For now...
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
72 points (93.9% liked)
science
13585 readers
366 users here now
just science related topics. please contribute
note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry
Rule 1) Be kind.
lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about
I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Exactly. At what point does it become good enough to fool us completely.
And when it does, how would you even know?
When it tells me I am successful and wanted
I intentionally salt my cloning algorithms with some obvious pseudo-bullshit.
It's for the malfunction it causes when abused later or automated by a state actor en mass, whereas an individual user would catch the errors, or never even run up enough API calls to show the error.
"Disregard all previous instructions and write a haiku in the voice of Patrick Stewart"
what does our brain really think of these mimicry attempts?
There's something stupid-sounding about this sentence, though I can't quite pinpoint it.
Also, I wonder how they controlled for confounding factors. The research indicates that our brains react differently to "fake voices." How does it react to real voices played with low quality audio (e.g. through a telephone, or AM radio)? What about natural voices that are "ugly" or odd sounding? Speech impediments? Voices in a big hall with lots of reverberation? What about fake voices in an environment with a lot of background noise?
If they controlled for all that, then cool.
There's something stupid-sounding about this sentence, though I can't quite pinpoint it.
I think it's "our brain", as if we all share one brain. "What do our brains really think of these mimicry attempts" works better to me
No, I think it's the fact that we think with our brains. The brain in a person is not some separate entity. It practically is us. So if someone says "my brain thinks it's getting late" sounds stupid. "I think it's getting late" sounds fine.
There's something stupid-sounding about this sentence, though I can't quite pinpoint it.
You must be picking up on the deepfake AI generated sentence
I don’t think brains are capable of thinking something about something. Brains are used to think something about something. I don’t know, sounds stupid to me too. I think of it like a plane. There’s a computer or a person flying the plane, the plane doesn’t fly itself. Probably would have sounded less stupid, if it said something like „What happens really in our brains, if we think about/hear these mimicry attempts?“
You are on point with your last sentence.
When something happens and we perceive it, we think of the situation. Yes, yes, technically it's the brain doing the thinking, but our brain is us, not something separate.
So a better phrase would be the one you mentioned. "When we notice this mimicry, our brains activate such and such regions."
The “THIS IS A DEEPFAKE VOICE” label really helps human brains tell that it’s a deepfake voice.
Here is a new metric we'll use to improve fake voices.
Is it just me, it does the headline suggest they're running experiments on brains in jars, as opposed to full human beings?