremendous wealth. And if that wealth is distributed—even if it’s not equitably distributed, but the closer it is to equitable distribution, it’s going to make everyone incredibly wealthy.”

So delusional.

Do they think that their AI will actually dig the cobalt from the mines, or will the AI simply be the one who sends the children in there to do the digging?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It will design the machines to build the autonomous robots that mine the cobalt.... doing the jobs of several companies at one time and either freeing up several people to pursue leisure or the arts or starve to death from being abandoned by society.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Big fail to forget the /s here...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Why? This is a very real possibility.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Why? This is a very real possibility.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

AI cannot come even CLOSE to reasoning.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

And a submarine can't even swim.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago

It's a big year in robotics, so, the former.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 months ago (5 children)

I mean, that's just how it has always worked, this isn't actually special to AI.

Tom Hanks does the voice for Woody in Toy Story movies, but, his brother Jim Hanks has a very similar voice, but since he isnt Tom Hanks he commands a lower salary.

So many video games and whatnot use Jim's voice for Woody instead to save a bunch of money, and/or because Tom is typically busy filming movies.

This isn't an abnormal situation, voice actors constantly have "sound alikes" that impersonate them and get paid literally because they sound similar.

OpenAI clearly did this.

It's hilarious because normally fans are foaming at the mouth if a studio hires a new actor and they sound even a little bit different than the prior actor, and no one bats an eye at studios efforts to try really hard to find a new actor that sounds as close as possible.

Scarlett declined the offer and now she's malding that OpenAI went and found some other woman who sounds similar.

Thems the breaks, that's an incredibly common thing that happens in voice acting across the board in video games, tv shows, movies, you name it.

OpenAI almost certainly would have won the court case if they were able to produce who they actually hired and said person could demo that their voice sounds the same as Gippity's.

If they did that, Scarlett wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court, she cant sue someone for having a similar voice to her, lol.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 months ago (2 children)

She sure can't. Sounds like all OpenAI has to do is produce the voice actor they used.

So where is she? ...

Right.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Get real. They have made it like her deliberately. Not anybody "nearly alike". They even admitted it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

You gonna just sit there and act like they don't have someone? They aren't coming here to reply to your fuckin Lemmy comment.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Yes but also no, the whole appeal is tied to her brand (her public image x the character HER), unlike Woody who is an original creation.

It's like doing a commercial using a lookalike dressed like the original guy and pretending that's a completely different actor.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I get that she is grappling with identity and it's not a clear cut case, but if the precedent is set that similar voices (and I didn't even think it was that similar in this case) are infringement, that would be a pretty big blow to commercial creativity projects.

Maybe it's more a brand problem than an infringement problem.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

That reminded me of Ice Ice Baby and the rip-off of Queen's Under Pressure bass riff. Queen won i think.

I don't think this is the same thing though. They asked her, she said so, they went for her cute cousin instead... typical.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I agreed with op, then i read your astute response and now I don't know which position is correct.

Thinking it through as i type... If you photoshopped an image of Tom Hanks giving a thumbs up to your product, that would clearly be illegal, but if you hired an exact flawless lookalike impersonator of Tom Hanks and had him pose for a picture with a thumbs up to your product, would that be illegal? I think it might still be illegal, because you purposely hired a lookalike impersonator to gain the benefit of Tom Hanks' brand.

I think the law on AI should match what the law says about impersonators. If hiring an indistinguishable celebrity impersonator to use in media is legal, then ai soundalikes should be legal too, and vice versa.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

when you get into these nitty gritty copyright/ip arguments you realize it's all just a house of cards to make capital king and the main ism

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Wouldn’t the difference here wrt Tom/Woody be that Tom had already played the role before so there is some expectation that a similar voice would be used for future versions of Woody if Tom wasn’t available?

Serious question, I never thought about the point you made so now I’m curious.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

The difference is that apparently they asked ScarJo first and she said no. When they ask Tom Hanks (or really his agent, I assume) the answer is "he's too busy with movies, try Jim".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Yeah, and there are so very few people who have literally any physical traits that aren't also present in a million others. You can't exactly copyright that.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago