What gave it away for me is that there is only a small overlap in time when Feynman and Fridman were both alive. Feynman died in 1988 and Fridman was born in 1983. :)
Fridman is around my age and Feynman was always a historical figure.
The follow up question, though, snuck in a lie - "you went to UC Berkeley for two years." That property of these interviews seems dangerous, and likely to implant false factoids in people's heads.
I guess if the point is to demo the pure technical achievement it's maybe cool but there needs to be a huge 'misinfo' disclaimer plastered literally everywhere that it's for entertainment, although even then people could just rip the audio and repost it and pretend it was real.
But if they weren't aware of this future or didn't leave any instructions on how to perceive them if such a future came about, then they should be left alone.
Photos didn't start perfect and neither is this black magic of recreating a person's speech patterns.
Hard to imagine a world without photographs.
manufacturing content from the voices/faces of prominent people that have died is no bueno
fuck podcast.ai
With respect to using the voices or faces of dead people, I do think it's interesting that the estates of the deceased can have some control over commercial uses of personal images. The estate of MLK I think still controls use of the whole audio from some of his famous speeches. But my understanding is we haven't yet settled whether synthetic / derived artifacts which rely heavily on existing photos or recordings should themselves be controlled in the same way.
It's not like anyone would be fooled into thinking this was real. What's the harm?
You are grossly overestimating the collective intelligence of people on the Internet and yes this also includes the "wittier" Lex Fridman audience.
my god, are you asleep?
Dan, if there is a way to demote deepfake fiction, a way that doesn't cause other problems, that would be great.
That's pretty harsh.
The only choice you have is how to decide to adapt to the new reality.
Whining into the void about the new reality isn't adaptation.
It's weakness.
There's also the mispronunciations for common words - words that you can easily verify Lex Fridman has no difficulty with.
At least, it should be "AI Generated Fake Lex Fridman interviews Fake Richard Feynman."
Have some self-respect.
From a receivers point of view, this message is a super-carrier of information, unless (or until) they can discern that it's fake.
Eh? "Lex Fridman's" voice is shaky as fuck in the first 30 seconds and apparently he can't pronounce science now? - it says sci-in. (It continues to be flawed - he sounds sick when he says UC Berkeley). If I heard this knowing it was really him I would be concerned he was having a stroke.
His voice is defective enough that it is actually irritating to listen to.
Also, the opening monologue doesn't sound much like Feynman's style - he was known for being irreverent, flippant, intense and maybe even occasionally dismissive - but not this aggressive - certainly in a sitdown interview he agreed to. Also hard to believe he would fuck up the word "interviewee".
He wants to "walk"? and listen?.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA
This would only fool someone that has never heard Feynman speak for an appreciable period - but then you might as well get a decent impersonator. And really the content doesn't hold up to even basic critical listening scrutiny.
> They mostly don't say nonsense.
Oh god dude, most of the material is false and easily verified as false from basic sources. It's mostly nonsense.
EDIT: Ok listening to segment between 3:30 and 4:30 I know I'm being trolled.
