Fuck my spats.
OpenAI has disbanded its AI robotics team and is no longer trying to apply machine learning to physical machines. Wojciech Zaremba, co-founder of OpenAI, who led the robotics group confirmed that the company recently broke up the team to focus working on more promising areas of artificial general intelligence research. "Here' …
Does it matter, seeing as Bourdain did express those sentiments albeit in an email and not into a microphone?
Yes it matters.
We most definitely should not get into the habit of bending the ghosts of dead people whichever we choose simply because we can.
The only case where I would accept recreating a specific person's voice is when the actual recording of said person has bad audio quality. That, for me, would be acceptable, especially in the case of a documentary or such, but I would still prefer that there be a banner or some notification that the portion had been recreated.
If we are already faking people's voices to make them say things they never actually pronounced in public when we are the very beginning of this technology, just how far are we going to go with it ?
Knowing the basic (absence of) principle of the Human race, we'll go too far.
So let's reign it in now.
Would you be so concerned if they'd used the voice of an actor who sounded just like Bourdain? Or an impressionist?
It isn't as if the film maker was trying to deceive the public about what Bourdain had already expressed.
Maybe we should just get Patrick Stuart to do all off-screen voices and then we can all sleep soundly knowing we've heard the truth.
@TheProf “It isn't as if the film maker was trying to deceive the public about what Bourdain had already expressed.”
Maybe not what Bourdain had already expressed but it looks like the film maker was trying to deceive viewers about how it was expressed. When quoting someone context, the how, where, when and to whom is important.
Now I haven’t seen the documentary, maybe the context was given, so no intent to deceive. If that’s the case, why imitate his voice? Be that with AI or a voice actor there is no difference.
Now if no context was given I have too agree with @Pascal Monett "Yes it matters."
Good point. If I have expressed (in writing) "and obviously the earth is flat", you can voice this in my most grave "I have a PhD in Physics, how dare you doubt me" voice (*), or with an implied "yeah right" before and "you moron" afterwards.
Anyway, ethics shmetics, as soon as it's available, Facebook will be full of it. David Attenborough railing against vaccines. Hilary Clinton suggesting to shoot gun owners. Bill Gates asking for more Tabasco for his child blood cocktail.
(*) Pointing to your degree to back up an argument is nearly as bad as "I spent 12 years researching this" in triggering a crank alert, btw.
> It isn't as if the film maker was trying to deceive the public about what Bourdain had already expressed.
“If you watch the film ... you probably don’t know what the other lines are that were spoken by the AI, and you’re not going to know,” Neville said. “We can have a documentary-ethics panel about it later.”
At the very least Neville doesn't want you to know or think about where the opinions voiced in his documentary are coming from. He wants you to listen, presumably agree with the viewpoint he is expressing about Bourdain and not know that he is decieving you, albeit in a fairly minor way.
Neville's expressed opinion about ethics shows he is a total piece of shit and shouldn't be making documentaries because he has no interest in the truth.
"proprietary machine-learning models said to be capable"
proprietary: We won't show you the source code. Probably 200 lines of Python.
machine-learning: We don't actually want to understand the process; otherwise we might be held responsible.
said to be: If all else fails, we only said that somebody said it. Don't remember who.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022