Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 84
5/23/2024, 4:04:27 PM
X
In reply to:
Andreas K. Maier
@maier_ak
·
627d
@GaryMarcus 4. Will the voice actor they hired no longer be able to work in the role of a speech assistant?
5. How can I produce speech assistants at all, if there is a certain likelihood that the voice of the voice actor, I hired is „different enough“ from any other voice actor?
Andreas K. Maier
@maier_ak
·
627d
@GaryMarcus The question the OpenAI case will have to clarify is
1. How many warm, female voice sound similar to the voice of Samantha in „her“?
2. How can this be quantified?
3. What degree of dissimilarity is required?
Andreas K. Maier
@maier_ak
·
627d
@GaryMarcus Human voices do share many similarities although a voice is actually biometric.

With impersonators, they mostly concentrate on articulation as their voice cannot be changed.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
627d
👇THIS!

The real issue isn’t whether OpenAI would win in court, it’s what happens to *all of us*, if a company with a track record for cutting ethical corners winds up first to AGI.
Curt Dodds
@technotweet
·
627d
People confuse legal vs ethical. Finding a Her voice after being rebuffed by Scarlett may be legal, but not ethical. Is founding an open nonprofit to build safe AI then pivoting to closed, for-profit ethical? AGI in the hands of immoral people with no integrity will not end well.

The statement '@maier_ak they can’t really argue statistical coincidence given Sam’s tweets, his requests to ScarJo etc.' is part of a broader conversation about ethical and legal issues surrounding AI, voice actors, and consent. It engages with public concerns about the ethical implications of AI development and the use of voice actors, thus constituting public discourse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm directly, but it does imply wrongdoing by referencing 'Sam’s tweets' and 'requests to ScarJo,' which could be seen as accusatory.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others to some extent but indirectly references specific individuals (Sam and ScarJo) in a potentially negative context, which could be seen as a form of harassment or cyberbullying. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. Instead, it seems to focus on pointing out perceived ethical lapses. [-1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue. It makes an accusatory remark without providing a constructive way forward or engaging in a meaningful discussion. [-1]
  5. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds the principles of free speech but does not use the platform responsibly or with integrity, as it makes accusatory remarks without substantial evidence or constructive dialogue. [-1]