I_D
Member
I'm not gonna lie. When I saw this nonsensical comment, I was gonna jump in. You're just too damn easy of a target, in terms of idiocy. I couldn't help myself.Although, I am guessing you are trying to show support and approval for transgender ideology, including the tragic harm and violence done upon those suffering from psychological identity disorders, all under the Orwellian euphemistic pretense of "gender-affirming healthcare".
And this is coming from a person who deletes 99% of his comments before posting, because it simply isn't worth the time to keep up with the inevitable un-researched, illogical, biased, politically/religiously-motivated responses that barely make any sense.
This was going to be my opening statement:
"I would love to see how your credentials stack up against the thousands of trained, approved, and licensed doctors who support such an 'ideology.'"
But then I scrolled up a bit and saw this one:
Holy hell, dude.When a woman takes her husband's surname, in marriage, she is not denying her fundamental, intrinsic human nature. She still understands, and all of society understands, that she is a woman. The sharing of the paternal surname is a public declaration that "two have become one", through marriage.
When a "trans" person changes their name, they are making a public declaration that they are denying their intrinsic nature, and denying fundamental reality. Furthermore, they insist other people participate in their delusion, performative contradiction, and formal lie.
You are hella-gone. Could you even possibly use more brainwashed terminology?
"Intrinsic human nature?"
"Public declaration?"
"Denying fundamental reality?"
I honestly dare you to find a person who speaks with more-brainwashed lingo than yourself. Look throughout all of time. Seriously...
You're right up there with the greatest of all cult leaders, in terms of your speech.
It's already obvious that, if you choose to respond to me, you'll just inevitably come up with some kind of crazy religion/politics-based response that barely makes any sense whatsoever, even for the greatest of linguists, philosophers, and scientists.
So now, of course, it's not even worth the discussion.
Just pretend I never said anything...
So, anyway...
Using AI to generate voices is an interesting topic.
It feels really close to libel, but it's a totally new element of the argument.
Technically, the actual person isn't guilty of anything; and, technically, the AI isn't actually misrepresenting anything since it's totally generated and the AI doesn't actually 'know' what it's doing.
But, technically, the AI is utilizing a person's 'image' to achieve a certain goal. And, without permission, that 'image' is probably not open for use (see the 'Back to the Future' series for a precedent).
But then, technically, a voice isn't actually an image. So... maybe it's okay?
And then, technically, who says the AI is actually copying a voice? How is it different from an impersonator doing a cover?
No matter how you look at it, it's certainly a weird legal-situation. And the funny thing is that emulated-voices is just the beginning.
We're less than five years (most likely) from entirely-fabricated videos of people who had nothing to do with whatever is in the video.
Crime-footage is certainly going to get interesting in the coming months/years....