• BraveSirZaphod
    link
    fedilink
    169 months ago

    I think, at some point, we’ll probably need legislation mandating consent for this kind of thing, at least for any non-trivial purposes. I’d wager that most people find this generally uncomfortable and would support a general concept of a right to one’s own identity.

    • @esc27@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      49 months ago

      It gets tricky, though. For example, what if the AI was trained on recordings of voice impersonators (with consent)? We may be limited to banning companies from promoting the AI voices as being specific people…

      Years ago, Moes Southwest had a problem like this. Their decor featured images of artists, but it turned out they did not have the rights and were sued. So they ran a celebrity look alike competition and used photos of the winning look alikes instead.

  • @lloram239@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    9
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Modern models need about 5sec of audio to replicate a voice. The days when you needed a large amount of audio for replication are long gone. Same for faces by the way, the original Deepfake needed hundred of images and hours of training, now you can do it with as little as a single good image instantly. Software to automatically clone the voice, translate the audio into another language and adjust the lip motion exists as well, again without any lengthy training or material, just needs the clip you want to change.

    Where the whole thing gets interesting is in remixing. If you stolen Stephen Fry, sure that’s bad and there might be laws against it. What if you remix Stephen Fry and Patrick Steward into a brand new AI-persona? What if you remix a Stephen Fry sound-alike out of other peoples voices without ever touching his voice?

    This whole issue gets very blurry very fast.

  • @Teknikal@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    09 months ago

    We need to do this for Attenborough or nature documentaries will never be as good.