There are different things we’re calling AI. One is engaging in endeavors that are traditionally seen as creative, like text or image generation.

The AI we are talking about for this story is a text to speech engine that creates a believable voice. The voice parameters may be created by a human or AI or whatever. But that creation of the parameters of a voice is not the type of AI that we are talking about in this story.

This is stealing her voice. It’s just plain wrong.

What I really don’t understand is, even if you think AI voice is okay, why not just make an original voice? Why you got to steal somebody’s voice? Or if you don’t want to do that, why not just get consent for the specific thing you’re doing? Don’t take advantage of the fact that she previously recorded her voice as an aid for the blind and steal her voice because of some small text in a contract. That’s dishonest and pathetic.

You’re the railway. Do you know how many people love and obsess over trains and railways? There are probably tons of people who would pay to hear an AI version of their voice coming from the train speakers. How did it come to this? How incompetent can you be?

I mean, that’s right on the mark. The reason they called themselves National Socialists isn’t because they were socialists, but because they knew that their true beliefs were so abhorrent that they needed to lie about being socialists.

Elon Musk has been recently shown to have done the same thing.

I’d think it would be obvious that a country wouldn’t want to depend on a foreign country’s proprietary product when an open source alternative exists. Even if it’s not spying, what if the US forced Microsoft to put some kill switch on their products? Even if it doesn’t affect your most secure systems because of air gap, it could still cripple enough to cause huge problems.

There’s simply no reason to take the risk.

If I was running a government, I would strongly desire proof that all of my government software is doing only what I want it to. That means not only do I have access to the source code, but I also need it to be simple enough that my government teams can actually audit all of it.

Obviously, that’s not going to be feasible in every situation. There might be proprietary software that is protected from competition via IP laws, and some software is so necessarily complex that it would be really hard to audit completely, but overall, I find it shocking that any foreign government would run a Microsoft product when a feature comparable open source alternative exists.

This is the same market that tried to add blockchain to everything when that first became well-known.

Some of the biggest forces in the market are extraordinarily stupid people trying to ride every buzzword that comes along.