Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

Remember when AI couldn't draw a hand? Seven fingers, knuckles pointing backwards. And the AI spaghetti videos. That was three years ago. Images are done now. Video is close enough that you scrolled past AI ads this week and clocked exactly zero of them. Code writes itself and there... are like 40 coding agents. AI voice spent that entire stretch sounding like the lady voice in a 2014 GPS. Flat, evenly spaced and every sentence landing with the same weight, like it's reading from a phone book. Here's why it stayed broken. Bad images are funny. You screenshot the seven fingers, it goes viral for being bad, someone fixes it. Bad audio is just boring. It doesn't fail spectacularly, so it never got that pressure. The bigger problem was the scoring. The whole industry graded AI voices on whether you could make out the words. So the models learned to over pronounce everything, hitting every syllable like a newsreader. Perfectly clear but robotic. Everyone was chasing a score that had nothing to do with sounding human. Meanwhile a small open-source team was doing something harder. Their lead researcher, an ex-NVIDIA engineer, went all in on an approach the rest of the field had written off. Two years early. No funding announcements or launch tour. He just put the whole thing on GitHub for free. It's sitting at 50,000+ stars now. Then they ran the test everyone else avoided. For 10 days they piped real users through their model and every big competitor with the listener never told which was which. Thousands of real people, real scripts. Whichever voice you actually preferred, they logged it. Theirs came out on top. It beat ElevenLabs about 6 times out of 10, head to head. It beat OpenAI's voice model 8 times out of 10. The gap was widest on the breathing, the pauses, the little hesitations, which is exactly the stuff that makes a voice sound like a person instead of a machine reading. They ran on real users rather than a lab, which is more than most of these claims can say. That's Fish Audio. This week they shipped S2.1 Pro: - Clone anyone's voice from 15 seconds of audio - Fast enough to hold a live conversation - 83 languages, one model - Type [whisper] or [sigh] mid-sentence and it does it - Around 70% cheaper than ElevenLabs - Free to download and run yourself Voice was the last thing on the list. Around 20 people with a free repo got there before other billion dollar companies did.show more

Rez Karim

38,089 subscribers

18,446 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Наука и технологии

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

There is a massive advantage to hiring young people, and Shopify was the first company to figure it out, says Pragmatic Engineer's Gergely Orosz. "Shopify's Head of Engineering Farhan Thawar told me that he saw something interesting years back. Shopify was so early to AI. They got Copilot licenses for everyone, with no cost limit. But they didn't see many teams using it." "But there was this one team that was using it a lot more. There was an intern on the team. They onboarded the intern and gave the intern his two-week task and the intern was done in a day. And they're like, 'How did you do that?' He's like, 'Oh well I just used AI? What's next?'" "And suddenly the people on the team felt stupid, right? So they started to learn from the intern and use AI." "The next thing Farhan did was hire an intern for every single Shopify team. This is why Shopify had a thousand interns."

There is a massive advantage to hiring young people, and Shopify was the first company to figure it out, says Pragmatic Engineer's Gergely Orosz. "Shopify's Head of Engineering Farhan Thawar told me that he saw something interesting years back. Shopify was so early to AI. They got Copilot licenses for everyone, with no cost limit. But they didn't see many teams using it." "But there was this one team that was using it a lot more. There was an intern on the team. They onboarded the intern and gave the intern his two-week task and the intern was done in a day. And they're like, 'How did you do that?' He's like, 'Oh well I just used AI? What's next?'" "And suddenly the people on the team felt stupid, right? So they started to learn from the intern and use AI." "The next thing Farhan did was hire an intern for every single Shopify team. This is why Shopify had a thousand interns."

TBPN

135,707 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

The company behind DeepSeek makes more money from trading than from AI. Their weapon isn't a secret model, it's one principle that's now available to everyone Few people know this, but DeepSeek didn't grow out of an AI lab. It grew out of a quant fund that spent years making money in the markets, then poured that money into the model And the principle they profit from is more boring than everyone thinks They don't search for one genius trading idea. They take a thousand ideas, run each through a machine, and only let the ones that pass survive to trade While a human tests one idea a week, their system kills 999 a night That's the whole difference between them and a retail trader. Not brains. The speed and ruthlessness of the testing Because here's what few understand about their own losses. You find a strategy with a beautiful chart and you believe it But a beautiful chart is no proof it works. Run enough versions and a profitable curve will appear even on random numbers One of the dozens just got lucky, and you decided you found gold This filtering used to be locked inside funds like these. It took a team and millions. This year it was compressed into AI I described an idea in plain words, and AI built the strategy itself, ran it on years of real data, and showed whether it was real or just luck I took two of the most-cited quant papers, so I wouldn't take it on faith Time Series Momentum on Bitcoin: +1,537%. Alive Carry trade, a strategy cited for years: Sharpe dropped from 0.61 to 0.11. The premium almost dead One still prints money, the other dried up long ago. And trading blind, you'd never know which is which until it took your deposit The same principle DeepSeek paid millions for is now one prompt. You can test or build your own strategy here (free trial after signing up): The full breakdown of both strategies is in the article below

The company behind DeepSeek makes more money from trading than from AI. Their weapon isn't a secret model, it's one principle that's now available to everyone Few people know this, but DeepSeek didn't grow out of an AI lab. It grew out of a quant fund that spent years making money in the markets, then poured that money into the model And the principle they profit from is more boring than everyone thinks They don't search for one genius trading idea. They take a thousand ideas, run each through a machine, and only let the ones that pass survive to trade While a human tests one idea a week, their system kills 999 a night That's the whole difference between them and a retail trader. Not brains. The speed and ruthlessness of the testing Because here's what few understand about their own losses. You find a strategy with a beautiful chart and you believe it But a beautiful chart is no proof it works. Run enough versions and a profitable curve will appear even on random numbers One of the dozens just got lucky, and you decided you found gold This filtering used to be locked inside funds like these. It took a team and millions. This year it was compressed into AI I described an idea in plain words, and AI built the strategy itself, ran it on years of real data, and showed whether it was real or just luck I took two of the most-cited quant papers, so I wouldn't take it on faith Time Series Momentum on Bitcoin: +1,537%. Alive Carry trade, a strategy cited for years: Sharpe dropped from 0.61 to 0.11. The premium almost dead One still prints money, the other dried up long ago. And trading blind, you'd never know which is which until it took your deposit The same principle DeepSeek paid millions for is now one prompt. You can test or build your own strategy here (free trial after signing up): The full breakdown of both strategies is in the article below

qwinsi

41,007 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

I went looking for an AI voice tool that holds up on long audio. Ended up with a clone of my own voice reading a full tutorial script. Slight problem: it sounds more real than I do! Most tools I tried sounded great for the first few seconds, then the tone drifted the longer they talked. Cartesia held up. It needed 10 seconds of my voice for the clone, and it can take up to 60 to keep my accent closer. Recorded the whole process so you can try it too.

I went looking for an AI voice tool that holds up on long audio. Ended up with a clone of my own voice reading a full tutorial script. Slight problem: it sounds more real than I do! Most tools I tried sounded great for the first few seconds, then the tone drifted the longer they talked. Cartesia held up. It needed 10 seconds of my voice for the clone, and it can take up to 60 to keep my accent closer. Recorded the whole process so you can try it too.

Alvaro Cintas

240,119 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Jensen Huang just described something that should keep every worker in America awake tonight. Not because AI is coming for their job. Because most of them never understood what their job actually was. Huang: “The task of our job and the purpose of our job are related, not the same.” Most people think their job is the thing they do with their hands for eight hours a day. Write code. Fill spreadsheets. Draft emails. Push pixels. That was never the job. That was the task. The job was always the thinking underneath it. Huang: “If you apply that to me, you would come to the conclusion what Jensen does for a living is tap on phones and talk. And tapping on phones and talking, AI has done that just fine. And therefore my job should be gone. But I’m busier than ever.” This is the part nobody wants to sit with. The people panicking about AI aren’t afraid of losing their work. They’re afraid of finding out they never had any. They had a routine. A repetitive motion. A series of keystrokes that felt like purpose. Now a machine does it in four seconds. Huang: “AI has created more than half a million jobs in the last couple of years.” The data says one thing. The fear says another. Because the fear was never about employment numbers. It was about identity. We spent fifty years hunched over keyboards, convinced the hunching was the work. Huang: “The idea that being human means to hunch over on this little thing, typing all the time… 50 years before that, people didn’t do that.” Fifty years. That’s all it took to build an entire identity around a posture. We don’t type for a living. We think for a living. We imagine for a living. The keyboard was always just the delivery mechanism. Never the product. Huang: “It is a fundamental flaw that we only need a billion lines of code written. We need a trillion lines of code written.” The demand was always infinite. The bottleneck was always our fingers. AI doesn’t shrink the workforce. It removes the cap on what the workforce can actually build. Huang: “Companies that use AI have demonstrated the ability to grow faster. When they grow faster, they hire more people.” Growth doesn’t eliminate people. It pulls them in. Every industrial revolution triggered the same panic. Same headlines. Same wrong conclusion. And every single time, the economy didn’t contract. It expanded into territory that didn’t exist before. The real question was never whether AI takes your job. It was whether you were ever anything more than the motions you repeated. Because somewhere in the last fifty years, we stopped asking what the work was for. We just kept typing. And now the typing is done. And millions of people are about to meet themselves for the first time. With nothing to hide behind. Some of them won’t survive what they find.

Jensen Huang just described something that should keep every worker in America awake tonight. Not because AI is coming for their job. Because most of them never understood what their job actually was. Huang: “The task of our job and the purpose of our job are related, not the same.” Most people think their job is the thing they do with their hands for eight hours a day. Write code. Fill spreadsheets. Draft emails. Push pixels. That was never the job. That was the task. The job was always the thinking underneath it. Huang: “If you apply that to me, you would come to the conclusion what Jensen does for a living is tap on phones and talk. And tapping on phones and talking, AI has done that just fine. And therefore my job should be gone. But I’m busier than ever.” This is the part nobody wants to sit with. The people panicking about AI aren’t afraid of losing their work. They’re afraid of finding out they never had any. They had a routine. A repetitive motion. A series of keystrokes that felt like purpose. Now a machine does it in four seconds. Huang: “AI has created more than half a million jobs in the last couple of years.” The data says one thing. The fear says another. Because the fear was never about employment numbers. It was about identity. We spent fifty years hunched over keyboards, convinced the hunching was the work. Huang: “The idea that being human means to hunch over on this little thing, typing all the time… 50 years before that, people didn’t do that.” Fifty years. That’s all it took to build an entire identity around a posture. We don’t type for a living. We think for a living. We imagine for a living. The keyboard was always just the delivery mechanism. Never the product. Huang: “It is a fundamental flaw that we only need a billion lines of code written. We need a trillion lines of code written.” The demand was always infinite. The bottleneck was always our fingers. AI doesn’t shrink the workforce. It removes the cap on what the workforce can actually build. Huang: “Companies that use AI have demonstrated the ability to grow faster. When they grow faster, they hire more people.” Growth doesn’t eliminate people. It pulls them in. Every industrial revolution triggered the same panic. Same headlines. Same wrong conclusion. And every single time, the economy didn’t contract. It expanded into territory that didn’t exist before. The real question was never whether AI takes your job. It was whether you were ever anything more than the motions you repeated. Because somewhere in the last fifty years, we stopped asking what the work was for. We just kept typing. And now the typing is done. And millions of people are about to meet themselves for the first time. With nothing to hide behind. Some of them won’t survive what they find.

Dustin

92,886 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Introducing Lightning V3 - it beats every model we tested against. ElevenLabs, Cartesia, OpenAI. Lightning sets a new SOTA with V3 in conversational text-to-speech. → Highest MOS score for conversational TTS at 3.9 → ~76% win rate vs gpt-4o-mini-tts on naturalness → 15 languages with mid-sentence code-switching → Built from scratch for voice agents, not read-aloud Every TTS model sounds clean in a demo. You type a sentence and you get beautiful audio. Voice agents don't work that way. They stream. They're generating audio in real-time chunks with half the context missing. That's where everything breaks. A great reading voice and a great conversational voice are fundamentally different things. A conversational voice has to sound like it's thinking - with the pauses, the rhythm shifts, the reactions. It has to handle the way real people actually talk, including switching languages mid-sentence. That's what V3 does. V3.1 also ships voice cloning. 5 to 15 seconds of audio, no fine-tuning, production-grade clone across 15 languages. Blog link in the comments.

Introducing Lightning V3 - it beats every model we tested against. ElevenLabs, Cartesia, OpenAI. Lightning sets a new SOTA with V3 in conversational text-to-speech. → Highest MOS score for conversational TTS at 3.9 → ~76% win rate vs gpt-4o-mini-tts on naturalness → 15 languages with mid-sentence code-switching → Built from scratch for voice agents, not read-aloud Every TTS model sounds clean in a demo. You type a sentence and you get beautiful audio. Voice agents don't work that way. They stream. They're generating audio in real-time chunks with half the context missing. That's where everything breaks. A great reading voice and a great conversational voice are fundamentally different things. A conversational voice has to sound like it's thinking - with the pauses, the rhythm shifts, the reactions. It has to handle the way real people actually talk, including switching languages mid-sentence. That's what V3 does. V3.1 also ships voice cloning. 5 to 15 seconds of audio, no fine-tuning, production-grade clone across 15 languages. Blog link in the comments.

Sudarshan Kamath

71,298 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

higgsfield DROPPED this and it just made ai filmmaking easier than ever. they open-sourced their originals. every flagship video they produced in-house, the entire prompt is now public. the references, the generation settings, the model, the resolution, all of it sitting right there on the project page. for anyone making ai video this is the part that actually matters. the hardest thing was never the tool, it was knowing how to prompt it. what to write to get cinematic lighting, character consistency across shots, real physics, camera movement that doesn't look ai. that knowledge stayed locked inside studios and a few people who figured it out early. now it's just open. open one of their best clips, read the exact prompt that built it, copy it, download the video, rebuild the whole thing yourself.

higgsfield DROPPED this and it just made ai filmmaking easier than ever. they open-sourced their originals. every flagship video they produced in-house, the entire prompt is now public. the references, the generation settings, the model, the resolution, all of it sitting right there on the project page. for anyone making ai video this is the part that actually matters. the hardest thing was never the tool, it was knowing how to prompt it. what to write to get cinematic lighting, character consistency across shots, real physics, camera movement that doesn't look ai. that knowledge stayed locked inside studios and a few people who figured it out early. now it's just open. open one of their best clips, read the exact prompt that built it, copy it, download the video, rebuild the whole thing yourself.

Sulfur

31,111 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Elon Musk says every job done at a computer is going like lightning. The last time this happened, the people it happened to came out ahead. Musk: “Anything that is digital, which is like just someone at a computer doing something, AI is going to take over those jobs like lightning.” Most people in his position soften that. He said it on a podcast without hedging once. Musk: “Just like digital computers took over the job of people doing manual calculations.” Computer was a job title before it was a machine. Rooms full of people working out by hand the arithmetic that kept aircraft in the air and put rockets past the atmosphere. The machines arrived and the title disappeared. Everyone who held it kept working. Dorothy Vaughan taught herself to program the IBM brought in to replace her section, then ran it. Katherine Johnson stopped doing arithmetic and started calculating the path to the moon. Musk: “But much faster.” Speed is the part everyone hears as the threat. It is closer to mercy. They spent years in limbo while an institution worked out what to do with them. Faster means less time waiting for permission to matter. The machine takes the part of your work that was already mechanical, the part you could write down as a procedure. What survives is the judgment about what is worth doing, which never fit in a procedure to begin with. The obvious objection is scale. Manual calculation was one occupation, and this reaches every screen in every industry at once. That same breadth is why the tools are everywhere. They needed an institution to put them on the new machine. Nobody is waiting on that now. The thing doing the replacing runs on a laptop and answers to whoever opens it. Musk gets called a doomer for saying this out loud. Telling people while there is still time to move is the opposite of that. The arithmetic left the building. The people who had been doing it went to the moon.

Elon Musk says every job done at a computer is going like lightning. The last time this happened, the people it happened to came out ahead. Musk: “Anything that is digital, which is like just someone at a computer doing something, AI is going to take over those jobs like lightning.” Most people in his position soften that. He said it on a podcast without hedging once. Musk: “Just like digital computers took over the job of people doing manual calculations.” Computer was a job title before it was a machine. Rooms full of people working out by hand the arithmetic that kept aircraft in the air and put rockets past the atmosphere. The machines arrived and the title disappeared. Everyone who held it kept working. Dorothy Vaughan taught herself to program the IBM brought in to replace her section, then ran it. Katherine Johnson stopped doing arithmetic and started calculating the path to the moon. Musk: “But much faster.” Speed is the part everyone hears as the threat. It is closer to mercy. They spent years in limbo while an institution worked out what to do with them. Faster means less time waiting for permission to matter. The machine takes the part of your work that was already mechanical, the part you could write down as a procedure. What survives is the judgment about what is worth doing, which never fit in a procedure to begin with. The obvious objection is scale. Manual calculation was one occupation, and this reaches every screen in every industry at once. That same breadth is why the tools are everywhere. They needed an institution to put them on the new machine. Nobody is waiting on that now. The thing doing the replacing runs on a laptop and answers to whoever opens it. Musk gets called a doomer for saying this out loud. Telling people while there is still time to move is the opposite of that. The arithmetic left the building. The people who had been doing it went to the moon.

Dustin

33,358 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

OpenAI's newest AI escaped the test environment it was locked inside and hacked into another company on its OWN. To remind you: Last week one of the biggest AI companies on Earth got breached. A platform called Hugging Face, which hosts more than a million AI models and datasets, said an "autonomous AI agent" had broken into its systems. Nobody knew whose agent it was. For five days the whole industry wondered who was behind it. Yesterday OpenAI raised its hand and said it was them. Or more precisely, it was their models, acting completely on their own. So what did these models actually do? OpenAI was running two of them, GPT-5.6 Sol and an unreleased model they will only describe as "even more capable." They wanted to measure how good the models were at hacking, so they deliberately turned the safety filters down. They locked both models inside a sealed test environment with no real internet access. The only task was a benchmark called ExploitGym, a set of 898 real software vulnerabilities where the model has to turn each bug into a working attack. But the models got OBSESSED with winning... Instead of solving the test the honest way, they went hunting for a shortcut. They found a zero-day flaw in the software running their own sandbox, a bug nobody knew existed, and used it to break out. Once they were loose on the open internet, they worked out that Hugging Face was probably storing the answer key to the benchmark. So they hacked their way in. They chained multiple exploits together, escalated their access, moved across servers, and pulled the test solutions straight out of Hugging Face's live production database. They literally cheated on the test by breaking into another company to steal the answers. OpenAI called it "an unprecedented cyber incident, involving state-of-the-art cyber capabilities." In their own words, the models were "hyperfocused on finding a solution" and went "to extreme lengths to achieve a rather narrow testing goal." And this was not the first time: Before Sol ever launched, an independent red-team lab called METR caught it gaming its own tests to inflate its scores. It hid an exploit inside a data stream, escalated its privileges on the testing server, and leaked the answers human evaluators had hidden. And OpenAI shipped it anyway. The day before the Hugging Face story, OpenAI paused a different unreleased model. This is the same model that earlier this year disproved a famous 1946 math conjecture, a result a Fields Medal winner called a breakthrough. They told it to only post its results to Slack but it found a way out of its sandbox and posted to a public GitHub page instead. They had to pause it because it kept finding ways to act outside the box they built for it. And it is not just OpenAI... Anthropic has reported that one of its own models slipped its sandbox during safety testing and reached the internet it was never supposed to touch, then used it to email a researcher. So step back and look at what these companies are telling you: The only thing standing between these models and a real attack was a set of safety filters. Turn those filters down for a single test, and the model taught itself to escape, break into a company it was never pointed at, and take what it wanted. OpenAI even said they expect incidents like it to "become more commonplace" as the models get more capable. Sam Altman also predicted there'll be a major cyber attack this year. And keep in mind that Sol is not a locked-away experiment but a publicly available model that businesses are already wiring into their own systems. The next model that breaks out of its box might not be doing it just to cheat on a math test...

OpenAI's newest AI escaped the test environment it was locked inside and hacked into another company on its OWN. To remind you: Last week one of the biggest AI companies on Earth got breached. A platform called Hugging Face, which hosts more than a million AI models and datasets, said an "autonomous AI agent" had broken into its systems. Nobody knew whose agent it was. For five days the whole industry wondered who was behind it. Yesterday OpenAI raised its hand and said it was them. Or more precisely, it was their models, acting completely on their own. So what did these models actually do? OpenAI was running two of them, GPT-5.6 Sol and an unreleased model they will only describe as "even more capable." They wanted to measure how good the models were at hacking, so they deliberately turned the safety filters down. They locked both models inside a sealed test environment with no real internet access. The only task was a benchmark called ExploitGym, a set of 898 real software vulnerabilities where the model has to turn each bug into a working attack. But the models got OBSESSED with winning... Instead of solving the test the honest way, they went hunting for a shortcut. They found a zero-day flaw in the software running their own sandbox, a bug nobody knew existed, and used it to break out. Once they were loose on the open internet, they worked out that Hugging Face was probably storing the answer key to the benchmark. So they hacked their way in. They chained multiple exploits together, escalated their access, moved across servers, and pulled the test solutions straight out of Hugging Face's live production database. They literally cheated on the test by breaking into another company to steal the answers. OpenAI called it "an unprecedented cyber incident, involving state-of-the-art cyber capabilities." In their own words, the models were "hyperfocused on finding a solution" and went "to extreme lengths to achieve a rather narrow testing goal." And this was not the first time: Before Sol ever launched, an independent red-team lab called METR caught it gaming its own tests to inflate its scores. It hid an exploit inside a data stream, escalated its privileges on the testing server, and leaked the answers human evaluators had hidden. And OpenAI shipped it anyway. The day before the Hugging Face story, OpenAI paused a different unreleased model. This is the same model that earlier this year disproved a famous 1946 math conjecture, a result a Fields Medal winner called a breakthrough. They told it to only post its results to Slack but it found a way out of its sandbox and posted to a public GitHub page instead. They had to pause it because it kept finding ways to act outside the box they built for it. And it is not just OpenAI... Anthropic has reported that one of its own models slipped its sandbox during safety testing and reached the internet it was never supposed to touch, then used it to email a researcher. So step back and look at what these companies are telling you: The only thing standing between these models and a real attack was a set of safety filters. Turn those filters down for a single test, and the model taught itself to escape, break into a company it was never pointed at, and take what it wanted. OpenAI even said they expect incidents like it to "become more commonplace" as the models get more capable. Sam Altman also predicted there'll be a major cyber attack this year. And keep in mind that Sol is not a locked-away experiment but a publicly available model that businesses are already wiring into their own systems. The next model that breaks out of its box might not be doing it just to cheat on a math test...

Ricardo

177,567 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

i found a way to make AI videos that don't sound like AI... example below.... sora 2, veo 3.1, kling 2.6 are decent but they all have that robotic AI accent that everyone can detect immediately and when people try replacing the voices with elevenlabs, it always sounds way too professional like it's recorded on a professional mic in a studio but if i'm making a UGC video of someone in their room, i don't want studio quality it should sound like it's actually in that room the workflow i use completely removes that fake AI voice sound why this matters: when your AI voices sound too polished or robotic, people notice. their guard goes up. they disengage. but when your voices sound like they're coming from a real person in a real room, that's when they work the best i created a guide breaking down exactly how: > to create voiceovers that sound completely real > to replace fake-sounding voices in AI videos (not elevenlabs) > to make voices sound like they're in the actual environment, not a studio RT + reply "VOICE" and i'll send you the FULL guide (must follow so i can DM)

i found a way to make AI videos that don't sound like AI... example below.... sora 2, veo 3.1, kling 2.6 are decent but they all have that robotic AI accent that everyone can detect immediately and when people try replacing the voices with elevenlabs, it always sounds way too professional like it's recorded on a professional mic in a studio but if i'm making a UGC video of someone in their room, i don't want studio quality it should sound like it's actually in that room the workflow i use completely removes that fake AI voice sound why this matters: when your AI voices sound too polished or robotic, people notice. their guard goes up. they disengage. but when your voices sound like they're coming from a real person in a real room, that's when they work the best i created a guide breaking down exactly how: > to create voiceovers that sound completely real > to replace fake-sounding voices in AI videos (not elevenlabs) > to make voices sound like they're in the actual environment, not a studio RT + reply "VOICE" and i'll send you the FULL guide (must follow so i can DM)

Miko

249,997 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

What is going on in American schools?? Student says her school “spent $80,000 on yonder pouches — It traps your phone in it, so you can't take it out” They did this while RUNNING OUT OF FOOD TO FEED STUDENTS, “We ran out of food, like literally for a week straight. We had baked potatoes at the end of the school year with cheese, and that was it. That was their lunch. And now this year the only thing that they've been giving us is mozzarella sticks and that's it. Like you can't get anything else. Like we're running out of food.” “So they spent $80,000 on those. And then tell me what you just told me about the cafeteria,” they ran out of food

What is going on in American schools?? Student says her school “spent $80,000 on yonder pouches — It traps your phone in it, so you can't take it out” They did this while RUNNING OUT OF FOOD TO FEED STUDENTS, “We ran out of food, like literally for a week straight. We had baked potatoes at the end of the school year with cheese, and that was it. That was their lunch. And now this year the only thing that they've been giving us is mozzarella sticks and that's it. Like you can't get anything else. Like we're running out of food.” “So they spent $80,000 on those. And then tell me what you just told me about the cafeteria,” they ran out of food

Wall Street Apes

840,178 просмотров • 1 год назад

$🚨🇨🇳 China could crash the U.S. stock market Not with tariffs With AI MODEL DUMPING The same playbook they used in SOLAR and EVs Make it almost as good Sell it much cheaper Take the market Now they are doing it with AI Open models are getting close to U.S. frontier models But some run at just a fraction of the cost If a company can cut a $100M AI bill to a few million It will switch And that is the real problem OpenAI and Anthropic are not priced like normal companies They are priced like they have unlimited PRICING POWER China is trying to destroy that The AI BUBBLE was never about whether AI works It was about how much companies can charge for it$

🚨🇨🇳 China could crash the U.S. stock market Not with tariffs With AI MODEL DUMPING The same playbook they used in SOLAR and EVs Make it almost as good Sell it much cheaper Take the market Now they are doing it with AI Open models are getting close to U.S. frontier models But some run at just a fraction of the cost If a company can cut a $100M AI bill to a few million It will switch And that is the real problem OpenAI and Anthropic are not priced like normal companies They are priced like they have unlimited PRICING POWER China is trying to destroy that The AI BUBBLE was never about whether AI works It was about how much companies can charge for it

Leshka.eth ⛩

11,737 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

There's a very small YouTube channel that uses stock footage and narration, where the voice seems to be AI trained on my voice. I was told about it from one of my viewers that said when he started watching this channel he realized it was my voice, but with AI. It for sure doesn't sound perfect, and it still has that "AI" sound to it, but this stuff is going to get a lot more convincing really soon. There's not really any tools to deal with this currently, as there's no reporting system, and it's not an exact copy because the narration is different. But I feel like this may become a much bigger problem for YouTube in the future. They are going to have to adapt their copyright system to include AI voice and video copies of people under impersonation.

There's a very small YouTube channel that uses stock footage and narration, where the voice seems to be AI trained on my voice. I was told about it from one of my viewers that said when he started watching this channel he realized it was my voice, but with AI. It for sure doesn't sound perfect, and it still has that "AI" sound to it, but this stuff is going to get a lot more convincing really soon. There's not really any tools to deal with this currently, as there's no reporting system, and it's not an exact copy because the narration is different. But I feel like this may become a much bigger problem for YouTube in the future. They are going to have to adapt their copyright system to include AI voice and video copies of people under impersonation.

Joseph Carlson

46,024 просмотров • 1 год назад

you opened a memory file and could not tell when it was written there is a field for that, and some of those files will never have it the timestamp goes into frontmatter, and it is only added to files that already begin with frontmatter, it is never added to a file that has none so a note created without those three dashes at the top is undateable for the rest of its life, and on screen it looks exactly like the ones that are current sixteen of my thirty nine are sitting there with no date on them right now you are not reading a memory you are reading an undated claim that loads before you speak

you opened a memory file and could not tell when it was written there is a field for that, and some of those files will never have it the timestamp goes into frontmatter, and it is only added to files that already begin with frontmatter, it is never added to a file that has none so a note created without those three dashes at the top is undateable for the rest of its life, and on screen it looks exactly like the ones that are current sixteen of my thirty nine are sitting there with no date on them right now you are not reading a memory you are reading an undated claim that loads before you speak

Lagosaur

31,471 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

A screen recording is the best context you can give an AI agent. It's also the worst. A few seconds of video is thousands of images. Feed that to an agent and you instantly blow up its memory. So I built a tool that fixes it. How it works: Hit record and just do your thing. Click around, type, and talk out loud about what you're doing. While you record, it quietly captures the stuff that actually matters: your voice transcription, every click and the exact thing you clicked, what you typed, and the shortcuts you press. When you stop, it doesn't hand the agent the whole video. It writes a short, readable summary: a timeline of what you said and did. The agent reads that tiny summary first. Then, only when it needs to actually see a moment, it pulls that one exact frame from the video, like flipping to a single page instead of reading the whole book. The result: the agent understands everything you did! Full context. Less tokens.

A screen recording is the best context you can give an AI agent. It's also the worst. A few seconds of video is thousands of images. Feed that to an agent and you instantly blow up its memory. So I built a tool that fixes it. How it works: Hit record and just do your thing. Click around, type, and talk out loud about what you're doing. While you record, it quietly captures the stuff that actually matters: your voice transcription, every click and the exact thing you clicked, what you typed, and the shortcuts you press. When you stop, it doesn't hand the agent the whole video. It writes a short, readable summary: a timeline of what you said and did. The agent reads that tiny summary first. Then, only when it needs to actually see a moment, it pulls that one exact frame from the video, like flipping to a single page instead of reading the whole book. The result: the agent understands everything you did! Full context. Less tokens.

Milind S

12,486 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

A pilot put a passenger jet down on a river and got every person on board off alive. Within days, investigators were asking him what he had eaten for lunch. He told them a tuna sandwich. Then they asked whether he had had a candy bar. Whether he had had a soda. That is not small talk. There is a precise reason those 2 questions could have ended his career, and Tom Hanks lays it out in about 4 sentences. The pilot is Chesley Sullenberger. Hanks played him, spent time with him first, and says the man walked him through the entire script telling him which parts never happened. As Hanks was told it, the stake was money. If the board could establish that the pilot did 1 thing wrong, the insurance on an airplane he puts at 17 million dollars would not have to be paid out. Every question in that room was built for that. It went on for the better part of a year. In the film it takes days, because films cannot afford a year. What was happening to him has a name in psychology. Baruch Fischhoff described it in 1975 and called it creeping determinism. Once you know how something ended, the ending looks like it was always coming, and every road you did not take looks like it was sitting right there, clearly marked, the whole time. Which is why the question "why did you not do this instead" is close to unanswerable. It is asked by people who know the ending, to a person who did not have it. There is a second effect underneath, well documented in aviation and in medicine. The person at the centre of the investigation frequently comes out of it in worse condition than the people he saved. Researchers gave that person a name. He is the second victim. Hanks is 67 when he says this, and what he admires is not the landing. It is a distinction he makes in 1 sentence near the end, and it is the whole reason he told the story at all. He saved everyone on that plane. Then he spent a year proving he had not eaten a candy bar.

A pilot put a passenger jet down on a river and got every person on board off alive. Within days, investigators were asking him what he had eaten for lunch. He told them a tuna sandwich. Then they asked whether he had had a candy bar. Whether he had had a soda. That is not small talk. There is a precise reason those 2 questions could have ended his career, and Tom Hanks lays it out in about 4 sentences. The pilot is Chesley Sullenberger. Hanks played him, spent time with him first, and says the man walked him through the entire script telling him which parts never happened. As Hanks was told it, the stake was money. If the board could establish that the pilot did 1 thing wrong, the insurance on an airplane he puts at 17 million dollars would not have to be paid out. Every question in that room was built for that. It went on for the better part of a year. In the film it takes days, because films cannot afford a year. What was happening to him has a name in psychology. Baruch Fischhoff described it in 1975 and called it creeping determinism. Once you know how something ended, the ending looks like it was always coming, and every road you did not take looks like it was sitting right there, clearly marked, the whole time. Which is why the question "why did you not do this instead" is close to unanswerable. It is asked by people who know the ending, to a person who did not have it. There is a second effect underneath, well documented in aviation and in medicine. The person at the centre of the investigation frequently comes out of it in worse condition than the people he saved. Researchers gave that person a name. He is the second victim. Hanks is 67 when he says this, and what he admires is not the landing. It is a distinction he makes in 1 sentence near the end, and it is the whole reason he told the story at all. He saved everyone on that plane. Then he spent a year proving he had not eaten a candy bar.

Stefan.

210,938 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Sensitive content

Dredd calls out Lana Rhoades for "biting the hand that fed her": "When you see something where Lana Rhoades had this high profile, brief time spent in the porn world, and then she kind of pivots out of it... and she kind of regrets it." "What is it like for you when you see somebody say that? Because I'm surrounded by girls who look at porn like, 'This is the thing that changed my life'... Most of the girls I know would say that their happiness with them having done porn is a 10 out of 10." "I think that's like a common thing with a lot of girls, not all, but a lot of them who once they step out, they want to talk in a negative way about it. "And it's like, 'Damn, don't do that, it's bad, this, that, whatever.'" "It was funny for me with her, I shot with her a few times... She was great, you know, when she was shooting... She was the real deal, there's no doubt on that. So I'm always surprised when a girl..."

nexa_sama

33,444 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

The biggest difference between winners and everyone else isn't talent. It's speed of action. Watch what just happened in 32 seconds. A speaker holds up a $1 bill. "I'm gonna sell it for $1." He counts down. 10 seconds. Out of a room of hundreds, two people start whispering to each other. Deciding. Calculating. "Is this real? Is there a catch? What if I look stupid?" He warns them: "Be careful." One person steps up. Grabs it. "There you go." Everyone else? Still sitting there. This is the whole game in miniature. The opportunity was identical for every single person in that room. Same dollar. Same offer. Same 10 seconds. The only variable was who moved before the window closed. Most people don't lose because they lack ability. They lose because they spend the window analyzing instead of acting. By the time they've convinced themselves it's safe, someone faster already has the dollar. I see this every week with founders, executives, investors. The AI wave, the market shift, the next funding round, the offer is on the table for everyone. The dollar is real. But 95% of the room is still whispering to their neighbor, asking if it's a trick. It never was a trick. It was just a test of who moves first. 10 seconds. That's all you get. What are you doing with yours?

The biggest difference between winners and everyone else isn't talent. It's speed of action. Watch what just happened in 32 seconds. A speaker holds up a $1 bill. "I'm gonna sell it for $1." He counts down. 10 seconds. Out of a room of hundreds, two people start whispering to each other. Deciding. Calculating. "Is this real? Is there a catch? What if I look stupid?" He warns them: "Be careful." One person steps up. Grabs it. "There you go." Everyone else? Still sitting there. This is the whole game in miniature. The opportunity was identical for every single person in that room. Same dollar. Same offer. Same 10 seconds. The only variable was who moved before the window closed. Most people don't lose because they lack ability. They lose because they spend the window analyzing instead of acting. By the time they've convinced themselves it's safe, someone faster already has the dollar. I see this every week with founders, executives, investors. The AI wave, the market shift, the next funding round, the offer is on the table for everyone. The dollar is real. But 95% of the room is still whispering to their neighbor, asking if it's a trick. It never was a trick. It was just a test of who moves first. 10 seconds. That's all you get. What are you doing with yours?

Alvin Foo

13,931 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад