People were prone to install the OpenAI app and use the voice assistant, forgetting that the recorded voice can be used to create fake audios (see Scarlett Johansson).

Same for Google Assistant, Siri & co.

So basically I don't see why people should be concerned only for the usage by a small startup, instead of being scared by tech giants

Sure but to me this sounds paranoid and as pointless as the movie industry trying to create non piratable technology... As in, worried about things out of their control. You cannot go about your life without using your voice unless you're a mute by choice or physically, and all a company needs is a few seconds of your voice to recreate it. If a company is hell bent on getting a voice, they can get it. If you're not widely known, or hold some kind of power, no one likely cares about your voice, and if you are, its likely there's already lots of audio sources of you out there... Even if you're not widely known, if you've ever made an instagram post, a reel, a tiktok, vine, youtube vid, etc, you're out there. Probably makes more sense to go on about your life and resort to legal means if your voice is used without your consent.

Same with your face... You leave your home, other humans see your face, cameras see your face. You do not get to control who sees your face or even who captures your face when you're in public, but you can decide whether or not you consent to your face being used by an entity for profit.

We make the distinction between humans consuming information and machines because humans can't typically reproduce the original material. So like, you can go see a movie, but you can't record it with a device which would allow you to reproduce it. But what if human brains could reproduce it? Then what? Then humans could replay it to themselves all they want, and to those near them, but wouldn't be allowed to reproduce it in mass for profit, or they'd get sued. I think the same stuff applies to data ingested by AI models. People care so much about what is fed in when the same information is fed in to humans around the world which increases their knowledge and informs their future decisions, their art, their thoughts. Humans don't have to pay to see a picture of the Mona Lisa, or pictures or any other art out there, even if it'll influence their own art later on. But somehow we want to limit what is fed to models based on it having gotten the permission to be influenced by its existence. I agree, we can't feed protected IP, or secret recipes, formulas for things that are not in the public sphere.. etc.. But other than that, not sure how people expect to limit what is fed into it that it can draw inspiration from.. As long as it doesn't copy verbatim... I get that images have been generated where original material has come out, but if its sections of, or concepts of, then its the same as a human being influenced by it, I honestly don't think that matters.

Then comes the idea that this is owned by a private company who's profiting from it all... Thats true... But there's also open source models that compete with them. Not sure what the best answers to it all is.. But to go back to the original point, if your unique voice, or image isn't copied precisely for profit, then whatever... It'll get used by models, or humans in their thoughts, you can't control what your existence affects in the world, just who gets to profit off of it.

They clearly explain how you retain ownership of your own data and they allow you to monetize the data for your own behalf where they get a sub fraction percent on top of if they sell or use your data internally or externally you get a set value or scalable metric corresponding to usage?

Right?

Yea I start to load the chat and then was like wait a sec and noped out.

whatever

This is a valid concern, but we’ve always been very serious about consent and privacy. Our models cannot be used without explicit verbal/visual consent and you hold the keys to your clone.