> First of all, they absolutely can be held legally liable for misuse of their model and as such have very real motivations to take reasonable steps to reduce misuse. Second of all, regardless of legal liabilities, if they are choosing to hold themselves responsible for reducing misuse, then that is absolutely their prerogative and is a responsible thing for them to do.

No they absolutely can not. That’s like saying adobe can be held accountable for people photoshopping people next to nazi flags. There’s just no way it’s holding up in court.

> And you know this, how? They're the ones looking at the data on who is misusing their software. They said that most misuse came from free anonymous accounts, so it makes sense to me that not allowing voice cloning on free accounts is a good deterrent.

It WOULD make sense, but your forgetting that all these guys need is a one month of the free trail and they can make Emma Watson read mien kamf again or make Joe Biden say transphobic shit. That’s literally all they need to do what they have ALREADY DONE.

> Do you know what full means? Making voice cloning available on the second lowest tier is in no way charging full price.

No, but restricting character limits on voice cloning for every tier except the highest paid tier IS charging full price.

> You literally never said this in your comment.

My bad, I got my Comments mixed up.

> And okay, so that's what you think, cool, but just because you don't agree with their pricing model doesn't mean they are "shady people".

At this point you know That’s not why I think they are shady people so stop trying to look good for plebbit updoots. For the third time, I’m saying I think they are shady people because they used this recent fiasco as an excuse to make more money.

> I'm done with this conversation, you're clearly not here in good faith since you keep making things up.

You won’t be missed lmao