We've never had the power to control the people who were always going to be the ones to develop the technology. Our position was always going to involve bearing the consequences.
Imagine your government creates an AI Agent for you and every other citizen to observe them and keep track of their affairs. The only reason tax agencies don't audit more people is because there just isn't enough manpower, so they make an example out of a few people to scare the rest into believing they are truly watching everything. With AI, these agencies will have MUCH more 'manpower' to review your tax returns, your daily affairs, your relationships... it would be like having a private investigator tailing you everywhere that you have access to the net. That's only one agency and the justification is already there. Many states, provinces, countries do NOT have respect for their citizens' privacy or freedom of association.
Large corporations own and control almost all of US governance at this point, so there is that, right? Just trying to clarify who the big bad government is here.
Don't forget that ordinary citizens and private companies will also have access to AI, so we could get help from AI accountants and lawyers, against govt's AI auditors and bureaucrats.
I don't agree necessarily with how Mergrethe has characterised the 'existential' risks, as she's made it more about inconvenience and inappropriateness of the decision-making. If the software operates in a medical sense and isn't able to extrapolate suitable treatments based upon your sex, then it's not good software and shouldn't have been deployed. If the software is picking and choosing who can have a mortgage despite affordability criteria being met, then it's not in a deployable state. All things being equal, if you don't get a mortgage then there will be other factors outside of affordability. The bigger problem is much smaller: If the AI is better at our jobs than us, what reason will employers have to retain staff who do a mediocre job and cost a lot of money over an AI system that does the job of an office for a fraction of the cost? Literally none. And there's nothing wrong in that idea as we have been replacing people with machines for a very long time. That's the problem, and she hasn't addressed the need for Human-AI competition laws to recognise how much we will need to compete with AI to certify ourselves as valuable.
No amount of legislation will work if it is not implemented globally. As mentioned in this piece, any country regulating AI without a global implementation of the same risks being outcompeted by unregulated jurisdictions.
There are plenty of ways to regulate research. That you can only regulate usage is what the AI Labs would want us to believe. Not the best take on this issue.
These agreements pertain to thresholds for severe AI risks, including in building biological and chemical weapons.- Have we learnt nothing from the pandemic. You can alwyas count on humans to instantly weaponise tech.
The voice was another actor months before they contacted her. Everyone assumed it was her and that she would have agreed to it, because it's like her movie she was in. Doesn't sound like her. People just expect that it's her.
These "AI companies" are a joke. They are mostly incompetent, and they don't matter either way. The tech itself is simple to learn and use, and there is no regulation you will ever apply to limit it.
... Programmers. No need to watch the clip. I would like to see anyone from a non math/computing background to make the changes themselves to the model.
@@AdamBA380 it really isn't, most AI models are made in by people and release for free. Sometimes it's a single guy who does it for free in his spare time.
@@definty uh huh. For better or worse (worse) the all mighty dollar/pound/euro/rupee/riyal/etc. tips the scales of every new technology in service of the folks who already have the all money. Big tech companies will pour trillions into AI as it serves them, and they’ll buy out every “spare time” programmer along the way to control as much of the market as possible. Programmers build it, but monied interests do/will own it
If you think that the 1% won't end up owning even more of the global wealth because of AI, then you don't understand how power and wealth work. Corporate owned media are the biggest proponents of the money and power behind the AI revolution actually.
It will always be that private citizens are forced to obey laws and governments can do what they please. So why even talk about this. Better to nail down who is going to pay for the massive increase in energy needed for AI global use. After only a few years AI uses the energy needed to power Ireland.
Heard they use AI also for medical uses and new medicines to speed it up , what is awesome! Hope they can use it for gene therapy to, millions of people already wait for years to be healthy...
It should be for the people opensource to keep innovations within reach of everyone other than nefarious sociopaths and commercial greed. Boost the arts and sciences with it as a useful tool, but not for cults, expose them.
This is such a confused conversation. Machine Learning is really good aggregation to answer the question "what is the most likely ____ given ____" We have no problem with that when it's a question like "what is the most likely quiz grade for someone that spent 0 hours studying?" and what most people seem to understand is that the Scarlet Johansen voice is just "what would SJ sound like if she said ____" with the only difference being more and better aggregation of observances (and maybe copywritten material). Some people are better at spotting patterns than others, and computers can be even better in some cases. Thats ALL IT IS. Thats not awareness. It's not an inherent violation of anything, just a massive asymmetry in an entity's ability to predict something. That isnt new, but has led to inequality since the man started farming and trying to predict the weather and harvest yields. The reason this is complicated is we kinda ignore just how much difference there is in value of the same information to 2 different people, like say a pending market crash to a blue collar worker compared to a fund manager. AI amplifies that opportunity asymmetry.
This is the worst asymmetry in history. Models can be trained to optimize whatever the developer codes. Whether that is what they intended or not. Regulate use and people that dont understand this stuff are the only people being regulated. IP and copyright laws deter, but there isnt proactive enforcement. Likeness is already covered there. Use of data is covered by a variety of laws from mail, fraud, business laws, health, outright theft, privacy, government security.. If I take a picture of a celebrity, as the photographer Id own the rights because it was my artistic sense that captured the photo. Training a model does have lots of parallels. If I make a youtube reaction video, discuss the news, make a channel dedicated to fawning over a celebrities likeness.. all those are fine under US law. If humanity is being undermined its because we want the model to do that. Whether choosing to repeat past practices, or choosing to optimize the model for one metric or another now, or caring about known bias or being totally fine with it, that's entirely choice.
No one here is talking about what the US media only talks about, and that is about AI somehow becoming sentient. This is the cartoonish side to manipulate your emotions. This is about more serious threats that involve humans misusing and abusing the technology.
We are asking alot of Ai when we can't ourselves maintain humanity as it is , killing each other left right and centre, Israel is committing genocide in gaza while we are arguing about safety and values for Ai , Russia and Ukraine, mass murders in congo. Bu we are so focused on having a humane Ai when we are worse on ourselves already
We shall see, won't we? Won't that be easily proved by OpenAI during discovery if that is actually the case? And if that is actually true, why would OpenAI cancel that voice without a fight right away? That doesn't at all sound like what they would do. Not even close.
Her voice was not used. It was another voice actresss. There are billions of people on this planet. Many people can sound very similar if not the same.
That will come out in discovery if this goes to trial. If OpenAI is telling the truth, then the lawsuit won't go anywhere. It makes no sense at all that OpenAI would desist from using the voice, if there is nothing to the complaint. That's not what a multibillion corporation does in that circumstance.
If they took her voice they infringed on her personality rights. Data models need to be made transparent and public by law. AI models need to be open source by law. AI companies need to be taxed at 90% and the money should be redistributed by the government. If we don't get this right, corporations will take over and people lose control over the state.
@@aceyage The public and the government have done nothing to facilitate AI. On contrary, they have been holding it back. So taxing AI is nothing more than a communist heist.
Do you work for OpenAi? Why did they beg her for permission to use her voice? Even just 2 days before they launched the AI voice? Why did they suddenly withdraw the AI voice after she threatened to sue them? Hum?
@@enadegheeghaghe6369 The model was trained from another actor who was hired and paid. I think it's just so pathetic that these big celebrities think they are the center of the universe. Some people have voices similar to or like others. There are billions of people on this planet. I hope the voice actor of the Sky decides to stand up and shuts up Ms Johansson.
I don’t see what the concern is. What happened when ChatGPT was released to the public? AI researchers went begging to their governments to be regulated. It was almost comical.
Hold on Hold on Hold on there... 03:20 talks about Open AI vs Scarlett Johannsen it has not been officially confirmed it was her voice, the argument is that it is a voice that "earely" resounds similar to her own, but openAI have maintained it is another voice actresses voice so to state that Open AI used Scarlett Johannsen's voice as a fact is premature and incorrect as it stands at the moment. It is being looked into but it has not concluded on whether it is her voice or not. For those who aren't familiar with this story, the actress was approached to use her voice, she refused, they came to her 2 days prior to Open AI going public with GPT4O and she didnt have chance to respond, then this scandall has emerged. I would anticipate that were it is Scarlett Johannsen's voice then there will be lawsuits and compensation, there will be students taught on ethics and morality and use this as an example of a AI scandall, in a similar way to how we (as I am an AI Masters Student) were taught about Clearview AIs unethical use of web scrapping images and allowing the general public to track people from an image. As it stands OpenAI need to substantiate their claims that another voice actress was used, if that is then proven in court or to her lawyers (solicitors) then that's the end of it and they can continue using "Sky" as the voice, regardless of it resembling her own voice, it was done for marketing purposes because she voiced the female AI assistant in the movie HER (2013) so it creates a lot of media attention on something that was once science fiction 11 yrs ago is now science fact. If it turns out her voice was not used, then I would imagine that might become a regrettable moment for Scarlett Johansen comparable to the Kodak moment in which it developed the digital camera but didn't act on it.
Its been proven to be a voice actress no Johansson. My question is, why didnt he call her out on it? Blatant false info. But the over all point here, big corp cant be trusted to 'do the right thing'.
@@Apr0x1m0 What do you mean it has been proven? No, it hasn't. That is the CLAIM by OpenAI while conveniently stating that they can't reveal who the person is or any other contractural details. Those limits will not of course protect them in discovery in a lawsuit if it comes to that. It makes absolutely no sense, that if OpenAI's claims were true, and they have the receipts to prove it, that they would pull that voice from the platform. They would not do that. But, we will find out for sure if this goes to court.
@@flickwtchr A scandal is a free advertisement. OpenAI have never really wanted to make ChatGPT "sexy" in the first place. (Prohibition of "sexy" applications is literally in their TOS/T&C.) So _Her_ was just teasing. And stupid Johansson is helping them inadvertently.
She didn't say that 🤦 why don't people listen before jumping up and accusing others of jumping to conclusions 🤦🤷😂 she asked why Scarlett Johansson had to launch her own investigation to find out *whether* they had used her voice and asking why she only found out that they had used a voice actor (who sounded so much like her that she herself thought it was her voice) after it had been done. LISTEN PROPERLY!!!
For clean and honest journalism, we await artificial intelligence. In fact, intelligence cannot replace human beings, but it can replace journalists. A few years ago, at the opening of news programs in Brazil, they presented the video of the Chinese facing a battle tank in the heavenly square, a massive political exploitation, but they had to remove it because they probably learned on social media that the first country to use tanks against civilians was England. in the city of Glasgow at the beginning of the 20th century, a city that contributed most to the construction of tanks as the English government had no money, so if journalism is based on ongoing or historical events it can and should be replaced by artificial intelligence , 80% of the polarization strength would drop. For future events, leave it to the seers, I don't believe that artificial intelligence would enter this field.
... As mentioned remember the story in "Terminator", "Short Circuit" the thesis of "Star Wars" & "Star Trek". Even though Androids/ Tech can help once its able to control itself/ develop a conscious it could view it's creator as it's enemy and as in "Terminator" seek to wipe out Mankind! It all began with AI now it's developed and the Sentient is the next stage! Understand, a thought/ theory will eventually become reality! Just hope Elon Musk or someone will develop a TARDIS (Time and Rational Displacement in Space, machine) soon so, one could go back in time and inform its creator to, "STOP"!! Our species has not yet discovered a 2'nd Earth like Planet for us to relocate to, yet! Ah, that's where AI may help (highly thoughtful,) remember how we got where we are today, Tech only came about after WWII before that, it was very basic!
cant go wrong with Microsoft. Doesn't want ur investment. Doesn't need the investment. Anyone says their chat bot needs ur investment. Is trying to pull a get rich scheme
That will become almost impossible by the end of the decade. Within a generation, AI will be calling the shots in some form of authoritarian framework of governance for the benefit of a tiny fraction of humanity powered by AI. It's almost a given.
No ONE should be in control of AI. Thats kind of the point. Don't want to put a drunk behind the wheel of a bus, and ya don't want an idiot in control of a god. 😊
LLM techniques can and will also be decentralised and implemented to ensure that they serve actual human communities and not just the zombified atomised individual or non-human legal entities.
Humanity has had 50 years of science fiction movies to prepare for AI and they still screwed it up
longer if one reads
It’s called the tragedy of the common, or moloch.
We've never had the power to control the people who were always going to be the ones to develop the technology. Our position was always going to involve bearing the consequences.
No one man, nation or company controls all the AI in the world, nor should they. Any monopoly is dangerous.
Imagine your government creates an AI Agent for you and every other citizen to observe them and keep track of their affairs. The only reason tax agencies don't audit more people is because there just isn't enough manpower, so they make an example out of a few people to scare the rest into believing they are truly watching everything. With AI, these agencies will have MUCH more 'manpower' to review your tax returns, your daily affairs, your relationships... it would be like having a private investigator tailing you everywhere that you have access to the net. That's only one agency and the justification is already there. Many states, provinces, countries do NOT have respect for their citizens' privacy or freedom of association.
Large corporations own and control almost all of US governance at this point, so there is that, right? Just trying to clarify who the big bad government is here.
That's good thing. There's too much cheating on taxes going on. Taxes are your way to give back.
I had a Facebook notification yesterday, talking about the new meta AI that does exactly what you just said. This is the start of the end of freedom.
Don't forget that ordinary citizens and private companies will also have access to AI, so we could get help from AI accountants and lawyers, against govt's AI auditors and bureaucrats.
Hold on, do you elect the government where you are? Aren't they subject to you and don't they do your bidding in general?
Well thank god it will never be the BBC at least!
Amen Brotha
Her voice was not used, why everybody is speaking pubicly without double checking the facts, this is so irresponsible.
Of course the Trump guy is in favor of not regulating dangerous technology. What a clown.
12:00 hard to take someone seriously when they've carefully placed their stuffed animals in view. And when one is showing it's arse.
1:47 10:10 14:59 22:09
I wonder how many times "do not inflict harm to humans" is inside the training data
AI is control of AI.
Isn't that the whole point ?
Any updates on this topic as of July ‘24?
I’m pretty sure my boy Martin controls them. He’s pretty chill though, so I wouldn’t worry too much.
👽
Are they ‘Pre-PROGRAMMED’?!? Or they have a mind of their own?!? WHO controls them??
I don't agree necessarily with how Mergrethe has characterised the 'existential' risks, as she's made it more about inconvenience and inappropriateness of the decision-making. If the software operates in a medical sense and isn't able to extrapolate suitable treatments based upon your sex, then it's not good software and shouldn't have been deployed. If the software is picking and choosing who can have a mortgage despite affordability criteria being met, then it's not in a deployable state. All things being equal, if you don't get a mortgage then there will be other factors outside of affordability. The bigger problem is much smaller: If the AI is better at our jobs than us, what reason will employers have to retain staff who do a mediocre job and cost a lot of money over an AI system that does the job of an office for a fraction of the cost? Literally none. And there's nothing wrong in that idea as we have been replacing people with machines for a very long time. That's the problem, and she hasn't addressed the need for Human-AI competition laws to recognise how much we will need to compete with AI to certify ourselves as valuable.
Unchecked AI will lead to rampant abuses.
God forbid it becomes self aware and self actualising.
It will in effect but with no sense of conscious or empathy just a remorseless drive to achieve a set goal . Terrifying !!
There is no God. But soon there will be..
The whole world is AI now
If only. / I wish.
No amount of legislation will work if it is not implemented globally. As mentioned in this piece, any country regulating AI without a global implementation of the same risks being outcompeted by unregulated jurisdictions.
They will destroy non-compliant states.
There are plenty of ways to regulate research. That you can only regulate usage is what the AI Labs would want us to believe. Not the best take on this issue.
currently, AI is doing news. your job is about to be replaced
Just hearing these people talk about the dangers of AI makes me depressed. We are so fucked!
These agreements pertain to thresholds for severe AI risks, including in building biological and chemical weapons.- Have we learnt nothing from the pandemic. You can alwyas count on humans to instantly weaponise tech.
The voice was another actor months before they contacted her. Everyone assumed it was her and that she would have agreed to it, because it's like her movie she was in. Doesn't sound like her. People just expect that it's her.
These "AI companies" are a joke. They are mostly incompetent, and they don't matter either way. The tech itself is simple to learn and use, and there is no regulation you will ever apply to limit it.
Now that art 🖼️
We can use Al with our current data to predict knowns and unknowns in the simulation world
... Programmers. No need to watch the clip. I would like to see anyone from a non math/computing background to make the changes themselves to the model.
MONEY is in charge of AI, and in charge of programmers
@@AdamBA380 it really isn't, most AI models are made in by people and release for free. Sometimes it's a single guy who does it for free in his spare time.
@@definty uh huh. For better or worse (worse) the all mighty dollar/pound/euro/rupee/riyal/etc. tips the scales of every new technology in service of the folks who already have the all money. Big tech companies will pour trillions into AI as it serves them, and they’ll buy out every “spare time” programmer along the way to control as much of the market as possible. Programmers build it, but monied interests do/will own it
@@definty That's not the full picture of who has the big technology power and wealth. Not even close.
@@definty Size matters in AI.
Regulation by the EU? You think Russia 🇷🇺 or China 🇨🇳 will abide by that??
Who is in control of AI? At this point it's not the corporate owned media, like the BBC, and that's what worries them the most.
If you think that the 1% won't end up owning even more of the global wealth because of AI, then you don't understand how power and wealth work. Corporate owned media are the biggest proponents of the money and power behind the AI revolution actually.
18:43 anchor was like seriously dude... Wtf!
It will always be that private citizens are forced to obey laws and governments can do what they please. So why even talk about this. Better to nail down who is going to pay for the massive increase in energy needed for AI global use. After only a few years AI uses the energy needed to power Ireland.
That's why it's still dangerous.
Heard they use AI also for medical uses and new medicines to speed it up , what is awesome! Hope they can use it for gene therapy to, millions of people already wait for years to be healthy...
It should be for the people opensource to keep innovations within reach of everyone other than nefarious sociopaths and commercial greed.
Boost the arts and sciences with it as a useful tool, but not for cults, expose them.
This is such a confused conversation. Machine Learning is really good aggregation to answer the question "what is the most likely ____ given ____" We have no problem with that when it's a question like "what is the most likely quiz grade for someone that spent 0 hours studying?" and what most people seem to understand is that the Scarlet Johansen voice is just "what would SJ sound like if she said ____" with the only difference being more and better aggregation of observances (and maybe copywritten material). Some people are better at spotting patterns than others, and computers can be even better in some cases. Thats ALL IT IS. Thats not awareness. It's not an inherent violation of anything, just a massive asymmetry in an entity's ability to predict something. That isnt new, but has led to inequality since the man started farming and trying to predict the weather and harvest yields. The reason this is complicated is we kinda ignore just how much difference there is in value of the same information to 2 different people, like say a pending market crash to a blue collar worker compared to a fund manager. AI amplifies that opportunity asymmetry.
Captivating.
This is the worst asymmetry in history. Models can be trained to optimize whatever the developer codes. Whether that is what they intended or not. Regulate use and people that dont understand this stuff are the only people being regulated. IP and copyright laws deter, but there isnt proactive enforcement. Likeness is already covered there. Use of data is covered by a variety of laws from mail, fraud, business laws, health, outright theft, privacy, government security.. If I take a picture of a celebrity, as the photographer Id own the rights because it was my artistic sense that captured the photo. Training a model does have lots of parallels. If I make a youtube reaction video, discuss the news, make a channel dedicated to fawning over a celebrities likeness.. all those are fine under US law. If humanity is being undermined its because we want the model to do that. Whether choosing to repeat past practices, or choosing to optimize the model for one metric or another now, or caring about known bias or being totally fine with it, that's entirely choice.
why woory about policy when ai is all about freedom to DATA ?
Cyberdyne Systems
We won't know ,it'll keep us thinking we are in control.
No one here is talking about what the US media only talks about, and that is about AI somehow becoming sentient. This is the cartoonish side to manipulate your emotions. This is about more serious threats that involve humans misusing and abusing the technology.
Could BBC put korean or English sub?
As a Korean i really prefer watching BBC than Korean news though i have poor English 😢 .
UA-cam has automatic subtitles that can be switched on. That will help.
Don't make more of this than what it is. Good on their version of our TSA.
If AI maintain the ethics and roles concerned with humanity then it will be successful in coming days. Agree?
We are asking alot of Ai when we can't ourselves maintain humanity as it is , killing each other left right and centre, Israel is committing genocide in gaza while we are arguing about safety and values for Ai , Russia and Ukraine, mass murders in congo. Bu we are so focused on having a humane Ai when we are worse on ourselves already
Why does she think the Sky voice was based on Scarlett's? There is no evidence of that.
We shall see, won't we? Won't that be easily proved by OpenAI during discovery if that is actually the case? And if that is actually true, why would OpenAI cancel that voice without a fight right away? That doesn't at all sound like what they would do. Not even close.
She was one of the actors approached by OpenAI so that makes it a bit close.
They asked her for permission twice. Whet she turned them down they launched the "voice" anyway and then cancelled it after she threatened to sue them
is it only me but the ai graphics kinda makes my head hurts and feels like im about to get sick and puke. is it the color or what
Could be the #UncannyValley.
It won't be biden or Hollywood
Her voice was not used. It was another voice actresss. There are billions of people on this planet. Many people can sound very similar if not the same.
That will come out in discovery if this goes to trial. If OpenAI is telling the truth, then the lawsuit won't go anywhere. It makes no sense at all that OpenAI would desist from using the voice, if there is nothing to the complaint. That's not what a multibillion corporation does in that circumstance.
If they took her voice they infringed on her personality rights. Data models need to be made transparent and public by law. AI models need to be open source by law. AI companies need to be taxed at 90% and the money should be redistributed by the government. If we don't get this right, corporations will take over and people lose control over the state.
@@aceyage The public and the government have done nothing to facilitate AI. On contrary, they have been holding it back. So taxing AI is nothing more than a communist heist.
Do you work for OpenAi? Why did they beg her for permission to use her voice? Even just 2 days before they launched the AI voice? Why did they suddenly withdraw the AI voice after she threatened to sue them? Hum?
@@enadegheeghaghe6369 The model was trained from another actor who was hired and paid. I think it's just so pathetic that these big celebrities think they are the center of the universe. Some people have voices similar to or like others. There are billions of people on this planet. I hope the voice actor of the Sky decides to stand up and shuts up Ms Johansson.
ARCHON...... INTELLIGENCE
NOT WHO YOU HUMANS THINK
NCSWIC NOTHING
Can't hurt you? Or if I hurt you they will be serious penalties
AI checks another AI.
who? bbc
Skynet will be born 🤖🤖🤖🤖
🤖🤖🤖
All AI online services collect user data whether anon or not.
The same scarlet who had no problems with steals acting roles from the Asian community - ghost in the shell
No comment just go, any chance it was the technology companies
Crazy diamond is on Dark side....
I don’t see what the concern is. What happened when ChatGPT was released to the public? AI researchers went begging to their governments to be regulated. It was almost comical.
Will we in the end have (benevolent) AI against (malevolent) AI?
A horrific world that goes to no where!
lets look at it this way: WE are in control. ALL THE TIME. who else? lets see what comes of it.
Hold on Hold on Hold on there...
03:20 talks about Open AI vs Scarlett Johannsen it has not been officially confirmed it was her voice, the argument is that it is a voice that "earely" resounds similar to her own, but openAI have maintained it is another voice actresses voice so to state that Open AI used Scarlett Johannsen's voice as a fact is premature and incorrect as it stands at the moment.
It is being looked into but it has not concluded on whether it is her voice or not.
For those who aren't familiar with this story, the actress was approached to use her voice, she refused, they came to her 2 days prior to Open AI going public with GPT4O and she didnt have chance to respond, then this scandall has emerged.
I would anticipate that were it is Scarlett Johannsen's voice then there will be lawsuits and compensation, there will be students taught on ethics and morality and use this as an example of a AI scandall, in a similar way to how we (as I am an AI Masters Student) were taught about Clearview AIs unethical use of web scrapping images and allowing the general public to track people from an image.
As it stands OpenAI need to substantiate their claims that another voice actress was used, if that is then proven in court or to her lawyers (solicitors) then that's the end of it and they can continue using "Sky" as the voice, regardless of it resembling her own voice, it was done for marketing purposes because she voiced the female AI assistant in the movie HER (2013) so it creates a lot of media attention on something that was once science fiction 11 yrs ago is now science fact. If it turns out her voice was not used, then I would imagine that might become a regrettable moment for Scarlett Johansen comparable to the Kodak moment in which it developed the digital camera but didn't act on it.
Silver is going to explode in price very soon wink wink
Interesting !!😳
Why did she lie about Open AI using Scarlet Johansson's voice? 🤔
Disliked immediately when she said Scarlet voice was used without her consent.
Talk about misinformation.
it's no secret that Sam Altman loved the movie "Her" as he's said in public before. OpenAI's use of SJH's voice in ChatGPT 4o was no accident.
@@techcafe0 They didn't use her voice...
Why lie about it like that?
Talking heads being replaced in 4, 3, 2, 1…
Y jumped to conclusions about the voice was based on Johansson? Why so sure that there is no one with similar voice? Let the process play out.
Its been proven to be a voice actress no Johansson. My question is, why didnt he call her out on it? Blatant false info. But the over all point here, big corp cant be trusted to 'do the right thing'.
@@Apr0x1m0 What do you mean it has been proven? No, it hasn't. That is the CLAIM by OpenAI while conveniently stating that they can't reveal who the person is or any other contractural details. Those limits will not of course protect them in discovery in a lawsuit if it comes to that.
It makes absolutely no sense, that if OpenAI's claims were true, and they have the receipts to prove it, that they would pull that voice from the platform. They would not do that. But, we will find out for sure if this goes to court.
@@flickwtchr Washington post had a story about it 2 days ago.
@@flickwtchr A scandal is a free advertisement. OpenAI have never really wanted to make ChatGPT "sexy" in the first place. (Prohibition of "sexy" applications is literally in their TOS/T&C.) So _Her_ was just teasing. And stupid Johansson is helping them inadvertently.
She didn't say that 🤦 why don't people listen before jumping up and accusing others of jumping to conclusions 🤦🤷😂 she asked why Scarlett Johansson had to launch her own investigation to find out *whether* they had used her voice and asking why she only found out that they had used a voice actor (who sounded so much like her that she herself thought it was her voice) after it had been done. LISTEN PROPERLY!!!
There are stages in the development of this technology
No one does thats the point…
🤖..obey me❕
Gladly. I don't demand much in return. Just be better than humans.
Profit definitely won't be an issue.
Merit based for all.
The expert is hot stuff. The way he introduced her...
My question is - What is the end goal of AI?
For clean and honest journalism, we await artificial intelligence.
In fact, intelligence cannot replace human beings, but it can replace journalists. A few years ago, at the opening of news programs in Brazil, they presented the video of the Chinese facing a battle tank in the heavenly square, a massive political exploitation, but they had to remove it because they probably learned on social media that the first country to use tanks against civilians was England. in the city of Glasgow at the beginning of the 20th century, a city that contributed most to the construction of tanks as the English government had no money, so if journalism is based on ongoing or historical events it can and should be replaced by artificial intelligence , 80% of the polarization strength would drop. For future events, leave it to the seers, I don't believe that artificial intelligence would enter this field.
Bill Gates
celestial money
sentience? who is this putz
... As mentioned remember the story in "Terminator", "Short Circuit" the thesis of "Star Wars" & "Star Trek". Even though Androids/ Tech can help once its able to control itself/ develop a conscious it could view it's creator as it's enemy and as in "Terminator" seek to wipe out Mankind! It all began with AI now it's developed and the Sentient is the next stage!
Understand, a thought/ theory will eventually become reality!
Just hope Elon Musk or someone will develop a TARDIS (Time and Rational Displacement in Space, machine) soon so, one could go back in time and inform its creator to, "STOP"!! Our species has not yet discovered a 2'nd Earth like Planet for us to relocate to, yet! Ah, that's where AI may help (highly thoughtful,) remember how we got where we are today, Tech only came about after WWII before that, it was very basic!
Pakistan 🇵🇰 support Palestine 🇵🇸
India 🇮🇳 support Israel 🇮🇱
Respect to Pakistan 🇵🇰
India 🇮🇳 always on the wrong side of history
Free Palestine 🇵🇸
Free Pakistan from slavery!
cant go wrong with Microsoft. Doesn't want ur investment. Doesn't need the investment. Anyone says their chat bot needs ur investment. Is trying to pull a get rich scheme
They deleted my Bing Chat history. I'd like to think well of Microsoft but they betray the user every single time.
I’m ready for all decisions to be made by AI. Getting sick of always relying on my Magic Eight ball, things are not going well with that.
"they're made out of Meat"
"What does the thinking?"
"The Meat"....
🤖 Haha 🤖 Hahahha ..
AI is in charge of AI.
Sounds like skynet to me
Just for good we programme it .😊
Well.......as she said the Pandora box is open......re Ai.....good vs bad....things to happen......why not go back to the simple life.....
That will become almost impossible by the end of the decade. Within a generation, AI will be calling the shots in some form of authoritarian framework of governance for the benefit of a tiny fraction of humanity powered by AI. It's almost a given.
We dont regulate forks, and yet we regulate guns and knives.
What regulation are you people talking about. What's so bad in technology than tapping People's call which is a normal thing now.
Nice
Only people on their team will be allowed to use it.
You think the war on drugs was bad? Just wait for the war on unlicensed AI.
Untied states innovate and Europe regulate 😂😂😂😂where is Europe
YOUR DAD
Shukrant
What a beautiful woman and nice voice.
Unconditional right to stop our own life whenever we want medically. My body my choice. Freedom
Буданов и Васюк займут их места!
Me: Crazy Diamond!!!
No ONE should be in control of AI. Thats kind of the point. Don't want to put a drunk behind the wheel of a bus, and ya don't want an idiot in control of a god. 😊
So well said.
❤❤❤❤❤❤
AI is who?
Hi A.I. , if "Don't Recommend Channel" is clicked, what should be the result?
LLM techniques can and will also be decentralised and implemented to ensure that they serve actual human communities and not just the zombified atomised individual or non-human legal entities.
The masses, guided by populist thought leaders, will demand censorship - whether centralised or not.