@@MIloszKluski well, yea, it's not always black and white, there's always a grey area. I think it comes with some merit to decide whether or not it's in good faith to use somebody else's voice, because sometimes it can be so accurate the person listening can actually believe they said that.
@@LegoGoblin Honestly I'm still not sure when to consider it moral and when not. I guess somebody can also do the wrong thing in good faith because they didn't think about some nuances. I think little YT parody with AI voices of presidents is ok but YT mini-series with AI voices cloned from voice actors database is wrong but I don't know where is a line... or maybe I am wrong and Presidents playing Minecraft is immoral too? I don't know anymore...
I think it's great that you stopped to think about the moral implications of using AI voice copies in your videos, it's the first step to our whole society finding balance with AI. I'm an engineer who has worked on AI myself and as they tell all of us back in university, it's important during every step of the way that we consider the impact of our inventions on humanity as a whole. As engineers we often get engrossed in our field, whether it's building a machine or creating software. We get enthralled with the idea of how amazing the world would be if we invented some technology or so on. We then are blind to the implications of what might happen if it comes into existence. Ultimately, we always need to take a step back and ask the people around us how they feel about our inventions, and if they are being impacted in a harmful way. The point is that we should always be building things for the betterment of people, thinking of human centric design all along the way. Now in this case, we have invented technology capable of replicating a human being's voice, without their consent. The inner inventor in all of us looks at this with glee, thinking about all the possibilities this technology can do for us. It's like we unlocked a cheat code in real life. But we need to take a step back and realize that this is a violation of one of our fundamental principles as engineers, going against the foundation for human centric design. Imagine if someone were to create a microchip that can be attached to the back of your head that will force you against your will to follow their every command, through some remote control? Force you to say whatever they want you to say? Sounds farfetched, but I doubt it's impossible. Yet we can all agree that would be disgustingly wrong. In the end, the actors themselves are calling out and protesting their likenesses being taken away from them. Sure for now it's just a copy of their voice, but this is not far off from taking away their liberties entirely. You question in your video how this differs from a stand-up comedian mimicking someones voice for laughs. The difference is that at a human level we can see the joy and fun in jokingly mimicking another person, but even then if we see that it is making someone extremely uncomfortable we would all agree to cut it out, wouldn't we? You have the power to mimic anybody's voice now. A remote control that can duplicate any other persons voice (with enough data to feed into the data set ofcourse). The question is, are you going to use it? Do you understand what it means if you do?
Simple. Much like we aren't allowed to use the likeness of an individual to promote, or mislead people, a product or idea that said individual doesn't align themselves with. It is illegal to take art and use it as your own if you did create or do not own it. AI voices is a direct duplication of an individual's likeness, using DIRECT VOICE SAMPLES, and should follow fair use at the very least. Which means an entire dub of something, using AI voice shouldn't be allowed.
As long as the end goal is complete automation so I never have to work again. Who feels violating on that path is not relevant as long as people are compensated. That is the real problem; finding out what is actually fair compensation and not exploitation or whiny artists thinking they are magic beings the world needs to gravitate around. You are not special. I am not special. We are not special together in harmony.
all of these recent ai developments are completely on the creative side,you wont get to be a lazy bastard anytime soon,you will slave away for your corporate overlords your entire life there is no wall-e future in store you
on the voice imitation part, i think that could be considered parody rather than plagiarism
What if AI voice is used for parody purposes, like the videos where presidents play games? What is parody now?
@@MIloszKluski well, yea, it's not always black and white, there's always a grey area. I think it comes with some merit to decide whether or not it's in good faith to use somebody else's voice, because sometimes it can be so accurate the person listening can actually believe they said that.
@@LegoGoblin Honestly I'm still not sure when to consider it moral and when not. I guess somebody can also do the wrong thing in good faith because they didn't think about some nuances. I think little YT parody with AI voices of presidents is ok but YT mini-series with AI voices cloned from voice actors database is wrong but I don't know where is a line... or maybe I am wrong and Presidents playing Minecraft is immoral too? I don't know anymore...
I think it's great that you stopped to think about the moral implications of using AI voice copies in your videos, it's the first step to our whole society finding balance with AI. I'm an engineer who has worked on AI myself and as they tell all of us back in university, it's important during every step of the way that we consider the impact of our inventions on humanity as a whole. As engineers we often get engrossed in our field, whether it's building a machine or creating software. We get enthralled with the idea of how amazing the world would be if we invented some technology or so on. We then are blind to the implications of what might happen if it comes into existence. Ultimately, we always need to take a step back and ask the people around us how they feel about our inventions, and if they are being impacted in a harmful way. The point is that we should always be building things for the betterment of people, thinking of human centric design all along the way.
Now in this case, we have invented technology capable of replicating a human being's voice, without their consent. The inner inventor in all of us looks at this with glee, thinking about all the possibilities this technology can do for us. It's like we unlocked a cheat code in real life. But we need to take a step back and realize that this is a violation of one of our fundamental principles as engineers, going against the foundation for human centric design. Imagine if someone were to create a microchip that can be attached to the back of your head that will force you against your will to follow their every command, through some remote control? Force you to say whatever they want you to say? Sounds farfetched, but I doubt it's impossible. Yet we can all agree that would be disgustingly wrong. In the end, the actors themselves are calling out and protesting their likenesses being taken away from them. Sure for now it's just a copy of their voice, but this is not far off from taking away their liberties entirely. You question in your video how this differs from a stand-up comedian mimicking someones voice for laughs. The difference is that at a human level we can see the joy and fun in jokingly mimicking another person, but even then if we see that it is making someone extremely uncomfortable we would all agree to cut it out, wouldn't we?
You have the power to mimic anybody's voice now. A remote control that can duplicate any other persons voice (with enough data to feed into the data set ofcourse). The question is, are you going to use it? Do you understand what it means if you do?
I didn't finish the video so you may cover this, but in my opinion AI there's nothing wrong with AI voices, unless it is based off an actual person
Simple. Much like we aren't allowed to use the likeness of an individual to promote, or mislead people, a product or idea that said individual doesn't align themselves with. It is illegal to take art and use it as your own if you did create or do not own it. AI voices is a direct duplication of an individual's likeness, using DIRECT VOICE SAMPLES, and should follow fair use at the very least. Which means an entire dub of something, using AI voice shouldn't be allowed.
i feel like you should learn what illegal means
good video
As long as the end goal is complete automation so I never have to work again. Who feels violating on that path is not relevant as long as people are compensated. That is the real problem; finding out what is actually fair compensation and not exploitation or whiny artists thinking they are magic beings the world needs to gravitate around. You are not special. I am not special. We are not special together in harmony.
all of these recent ai developments are completely on the creative side,you wont get to be a lazy bastard anytime soon,you will slave away for your corporate overlords your entire life
there is no wall-e future in store you
I guess you could say, where do you draw the line between if it is allowed or not to use ai voices of other people