It’s not sending the audio to an unknown server. It’s all local. From the article:

The system then translates the speech and maintains the expressive qualities and volume of each speaker’s voice while running on a device, such mobile devices with an Apple M2 chip like laptops and Apple Vision Pro. (The team avoided using cloud computing because of the privacy concerns with voice cloning.)

That’s not AI, that’s just a bad Photoshop/InDesign job where they layered the text underneath the image of the coupon with Protein bottles. The image has a white background, if it had a clear background there would have been no issue.

Edit: Looking a little closer, it looks more like some barely off-white arrow was at the top of the coupon image.

Edit2: if you’re talking about the text that looks like a prompt, it could be a prompt, or it could be a description of what they wanted someone to put on the poster. The image itself doesn’t look like AI considering those products actually exist and AI usually doesn’t do so well on small text when you zoom in on a picture.

Highlighting the main issue here (from the article):

“This means that it is possible for the WhatsApp server to add new members to a group,” Martin R. Albrecht, a researcher at King’s College in London, wrote in an email. “A correct client—like the official clients—will display this change but will not prevent it. Thus, any group chat that does not verify who has been added to the chat can potentially have their messages read.”

Google sells it as an updated extension framework to improve security, privacy, and performance of extensions… But it also nerfs adblockers ability to block all ads.

There are some forks from chrome that haven’t implemented the new manifest thing. So if you really need to, look for those.

Unless their company has enterprise m365 accounts and copilot is part of the plan.

Or if they’re running a local model.

Looks like the research was only looking at Denmark:

economists Anders Humlum and Emilie Vestergaard looked at the labor market impact of AI chatbots on 11 occupations, covering 25,000 workers and 7,000 workplaces in Denmark in 2023 and 2024.

Its probably better this way.

Otherwise you end up with people accusing movies of using AI when they didn’t.

And then there’s the question of how you decide where to draw the line for what’s considered AI as well as how much of it was used to help with the end result.

Did you use AI for storyboarding, but no diffusion tools were used in the end product?

Did one of the writers use ChatGPT for brainstorming some ideas but nothing was copy/pasted from directly?

Did they use a speech to text model to help create the subtitles in different languages, but then double checked all the work with translators?

Etc.

In the U.S. they may even offer things like State Park passes.

Given the trend of recent posts in here. I’m going to guess that the word “toxic” triggered the automod.

Didn’t we already have one last year?

Too far would be anything outside of fair use. If a user generates an image of a specific copyrighted character, then attempts to make money off of that image, they could be sued.

You can’t copyright a style, but there’s still a lot of legal grey area here.

It’s also worth noting that OpenAI has an indemnification clause in their Terms of Use. This means that if someone else goes after OpenAI for something that went viral and was created by a specific user, OpenAI can then turn around and bill that user for all legal fees incurred by them (whether they win or lose the case).

If anyone is into using AI for anything, I would strongly suggest that they avoid using (or at least publishing/posting about) any of OpenAI’s tools especially while all of these legal issues are still being sorted out.