[flagged]

voice cloning is a tool, it is not necessarily evil, even though the scenarios it can be used for nefarious purposes outnumber the legitimate ones.

▲

bakies 7 hours ago | parent [-]

is the legit ones just like... putting carrie fisher in star wars?

▲

gegtik 6 hours ago | parent [-]

usually people bring up anyone who is losing physical control of their voice faculties, so they can have a synthetic voice that matches their natural voice

▲

jolan 6 hours ago | parent [-]

As an example of this, Sarah Langs uses a synthesized voice due to the progression of her ALS symptoms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Langs

▲

simonw 6 hours ago | parent [-]

The iPhone has a built in voice cloner hidden in the accessibility settings for exactly this use-case: creating a backup of your voice in case you need it in the future.

	▲	6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

kmoser 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Google granted themselves the authority be evil back in 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil

	▲	hbn 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's still in their code of conduct, as the wikipedia article you linked mentioned https://abc.xyz/investor/board-and-governance/google-code-of... ctrl/cmd+f "evil" I don't know why this argument is brought up all the time anyway, it literally means nothing. They can name themselves "Don't Be Evil Inc" and continue to do evil stuff cause evil isn't an objective measure. If squeezing juice out of puppies made money, any business can just say it's "not evil." And if you think they're evil why would you trust them to follow their own guideline of not doing evil? An evil corp would be more likely to just hide behind that phrase, not quietly remove it as some subtle hint that they want to be openly and proudly evil all of a sudden.

▲

gruez 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean yeah? If google offers a cloud nmap tool, should everyone get in a tizzy about how google is "evil", even though it saves baddies maybe 5 minutes of work?