Let's talk about Artificial Intelligence

[facthunter]

Isn't Musk in the BAD books?  Steve Bannon reckons no one should be able to  HELP Ukraine... THEY control the whole World. (In their tiny Minds). China's popularity Grows. People cannot TRUST USA. Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

Musk in the bad books because he called the tarriffs policy nuts (or words to that effect). 

 

He has (or is) leaving DOGE more looking like a DOGE-bag than anythign successful. Despite his claims of saving the govenment something like $176bn (of a promised many trillions), the real "savings" are estimated to tbe well below a billion, and that doesn't cover the cost of the damage down outside the agency and the cost of cleaning it all up. All in all, it looks like a toddler had a tandtrum in their play-pen. 

 

Having said, that, he is about to float his AI business and is seeking a $113bn valuation of X.Ai. 

 

 

[nomadpete]

1 hour ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/news/story/tech-layoffs-2025-ibm-lays-off-8000-employees-as-ai-replaces-hr-department-478053-2025-05-28

Having been involved in numerous HR departments through my varied employment,  I can only applaud this as a triumph of raw computer logic over the plague of bureaucratic chair warmer HR (Human Remains) departments.

[nomadpete]

What I mean, is that sometimes humans (in HR) are not the best judges of other human's (employees) abilities.

 

So maybe AI could help to keep the humans out of HR (in a beneficial, objective way)?

[old man emu]

Here's a definite abuse of AI. But I hope that Sky news can be trusted with this one. I suppose you would have to  be in the UK to recognise the woman's voice.

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Sky in the UK was divested by the merde-docs many years ago. SKy news in the UK is probably on the reasonable scale in terms of integrity.. it still pushes an agenda, much like many MSM publications, but is in no way a Sky News in Australia. GB News, on the other had, was created to be a Sky News Australia type station - poor mans version of Fox News.  Apparently, it isn't doing terribly well.

 

Although it is framed as AI, I see this as sort of a question of contract. The lady contracted (presumably as a limited company) to a company to provide her voice. The terms of the contract would have to be looked at to determine if it gave the buyer unlimited use of her voice (not just the words she spoke).

 

Although, it does raise an interesting point - what would be a reasonable use of her voice, even if the contract said the company had purchased rights to uer her voice as they pleased. Contrary to common perception, contract law isn't only what is written on the contract, and all sorts of terms and restrictions are implied by the courts for a fair outcome given the nature of the contract itself; and clauses have been struck out.

 

If the signed a contract as a limited company (pty ltd in Australia), then it is harder to have terms implied or clauses struck out except if they are illegal. However, if she signed as a private person/sole proprietor, she will be in a much better position and she should go to civil proceedings. My recommendation to her would be to either have the reuse term restricted, or an implied royalty term appolied so she makes money out of it.

[facthunter]

Now more stuff will be fake in the cause of bigger profits. Nev

[old man emu]

My understanding is that several years ago, before AI took off, she did a job for a Swedish company in which her voice was recorded reading books or some such. In recent times, that company sold the recordings to an AI mob who used it to fulfil the Scottish Rail job. 

 

So her voice comes from something that was done before the current application of AI was even thought about. Who knows what future technology will do when entering a contract today?

[Jerry_Atrick]

Ai was well underway in Covid times

 

This is a question of contract and possibly employment law

Edited June 5 by Jerry_Atrick

[old man emu]

Can you see this woman being able to take legal action? The only winners, once again, would be the legal eagles.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Sadly, it is an expensive undertaking and if you lose, you pay the other person's costs (depending on any contributory factors of the other person).