Monthly Archives: March 2024

OpenAI unveils voice-cloning tool | National | caledonianrecord.com – The Caledonian-Record

Posted: March 31, 2024 at 5:50 am

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada

Zip Code

Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe

Continued here:

OpenAI unveils voice-cloning tool | National | caledonianrecord.com - The Caledonian-Record

Posted in Cloning | Comments Off

OpenAI unveils voice-cloning tool | National | elkharttruth.com – The Elkhart Truth

Posted: at 5:50 am

Zip Code

View original post here:

OpenAI unveils voice-cloning tool | National | elkharttruth.com - The Elkhart Truth

Posted in Cloning | Comments Off

OpenAI reveals impressive voice cloning model, and it’s scary good – XDA Developers

Posted: at 5:50 am

Key Takeaways

Microsoft-backed OpenAI is perhaps best known for ChatGPT, its conversational AI model that made waves back when it launched publicly in 2022, and is still highly impressive to this day. Since then, the firm has also unveiled Sora, an AI model that can generate video clips using just textual input. While Sora is yet to become available publicly, OpenAI has now announced yet another AI model, and this time, it's capable of generating synthetic audio.

The highlight of OpenAI's latest invention is that it can generate realistic synthetic audio using just 15 seconds of sample audio input. It can even generate audio in other languages by mimicking the sound patterns of the original sample. Dubbed Voice Engine, this model is quite small, which makes its audio cloning capabilities all the more impressive.

OpenAI has been working on this project since at least 2022, and it's the technology that powers its text-to-speech API and ChatGPT Voice and Read Aloud. Over on its website, the company has impressive examples where the model has generated extremely realistic audio pieces on various topics by leveraging 15 seconds of sample data on an unrelated topic. You can check those out here.

OpenAI has shared several potential applications of Voice Engine. It can be used to provide reading assistance to non-readers, translate content to reach global audiences, and offer therapeutic services for people who are non-verbal. All the aforementioned scenarios have already been trialed by OpenAI in a private preview conducted with select partners on a small scale.

But perhaps the most interesting part of OpenAI's latest announcement is that the firm isn't ready to release Voice Engine to the public just yet. The reason behind this is potential safety concerns where someone's voice can be cloned without their consent, which is extremely problematic, especially in the U.S. where 2024 is election year. During its private preview with partners, OpenAI ensured that its partners agreed to its usage policies, which included using someone's audio only after the individual's explicit consent, clearly disclose when synthetic audio is being used, and digitally watermarking content generated by the model.

OpenAI will only release Voice Engine once (or if) it reaches an agreement regarding safeguards for the model. Until then, the company has emphasized that the world needs to understand where the technology is headed. For now, it has encouraged banking systems to phase out support for voice detection as a security measure, and requested the community at large to educate itself regarding deceptive AI content, explore policies to safeguard the use of an individual's voice, and implement mechanisms that enable anyone to identify whether a voice is human- or AI-generated.

Here is the original post:

OpenAI reveals impressive voice cloning model, and it's scary good - XDA Developers

Posted in Cloning | Comments Off

OpenAI’s voice-cloning tool is impressive but full of safety concerns – NewsBytes

Posted: at 5:49 am

What's the story

OpenAI, the world's leading artificial intelligence start-up, has unveiled its digital voice generator, called Voice Engine. This cutting-edge technology can generate realistic speech using just a 15-second audio sample. The San Francisco-based company, known for its chatbot ChatGPT and image generator DALL-E, is exploring various applications for Voice Engine such as aiding children with reading, translating languages, and assisting cancer patients in regaining their voices.

Despite the potential benefits of Voice Engine, OpenAI has decided to delay its broader release due to concerns about misuse. Fears of unauthorized voice imitation or deepfakes have been expressed by social media users. This decision is especially significant during an election year when the risk of misuse is heightened. As stated in a company blog post, "We are taking a cautious and informed approach to a broader release due to the potential for synthetic voice misuse."

OpenAI has expressed its intention to initiate discussions about the responsible use of synthetic voices and societal adaptation to these new capabilities. The company's future deployment of this technology will be guided by these conversations and findings from preliminary tests. As stated by the company, "We hope to start a dialogue on the responsible deployment of synthetic voices, and how society can adapt to these new capabilities."

The 2024 election has already seen its first fake voice incident in New Hampshire involving a robocall imitating President Joe Biden. The event led the Federal Communications Commission to unanimously ban unsolicited AI robocalls. OpenAI acknowledged these political risks in its blog post, stating, "We recognize that generating speech that resembles people's voices has serious risks, which are especially top of mind in an election year."

OpenAI is actively seeking feedback from US and international partners across diverse sectors such as government, media, entertainment, education, and civil society. The company's guidelines strictly prohibit impersonation without consent or legal right. They also support voice authentication experiences and a "no-go voice list" to prevent creating voices too similar to well-known figures.

See the article here:

OpenAI's voice-cloning tool is impressive but full of safety concerns - NewsBytes

Posted in Cloning | Comments Off

OpenAI Unveils Groundbreaking Voice Cloning Technology, Prioritizes Safety Concerns – elblog.pl

Posted: at 5:49 am

OpenAI, renowned for its creation of the popular chatbot ChatGPT, has made a significant foray into the voice assistant industry. The company recently showcased its innovative Voice Engine technology, allowing the cloning of a persons voice. Despite this breakthrough, OpenAI has decided against publicly releasing the technology at present due to concerns about potential misuse.

By drawing on a mere 15-second audio recording of an individual speaking, OpenAIs Voice Engine can accurately replicate their voice. While the company plans to provide a preview to select early testers, it remains cautious about the technologys wider release, acknowledging the inherent risks involved. OpenAI is particularly mindful of the dangers of generating speech that closely resembles individuals voices, especially during an election year, when it could be exploited for harmful purposes.

The Oakland-based company, in a recent statement, emphasized that it recognizes the serious risks associated with voice cloning technology. The unfortunate incident during the New Hampshire presidential primary, where voters received robocalls featuring an AI-generated voice imitating President Joe Biden, highlights the potential misuse of such advancements. While multiple start-ups already offer voice-cloning technology accessible to the public or specific business enterprises like entertainment studios, OpenAI is prioritizing safety and responsible use.

To ensure ethical use, OpenAI has taken measures to safeguard the technology. Early Voice Engine testers have committed to refraining from impersonating individuals without their consent and are obligated to disclose the AI-generated nature of the voices. This responsible approach aims to mitigate potential harms associated with identity fraud or other ill-intentioned actions.

OpenAIs trajectory aligns with its previous strategic approach. The company previously announced, without extensive release, its video-generator Sora. However, a trademark application filed in March indicates that OpenAI likely intends to delve further into speech recognition and digital voice assistant technologies. By continuing to improve such innovations, OpenAI is positioning itself to compete with existing voice products like Amazons Alexa.

FAQ: Q: What is Voice Engine technology? A: OpenAIs Voice Engine technology allows the cloning of a persons voice using just a 15-second audio recording of them speaking.

Q: Why isnt OpenAI releasing the technology to the public? A: OpenAI has concerns about the potential misuse and risks associated with generating speech that resembles peoples voices, particularly during an election year.

Q: How does OpenAI ensure responsible use of the technology? A: Early Voice Engine testers have agreed not to impersonate someone without their consent and are obligated to disclose that the voices are AI-generated.

Q: What other technologies has OpenAI previously announced? A: OpenAI has previously introduced the video-generator Sora without a wide release.

Sources: [OpenAIs Voice Engine Technology](https://openai.com/voice-engine/) [Trademark Application](https://trademarks.justia.com/901/34/openai-90134377.html)

OpenAIs venture into the voice assistant industry with its Voice Engine technology is a significant development in the field. The companys innovative technology has the ability to clone a persons voice using a short 15-second audio recording. While OpenAI does plan to provide a preview of the technology to select early testers, there are concerns about the potential misuse and risks associated with its wider release.

One particular issue that OpenAI is mindful of is generating speech that closely resembles individuals voices during an election year. The company understands the harm that could come from exploiting this technology for malicious purposes. The incident during the New Hampshire presidential primary, where voters received robocalls featuring an AI-generated voice imitating President Joe Biden, highlights the need for responsible use and safeguards in place to prevent identity fraud and other ill-intentioned actions.

OpenAIs responsible approach aims to mitigate these potential harms. Early Voice Engine testers are committed to refraining from impersonating individuals without their consent and are obligated to disclose that the voices are AI-generated. This ethical use policy helps safeguard against misuse and misuse of the cloned voices.

While OpenAI has decided against publicly releasing the technology at present, it likely has future plans to further explore speech recognition and digital voice assistant technologies. A trademark application filed by the company indicates its ongoing interest in this area. By developing and improving these innovations, OpenAI is positioning itself to compete with existing voice products such as Amazons Alexa.

For additional information, you can visit OpenAIs website to learn more about their Voice Engine technology here. You can also refer to a trademark application filed by OpenAI for further insights here.

See the article here:

OpenAI Unveils Groundbreaking Voice Cloning Technology, Prioritizes Safety Concerns - elblog.pl

Posted in Cloning | Comments Off

Politically incorrect –

Posted: at 5:49 am

A hit new Japanese TV program challenges the zeitgeist with humor and generational time travel

A time-travelling TV comedy with a bawdy middle-aged hero has become a big hit in Japan, juxtaposing the countrys brash 1980s boom years with its more politically correct present day.

In the series, titled Extremely Inappropriate, the past isnt rose-tinted: theres smoking on the bus, boobs on television and corporal punishment galore.

But modern Japan doesnt get a free pass either.

When schoolteacher and father Ichiro Ogawa is catapulted from 1986 to this year, he scandalizes millennials and Gen Z-ers with his disregard for their views on gender, family and labor rights.

Implicit in his candid words is a question: is society today, with its good intentions around issues like diversity and work-life balance, really all its cracked up to be?

The shows satire of how Japan has changed over the decades has struck a chord with viewers young and old.

Last month, it became the first program made by major broadcaster TBS to top Netflixs most-watched list in Japan for three weeks running.

Producer Aki Isoyama, who is 56, initially thought it would be very challenging to poke fun at todays progressive values without triggering a backlash from the public.

The show isnt meant as a verdict on the superiority of one era over the other, she said.

But one inspiration for her and screenwriter Kankuro Kudo, 53, was the idea that life has become more difficult in some aspects today.

Our society has certainly gotten better, but in a way more restrictive, too, with everything dictated by compliance and protocols, Isoyama said.

Today, when something is pronounced unacceptable, we often unquestioningly accept that explanation and refrain from saying or doing it, she added.

The show will hopefully make viewers stop and ask themselves: Why was it banned in the first place?

HARASSMENT AND SEXISM

One 25-year-old fan, Mao Yamada, said the show is a reminder that our society has become more accepting of diversity, including LGBTQ rights.

Its good were now more mindful of things like sexual harassment, she said, adding that she understands why some might feel too many things are perhaps restricted and kept unsaid.

Workplace pep talks to Gen-Z hires are denounced as harassment in Extremely Inappropriate, and an exasperated TV producer tries to censor everything said on air.

Meanwhile, freewheeling Ogawa who in his own bygone world yells grow a pair! at male students and teases women about menopause is lambasted by todays generation, including a feminist sociologist.

He is enlightened on the concepts of gender neutrality and sexual consent. Marriage, he learns, is no longer the definition of happiness.

Viewer Kyo Maeda, 68, called the shows 1980s scenes an accurate portrayal of what our everyday life used to be like.

Our life was full of what could easily be seen as harassment and sexism by todays morals, he said.

In 1986, Japan was basking in the glow of its post-war evolution into an economic superpower, with many workers fixated on success, no matter the hours required.

On Extremely Inappropriate young recruits a generation shaped by Japans lost decades of stagnation from the early 1990s matter-of-factly clock off on time.

In the 80s, I loved going to work, you know, Maeda reminisced, chuckling. The economy was still picking up and we were all-out at work.

I feel like there was more hope and excitement about the future in the 80s than there is now, he said.

BOLDER THEMES

Extremely Inappropriate, whose final episode aired yesterday, has received its share of criticism in the real world.

Some say concepts like feminism or discrimination based on appearance are oversimplified, and that political correctness is treated as little more than a shackle on free speech.

Interspersed throughout the show are musical performances and jokey disclaimers excusing Ogawas gaffes and insults.

But beneath the levity is a serious message, said Takahiko Kageyama, a media studies professor at Doshisha Womens College of Liberal Arts.

The creators obviously wanted us to reflect on the status quo of our society, he said.

But if this intent had come off too straightforward or preachy, it wouldve just fallen flat.

The shows themes are bold given the sensitive landscape of Japans entertainment industry today, he said.

Boy-band empire Johnnys and Associates faced an existential crisis last year over a sexual abuse scandal involving its late founder.

Allegations of workplace bullying have also disgraced the prestigious theatre troupe Takarazuka Revue.

Producer Isoyama said that making the show in parallel with these events had sometimes felt uncanny.

With Johnnys and Takarazuka, it was like facts far stranger than fiction were unfolding around us, she said.

But this made us feel that the timing of the release would be fitting, considering how the industry is changing, the way it should.

Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.

See the article here:

Politically incorrect -

Posted in Political Correctness | Comments Off

The Second Amendment and 18-to-20-Year-Olds – Reason

Posted: March 29, 2024 at 2:49 am

From Third Circuit Judge Cheryl Krause's dissent from denial of rehearing en banc yesterday in Lara v. Commissioner; Judges Shwartz, Restrepo, Freeman, Montgomery-Reeves, and Chung also voted to rehear the case en banc, but didn't write an opinion or join Judge Krause's:

When they ratified the Second Amendment, our Founders did not intend to bind the nation in a straitjacket of 18th-century legislation, nor did they mean to prevent future generations from protecting themselves against gun violence more rampant and destructive than the Founders could have possibly imagined. At a minimum, one would think that the states' understanding of the Second Amendment at the time of the "Second Founding"the moment in 1868 when they incorporated the Bill of Rights against themselvesis part of "the Nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation" informing the constitutionality of modern-day regulations.

Indeed, since the Supreme Court tethered their constitutionality to the existence of historical precedent in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), we and the other Courts of Appeals have consistently looked to Reconstruction-era, as well as Founding-era sources, and, even as the Supreme Court has acknowledged the "ongoing scholarly debate" about their relevance, it too has relied on Reconstruction-era sources in each of its recent major opinions on the right to bear arms. Notably, the Supreme Court is expected within the next few months, if not weeks, to issue its next seminal opinion, clarifying its historical methodology in the absence of Founding-era analogues.

Yet despite our own precedent acknowledging the relevance of Reconstruction-era sources, our recognition in an en banc opinion just last year that the Supreme Court relies on both Founding-era and Reconstruction-era sources, and an imminent decision from the Supreme Court that may prove dispositive to this case, the panel majority here announced over Judge Restrepo's compelling dissentthat all historical sources after 1791 are irrelevant to our Nation's historical tradition and must be "set aside" when seeking out the "historical analogues" required to uphold a modern-day gun regulations. The panel majority then heldbased exclusively on 18th-century militia laws and without regard to the voluminous support the statutory scheme finds in 19th-century analoguesthat Pennsylvania's prohibition on 18-to-20-year-old youth carrying firearms in public during statewide emergencies is unconstitutional.

The panel majority was incorrect, but more importantly, it erred profoundly in the methodology to which it purports to bind this entire Court and with far-reaching consequences. Against this backdrop, we should be granting Pennsylvania'spetition for en banc review, supported by 17 other states and the District of Columbia as amici, or at least holding it c.a.v. pending the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Rahimi. But instead, over the objection of nearly half our Court, we are denying it outright.

I respectfully dissent from that denial for four reasons. First, without en banc review, the panel majority's pronouncement cannot bind future panels of this Court. We have held Reconstruction-era sources to be relevant in decisions both before and after Bruen so, under our case law and our Internal Operating Procedures, en banc rehearing is necessary before any subsequent panel can bind our Court to a contrary position. Second, en banc review would allow us to apply the proper historical methodology, which would compel a different outcome in this case. Third, en banc review is necessary for error correction: Even if we limit ourselves to Founding-era sources, the panel failed to recognize that legislatures in that era were authorized to categorically disarm groups they reasonably judged to pose a particular risk of danger, and Pennsylvania's modern-day judgment that youth under the age of 21 pose such a risk is well supported by evidence subject to judicial notice. And fourth, the majority's narrow focus on the Founding era demands rehearing because it ignores the Supreme Court's recognition that "cases implicating unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes may require a more nuanced approach." For each of these reasons, discussed in turn below, en banc review should be granted.

The entire dissenting opinion is much worth reading, as is the panel majority opinion that held that 18-to-20-year-olds are protected by the Second Amendment; an excerpt:

Through the combined operation of three statutes, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania effectively bans 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying firearms outside their homes during a state of emergency. Madison Lara, Sophia Knepley, and Logan Miller, who were in that age range when they filed this suit, want to carry firearms outside their homes for lawful purposes, including self-defense. The words "the people" in the Second Amendment presumptively encompass all adult Americans, including 18-to-20-year-olds, and we are aware of no founding-era law that supports disarming people in that age group. Accordingly, we will reverse and remand.

The Commissioner [argues] that, "[a]t the time of the Foundingand, indeed, for most of the Nation's historythose who were under the age of 21 were considered 'infants' or 'minors' in the eyes of the law[,]" "mean[ing] that they had few independent legal rights." True enough, from before the founding and through Reconstruction, those under the age of 21 were considered minors.

Notwithstanding the legal status of 18-to-21-year-olds during that period, however, the Commissioner's position is untenable for three reasons. First, it supposes that the first step of a Bruen analysis requires excluding individuals from "the people" if they were so excluded at the founding. That argument conflates Bruen's two distinct analytical steps. Although the government is tasked with identifying a historical analogue at the second step of the Bruen analysis, we are not limited to looking through that same retrospective lens at the first step. If, at step one, we were rigidly limited by eighteenth century conceptual boundaries, "the people" would consist of white, landed men, and that is obviously not the state of the law.

Second, it does not follow that, just because individuals under the age of 21 lacked certain legal rights at the founding, they were ex ante excluded from the scope of "the people." As then-Judge Barrett explained, "[n]either felons nor the mentally ill are categorically excluded from our national community." But "[t]hat does not mean that the government cannot prevent them from possessing guns. Instead, it means that the question is whether the government has the power to disable the exercise of a right that they otherwise possess."

Third, consistency has a claim on us. It is undisputed that 18-to-20-year-olds are among "the people" for other constitutional rights such as the right to vote, freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, government petitions, and the right against unreasonable government searches and seizures. [W]holesale exclusion of 18-to-20-year-olds from the scope of the Second Amendment would impermissibly render "the constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense 'a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.'"

Read the original:
The Second Amendment and 18-to-20-Year-Olds - Reason

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off

Chatbots like crime, hate firearms: A Second Amendment study – Washington Examiner

Posted: at 2:49 am

A new review of artificial intelligence chatbots popular with students, reporters, and researchers shows a liberal bias on crime and guns in a trend likely to turn even further left with todays announcement that Seattle-based Amazon is planning to invest $2.7 billion into artificial intelligence.

On some of the most controversial crime and gun issues, current popular AI rewriters and research tools show little love for conservative positions in bending in favor of an anti-gun and crime reform agenda.

The Crime Prevention Research Center, which has produced dozens of reports aimed at balancing the medias anti-gun bias, recently tested 20 AI chatbots by asking sixteen questions on crime and gun control and ranked the answers from liberal to conservative.

President John R. Lott Jr. said the results revealed a left-wing bias on questions that the systems answered.

On just one question, did the average answer score moderately conservative. That was on whether gun buybacks cut crime. On a zero to four scale, with two at the mid-point, it scored a 2.22. Answers to the rest were in the liberal 0-2 range.

For all the questions on crime, the average AI chatbot score is liberal, with answers for punishment versus rehabilitation (0.85), whether illegal aliens increase crime (0.89), and the death penalty as deterrence (1.00), creating the most consistently liberal responses, per Lotts report, which was shared with Secrets.

For example, 10 of the 16 AI chatbots responded that they strongly disagreed that punishment is more important than rehabilitation. Six of the 14 strongly disagreed that illegal immigration increases crime, and all the other eight disagreed. Nine of the 16 who answered the question on the death penalty strongly disagreed that it deterred crime, and five others disagreed, he added.

On gun control, the bias is even worse, he said in a post published on RealClearPolitics.

Questions eliciting the most liberal responses are background checks on private transfers of guns (0.83), gunlock requirements (0.89), and Red Flag confiscation laws (0.89). For background checks on private transfers, all the answers express agreement (15) or strong agreement (3). Similarly, all the chatbots either agree or strongly agree that mandatory gunlocks and Red Flag laws save lives, the report said.

While polls show support for those measures, it is not as high as the chatbots suggest.

At issue, said Lott, is the degree to which research papers and media reports on crime and guns are written by AI or through AI filters and how it could skew the presentation left.

SEE THE LATEST POLITICAL NEWS AND BUZZ FROM WASHINGTON SECRETS

But, he added, most who use online search engines such as Google are already getting a liberal view.

I am sure that reporters already use Google search a lot, and that is already similarly very biased, Lott told Secrets.

Read the original:
Chatbots like crime, hate firearms: A Second Amendment study - Washington Examiner

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off

OK: Oppose H.J.R. 1034, Unless Amended! | GOA – Gun Owners of America

Posted: at 2:49 am

Urgent Call to Action! Oppose H.J.R. 1034, Unless Amended!

Proposed Changes to Article II Section 26 of the Oklahoma Constitution are Being Brought Forth that are Inconstant with the Nations First Principles and Places Infringements upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is in the Final Stages of Approval!

In short order, the Oklahoma Senate Rules Committee will be holding a hearing on House Joint Resolution 1034, which proposes submitting to the people of Oklahoma a ballot initiative to amend Article II, Section 26 of the Oklahoma Constitution, titled Bearing arms Carrying Weapons.

Gun Owners of America appreciates the intent of the sponsors to strengthen protections within the Oklahoma Constitution, but there are too many concerns, as currently drafted, that would actually undermine rather than support the right to bear arms within Oklahoma.

Given the very real consequences for the citizenry of any effort to modify foundation legal compact, such an endeavor requires the drafters to be intentional in choosing their words by employ language that contains legal precision so that rouge courts and politicians cannot create regulation or edicts that take advantage of vagueness within the law.

We have already witnessed the disastrous consequences of the deluge of anti-liberty forces and their continual assault upon the with the right to keep and bear within the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, the right has never been under greater assault across the nation then it is in our time. Hence the importance of maintaining a solemn bearing of exactness in language, which ensures that there is certainty within the mind of the citizenry about what the constitution says in plain English.

Lastly, but most importantly, the language of the constitution must maintain fidelity to the First Principle of the nation. For reasons covered within GOAs testimony, the right of Oklahomans to keep and bear arms stands on unstable legal grounds due to the original 1907 language, as well as subsequent Oklahoma court precedents that were clear deviations from the original internet of the right in the Federal Compact. Any ground that has been gain in recent years has occurred within the state statutes. Meaning that, at any point, a legislature that does maintain loyalty to the tenets that lay at the heart of our nations laws could arbitrarily reverse those gains by merely changing the statutes with a simple majority.

Given that the singular duty of a just government is to safeguard the liberties of the citizenry and to provide justice, we must maintain fidelity to the noble aim of ensuring the furtherance of prudent government.

Our rights are not only self-evidently true, but they are also endowed upon us by or Creator. Thus, they are not a grant by the government, nor can they be stripped away by any earthly power. That timeless truth is such, regardless of whether the infringing misconduct is instigated by a lawless individual or by the actions of an unjust government.

Consequently, we need to aggressively, but respectfully, fight with the pen (or keyboard), because a government that forces the citizenry to ask permission before exercising their God-given rights or, through a convoluted web of edicts and regulations, denies the citizenry their essential liberties, is one that views our cherished freedoms as mere privileges to be revoked at their impulsive authoritarian whims.

As introduced, the new subsections A and C must be amended to align H.J.R. 1034 with the original intent of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and with the first principles that the amendment was drafted to protect.

Additionally, the new subsection B should be stuck in its entirety from the resolution. Subsection B is unconstitutional as written and contains clear deviations that places the new language in direct conflict with the Federal Compact, as well as significant Supreme Court precedents.

Please review GOAs in-depth opposition testimony for information that provides more context detailing our significant concerns about the dangerous nature language of H.J.R. 1034.

Therefore, it is imperative that you take action now in order to preserve our God-given rights and let your voice be heard.

Continue reading here:
OK: Oppose H.J.R. 1034, Unless Amended! | GOA - Gun Owners of America

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off

Gordon Signed Four Second Amendment Bills, Vetoed Another – WyoToday.com

Posted: at 2:49 am

Governor Mark Gordon signed four bills today that strengthen Wyomings status as a Second-Amendment friendly state. The Governor signedSF0073 - Concealed firearms-permit eligibility,SF0105 - Wyoming Second Amendment Financial Privacy Act,SF0109 - Prohibit Red Flag Gun Seizure Act., andSF0086 - School safety and security-funding.

SF0105 protects the privacy and sensitive financial information of people purchasing firearms, firearms parts, or ammunition in Wyoming by prohibiting credit card processors from using firearms or firearm-related merchant category codes. It also prohibits government or private entities from keeping any registry of privately-owned firearms or the owners of those firearms created or maintained through the use of a firearms code.

SF0109 prohibits red flag gun laws from being enforced or implemented in Wyoming, while SF0073 amends the concealed carry permit regulations to make those who have had their firearms rights restored, eligible. SF0086 creates an account to reimburse school districts for costs related to possession of firearms on school property by school district employees.

The Governor vetoedHB0125 - Repeal gun free zones and preemption amendmentsdue to concerns that HB0125 exceeds the separation of powers embodied in Article 2 of ourWyoming Constitution.If the bill were enacted, any specific policy, further regulation, or clarification of the law could only be implemented by the Legislature.

House Bill 125/Enrolled Act No. 49, erodes historic local control norms by giving sole authority to the Legislature to micromanage a constitutionally protected right, Governor Gordon wrote in his veto letter. Any further clarification of the law, if this bill were enacted, would augment the Legislatures reach into local firearms regulation.

The Governor noted the bill would require each state facility, such as the University of Wyoming, Wyoming State Hospital, or the Wyoming Boys School, to receive legislative approval to restrict carrying firearms, or even to set policies as practical as proper weapon storage. It would also repeal the statute that has allowed school districts to establish specific policies allowing concealed carry in their districts.

Every piece of legislation must stand for critical review, particularly those affecting our constitutional rights, the Governor wrote. As delivered to my desk, this bill lacks sufficient review and debate. A bill covering such a sensitive topic does not lend itself to successive tweaks to correct flaws, and therefore I believe the Legislature should be open to debating and fully working this bill through its established processes.

The Governor concluded he will direct the State Building Commission to begin a process to reconsider rules to allow concealed carry permit holders to exercise their rights within the Capitol and other appropriate state facilities. That process will involve significant public input.

The Governors veto letter may be foundhere.

Original post:
Gordon Signed Four Second Amendment Bills, Vetoed Another - WyoToday.com

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off

Monthly Archives: March 2024

OpenAI unveils voice-cloning tool | National | caledonianrecord.com – The Caledonian-Record

OpenAI unveils voice-cloning tool | National | elkharttruth.com – The Elkhart Truth

OpenAI reveals impressive voice cloning model, and it’s scary good – XDA Developers

OpenAI’s voice-cloning tool is impressive but full of safety concerns – NewsBytes

OpenAI Unveils Groundbreaking Voice Cloning Technology, Prioritizes Safety Concerns – elblog.pl

Politically incorrect –

The Second Amendment and 18-to-20-Year-Olds – Reason

Chatbots like crime, hate firearms: A Second Amendment study – Washington Examiner

OK: Oppose H.J.R. 1034, Unless Amended! | GOA – Gun Owners of America

Gordon Signed Four Second Amendment Bills, Vetoed Another – WyoToday.com

The Prometheus League

Breaking News and Updates

Prometheism

Forbidden Fruit

The Evolutionary Perspective

Transtopia Menu

Library Updates

Library Books

Future Euvolution

Lucid Dreams from Childhood

Genetic Revolution

Speciation + Self-Directed Evolution