3 ms·
Sure, except literally no one actually does this. You listen to a voice and it sounds similar in your head? That's who you picture when you hear it. Unless you'
by gambiting 2y ago
Sure, except literally no one actually does this. You listen to a voice and it sounds similar in your head? That's who you picture when you hear it. Unless you're a robot I guess.
- numpad0 2y agoThe point is that human voices are technically and verifiably unique, tangential or perhaps antithetical to your/average person's perception.
- gambiting 2y agoI don't see how that's relevant here - court cases about situations like these are decided on the criteria of "if you show this to an average person on the street would they be able to tell the difference" not "if you load this up in a specialized piece of software and look at the spectrograph is there a difference".
- numpad0 2y agoI think that will be a very clever and useful defense against CCTV footage and DNA analysis reports! Best legal advice ever.
- gambiting 2y agoI don't understand why you are being sarcastic right now. Trademark cases are always decided on "if a person was shown this logo/song/whatever could they mistake it for the trademarked property of another company", not "well if you load it up in Paint you can see that some pixels around the edges are different so it's technically not the same logo your honour!".
- numpad0 2y agoso... your position is now in favor of SJ? I don't see consistency in your comments other than that the aim is to downplay uniqueness of voice to justify OAI's actions after the fact.
- gambiting 2y agoNo, my position hasn't changed - the average person on the street might think this voice sounds like SJ, but since SJ doesn't own exclusive rights to anyone else in the world sounding like her I don't think she has a legal ground to stand on, unless OpenAI pretended it is actually her. But I know for certain that the case will not be decided on spectographs of the voice.