6 ms·

How much? This IP/copyright mentality is so 90s/2000s. Brings back memories of Napster. This Jeff Geerling which I have never heard of will cry until some Spoti

How much? This IP/copyright mentality is so 90s/2000s. Brings back memories of Napster. This Jeff Geerling which I have never heard of will cry until some Spotify of AI appears and pay him some pennies. Maybe he wants to be the James Hetfield/Metallica of this generation. This guy doesn't have 1/10000 of the relevance Metallica had at the time tho.

shortformblog 2y ago
You think someone stealing the dude’s voice is the same as people downloading Metallica songs? Are you trying not to be taken seriously?
keyboardcaper 2y ago
Funny, I first heard of Jeff Geerling over ten years ago in my dev circles.
lokar 2y ago
Your inability to look even few decades into the future to see the impact of this is depressing. You only seem to care about yourself and your current grift.
- salawat 2y ago
  Welcome to Hacker News/YCombinator. It's what they do here. Ever since joining the community, it's been a speedrun of things explicitly covered as unethical during my CS Ethics course. Mainly stay here to keep a finger on how far things have slid down the "man made horrors beyond comprehension".
chx 2y ago
The danger of this shit can not be understated. Four years ago already there was a video where a deepfake of a president of the USA read a speech: In Event of Moon Disaster https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWLadJFI8Pk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWLadJFI8Pk we of course know Nixon never gave this speech. What happens when this "AI" is used to sway an election? Last month a family got hospitalized after eating mushrooms they found and identified from a AI generated book. They didn't know it was AI generated. What happens when and this is not if, alas but when people die from this? This shit is a danger to democracy and human lives. Napster was not.
- scotty79 2y ago
  > What happens when this "AI" is used to sway an election? It already happened and the world went merrily on its way towards wherever the hell it goes.
  - consteval 2y ago
    This doesn't mean it's good or even fine. The world also had a holocaust, and we moved on. But it would've been preferable to not have a holocaust.
    - scotty79 2y ago
      You are right. Even if I think elections don't matter there was one instance where it happened and the outcome actually mattered. The Brexit vote. But even there I don't think it's a huge difference if politicians are lying themselves or they do it with the use of AI. As long as it's an open technology the game is still fair.
      - consteval 2y ago
        > As long as it's an open technology the game is still fair. I don't necessarily agree because money has a lot to do with it. In theory, anyone can use AI for evil. In practice, only the richest can inflict damage. It's a matter of scale. That's why me killing someone is pretty bad, but me building a Nuclear Warhead is much worse. Luckily I don't have the power to build a Nuclear Warhead. Now anybody with enough money has the tech to just make one.
        scotty79 2y ago
        > In practice, only the richest can inflict damage. It's a matter of scale. That's always been true for every technology ever. Even nuclear warheads you mentioned. They are not controlled by poor people. Even hacking that was seen as sort of equalizer is way more dangerous in hands of states that can hire whole armies of hackers.
- 2y ago
PhasmaFelis 2y ago
> This Jeff Geerling which I have never heard of This guy doesn't have 1/10000 of the relevance Metallica had at the time It's weird that you seem to think a person's level of fame is relevant to a discussion of their legal rights.
- kube-system 2y ago
  In terms of personality rights, it is relevant. Although I would think Jeff is enough of a public figure to make a case here
- meiraleal 2y ago
  What legal rights? TIL voice imitators are criminals. /s
  - consteval 2y ago
    > TIL voice imitators are criminals. /s First off, this reddit speak needs to go in a fire and die. Seriously, stop typing like this, nobody likes it. Secondly, yes voice imitators CAN be criminals. If they attempt to or allude to being the real deal. You can't get on a phone interview with the news and say you're Barack Obama, even if your impression is really good. Yes, that's illegal and has been since before AI of this form existed.
    - meiraleal 2y ago
      > Secondly, yes voice imitators CAN be criminals. Which is not the case in discussion, there is no impersonation. > First off, this reddit speak needs to go in a fire and die. Are you ok? I think you should calm down before posting.
      - consteval 2y ago
        I'm fine thanks, and I would argue that yes there is impersonation. You can argue why it's not impersonation, but you can't say "nope uh uh no impersonation". That's not how arguments work, you can't begin in a position where you're already right.
visarga 2y ago
> This IP/copyright mentality is so 90s/2000s. Brings back memories of Napster. The trend has been going against copyright ever since internet was invented. We used to go for passive consumption - radio, TV, books, print magazines. But now that age has passed. We have changed. We prefer interactivity - games, social networks, web searching the billions of contents online, youtube clips commented and shared around. In this age copying is like speaking. Now comes AI and pushes this trend even deeper - more interactive, more remixing and adapted to the user. We should take a hint - the idea of owning content doesn't make sense anymore. Any content can be recreated in seconds now, or similar content was already posted online years ago. Protecting expression is useless and protecting styles would destroy creativity. Quite a catch-22. We should take a look instead at new models that popped up in the last decades - open source, creative commons, Wikipedia, open scientific publication. Maybe we need to decouple attribution from payment, like scientific papers, they cite each other without monetary obligations. In social networks comments respond to each other, it would not work if we had to pay to read. Even in real life, people don't pay to hear others speak, and are reusing ideas without issue. I am aware this sounds bad for copyright, but I am trying to state the reality, not propose my own views. There are deep reasons we prefer interactivity to passive consumption. Copyright was fit for a different age.
jawngee 2y ago
How are you on hacker news and never have heard of Jeff Geerling? He's a goat in the ansible and raspberry pi world.
- meiraleal 2y ago
  You would be surprised how niche these two things are. I don't care about both and 6 seconds of a tech guy's voice I am sure isn't the trademark of his content

shortformblog 2y ago

You think someone stealing the dude’s voice is the same as people downloading Metallica songs? Are you trying not to be taken seriously?

keyboardcaper 2y ago

Funny, I first heard of Jeff Geerling over ten years ago in my dev circles.

lokar 2y ago

Your inability to look even few decades into the future to see the impact of this is depressing. You only seem to care about yourself and your current grift.

salawat 2y ago
Welcome to Hacker News/YCombinator. It's what they do here. Ever since joining the community, it's been a speedrun of things explicitly covered as unethical during my CS Ethics course. Mainly stay here to keep a finger on how far things have slid down the "man made horrors beyond comprehension".

chx 2y ago

The danger of this shit can not be understated. Four years ago already there was a video where a deepfake of a president of the USA read a speech: In Event of Moon Disaster https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWLadJFI8Pk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWLadJFI8Pk we of course know Nixon never gave this speech. What happens when this "AI" is used to sway an election? Last month a family got hospitalized after eating mushrooms they found and identified from a AI generated book. They didn't know it was AI generated. What happens when and this is not if, alas but when people die from this? This shit is a danger to democracy and human lives. Napster was not.

scotty79 2y ago
> What happens when this "AI" is used to sway an election? It already happened and the world went merrily on its way towards wherever the hell it goes.
- consteval 2y ago
  This doesn't mean it's good or even fine. The world also had a holocaust, and we moved on. But it would've been preferable to not have a holocaust.
  - scotty79 2y ago
    You are right. Even if I think elections don't matter there was one instance where it happened and the outcome actually mattered. The Brexit vote. But even there I don't think it's a huge difference if politicians are lying themselves or they do it with the use of AI. As long as it's an open technology the game is still fair.
    - consteval 2y ago
      > As long as it's an open technology the game is still fair. I don't necessarily agree because money has a lot to do with it. In theory, anyone can use AI for evil. In practice, only the richest can inflict damage. It's a matter of scale. That's why me killing someone is pretty bad, but me building a Nuclear Warhead is much worse. Luckily I don't have the power to build a Nuclear Warhead. Now anybody with enough money has the tech to just make one.
      - scotty79 2y ago
        > In practice, only the richest can inflict damage. It's a matter of scale. That's always been true for every technology ever. Even nuclear warheads you mentioned. They are not controlled by poor people. Even hacking that was seen as sort of equalizer is way more dangerous in hands of states that can hire whole armies of hackers.
2y ago

PhasmaFelis 2y ago

> This Jeff Geerling which I have never heard of This guy doesn't have 1/10000 of the relevance Metallica had at the time It's weird that you seem to think a person's level of fame is relevant to a discussion of their legal rights.

kube-system 2y ago
In terms of personality rights, it is relevant. Although I would think Jeff is enough of a public figure to make a case here
meiraleal 2y ago
What legal rights? TIL voice imitators are criminals. /s
- consteval 2y ago
  > TIL voice imitators are criminals. /s First off, this reddit speak needs to go in a fire and die. Seriously, stop typing like this, nobody likes it. Secondly, yes voice imitators CAN be criminals. If they attempt to or allude to being the real deal. You can't get on a phone interview with the news and say you're Barack Obama, even if your impression is really good. Yes, that's illegal and has been since before AI of this form existed.
  - meiraleal 2y ago
    > Secondly, yes voice imitators CAN be criminals. Which is not the case in discussion, there is no impersonation. > First off, this reddit speak needs to go in a fire and die. Are you ok? I think you should calm down before posting.
    - consteval 2y ago
      I'm fine thanks, and I would argue that yes there is impersonation. You can argue why it's not impersonation, but you can't say "nope uh uh no impersonation". That's not how arguments work, you can't begin in a position where you're already right.

visarga 2y ago

> This IP/copyright mentality is so 90s/2000s. Brings back memories of Napster. The trend has been going against copyright ever since internet was invented. We used to go for passive consumption - radio, TV, books, print magazines. But now that age has passed. We have changed. We prefer interactivity - games, social networks, web searching the billions of contents online, youtube clips commented and shared around. In this age copying is like speaking. Now comes AI and pushes this trend even deeper - more interactive, more remixing and adapted to the user. We should take a hint - the idea of owning content doesn't make sense anymore. Any content can be recreated in seconds now, or similar content was already posted online years ago. Protecting expression is useless and protecting styles would destroy creativity. Quite a catch-22. We should take a look instead at new models that popped up in the last decades - open source, creative commons, Wikipedia, open scientific publication. Maybe we need to decouple attribution from payment, like scientific papers, they cite each other without monetary obligations. In social networks comments respond to each other, it would not work if we had to pay to read. Even in real life, people don't pay to hear others speak, and are reusing ideas without issue. I am aware this sounds bad for copyright, but I am trying to state the reality, not propose my own views. There are deep reasons we prefer interactivity to passive consumption. Copyright was fit for a different age.

jawngee 2y ago

How are you on hacker news and never have heard of Jeff Geerling? He's a goat in the ansible and raspberry pi world.

meiraleal 2y ago
You would be surprised how niche these two things are. I don't care about both and 6 seconds of a tech guy's voice I am sure isn't the trademark of his content