Our You Talking To Me Or My AI Clones Deep-Fake Actors, CGI, VFX And AI Robots

Our You Talking To Me Or Our You Talking To My AI Clones? Deepfakes, Digital Humans, And The Future Of Entertainment And Are You Talking To A True Or A Fake U.S. Government Politician's... In The Age Of AI For The World Order Year Zero Today. In the age of AI, the lines between reality and simulation are blurring. Deepfakes, digital humans, and voice clones are revolutionizing the entertainment industry, raising questions about authorship, ownership, and the very notion of identity.

Show more

AI-generated digital humans are already being used in productions, offering hyper-realistic performances that are both captivating and unsettling for performers and audiences alike. The use of AI in this context is testing the boundaries of copyright and right of publicity law, as celebrities like Tom Hanks find themselves battling unauthorized deepfakes.

Voice cloning technology has also advanced significantly, enabling the creation of convincing vocal duplicates of musicians and other public figures. The viral sensation “Heart On My Sleeve” demonstrated the potential for AI-generated vocals to deceive even the most discerning listeners.

Concerns about AI deception are growing, as evidenced by the FTC’s recognition of the dangers posed by generative AI and synthetic media. Chatbots, deepfakes, and voice clones can be used to facilitate fraud, extortion, and financial scams, exploiting people’s trust and perceptions of authenticity.

The future of entertainment will likely involve a delicate balance between creative innovation and ethical responsibility. As AI continues to evolve, it is essential to establish clear guidelines and regulations to protect individuals’ rights and prevent the misuse of these technologies.

In the world order of Year Zero Today, the intersection of AI and entertainment presents both opportunities and challenges. It is crucial to navigate this landscape with care, respect, and truth, ensuring that the benefits of AI-driven creativity are shared equitably and that the integrity of human expression is preserved.

The US is drafting a new laws or maybe not to protect against AI-generated deepfakes. What do Tom Cruise, Barack Obama, Rishi Sunak and Taylor Swift have in common? The answer is they have all been the subject of deepfake videos posted online.

Deepfakes are content created using AI. They can be used to impersonate real people and can be so lifelike, only a computer can detect they are not the real thing.

The Tom Cruise deepfakes went viral on TikTok and were intended as lighthearted entertainment. Cruise himself has made no moves to have the videos taken offline, according to a report by New World Order.

When the deepfake fun stops
The proliferation of AI tools is raising serious concerns about the use of deepfakes to destroy reputations, undermine democratic elections and damage trust in genuine online sources of verified information. The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2024 ranks misinformation and disinformation as the number one threat the world faces in the next two years.

In February 2024, an audio deepfake emerged that mimicked the voice of US President, Joe Biden. The audio clip was used in an automated telephone call targeting Democratic voters in the US State of New Hampshire. In the faked message, an AI-generated version of Biden’s voice is heard urging people not to vote in the state’s primary election.

With a potentially divisive US election scheduled for November 2024, in which Biden looks likely to contest the presidency with Donald Trump, US authorities are drafting new laws that would ban the production and distribution of deepfakes that impersonate individuals.

Legal moves to outlaw deepfakes
The proposed laws are being put forward by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC warns that advanced technology is driving a huge rise in deepfakes used to defraud unsuspecting members of the public.

“Fraudsters are using AI tools to impersonate individuals with eerie precision and at a much wider scale. With voice cloning and other AI-driven scams on the rise, protecting Americans from impersonator fraud is more critical than ever,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “Our proposed expansions to the final impersonation rule would do just that, strengthening the FTC’s toolkit to address AI-enabled scams impersonating individuals.”

While these proposed laws are aimed at stopping scammers, they extend to impersonating government and business entities and so could, if and when signed into law, provide legal cover that would protect the election process.

Deepfakes and divided societies
One of the key themes of the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos, in January 2024, was rebuilding trust.

The potential implications of deepfakes for public trust are profound. When they are used to misrepresent politicians, civic leaders and heads of industry, they can erode people’s faith in government, media, justice systems and private institutions.

As the public becomes increasingly sceptical of the authenticity of digital content, this scepticism can lead to a general disengagement from civic life and a decline in informed public discourse.

The Forum’s Digital Trust Initiative aims to counter these negative consequences by ensuring technology is developed and used in a way that protects and upholds society’s expectations and values. The Forum’s Global Coalition for Digital Safety also advocates for a whole-of-society approach that mobilizes governments, the private sector, and citizen groups to build media and information literacy to combat disinformation.

“Open and democratic societies rely on truthful information in order to function," says Daniel Dobrygowski, Head of Governance and Trust at the World Economic Forum. "Where new technologies are used to intensify attacks on truth and on democratic institutions, action by governments, the private sector and citizens is required to fend off the potential for a digital disruption of democracy,” Dobrygowski adds.

How to spot a deepfake
As AI emerges as the key technology for producing deepfakes, it also offers great potential for detecting faked content. Stanford University has developed AI tools that can detect the lip-synching processes that are frequently used to put words never spoken into the mouths.

Big tech organizations, including Microsoft, have developed toolkits to keep families safe online. These include guides to help people detect misinformation and disinformation, by thinking critically and questioning whether what they are looking at is authentic.

As the world heads deeper into the age of AI, legal measures to control its misuse will be vital to protect trust in information and institutions. As online users, we may all have to challenge ourselves more frequently with the question: is this real?

4 ways to future-proof against deepfakes in 2024 and beyond. Developments in generative artificial intelligence (genAI) and Large Language Models (LLMs) have led to the emergence of deepfakes. The term “deepfake” is based on the use of deep learning (DL) to recreate new but fake versions of existing images, videos or audio material. These can look so realistic that spotting them as fake can be very challenging for humans.

Facial manipulation methods are particularly interesting because faces are such an important element of human communication. These AI-generated pieces of media can convincingly depict real (and often influential) individuals saying or doing things they never did, resulting in misleading content that can profoundly influence public opinion.

This technology offers great benefits in the entertainment industry, but when abused for political manipulation, the capability of deepfakes to fabricate convincing disinformation, could result in voter abstention, swaying elections, societal polarization, discrediting public figures, or even inciting geopolitical tensions.

The World Economic Forum has ranked disinformation as one of the top risks in 2024. And deepfakes have been ranked as one of the most worrying uses of AI.

With an increased accessibility to genAI tools, today’s deepfake creators do not need technical know-how or deep pockets to generate hyper-realistic synthetic video, audio or image versions of real people. For example, the researcher behind Countercloud used widely available AI tools to generate a fully automated disinformation research project at the cost of less than $400 per month, illustrating how cheap and easy it has become to create disinformation campaigns at scale.

The low cost, ease and scale exacerbate the existing disinformation problem, particularly when used for political manipulation and societal polarisation. Between 8 December 2023 and 8 January 2024, 100+ deepfake video advertisements were identified impersonating the British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on Meta, many of which elicited emotional responses, for example, by using language such as “people are outraged”.

The potential of deepfakes driving disinformation to disrupt democratic processes, tarnish reputations and incite public unrest cannot be underestimated, particularly given the increasing integration of digital media in political campaigns, news broadcasting and social media platforms.

Future challenges, such as deepfakes used by agenda-driven, real-time multi-model AI chatbots, will allow for highly personalised and effective types of manipulation, exacerbating the risks we face today. The decentralised nature of the internet, variations in international privacy laws, and the constant evolution of AI mean that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to impede the use of malicious deepfakes.

Countermeasures
1. Technology
Multiple technology-based detection systems already exist today. Using machine learning, neural networks and forensic analysis, these systems can analyze digital content for inconsistencies typically associated with deepfakes. Forensic methods that examine facial manipulation can be used to verify the authenticity of a piece of content. However, creating and maintaining automated detection tools performing inline and real-time analysis remains a challenge. But given time and wide adoption, AI-based detection measures will have a beneficial impact on combatting deepfakes.

2. Policy efforts
According to Charmaine Ng, member of the WEF Global Future Council on Technology Policy: “We need international and multistakeholder efforts that explore actionable, workable and implementable solutions to the global problem of deepfakes. In Europe, through the proposed AI Act, and in the US through the Executive Order on AI, governments are attempting to introduce a level of accountability and trust in the AI value system by signaling to other users the authenticity or otherwise of the content.

They are requiring online platforms to detect and label content generated by AI, and for developers of genAI to build safeguards that prevent malicious actors from using the technology to create deepfakes. Work is already underway to achieve international consensus on responsible AI, and demarcate clear redlines, and we need to build on this momentum.”

Mandating genAI and LLM providers to embed traceability and watermarks into the deepfake creation processes before distribution could provide a level of accountability and signal whether content is synthetic or not. However, malicious actors may circumvent this by using jailbroken versions or creating their own non-compliant tools. International consensus on ethical standards, definitions of acceptable use, and classifications of what constitutes a malicious deepfake are needed to create a unified front against the misuse of such technology.

3. Public awareness
Public awareness and media literacy are pivotal countermeasures against AI-empowered social engineering and manipulation attacks. Starting from early education, individuals should be equipped with the skills to identify real from fabricated content, understand how deepfakes are distributed, and the psychological and social engineering tactics used by malicious actors. Media literacy programmes must prioritize critical thinking and equip people with the tools to verify the information they consume. Research has shown that media literacy is a powerful skill that has the potential to protect society against AI-powered disinformation, by reducing a person’s willingness to share deepfakes.

4. Zero-trust mindset
In cybersecurity, the “zero-trust” approach means not trusting anything by default and instead verifying everything. When applied to humans consuming information online, it calls for a healthy dose of scepticism and constant verification. This mindset aligns with mindfulness practices that encourage individuals to pause before reacting to emotionally triggering content and engage with digital content intentionally and thoughtfully. Fostering a culture of zero-trust mindset through cybersecurity mindfulness programs (CMP) helps to equip users to deal with deepfake and other AI-powered cyberthreats that are difficult to defend against with technology alone.

As we increasingly live our lives online and with the metaverse imminently becoming a reality, a zero-trust mindset becomes even more pertinent. In these immersive environments, distinguishing between what is real and what is synthetic will be critical.

There is no silver bullet approach in effectively mitigating the threat of deepfakes in digital spaces. Rather, a multilayered approach consisting of a combination of technological and regulative means, along with heightened public awareness, is necessary. This requires global collaboration among nations, organizations and civil society, as well as significant political will.

Meanwhile, the zero-trust mindset will encourage a proactive stance towards cybersecurity, compelling both individuals and organizations to remain ever-vigilant in the face of digital deception, as the boundaries between the physical and virtual worlds continue to blur.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://blogs.microsoft.com/wp-content/uploads/prod/sites/5/2024/02/2024-Microsoft-Family-Safety-Toolkit.pdf

Digital trust is the expectation by individuals that digital technologies and services – and the organizations providing them – will protect all stakeholders’ interests and uphold societal expectations and values.

Failures related to digital technologies, from artificial intelligence to connected devices, from the security of personal information to algorithmic predictions, have eroded confidence at an unprecedented scale and rate. Surveys have also registered a decrease in trust in science and technology – a trust gap that is growing year on year, just as reliance on digital networks and technologies is accelerating.

To reverse this alarming trend, the World Economic Forum convened representatives of the world’s largest tech and consumer-focused companies alongside government representatives and leading consumer advocates to create a framework for companies to commit to earning digital trust.

The Forum’s digital trust framework shows for the first time how leadership commitment to cybersecurity, privacy, transparency, redressability, auditability, fairness, interoperability and safety can improve both citizen and consumer trust in technology and the companies that create and use new technologies. The Forum’s report provides both a framework and a roadmap for how to become more trustworthy in the use and development of technology.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Earning_Digital_Trust_2022.pdf

Deepfakes 2.0: The terrifying future of AI and fake news. Are you ready to meet your clone? Imagine seeing yourself in a porn video. Naked. Violated. Except you have no recollection of the act, of the room you’re in, partner you’re with, or the camera filming. That’s because it didn’t really happen, at least not to you.

Or imagine seeing yourself in a video saying things you’ve never said before, controversial things, the sort of stuff that could cost you your job or alienate you from family and friends. The voice you hear is definitely yours, and so are the turns of phrase, but you have no recollection of what’s being said, and you’re horrified at what you hear.

Such are the possibilities unleashed by notorious programs like FakeApp, which have enabled bad actors to superimpose the face of unsuspecting victims onto the body of someone else, inviting a predictable flurry of fake celebrity porn. The videos are called deepfakes, and while much has been said about the dangers they impose, the real issues are far broader than you may realize.

Deepfakes are only the first step in a chain of technological developments that will have one distinct end: the creation of AI clones that look, speak, and act just like their templates. Using neural networks and deep learning programs, these clones will first exist in video and in virtual worlds. Whether you’re knowingly involved or not, they’ll provide exacting reproductions of your facial expressions, accent, speech mannerisms, body language, gestures, and movement, going beyond the simple transplanting of faces to offer comprehensive, multidimensional imitations.

In the more distant future, these advances in machine learning will be married to advances in robotics, enabling physical robots to fully assume the form and behavior of particular human beings, both alive and dead. In the process, the nature of individuality and personhood will be altered, as we find ourselves living alongside our own clones and proxies, which will act on our behalf as alternate versions of ourselves.

This isn’t Westworld science fiction. It’s already starting to happen.

A single package
In terms of imitating specific people at a non-cognitive level, AI technology is close to being able to produce convincing virtual clones. “Facial expression, voice, and body movements are three examples of what AI could do today, assuming that we have the right type and amount of data,” explains Hussein Abbass, a professor at the University of New South Wales, whose research covers such areas as AI and image processing, intelligent robotics, and human-computer interaction. “The technology needs some improvements, but the feasibility of the principles have been demonstrated already.”

As an example of how neural networks and deep learning can already do more than simply copy someone’s face, researchers at the University of California, Berkeley recently developed a program that can learn the dance moves of one person and copy them to a second. While the researchers had to model the bodies of both individuals as stick figures in the videos they produced, their work illustrates how AI can already learn and reproduce complicated human movements.

As Abbass points out, such reproduction “is different from imitating cognition, which represents the mental processes that generated the behavior.” Still, Abbass believes the ability to imitate the inner as well as external behavior produced by a particular person could be as close as a decade away. “We have some success stories in limited contexts in this direction today, but I predict it may take us 10-20 more years before we reach the tipping point needed for AI technologies to converge to a state where a massively distributed AI appears to be indistinguishable from a human in the way it acts and behaves.”

AI can also imitate individual human voices with a high level of accuracy. In February, Chinese tech firm Baidu announced that it had developed a deep learning program that can reproduce any given person’s voice after listening to it for only a minute, while a Montreal-based startup called Lyrebird went public with a similar feat in April 2017. And just as impressively, San Francisco-based Luka launched a chatbot called Replika last year that learns from the user’s speech (or rather, text) patterns to produce a conversational double of them.

The question is, can all of these advances in machine learning be combined into a single AI program that, in either videos or a virtual world, acts as an uncannily lifelike clone of a user or an unwitting subject?

“It’s hard to predict,” says Bryan Fendley, an expert on educational AI and the director of instructional technology and web services at the University of Arkansas at Monticello. “AI can be well suited for imitating human behaviors such as speech, handwriting, and voice. Someday we may even put it all together in a single package that can pass as a type of clone. …

“I see many experts throwing out numbers for AI predictions that are 20 years down the road. I think it’s moving faster than that.”

Carbon copies
Within the next two decades, AI technology will advance to the point where a number of things will be possible. On the one hand, people will likely have access to products and services that will let them build clones of themselves and their friends and family for their own amusement (or therapy). Such clones will be accessible via either digital interfaces or virtual game worlds so that they can be interacted with as if they were the real thing.

“Yes, within 10 years or so, the blending of chatbot-type technology, and deepfake-style tech will be able to generate a plausible audiovisual interaction via a Skype-style technology that one would believe is a real person, at least for a short period,” says Nell Watson, an AI expert and faculty member at the Singularity University’s AI & Robotics department.

Watson acknowledges that considerable progress is still needed before truly convincing AI clones of people become a regular feature of the technological landscape. Nonetheless, she does think it will be more straightforward to produce AI-based reproductions of celebrities.

“One important aspect is the need to have good training data to work from,” she says. “For a celebrity, this is fairly easy, given a variety of film and TV appearances, interviews etc. … In the video game Deus Ex Invisible War, there is a character, NG Resonance, that the player can interact with at various kiosks in nightclubs, etc. This character is powered by AI but is based upon a real human starlet … We are likely to see similar interactions with pseudo-real AI-powered characters, virtual versions of historical heroes and villains that can populate themed venues (e.g., Hard Rock Café, or an Americana-themed diner, perhaps).”

By contrast, Watson cautions that cloning non-famous individuals will be considerably more difficult—but not impossible. “Replicating a private individual will be challenging in comparison, except with their deliberate cooperation. There are technologies today that can capture 3D models easily from 2D stills or video, and replicate accent and prosody, so replicating personality and a plausible ‘spark of life’ will be the greatest challenge.”

Even so, it’s apparent that such videos and simulations are possible with enough data, and in an age of big data and ubiquitous social media, it would be naive to rule them out completely. And assuming that enough personal data can be collected surreptitiously, clones could then be used in much the same way that deepfake porn videos are used to humiliate various people now, although with a more convincing and extensive range of imitated abilities.

Send in the clones
Dr. David Levy not only believes that AI clones will arrive in the next two decades but that there will be a considerable consumer market for them as well.

“Within 20 years there will be a collection of technologies available that will allow companies to produce robots in the likeness of any human being,” says Levy, an international chess master who combined his love of chess with an interest in computers to forge a latter-day career as an author and expert on AI.

In a climate defined by pornographic deepfake videos, such a prediction could be a cause for concern for many, given the enormous potential for abuse. But, Levy, the author of Love and Sex with Robots, believes that robot clones will have a number of legitimate uses.

“One idea is that it will be possible to create a robot in the likeness of a loved one who has passed away. So if you’re married to someone for 50 years and they die, you can have a replica of them,” he says. (This may in part be a reference to Bina48, a robot built by David Hanson of Hanson Robotics and Sophia fame in 2010 and based on the “mind clone,” i.e., audio recordings, of Bina Rothblatt, the deceased co-founder of the transhumanist Terasem Movement.)

Another function for AI-based robotic clones is that of proxy or stand-in (mainly) for celebrities. By way of example, Levy cited Hiroshi Ishiguro, who famously programmed an android version of himself to give lectures on his behalf. “There is already one business deal in existence under which Stormy Daniels is having her likeness made into a sex robot by a company in that business,” he says, referring to a licensing deal signed in June between the pornographic actress and the California-based sex robot manufacturer Realdoll.

Levy admits that such licensing deals certainly won’t be every celebrity’s cup of tea. “But equally in the real world of business and people trying to make money, I think that some famous people will think, ‘That’s a nice idea.’ It’s a bit like a 3D version of sending a photograph of someone. I think that will be another important use of these technologies.”

The need for clear ethical guidelines
Of course, some experts believe we’ll have to wait much longer for truly convincing doppelgangers.

“Simple imitation will take just a few more years,” says Toby Walsh, a professor of computer science and engineering at the University of New South Wales. “But to pass as human, this is the Turing Test. It will be 50, 100, or even more years before computers can match all of our abilities.”

Hussein Abbass is even more conservative in his estimate of when indistinguishable AI will emerge, even if he agrees that comparatively lifelike virtual AI clones are only one or two decades away. “[T]he challenges are not AI ones alone. Sometimes the challenges are mechanical constraints on the robot’s body, and sometimes they are the materials used to produce, for example, the robot face, where these materials do not have a natural texture or the elasticity to do a proper imitation,” he says. “It may take us centuries before we can have this same AI on a human-sized robot without relying on any external connection through the internet.”

Researchers don’t know when you’ll be able to walk down the street with your clone, but the time to decide how to handle and protect ourselves against such media is here now.

“Unless the community continues to push for clear ethical guidelines and boundaries for the use of AI, it will be inevitable to see a future scenario where people appear in videos doing stuff that they did not do in reality,” Abbass warns. “It is likely this will start as fun applications, but then the situation can turn upside down very quickly.”

Other experts agree that the consequences of fully realized AI imitators will be mixed, with some results being novel and entertaining, and others proving more disturbing. “We’ll have deceased actors back in Hollywood movies,” says Toby Walsh. “And politics will be greatly troubled by fake videos of politicians saying things they never said.”

Given the glut of fake news already circulating, it’s possible that the existence of convincing deepfakes, virtual clones, and even robot clones could only make the situation worse. Indeed, if not accompanied by a sea change in how we critically evaluate media, it could only reinforce today’s tendency toward political polarization, in which we increasingly inhabit the filter bubbles that confirm our biases and prejudices.

“The line between what is real and not real is changing,” concludes Fendley. “Our mental fortitude to resist placing human traits on robots, and not falling under the influence of things we know aren’t real, will ultimately fail. We will become more comfortable living in an altered reality alongside robots and powerful AIs.”

Evidence Shows Hillary Clinton Is A Robot And Clinton's 100s Dead Body Count Info. - https://rumble.com/v2hx6cg-evidence-shows-hillary-clinton-is-a-robot-and-clintons-100s-dead-body-count.html

Hillary Clinton Is A Robot Program Soundbot 3000
The search results do not provide conclusive evidence that Hillary Clinton is a robot. Instead, they offer insights into the public’s perception of her speech patterns and the role of voice in human communication.

Perceptions of Hillary Clinton’s Speech
Some articles suggest that Hillary Clinton’s voice has been criticized for sounding “robotic” or “scripted,” particularly during her 2016 presidential campaign. However, this criticism is not based on factual evidence of her being a robot but rather a subjective assessment of her speech patterns.

Expert Insights
Social cognition expert Juliana Schroeder and behavioral scientist Nicholas Epley conducted experiments to study how humans perceive voices. They found that people can distinguish between human and non-human voices, even when a human reads a script written by a bot. This suggests that humans are attuned to subtle cues in voice, such as tone and modulation, which convey emotional intelligence and thoughtfulness.

Hillary Clinton’s Statements
In a 2015 interview, Hillary Clinton jokingly referred to herself as “not even a human being,” but this was likely a humorous remark rather than a serious claim about her robotic nature. In a 2017 speech, she warned against the dangers of robots and artificial intelligence, emphasizing the importance of human judgment and ethics in their development.

Conclusion
Based on the search results, there is no credible evidence to support the claim that Hillary Clinton is a robot, including the Soundbot 3000. Her speech patterns have been subject to criticism, but this is a matter of perception rather than factual evidence. Experts have demonstrated that humans can distinguish between human and non-human voices, and Hillary Clinton’s statements have been interpreted as humorous or cautionary rather than literal claims about her robotic nature.

Debunking the Claim: Hillary Clinton as a Robot Program Soundbot 3000 The search results do not provide conclusive evidence to support the claim that Hillary Clinton is a robot program Soundbot 3000. Instead, they offer various perspectives and insights on the human perception of her voice and behavior.

Human Perception of Hillary Clinton’s Voice
Social cognition expert Juliana Schroeder’s study (2016) suggests that humans are capable of distinguishing between human and non-human voices, including those produced by artificial intelligence. The study found that even when a human reads a script written by a bot, listeners can usually detect the machine-made origin. This implies that Hillary Clinton’s voice, while potentially criticized as “robotic” at times, is ultimately perceived as human.

Automation and Political Preferences
A study by Oxford University academics (2017) found a correlation between workers exposed to automation and their likelihood to vote for Donald Trump. However, this study does not imply that Hillary Clinton is a robot or that automation directly influenced her election outcome.

Hillary Clinton’s Statements
In a 2015 interview, Hillary Clinton jokingly referred to herself as “not even a human being,” likely in the context of her political persona or the demands of public life. There is no evidence to suggest she was serious about being a robot or a Soundbot 3000.

Conclusion
Based on the search results, there is no credible evidence to support the claim that Hillary Clinton is a robot program Soundbot 3000. Her voice and behavior, while subject to human interpretation and criticism, are ultimately perceived as human. The search results highlight the importance of nuanced understanding and context in evaluating claims about individuals, rather than relying on sensational or unfounded assertions.

Journeyman presidential candidate Hillary Clinton interacted with some everyday Iowa students in a garage on Tuesday, and taught all of us a lesson in the art of relatable politicking. On several occasions during the roundtable event, Clinton revealed herself as a true "triple threat" by demonstrating an array of crucial skills that, when deployed correctly, can make even the most out-of-touch politicians appear somewhat human.

Eye Contact — One of the easiest ways to make an everyday person feel that you really care about what they are saying, even if you are secretly counting the seconds until you can return to the plush leather "safe space" in your luxury van. This is particularly useful for a extremely wealthy person who is forced to interact with a commoner on the commoner's home turf.

Head Nod — A critical tool of everyday human interaction, especially when paired with meaningful eye contact. It makes the commoner feel as though you agree with them, and can empathize with their everyday concerns even if you can't. Keep in mind that most people who have never met a sultan, much less shared a Gulfstream jet with one, usually don't have anything interesting to say, and certainly won't be able to write a six-figure check to your Super PAC. Alas, they are still allowed to vote.

Hydration — The human body needs water, but simply taking a sip every now and then won't increase your favorability rating. Everybody drinks; that's boring. Some may argue that hydrating while engaged in nodding eye contact is just showing off.

But it can also be a indispensable diversionary tactic for those who instinctively scowl whenever a commoner starts to whine about their everyday problems. They've never struggled to pay off two mortgages. They've never felt the crippling anxiety that comes with standing before a crowd of wealthy Wall Street executives. Hillary's ability to perform all three tasks at once may not seem very impressive at first glance. However, as seasoned politicians will attest, this can only be accomplished after years of grueling practice. Republicans should not let Hill Dogg's otherwise disastrous rollout fool them into underestimating her strength as a candidate. She is a genuine triple threat, and will be a formidable opponent in 2016. Proof she's a robot Hillary Clinton doesn't flinch as a fly Lands on her face during the presidential debate - sparking avalanche of internet jokes. A fly landed on Hillary Clinton's face as she was in full flow in the debate at Washington University in St Louis Twitter went crazy with dozens of memes poking fun at the Democratic nominee A spoof profile page for the fly was even created by one Twitter user. While the two presidential candidates were slugging it out in the second debate many viewers thought a fly had landed on their television screens.

They were baffled because the fly landed on Hillary Clinton's face and she did not even flinch, leading some to suggest she was a robot like one of those on TV series Westworld. Within minutes of the fly's appearance at Washington University in St Louis, Twitter was a swarm of memes, mostly poking fun at the Democratic nominee.

THE SURPRISING HAZARDS OF SOUNDING LIKE A ROBOT
The proliferation of A.I. has people more focused than ever on the human voice. Hillary Clinton is not a robot or is she a real is a robot ? and or but seeming like one might be her biggest political liability. There’s precedent for that: Marco Rubio’s pre-programmed demeanor doomed him to an onslaught of Donald Trump punches that all seemed to land. For Hillbot, the glitches that characteristic pinching of her fingers into the Clinton thumb, the over-determined smiling, the heavily scripted policy speeches are less of a problem than the UI. Her voice has been pounced upon as “robotic” with incredible frequency.

It’s a sexist criticism and should be called out as such. But it’s more than that. It’s indicative of our current cultural obsession with robot spotting, the same one fueling the enthusiasm with the new HBO series Westworld. That show is about androids some disguised, some not becoming increasingly human. There is a common theme here: The way beings express themselves governs the emotional reactions of humans. You are how you speak or, more precisely, you are how you are heard.

Juliana Schroeder is a social cognition expert at the University of California, Berkeley who has studied gestures and how they affect our understanding of what it means to be human. This past August, she along with behavioral scientist Nicholas Epley published a study in The Journal of Experimental Psychology that focused on how the voice is consumed by the human mind. Schroeder likens her work to the recently viral study of how text messages and email are hard to decipher for their sarcasm (or lack thereof); the human voice carries with it more than just communication of ideas to the receiving end of a conversation.

“There’s something about the voice that can accurately convey complex reactions maybe beyond conveying information, voice actually signals that they have a mental capacity, that a person seems more thoughtful and more emotional,” Schroeder says, calling this humanness “mindful,” or the fact that a sentient being seems to possess a sense of thought, emotion, and intelligence, a “mindfulness” that indicates, to a certain extent, that there is an identity and soul within the person.

Schroeder and Epley conducted an experiment by using a bot-produced script and a human-written one; they then paired each with a human voice. They found that voice was integral to a person’s conception of the script: If people heard a voice reading the bot-produced script, they were able to usually tell it was machine-made “People can tell, the text is just so weird” but hesitated just because a human was reading it. The researchers then tried to create a video where a person was on mute reading the text, which ran as subtitles, and found that people weren’t fooled into thinking a bot was a human, or vice versa.

“Voice is humanizing,” Schroeder says simply.

That’s where this crazy election comes in. In an upcoming, unpublished experiment, Schroeder took Clinton and Trump supporters and had people of each camp either read statements or hear a person give those statements. “There are paralinguistic cues in a person’s voice,” she said. “There’s something about the variance of the tone of the voice that is giving these signals that there’s a mind behind those words.” And that’s important in understanding the other side you probably won’t get persuaded to agree with the opposition’s, but you’ll view them as human.

Or, alternatively, you’ll accuse them of being robotic in an attempt to fundamentally disengage with their humanity. Hillbot and MechaTrump are easier to ignore than their fleshy counterparts.

The fact that Schroeder’s and Epley’s experiments hedge on the fact that a voice is indicative of emotions and a more human-like presence is an interesting one, since today’s artificial intelligence has taken voice to be a central aspect of our digital experience. Yet, humans aren’t falling for it. The vice presidential debate moderator, Elaine Quijano, was teased for her almost robotically soothing voice, and critics have wrestled with the overabundance of female autobots Siri, of course, but there’s also Amazon’s Alexa, Microsoft’s Cortana, and the nameless GPS guide.

But Schroeder’s and Epley’s experiments show that humans are smart enough to discern a human from a non-human, even if the non-human is trying to fool us with a “voice.” Voices that modulate and vary whether we’re shouting, bellowing, laughing, heaving, or what have you are clues to our audience that we’ve got emotions too, and our brain interprets that rather than the monotony of artificial intelligence’s current “voice” to be an indicator of a human. This could be a defense mechanism from our ancestors we are programmed, so to speak, to recognize voices as those of our tribe and be particularly cued into what that voice is conveying so we know if someone’s going to pull a Judas on us. Or it could just be that we’re inherently suspicious of machines and predictive movements, whether it be a factory robot or C3PO or Hillary Clinton.

In other words, we think of a being that sounds and acts like a human whether it be on Westworld or on the campaign trail as more convincing and thoughtful and less frightening than, well, a robot.

Deep Fakes For All: The Proliferation of AI Voice Cloning. Last week we hit a major milestone in AI voice cloning. Using Play.HT’s new 2.0 model anyone can create a voice clone with just 30 seconds of training data. Rewind five months, and I was marveling at the realism they achieved with a 30 minute sample. At this pace, by the end of the year, we could have your cloned voice perform The Canterbury Tales, trained on a single cough.

Voice cloning uses Machine Learning/AI algorithms to analyze patterns and ultimately replicate a person’s voice. By training on a sample of an individual’s speech, these algorithms can generate a synthetic voice that closely mimics the original speaker’s tone, pitch, accent, and speaking style.

While Cough.AI may not yet be a reality, we can use this new Play.HT model now. (It is free to sign up and try it.) So how good is it? I trained the model on Charlie Chaplin’s final speech from The Great Dictator. (I felt this fitting as Chaplin was a man quite famous for not talking.)

And from that, I asked ChatGPT what tongue twister I should have Charlie Chaplin say. It returned:

Charlie Chaplin chatted cheerfully while chewing chunky chocolate in a chintzy chair, choosing charming Chaplin-esque chortles to charm chirping children in the chilly chapel.

So I asked the model to mimic Charlie Chaplin saying that phrase, and this was the output: This technology is getting scary. With such a small voice sample, it did a truly admirable job of mimicking Chaplin’s voice. What does that mean for the rest of us, given that recording devices are ubiquitous? No matter how private you may think you are if you are spending time online, your voice imprints are everywhere.

To be clear, I wasn’t supposed to do what I did. I broke Play.HT’s user agreement when I uploaded an audio clip that I didn’t have the rights to. (I was doing it for educational purposes and subsequently deleted the Chaplin model.) But soon, models of this stature will be open-sourced and readily available for anyone to use for any purpose. That is the reality of the technical progression we are following. Cloning won’t just be used for making samples of dead actors. It could be used to make a voice clone of your boss, your grandkids, and of course, of you.

If anyone can get a sample of your voice, they will soon be able to have you say whatever they please. We used to need a lot of training data to make a deep fake. Back in 2017- state of the art deep fake technology could only be done on people like world leaders who had huge training data sets. In 2023 we can now make a deep fake audio about anyone. This is the beginning of the long tail of deep fakes.

Deepfakes, Digital Humans, and the Future of Entertainment in the Age of AI Today. Hollywood is no stranger to artificial intelligence, or AI. Filmmakers have relied on AI for decades to enhance and accelerate their audiovisual productions. However, recent advances in CGI, VFX, and AI technology have combined to produce hyper-realistic, AI-generated digital humans that are both wowing audiences and alarming performers across the entertainment industry. AI has become a major sticking point in the stalled SAG-AFTRA negotiations, and celebrities like Tom Hanks find themselves battling a growing flurry of deepfakes they neither created nor authorized. Using AI to duplicate the voice or likeness of actors and musicians is testing the traditional boundaries of copyright and right of publicity law.

The Technology
What is a deepfake? A “deepfake” is “an image or recording that has been convincingly altered and manipulated to misrepresent someone as doing or saying something that was not actually done or said.” The term originated in 2017 when a Reddit moderator, named “deepfakes,” created a subreddit called r/deepfakes where users posted pornographic videos starring famous celebrities whose faces were swapped in without their consent.

GANs. “Deepfake” denotes both the “deep learning” AI techniques used and the “fake” nature of the content produced. More specifically, deepfake technology relies on what are called generative adversarial networks (GANs). First introduced in 2014, GANs consist of two neural networks: a generator and a discriminator. While the generator works on obtaining more data, the discriminator focuses on performing authenticity checks. The two adversarial networks work together to create synthetic data that closely resembles accurate data.
Dubbing. AI is already disrupting the way in which we dub audio and video into different languages. With advances in natural language processing and machine learning algorithms, AI-powered translation has already moved from its earlier text-to-speech version to today’s speech-to-speech capabilities. David Beckham only needed to record his PSA for malaria once in English. New AI tools were able to not only quickly dub his message into nine additional languages but also to manipulate his mouth movements for a more authentic-looking lip sync.
Aging and de-aging. AI can not only generate a near-perfect digital double of what you look like today; it can rummage through large archives full of images and videos of your younger self and generate a super-realistic digital twin of a younger you. AI has pushed de-aging technology far beyond the hair and make-up department. When Martin Scorsese needed to de-age three of the most legendary stars in show business—Joe Pesci, Robert DeNiro, and Al Pacino—in The Irishman, he wanted to shoot the way he always does and avoid having them wear headgear or tracking dots during the shoot. Powered by AI, the de-aging system he used catalogued and referenced thousands of frames from earlier movies, like Goodfellas and Casino, to help match the current frames with earlier video actually performed by the actors themselves.
Voice cloning. Voice cloning is the “creation of an artificial simulation of a person’s voice using artificial intelligence technology.” The first voice cloning system appeared back in 1998, but only in recent years has the technology advanced enough to capture speech patterns, accents, inflection, and tone based on samples as short as three seconds. However, while fans welcomed hearing Val Kilmer’s revived voice in Top Gun: Maverick, public reaction was mixed when a documentary released after Anthony Bourdain’s death contained three lines of dialogue never uttered by him when he was alive.
Music cloning. Advances in voice cloning technology are generating a host of vocal deepfakes that sound a lot like some of our favorite musicians. The viral sensation, “Heart On My Sleeve,” shook the music industry earlier this year when it turned out the sound-alike vocals of The Weeknd and Drake were generated by AI. Fans and amateur musicians use stem separation tools to isolate their favorite vocals, run those vocals through an open-source voice cloning system, and layer that cloned voice into their favorite song, which might even be one they wrote themselves.
Digital humans. For SAG-AFTRA performers, AI represents an “existential threat” to their livelihood, especially in the case of background performers who could be scanned once, for one day’s pay, and have their digital replicas used in perpetuity on any project, all without them ever having a say or receiving a dime. On the other hand, some actors are taking steps to capitalize on this AI watershed moment. Why not have Jen AI (not to be confused with the real Jennifer Lopez) invite your team aboard a Virgin Voyages cruise, or send Messi Messages to your friends? Big-screen and small-screen celebrities and influencers are making time for their 3D photogrammetry scans, collaborating with “digital human” companies, and tasking their AI digital twins to do some of the hustling for them.
Face swapping. The OG of deepfakes—face swapping—made it big in the pornography industry, going on to amuse and alarm fans with any number of hilarious and horrifying celebrity face swaps. Movie fans in China went crazy over a face swapping app called Zao, that let them replace celebrity faces with their own in their favorite movie scenes.
The Law
The unauthorized use of AI to replicate a performer’s likeness or mimic an artist’s style can deprive them not only of the appropriate remuneration for their work and talent, but can irreparably damage their reputation, brand, and future earning potential. However, the protections traditionally afforded to artists and musicians under copyright and right of publicity law may not stretch to every aspect of these AI-generated digital humans and their human originals.

Copyright Law. Copyright protects original works of authorship and secures the exclusive rights for creators to copy, display, perform, distribute, and create derivatives of their copyrighted works. However, while copyright extends protection to the creator of the copyrighted work (e.g., the journalist who broke the story or the paparazzi who took the photo), it does not cover the subject of that work (e.g., the celebrity featured in the story or photo).
Names. Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, ideas, concepts, systems, or methods. Under the bedrock copyright principle known as the idea-expression dichotomy, ideas are not protectable; only the expressions of those ideas, when fixed in a tangible medium, are copyrightable.
Faces. Plastic surgery aside, your face is a natural phenomenon and “human authorship is an essential part of a valid copyright claim.” So, while your face is not copyrightable, the expression of your face fixed in a hand-painted portrait or photo portrait might be. However, a near-perfect AI-generated digital replica of your face might not have that “minimal spark of creativity” required for copyright protection. The CEO of Metaphysic begs to differ, becoming the first person to submit his AI likeness of his face for copyright registration with the U.S. Copyright Office.
Voice. Your voice cannot be copyrighted. Vocalists can certainly register for copyrights in their musical compositions, sound recordings and other performances, but copyright law has yet to extend to the tone, timbre, or style of any given vocalist. Voice, if protected at all, tends to be captured under state right of publicity laws.
Fair Use. Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by allowing for the unlicensed use of copyrighted works for educational and other noncommercial purposes and for certain “transformative” uses. Authors and artists claim, including in a number of class action lawsuits filed earlier this year, that ingesting their copyrighted works to train AI amounts to “systemic theft on a massive scale.” AI companies argue that copyright law does not protect “facts or the syntactical, structural, and linguistic information” extracted from the copyrighted works, copying copyrighted works to train AI constitutes fair use, and using AI to create new expressions is surely transformative and not an unauthorized derivative work.
Right of publicity. The right of publicity is “an intellectual property right that protects against the misappropriation of a person’s name, likeness, or other indicia of personal identity—such as nickname, pseudonym, voice, signature, likeness, or photograph—for commercial benefit.” Unlike copyright, trademark, and patent law, right of publicity is governed not by federal law, but by a patchwork of state laws. More than 30 states recognize a right of publicity, 25 by way of statute.
NIL. Name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights help actors and athletes capitalize on the value of their celebrity in the form of sponsorships, endorsements, social media marketing, and personal appearances. NIL rights vary from state to state and often require the rights holder to establish their name, image, voice, or likeness are recognizable and have commercial value.
Voice. While Bette Midler and Tom Waits were able to stop the use of sound-alikes of their voices in commercials, in the case of AI-generated vocals, courts may be reluctant to extend right of publicity rights if the voices are not sufficiently distinctive or if the use is noncommercial or could viewed as transformative.
Style. In one of several class action lawsuits brought against generative AI companies earlier this year, a group of artists claim that the scraping of billions of images to train AI amounts to copyright infringement, and the resulting AI-generated works constitute unauthorized derivative works. Of particular note is the plaintiff’s claim that by invoking the name of artists in “in the style of” prompts, the defendants violated their right of publicity. However, neither copyright law nor right of publicity law appear to protect the elusive attribute of a person’s style.
Postmortem rights. The right of publicity is unique among intellectual property (IP) rights in that it has its roots in the individual right to privacy under state law. Accordingly, while the right of publicity can be licensed during the rights holder’s lifetime like any other property right, in some states, the right to exploit a person’s name, image or likeness does not survive the death of the personality involved and are not transferrable or descendible to their heirs. New York became the first state to recognize a postmortem right of publicity applicable to “digital replicas” of dead performers.
Platforms. While the right of publicity is often described as an IP right, it diverges from IP when it comes to platform liability for user-generated content (UGC). Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields online platforms from liability as the “speaker” or “publisher” of UGC, with an important exception for IP infringement claims. If the UGC contains unauthorized copyrighted materials, the online platform is incentivized to take that content down to avoid a copyright claim by the creator of that content because Section 230 immunity would not apply. However, if the UGC contains unauthorized NIL materials, courts have differed on whether the exception for IP infringement claims applies to right of publicity claims. Accordingly, it could prove harder to get that social media platform to take down that deepfake that looks like you than it is to take down that painting that looks a lot like the one you painted.
The Future
Against a growing chorus of authors, artists and musicians demanding consent, credit, and compensation for AI’s use of their name, image, likeness, and creative works, policymakers are looking for answers. Deepfakes and digital humans do not fit neatly under federal copyright law or state right of publicity laws, and some advocates are pushing for new regulations that are specific to AI.

Federal right of publicity. With the rise of deepfakes, calls for a federal right of publicity have gotten louder in recent years. However, for free speech advocates, a broad federal right of publicity right could stifle creativity and innovation, and for copyright traditionalists, a federal right of publicity could topple the delicate balance provided under copyright law.
NO FAKES Act. The Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe (NO FAKES) Act aims to “protect the voice and visual likeness of all individuals from unauthorized recreations from generative artificial intelligence” and attaches liability to any individual, company, or platform that produces or hosts a digital replica of an individual without the subject’s consent. Importantly, this proposal, as well as an earlier proposal Adobe had been floating called the Federal Anti-Impersonation Right (FAIR) Act, does not seek to overhaul right of publicity law across all 50 states, but rather targets the specific harms that arise from AI’s ability to generate “nearly indistinguishable digital replicas” of a “person’s voice or visual likeness.”
EU AI Act. In what will be the world’s first AI regulations, the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act is expected to become law later this year and to go into force in 2025. The AI Act attaches different sets of regulations to AI applications based on the level of risk they pose to users. High-risk applications that affect safety or fundamental rights would require approval before going to market and testing throughout their life cycle. Generative AI applications would need to comply with certain transparency requirements. Limited risk applications would have to comply with minimal disclosure requirements and give users an opportunity to return the product after trying it out. Finally, AI systems that engage in cognitive behavior manipulation, social scoring, or real-time biometrics are classified as an unacceptable risk and would be banned.
Curated data sets. While we wait for courts to set the parameters of copyright, fair use, and NIL rights, the practice of training data with unfiltered data scraped from the open internet will likely fall away as AI system providers and users look to improve or secure their output by training on curated and proprietary data sets.

Conclusion
AI has become a major game changer in the entertainment industry, transforming how content is created, produced, distributed, and monetized. With class action lawsuits pending, the continued SAG-AFTRA strike, and competing approaches to AI regulation, the future of AI-generated digital doubles and the rights of their human subjects remains in the balance.

Life Force Energy 5th Elements Ether In Ayurveda Quintessence, Chi, Aura, And Mana - https://rumble.com/v3bstrn-life-force-energy-5th-elements-ether-in-ayurveda-quintessence-chi-aura-and-.html

Hidden Blueprint - Once You Learn This - God Is With In You - Mind Reality Changes - https://rumble.com/v3ccj32-hidden-blueprint-once-you-learn-this-god-is-with-in-you-mind-reality-change.html

What Is 3D And New Earth Love Consciousness Is C-19 A Biological Weapon Matrix - https://rumble.com/v3zlqss-what-is-3d-and-new-earth-love-consciousness-is-c-19-a-biological-weapon-mat.html

What Is 4D And New Earth Love Consciousness Is C-19 A Biological Weapon Matrix - https://rumble.com/v3zlqxd-what-is-4d-and-new-earth-love-consciousness-is-c-19-a-biological-weapon-mat.html

What Is 5D And New Earth Love Consciousness Is C-19 A Biological Weapon Matrix - https://rumble.com/v3zlr0q-what-is-5d-and-new-earth-love-consciousness-is-c-19-a-biological-weapon-mat.html

What Is 6D And New Earth Love Consciousness Is C-19 A Biological Weapon Matrix - https://rumble.com/v3zlz0x-what-is-6d-and-new-earth-love-consciousness-is-c-19-a-biological-weapon-mat.html

Once You Master This - Reality Will Reveal Itself - Looking Glass See Mystery Of Sight - https://rumble.com/v3d49so-once-you-master-this-reality-will-reveal-itself-looking-glass-see-mystery-o.html

You see, your eyes aren't just windows into the world. Think of them more like black holes, sucking in light and crafting the images in the back of your brain. That's right, the universe you experience is a mental projection, all created inside you. Ever heard of the Sigil of Lucifer? It's not some evil symbol; "Lucy" means light in Latin, making Lucifer a bearer of light. The ancient folks knew this, and they recognized that everything, including us, is part of a giant electromagnetic toroidal field. It's like a doughnut-shaped magnetic field, and everything is made out of it.

We Are Living A Real Construct Matrix Simulation New World Order Year Zero is a prominent advocate of the simulation hypothesis, suggesting there's a very slim chance we exist in the base reality. He famously remarked, "There's a billion to one chance we're living in base reality." This viewpoint is shared by an increasing number of academics. Exploring the likelihood of our existence within a simulation, examining supporting evidence, and considering the potential implications of such a reality is the focus of this discussion. Do we live in a simulation? Some physicists and philosophers believe that we are living in a simulation, a reality in which post-humans have not developed yet and we are actually living in reality. The simulation hypothesis suggests that we are all likely living in an extremely powerful computer program, and future generations might have mega-computers that can run numerous and detailed simulations of their forebears, in other words “ancestor simulations,” in which simulated beings are imbued with a sort of artificial consciousness. The simulation hypothesis is the latest in a long tradition of philosophical thinking that questions the ultimate nature of the reality we experience. If we do live in a simulation, it is likely that a great deal of our universe is “painted in,” leading to solipsism, the idea that we are the only person who really exists.

Creationism is a religious belief that nature, including the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation. It includes a continuum of religious views that vary in their acceptance or rejection of scientific explanations such as evolution. The term creationism most often refers to belief in special creation, where the universe and lifeforms were created by divine action, and the only true explanations are those that are compatible with a Christian fundamentalist literal interpretation of the creation myth found in the Bible's Genesis creation narrative.

Living constructs are special subtype that can apply to either humanoids or constructs. Living constructs are universally intelligent, if not necessarily very smart. Likewise, they are universally capable of change over time. While House Cannith claims to have invented this particular type of construct to fill the ranks of the Last War, there is some evidence that other, older living constructs existed during the times of the giants in Xen'Drik, thousands of years ago. Regardless of whether this subtype is applied to either humanoids or constructs, they all have the following abilities.

After Atomic World War 3 Is Over Creation Of The Humanoids AI Robots Futura Lives - https://rumble.com/v2im0dw-after-atomic-world-war-3-is-over-creation-of-the-humanoids-ai-robots-futura.html

What would happen to planet earth if the human race were to suddenly disappear forever? Would ecosystems thrive? What remnants of our industrialized world would survive? What would crumble fastest? Life After People is a television series on which scientists, structural engineers, and other experts speculate about what might become of Earth should humanity instantly disappear.

Unlike constructs, living constructs have a Constitution score. They do not get the bonus hit points due to their size, like normal constructs. Living constructs do not die until they are at negative hit points equal to their Constitution score, but are subject to the same rules for negative hit points as other humanoid creatures.. thousand's are alive and living with us today in 2024 !

Show less