5 ms·

this is fucked up manufacturing content from the voices/faces of prominent people that have died is no bueno fuck podcast.ai

apetresc 4y ago
In all earnestness - why? It's not like anyone would be fooled into thinking this was real. What's the harm?
- Jerrrry 4y ago
  >not like anyone would be fooled into thinking this was real my god, are you asleep?
- antegamisou 4y ago
  > It's not like anyone would be fooled into thinking this was real. What's the harm? You are grossly overestimating the collective intelligence of people on the Internet and yes this also includes the "wittier" Lex Fridman audience.
  - cholantesh 4y ago
    ~~also~~ especially
- jasonlotito 4y ago
  > i hate Lex Friedman and Richard Feynnman That's pretty harsh.
- thimkerbell 4y ago
  Clickbait. I was fooled by the title and would have listened. Dan, if there is a way to demote deepfake fiction, a way that doesn't cause other problems, that would be great.
anonporridge 4y ago
You never get to close pandora's box. The only choice you have is how to decide to adapt to the new reality. Whining into the void about the new reality isn't adaptation. It's weakness.
- rngname22 4y ago
  It will likely eventually be possible to create bioweapons like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_goo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_goo, but we would still condemn someone for doing so, your statement makes literally no sense.
- canucklady 4y ago
  This is such an insane worldview. Lots of things are technically possible but socially or legally discouraged. You could infringe copyright. You could steal. You could walk around naked. It's not whining to say that something is outside of social norms.
  - twblalock 4y ago
    When it's trivially easy to break the law and there are no obvious victims, and it can be done on computers, those rules go out the window. Almost everyone who shared music on Napster would have never shoplifted a CD from a record store. Almost everyone who shares TV episodes on Bittorrent would never have stolen a DVD from a store or climbed up a power pole to illegally tap into cable.
    - rngname22 4y ago
      When it becomes trivial to 3d print gray goo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_goo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_goo) I wonder if you'll sing the same tune to humanity's destruction or if you'd admit that there's a spectrum and there's some threshold past which a technology becomes condemnable. Because right now your statement basically implies there is no such threshold (since clearly the person you're replying to thinks podcast.ai is past it).
abeppu 4y ago
I also think it's kind of pointless as anything other than a demonstration of the speech synthesis (which is getting pretty good). The Feynman character especially shows that while these models can pick up a bunch of the details about the surface style, they certainly can't be clever or insightful, which is the appeal of the people being imitated. With respect to using the voices or faces of dead people, I do think it's interesting that the estates of the deceased can have some control over commercial uses of personal images. The estate of MLK I think still controls use of the whole audio from some of his famous speeches. But my understanding is we haven't yet settled whether synthetic / derived artifacts which rely heavily on existing photos or recordings should themselves be controlled in the same way.

apetresc 4y ago

In all earnestness - why? It's not like anyone would be fooled into thinking this was real. What's the harm?

Jerrrry 4y ago
>not like anyone would be fooled into thinking this was real my god, are you asleep?
antegamisou 4y ago
> It's not like anyone would be fooled into thinking this was real. What's the harm? You are grossly overestimating the collective intelligence of people on the Internet and yes this also includes the "wittier" Lex Fridman audience.
- cholantesh 4y ago
  ~~also~~ especially
jasonlotito 4y ago
> i hate Lex Friedman and Richard Feynnman That's pretty harsh.
thimkerbell 4y ago
Clickbait. I was fooled by the title and would have listened. Dan, if there is a way to demote deepfake fiction, a way that doesn't cause other problems, that would be great.

anonporridge 4y ago

You never get to close pandora's box. The only choice you have is how to decide to adapt to the new reality. Whining into the void about the new reality isn't adaptation. It's weakness.

rngname22 4y ago
It will likely eventually be possible to create bioweapons like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_goo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_goo, but we would still condemn someone for doing so, your statement makes literally no sense.
canucklady 4y ago
This is such an insane worldview. Lots of things are technically possible but socially or legally discouraged. You could infringe copyright. You could steal. You could walk around naked. It's not whining to say that something is outside of social norms.
- twblalock 4y ago
  When it's trivially easy to break the law and there are no obvious victims, and it can be done on computers, those rules go out the window. Almost everyone who shared music on Napster would have never shoplifted a CD from a record store. Almost everyone who shares TV episodes on Bittorrent would never have stolen a DVD from a store or climbed up a power pole to illegally tap into cable.
  - rngname22 4y ago
    When it becomes trivial to 3d print gray goo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_goo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_goo) I wonder if you'll sing the same tune to humanity's destruction or if you'd admit that there's a spectrum and there's some threshold past which a technology becomes condemnable. Because right now your statement basically implies there is no such threshold (since clearly the person you're replying to thinks podcast.ai is past it).

abeppu 4y ago

I also think it's kind of pointless as anything other than a demonstration of the speech synthesis (which is getting pretty good). The Feynman character especially shows that while these models can pick up a bunch of the details about the surface style, they certainly can't be clever or insightful, which is the appeal of the people being imitated. With respect to using the voices or faces of dead people, I do think it's interesting that the estates of the deceased can have some control over commercial uses of personal images. The estate of MLK I think still controls use of the whole audio from some of his famous speeches. But my understanding is we haven't yet settled whether synthetic / derived artifacts which rely heavily on existing photos or recordings should themselves be controlled in the same way.