Father, Hacker (Information Security Professional), Open Source Software Developer, Inventor, and 3D printing enthusiast
Correction: Newer versions of ChatGPT (GPT-5.x) are failing in insidious ways. The article has no mention of the other popular services or the dozens of open source coding assist AI models (e.g. Qwen, gpt-oss, etc).
The open source stuff is amazing and gets better just as quickly as the big AI options. Yet they’re boring so they don’t make the news.
Well, the CSAM stuff is unforgivable but I seriously doubt even the soulless demon that is Elon Musk wants his AI tool generating that. I’m sure they’re working on it (it’s actually a hard computer science sort of problem because the tool is supposed to generate what the user asks for and there’s always going to be an infinite number of ways to trick it since LLMs aren’t actually intelligent).
Porn itself is not illegal.
I don’t know, man… Have you even seen Amber? It might be worth an alert 🤷
I don’t know how to tell you this but… Every body gives a shit. We’re born shitters.
The real problem here is that Xitter isn’t supposed to be a porn site (even though it’s hosted loads of porn since before Musk bought it). They basically deeply integrated a porn generator into their very publicly-accessible “short text posts” website. Anyone can ask it to generate porn inside of any post and it’ll happily do so.
It’s like showing up at Walmart and seeing everyone naked (and many fucking), all over the store. That’s not why you’re there (though: Why TF are you still using that shithole of a site‽).
The solution is simple: Everyone everywhere needs to classify Xitter as a porn site. It’ll get blocked by businesses and schools and the world will be a better place.
“To solve this puzzle, you have to get your dog to poop in the circle…”
Yep. Stadia also had a feature like this (that no one ever used).
Just another example of why software patents should not exist.
Maybe take pictures of them instead?
There’s going to be some hilarious memes/videos when these get deployed:
Like I said initially, how do we legally define “cloning”? I don’t think it’s possible to write a law that prevents it without also creating vastly more unintended consequences (and problems).
Let’s take a step back for a moment to think about a more fundamental question: Do people even have the right to NOT have their voice cloned? To me, that is impersonation; which is perfectly legal (in the US). As long as you don’t make claims that it’s the actual person. That is, if you impersonate someone, you can’t claim it’s actually that person. Because that would be fraud.
In the US—as far as I know—it’s perfectly legal to clone someone’s voice and use it however TF you want. What you can’t do is claim that it’s actually that person because that would be akin to a false endorsement.
Realistically—from what I know about human voices—this is probably fine. Voice clones aren’t that good. The most effective method is to clone a voice and use it in a voice changer, using a voice actor that can mimick the original person’s accent and inflection. But even that has flaws that a trained ear will pick up.
Ethically speaking, there’s really nothing wrong with cloning a voice. Because—from an ethics standpoint—it is N/A: There’s no impact. It’s meaningless; just a different way of speaking or singing.
It feels like it might be bad to sing a song using something like Taylor Swift’s voice but in reality it’ll have no impact on her or her music-related business.
wouldn’t we expect countries with strong social programs like Norway to have much higher birth rates? I suppose those social programs would tend to correlate with birth control
I was unfamiliar with Norway’s program so I looked it up…
49 weeks of maternity leave? FUCK YEAH!
$160/month (USD equivalent) for kids under 6? Not nearly enough! That is of negligibe impact and doesn’t come close to offsetting the costs of raising a child.
My two takeaways from this, learning about Norway’s programs:
Also, “when everyone gets a subsidy, no one gets a subsidy” (my own saying). It seems inevitable that daycare costs would increase by the subsidy amount in order to capture it as profit. Basically, long-term subsidies like that ultimately fail because of basic economics. They can work fine in the short term, though.
I still stand by what I said: Having kids makes you less economically stable and until we fix that, fertility rates will continue to decline.
Seems like the biggest thing that needs to be fixed though is housing costs.
Pollution would make sense if people were trying to have kids but couldn’t. But they’re not trying to have kids at all!
The more likely explanation—related to tech—is that we don’t need kids anymore. For 99% of human history, children were necessary and not having kids was basically impossible (horny kids and no birth control). Kids were how humans kept alive/stable as well as expanded their power and influence! It’s also how they got cared for in old age (though that’s a much lesser concern because I seriously doubt humans of the past thought that hard about such things when living to 40 was considered amazing).
Now we have birth control and—in Western societies—stability/safety is much more likely if you don’t have kids. We’ve basically flipped the script on our evolution.
You want people to have kids? Flip the script back! Make anyone under 30 without kids pay a massive tax that pays for the kids of people who have them! Basically, make everyone who didn’t have kids pay child support.
Make having kids the best damned economic decision anyone can make with diminishing returns after two (kids).
You make AI voice generation sound like it’s a one-step process, “clone voice X.” While you can do that, here’s where it’s heading in reality:
“Generate a voice that’s sounds like a male version of Scarlett Johansson”.
“That sounds good, but I want it to sound smoother.”
“Ooh that’s close! Make it slightly higher pitch.”
In a process like that, do you think Scarlett Johansson would have legal standing to sue?
What if you started with cloning your own voice but after many tweaks the end result ends up sounding similar to Taylor Swift? Does she have standing?
In court, you’d have expert witnesses saying they don’t sound the same. “They don’t even have the same inflection or accent!” You’d have voice analysis experts saying their voice patterns don’t match. Not even a little bit.
But about half the jury would be like, “yeah, that does sound similar.” And you could convict a completely innocent person.
The population of North Korea is approximately 26.5 million while South Korea is around 51.7 million. North Korea has already overtaken the South in total number of births per year (~340,000 VS ~250,000 in the South).
If the current trend continues (which I doubt it will), that means North Korea’s population will overtake South Korea some time around 2090-2100.
Instead, what’s going to happen is South Korea will have a regime collapse and then they’re going to have a “come to Korea” moment (like a “come to Jesus” moment, but Korean-themed and much more literal). There’s all sorts of things they can do to improve their situation practically overnight (from a geopolitical perspective) but they’ve so far refused to do so (for racist reasons).
Either they’re going to fortify their population with foreign stock or they’re going to demonstrate “the superiority of the Korean race” by going extinct.
SK is not going to be a good example because, in addition to the usual reasons for a declining birth rate, they also have some pretty extreme racism, sexism, and a work culture that even worse than Japan in many ways. Why would you want to have kids in South Korea‽
Let’s say you do have a wife and kids… Good luck getting home to see them on time on the regular!
What’s incredible is that the government’s stance on this situation is that it is preserving their culture. What they really mean is that they’re keeping out foreigners and not cross-breeding with the riffraff (which is… The rest of the world).
They will “preserve” themselves right into extinction.
I work for a huge bank and we tested voice recognition technology: Even under the best circumstances (high quality microphone with no ambient noise in a sound booth), it was far, far too easy to copy someone else’s voice by simply playing back a sliced up recording a la Sneakers (the movie). We ruled it out as an option over a decade ago.
The problem was fundamental and had nothing to do with the quality of the technology. If your bank is using your voice as a unique identifier they had better be using something else in addition to it! Because it’s super insecure.
From the perspective of human perception, people’s voices are only unique enough to about one in a few thousand. There’s a few outliers with much more unique voices but believe it or not, there’s a lot of people walking around on this earth that sound just like Morgan Freeman, James Earl Jones, and other voices people think are super unique.
I view an anti-cloning law as too risky: It sounds exactly like the type of thing that would prevent Grandma from cloning her own voice before going down for surgery because it just so happens to sound a lot like a famous person.
How do you implement voice cloning prevention? Human voices aren’t that unique. Also, AI voice cloning isn’t perfect. So… At what threshold is a voice considered, “cloned” from a legal perspective?
I mean, people couldn’t tell the difference between Scarlet Johansson and OpenAI’s “Sky” voice which was not cloned.
Before any of that can happen we need some non-ambiguous definitions of what “AI” is.
No, you cannot reasonably assume that. It absolutely did not store the visual elements. What it did, was store some floating point values related to some keywords that the source image had pre-classified. When training, it will increase or decrease those floating point values a small amount when it encounters further images that use those same keywords.
What the examples demonstrate is a lack of diversity in the training set for those very specific keywords. There’s a reason why they chose Stable Diffusion 1.4 and not Stable Diffusion 2.0 (or later versions)… Because they drastically improved the model after that. These sorts of problems (with not-diverse-enough training data) are considered flaws by the very AI researchers creating the models. It’s exactly the type of thing they don’t want to happen!
The article seems to be implying that this is a common problem that happens constantly and that the companies creating these AI models just don’t give a fuck. This is false. It’s flaws like this that leave your model open to attack (and letting competitors figure out your weights; not that it matters with Stable Diffusion since that version is open source), not just copyright lawsuits!
Here’s the part I don’t get: Clearly nobody is distributing copyrighted images by asking AI to do its best to recreate them. When you do this, you end up with severely shitty hack images that nobody wants to look at. Basically, if no one is actually using these images except to say, “aha! My academic research uncovered this tiny flaw in your model that represents an obscure area of AI research!” why TF should anyone care?
They shouldn’t! The only reason why articles like this get any attention at all is because it’s rage bait for AI haters. People who severely hate generative AI will grasp at anything to justify their position. Why? I don’t get it. If you don’t like it, just say you don’t like it! Why do you need to point to absolutely, ridiculously obscure shit like finding a flaw in Stable Diffusion 1.4 (from years ago, before 99% of the world had even heard of generative image AI)?
Generative AI is just the latest way of giving instructions to computers. That’s it! That’s all it is.
Nobody gave a shit about this kind of thing when Star Trek was pretending to do generative AI in the Holodeck. Now that we’ve got he pre-alpha version of that very thing, a lot of extremely vocal haters are freaking TF out.
Do you want the cool shit from Star Trek’s imaginary future or not? This is literally what computer scientists have been dreaming of for decades. It’s here! Have some fun with it!
Generative AI uses up less power/water than streaming YouTube or Netflix (yes, it’s true). So if you’re about to say it’s bad for the environment, I expect you’re just as vocal about streaming video, yeah?