You must log in or register to comment.
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.
Well that’s a happy note on which to end this day
(Well written though, thank you)
Especially coming from Google, who was one of the good guys pushing open standards and interoperability.
Power corrupts. Decentralize.
"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?
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.
She sure can’t. Sounds like all OpenAI has to do is produce the voice actor they used.
So where is she? …
Right.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
paywall.
Doesn’t sound anything like Scarlett Johansson
Quote from the subtitle of the article
and you can’t stop it.
Don’t ever let life-deprived, perspective-bubble wearing, uncompassiontate, power hungry manipulators, “News” people, tell you what you can and cannot do. Doesn’t even pass the smell test.
My advice, if a Media Outlet tries to Groom you to think that nothing you do matters, don’t ever read it again.
The implication being that this is the deal that the AI boom is offering, it’s not necessarily an endorsement of that philosophy by the writer.
I don’t care what the implication was, I didn’t read past the slight/insult to my character, morality and intelligence. Who is some MSM empty suit tank to play cognitive narrative shaping with me, absolutely zero.
Okay.
elias griffin ain’t fucking around. neither am i. weakling pacifists will be crushed under the heel of the coming dystopia.
god, i love this statement. it’s so true. people have to understand our collective power. even if the only tool we have is a hammer, we can still beat their doors down and crush them with it. all it takes is organization and willingness.
our collective time would be better spent destroying capitalism than trying to stop AI. AI is wonderful in the right social system.
