4 ms·

Imagine being pissed that someone is hearing and learning from your voice as you’re having conversation together. The concepts of copyright and privacy we have

Imagine being pissed that someone is hearing and learning from your voice as you’re having conversation together. The concepts of copyright and privacy we have come from a different world and they already made little sense in the 90s with the rise of the web and search. We think of them as absolute but they are a human invention. Arbitrary and specific to the zeitgeist it was born in. We need boundaries for sure. But what they are is unclear.

simoncion 3y ago
> Imagine being pissed that someone is hearing and learning from your voice as you’re having conversation together. Hello. USian here, talking about things from a USian perspective! YMMV in other countries, visit your local dealership for more information, & etc, etc, etc. A multi-million (or multi-billion) dollar company who can * Store recordings all of my utterances forever * Use my recordings to make tons of money without ever sending me a cent * Share my recordings with "trusted business partners" for "contractually-agreed-upon [with their partners, not with me] purposes" whenever they feel like * In short, use those recordings that they've stored forever for any nearly any purpose they see fit to is not "someone" that I'm having a "conversation" with. When I have a conversation with someone, they have a human's capacity to remember and disseminate that information. People get worse and worse at remembering things as those things recede into the past. Even if someone remembers an event very clearly, it's also usually impossible for someone to perfectly relate that event to another. When a company records what I'm saying and feeds that recording into their perfect-copy-machines and the perfect-copy-machines of their "trusted business partners", that's an entirely different thing. Surely you see that?
- 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
  It's not sending you a cent? Care to explain why someone would use ChatGPT Free with voice, if this provides no value to them? Pokes a sizable hole in your entire argument. It's not like the government came to your house and told you "use it or go to jail". Do you ask people for money when they talk to you in general? Saying "it's not a someone" is just arbitrary categorization. If it was like talking to a wall, you probably wouldn't talk to it, or would you? Is it possible not everything has a monetary aspect on personal level, but on a corporate level that's the only way you can capture value which is then also expressed in non-monetary ways such as people providing work or advice for the furtherment of a goal or project? I don't know. Let's maybe think about the word we live in. Some might say the most worthless thing in the world is money. What is it good for by itself? It's not only useless paper you can't even wipe your behind with, but these days it's just digits on a computer. But the value you can get out of it is provided by people and systems that do something useful for you in exchange for it. And if something provides that value directly in communication with you, that's much the same as being paid digits on a computer. In other words, are we so shallow we need to first pay for ChatGPT's output in money, and then it should pay us back the same money (or less) for our voices and data, in order to comprehend what a barter exchange of value is?
  - simoncion 3y ago
    You appear to have gotten derailed by the monetary compensation bullet point and totally ignored the "Retain a perfect copy of my utterances forever to do nearly anything they wish with (including, but not at all limited to, making money from) for the rest of eternity" aspect.
- lagt_t 3y ago
  Why aren't you complaining about what happens to your HN posts?
  - gettodachoppa 3y ago
    It's a spectrum, not a binary. They may not care about HN posts because: 1. We're anonymous here (by default) 2. You can't be fingerprinted from your HN posts the way you can be with your unique voice
    - 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
      Voice makes a very bad fingerprint. Especially when you know you can simulate it from like 2 seconds recording with AI.
    - I_am_tiberius 3y ago
      I'm pretty sure hackernews posts can be used as a unique fingerprint, especially by a party who collects sensitive text information like chatbot conversations.
    - d1sxeyes 3y ago
      On point 2, someone posted a tool a while back called Stylometry which is now sadly defunct, but had some interesting feedback and seemed to be pretty successful at identifying “alts”. I’m sure that the tech has improved since then and would be only more accurate than it was a year ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33755016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33755016
    - lagt_t 3y ago
      You can be anonymous in openai too. Your voice is a terrible fingerprint with today's models.
  - simoncion 3y ago
    > Why aren't you complaining about what happens to your HN posts? That doesn't seem related to the point? Do you disagree that "Posting on a public Internet forum (such as HN)" is (other than the "communicating information to other people" aspect) _radically_ different than "Talking one-on-one to someone in person without any recording devices present"? If you do disagree, then there's no way we can have a even vaguely productive conversation on the topic.
quickthrower2 3y ago
Someone? This isn’t someone!

simoncion 3y ago

> Imagine being pissed that someone is hearing and learning from your voice as you’re having conversation together. Hello. USian here, talking about things from a USian perspective! YMMV in other countries, visit your local dealership for more information, & etc, etc, etc. A multi-million (or multi-billion) dollar company who can * Store recordings all of my utterances forever * Use my recordings to make tons of money without ever sending me a cent * Share my recordings with "trusted business partners" for "contractually-agreed-upon [with their partners, not with me] purposes" whenever they feel like * In short, use those recordings that they've stored forever for any nearly any purpose they see fit to is not "someone" that I'm having a "conversation" with. When I have a conversation with someone, they have a human's capacity to remember and disseminate that information. People get worse and worse at remembering things as those things recede into the past. Even if someone remembers an event very clearly, it's also usually impossible for someone to perfectly relate that event to another. When a company records what I'm saying and feeds that recording into their perfect-copy-machines and the perfect-copy-machines of their "trusted business partners", that's an entirely different thing. Surely you see that?

3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
It's not sending you a cent? Care to explain why someone would use ChatGPT Free with voice, if this provides no value to them? Pokes a sizable hole in your entire argument. It's not like the government came to your house and told you "use it or go to jail". Do you ask people for money when they talk to you in general? Saying "it's not a someone" is just arbitrary categorization. If it was like talking to a wall, you probably wouldn't talk to it, or would you? Is it possible not everything has a monetary aspect on personal level, but on a corporate level that's the only way you can capture value which is then also expressed in non-monetary ways such as people providing work or advice for the furtherment of a goal or project? I don't know. Let's maybe think about the word we live in. Some might say the most worthless thing in the world is money. What is it good for by itself? It's not only useless paper you can't even wipe your behind with, but these days it's just digits on a computer. But the value you can get out of it is provided by people and systems that do something useful for you in exchange for it. And if something provides that value directly in communication with you, that's much the same as being paid digits on a computer. In other words, are we so shallow we need to first pay for ChatGPT's output in money, and then it should pay us back the same money (or less) for our voices and data, in order to comprehend what a barter exchange of value is?
- simoncion 3y ago
  You appear to have gotten derailed by the monetary compensation bullet point and totally ignored the "Retain a perfect copy of my utterances forever to do nearly anything they wish with (including, but not at all limited to, making money from) for the rest of eternity" aspect.
lagt_t 3y ago
Why aren't you complaining about what happens to your HN posts?
- gettodachoppa 3y ago
  It's a spectrum, not a binary. They may not care about HN posts because: 1. We're anonymous here (by default) 2. You can't be fingerprinted from your HN posts the way you can be with your unique voice
  - 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
    Voice makes a very bad fingerprint. Especially when you know you can simulate it from like 2 seconds recording with AI.
  - I_am_tiberius 3y ago
    I'm pretty sure hackernews posts can be used as a unique fingerprint, especially by a party who collects sensitive text information like chatbot conversations.
  - d1sxeyes 3y ago
    On point 2, someone posted a tool a while back called Stylometry which is now sadly defunct, but had some interesting feedback and seemed to be pretty successful at identifying “alts”. I’m sure that the tech has improved since then and would be only more accurate than it was a year ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33755016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33755016
  - lagt_t 3y ago
    You can be anonymous in openai too. Your voice is a terrible fingerprint with today's models.
- simoncion 3y ago
  > Why aren't you complaining about what happens to your HN posts? That doesn't seem related to the point? Do you disagree that "Posting on a public Internet forum (such as HN)" is (other than the "communicating information to other people" aspect) _radically_ different than "Talking one-on-one to someone in person without any recording devices present"? If you do disagree, then there's no way we can have a even vaguely productive conversation on the topic.

quickthrower2 3y ago

Someone? This isn’t someone!