I Stole my Friend's Voice With Ai 

oh ok check in at this other source of ad revenue to hear us clear up this whole situation

But this definitely crossed the line. There is a reason consent exist and what you did was straight up illegal...

@@Hellsing3 or choose not to and move on with your life, no ones got a gun to your head. Either way if they made a follow up video it would be getting ad revenue... so why does it matter that they chose the more suitable method of a podcast?.

love you guys, will check in

@@catntmeows it was planned ahead of time. If you did look at the podcast like they said you would know that

Corridor! make this a video right now!

Could do video call with live deepfake and this voice to their wives

this is the start of CLONE PETER

More like late 2022

Hahahaha

This was a warning from Jake,Sam better not mess with the members of the V&V Inc. next time! XD

@@croc_moat2327 last time I checked it was W&W Inc. (Wesley and Wesley Incorporated). Not sure where you got the V from.

@@nathanhays8696 what is a v but half of a w

Is Jake actually a lawyer?

Yes he passed the bar

Yeah the monotone is a... Is a bit freaky to me

@@Marlyjade well thats what happens when you stitch together voice lines like some weird Frankenstein monster

Wow that's a pretty fascinating way to get around the monotone voice

just like the old times.

Exactly what I was thinking😂

let’s… try not to apply this to life too much… hehe

Jake actually knew his voice was going to be recreated beforehand, and consented to it in what was probably a lengthy closed doors conversation. The "giving consent" part of the video was much more the crew trying to convince him to consent to the video being uploaded, and seeing as Jake works for a RU-vid channel and is pretty much a public figure at this point, I don't think he was against the idea of this video being posted in the first place.

Super easy, barely an inconvenience

Just to clarify: Sam absolutely did get consent, but it was a form of consent that many people would deem to be illegitimate based upon the standards they apply to differentiate 'good' and 'bad' instances of consent. That's applying an additional consideration over and above the basic definition of what consent is. It's a common mistake to confuse these things.

@@DS2CV well while technically true they committed three felonious acts in the process

No shit

@@DS2CV part of concent is that it is willful. Pressuring someone into to agreeing to something they already did can be determined to not be willful in a legal sense. Just because you think you are saying something profound doesn't make it the case.

@@SerTomKatze I don't disagree with that. Just pointing out that consent that results from someone being pressured to do something is still consent.

It's like they are trying to democratize consent.

Unhinged content. Gosh I love these boundary pushing nerds

If it's satire, they are amazing. If it isn't... oh boy.

It's not hilarious at all. It's fucked up.

nothing says 'un-coerced' like peer pressure 😜

Even with that being said, the way that it's being presented is... less than savory.

But the consent was still faked, so he hasn't ever really consented to the service and Sam really got banned from the service as a result once they found out about it. Also Jake didn't know any exact details, so there was still a chance, that once he would see the final result, he denies publishing the video. The consent he gave in this video was not really to voice cloning but to allow this video to be uploaded to RU-vid.

@@xcoder1122 they use his voice for brand integrations now… if your a viewer of the corridor cast you’ll know they’ve spoken on this subject many times… now also a lot of people don’t understand their childhood friends. Yes, is it scary and highlight the problems we will have to deal with in the future? Absolutely! Did hake have no concern and was forced into a bad position where he didn’t know? No. They cover more challenging topics like this on their corridor cast channel frequently. It’s honestly more of a futurology podcast than anything expanding more on topics like ai.

Hello fellow LPL fan!!!

Then he will do it again to show us it's not a fluke

Yes

Bet hé opens IT with a magnet

Yeah, someone that's next level! Someone like Santa or Chuck Norris!!

@@andrewgrulke7476 epic battle between the two A christmas special

@@wordsinahandle Eloc Rap Battles In Hostory? He'll ueah!! Corridor Crew vs Black Rifle Coffee would be a good one.

They talk about how they're making an AI influencer that hits a lot of those minus the deepfake; I believe the character/influencing is gonna be done in unreal.

Also, the "source" (the actor they put the deepfake on top of) needs to be computer generated, automatically moving its mouth to match the voice.

The part at the very end of the video when he called Sam handsome had me rolling. Caught me off guard after watching an entire video about speech ai

@@pepsico815 There was honestly a point during the ad-read where I wasn't 100% sure if it was Jake or the AI taking. Sam has gained too much power!

@@mcrazzburger3954 They swapped back and forth between real Jake and AI Jake in the ad read on purpose to mess with people, lol. So really you were hearing both of them, hence why you felt you couldn't be 100% sure.

@@mcrazzburger3954 I was able to tell. The AI sounds like him but doesn't quite emote like him. So it sounded off whenever it switched back to the AI.

Reminds me of a certain vocal angry mob that tries to force everyone to agree with them

Some of them were saying "Consent for Content," which is why you heard both

It's all leading up to the Bosstown Dynamics Android taking his place.

Honestly after this one we were all like… no more pranks for a while haha

you seriously think they still have a single human being on their team?

I'm convinced that when Niko left for paternity leave, he never actually came back. They've either VFXed him into every video, or used a Niko impersonator with Deepfakes and AI voice, and only now are they showing us these technologies that they've been perfecting for years.

"Our Employee Was Actually Jacked Into the Matrix During All Five Years Since We Hired Them"

yeah, it's a funny video but tbh that was really fucked up.

the lack of self awareness from them on this issue is starting to get embarassing

Nice stolen comment

@@jdrummerdd Not like it hasn't been a thing for like a decade. Only difference is it's gotten better

You are acting like a stitched together verbal consent form would stand up in court. If they were doing this to fuck with Jake then he could lawyer up and sue the shit out of them easily.

Hey, if they don't do it, someone else will. And they probably won't upload it to YT so we're all aware of it.

holy crap, your comment was deepfaked.

Oh, they are most definitely wrong when it comes to their opinion that one shouldn't be worried about deepfakes. People were already disagreeing on what reality is like (Conspiracy theorists, for example) before it was possible to relatively easily fake audiovisual footage of people speaking, and saying things they otherwise would not. Even if people like Corridor never intend to create such problems, other people will.

Yo, move that "haha" lower at a new paragraph.

@@meeshermans297 and those conspiracy theorist were right about everything lol

I think thats Peter 😂

This is a spoiler for the season finale in the Corridor Crew Lore.

Jake was the Computer Generate Content we made along the way. 😍

@@ThickNot that's what they want you to think.... you see... Peter was the cover-up. we had the truth right in front of our faces the whole time! *I SEE THROUGH THEIR LIES!* _very aggressive breathing_

@@bcn1gh7h4wk How could I have been so foolish "smiles creepily into the camera"

Did they discuss the breach of consent and trust?

@@chocolatemonk Yeah, they do discuss it in the video. They talk about consent, the legal ramifications, and I think Sam also did share the reply from the company that owned the software. Corridor Cast edited the video into sections to make it easy for us to go thru the video. I still do have my concerns with what had happened, but I hope they will do things the right way moving forward.

Well shit

They can claim that. Doesn't mean they do and it'll be amusing to see it challenged in court when it inevitably does.

@@Nyx_2142 lol no. It’s their software. You accept the TOS. They can do whatever they want. Cope

@@KingCeryn TOS can still be deemed unlawful. Stuff like that has happeend in european consumer protection courts before, so it's not unthinkable.

@@dseszu425 European courts don’t control the world lol. And just because “Joe Internet Commenter” thinking the TOS isn’t legal, doesn’t mean it is. Pretty sure Descript has better legal support than some guy with copium on RU-vid

How the hell is that consent recording not manually reviewed by a human? That's just unacceptable.

@@stcm because that would take literally forever for people to manually verify it. And honestly, a human trying to sus out if it’s actually the person or a good imitation of the person would be difficult.

That’s silicone valley, great ideas that don’t stand up to any level of scrutiny

@@yitzakIr Where's Christopher Walken when you need him?

To be honest, the fact that the service didn't pick up on it says a lot about how good it actually is. (I wonder when AI will eventually nail the correct accents and stresses put on words; I could tell the last one was fake.)

also good choice to only do some parts and not the whole thing because it would have been to low energy for what he usually does

wow didn't even notice that... crazy

@@madcrazymonkey93 Really?

AI voice profile nfts boom

People watch those??? hahahah

I noticed immediately

@@josuevalar6465 i did too but considering how new the tech is and how fast it is growing, it is only a matter of time that it becomes unnoticeable

I instantly noticed it, it's too emotionless.

@@rhettorical yeah but in the video (I forget who) said that if you are doing it fr you record multiple times but with different emotions and mash it all together to make it sound more real

Don't forget about the end-card script. XD

its not as bad as you think it is.

Dude, you have no idea... I made deep fakes as my computer ethics policy topic and I have yet to make a proper conclusion because I find a lot of articles proposing against deep fakes. AND I really really want to find some kind of middle ground and the only source I could find that is mostly in favor is Corridor (and that doesn't really look good for a college paper). 60 minutes did a video that gave a more full-spectrum I think.

I think it’s the potential for misuse that frightens me, particularly given how nascent the tech is and how little understanding our world leaders have of it, given the ease of proliferation of fake news it would be extremely easy for someone to make something extremely damaging.

@@guitarsimon1 I've looked into it more now and it seems apparent allot of the big current opinions is based around fear mongering. It is yet apparent if deepfakes can fully imitate a person. Despite this, the populace is greatly uneducated on deep fakes and with fake news already rampant, it's evident to see that only a convincingly enough deep fake is needed to manipulate people in an already politically charged population.

@@guitarsimon1 just look at the fake video where the Ukrainian prime minister asks for laying down the arms and surrender. It’s bad deep fake but still, alarming imo

Yeah wild that a company that specialized in making faked voices would allow voice only consent to create a profile.

@@Generalofmetal voice only...? As opposed to what, text? Cause... That's so much more secure. No one else in the world can type the words I can, watch me go! In all honesty? It takes having several hours of audio, and the knowhow and time to splice together that consent statement. And it's a pretty fucking long one too. And with words that people don't commonly say. And the company name. But a bit better detection for splicing wouldn't be too hard. Still, for people with the knowhow, there's ways around that. In the end? Having the voice verification and have it only allow you to use it for a voice that matches the initial verification? That's a good bit more secure than most.

I do think there might be a way to detect that it's the same mic and environment/background noise though. That could help. And with some defense against splicing, checking for sudden changes in volume in particular (though you can work around that pretty easily by equalizing the volume of the samples), maybe some other criteria, looking at smaller sudden drops or peaks which would be really hard to clean up... Could work well. Might create too many false positives though.

Let's be real though, for 99% of people this does make it much more difficult to do without consent (unless you have hours of someone's voice recorded) so the idea makes sense, but of course it's far from fool proof, better than nothing though

You can use a worse website to create a crap voice model, then make it consent :D

@@Jamato-sUn^ this

What's better is that several websites operate this way. So if you get the voiceprint for one of them, you can use it to authorize the other websites.

@@SgtNicholasAngle but how much content do you need to make a good voice? I would guess that if you have enough for that, you probably have enough for the consent

exactly like how someone recording a podcast sounds

Yep, once their PR guy gets this it's holy shitting all the way to the lawyers to scrub their processes lol

Yep, this is a major trust issue. They should use manual verification of each application, given the serious implications of "voice stealing".

At the same time- it's pretty much guaranteed that we'll soon have an open-source implementation that anyone can run on their own machine, and nothing will be able to stop them at that point. Technology moves forward (for better or for worse), and people will have to adapt.

Meh. it's all CYA stuff anyway. all this stuff is relatively straightforward to do at this point, the software just makes it easier. hence how Sam got it to work in the first place. And he said he only used 9 hours of podcast to find the original "consent" clip. If someone were truly dedicated, they could do hundreds of times better.

I know you don't want to blame Sam, but all the fault is on him, if anything I hope they cleared with Descript if it was ok to release the video (doubt it) or they could easily sue Sam and Corridor for breaking the TOS and for falsifying information which is resulting in a damage to their image as evidenced by people like you putting the blame on them.

Wwll it's all an in joke. Relax chuppah!

Throw him in jail. 🙄

So is mattress tag removal. Or keeping bad tax records, or pretending to be someone else when picking up a pizza for your family or friends. I'm not saying anything other than... Yes, if they genuinely did not have consent... That is a crime.

Although it is a crime, the one to take him to court would be Jake, not the police since it would be a civil case

How is it a crime? There are no laws about this yet. You could argue it should be, but it definitely is not a crime yet. Maybe its against the service's TOS but again, breach of TOS is not a crime.

Goat hunting. 😀

It's "Sam season"

@@yagelbar goat season

“Sam season”

@@laurigardner6227 GOAT (Sam) season!

Yeah, it's hilarious how every person they tell about this project immediately says "oh, I don't think Jake would ever give consent to do this".

Same

Good point you’ve got there…

​@@drdennsemann Not really, because the entire point in the video was that Jake has appeared on camera, and podcasts, literally over hundreds of times, and the audio they used was from those, which are readily available to anyone.

@@BaldMancTwat Exactly, this seems to be the main thing people are missing. Regardless of whether you accept Jake's consent or not (which he's explicitly made clear that he did, with no pressure whatsoever), nobody needs consent to use AI to imitate public figures. At least, not yet. The entire point of the video is to make this clear. Its the exact same point of all their deepfake videos. They are showing how easy to access and convincing AI already is, and bringing this information to the public so that people are aware of the dangers and concerns. Nobody needed Sam's edited version of Jake's consent to replicate his voice. I have descript myself (I had it before the video came out because I was interested in voice AI), and I could easily have done the same thing. And like they mentioned, Descript is the only program that actually makes you get consent, most of the other voice AI programs don't require this at all. So what Sam and the crew did was totally fine legally, as well as morally (since Jake actually knew about the whole thing to some extent, and then gave his explicit consent later). Not only that, but they're exposing the level that this technology has reached to the public, not to scare them, but to alert them. It isn't descript that needs to fix their program to prevent this from happening, it's that the general public needs to be more informed about this technology so preventative measures can be taken.

I could feel Niko thinking "oh boy Jake of all people is not going to love how this went down" lmao

Honestly this is a weird one. I keep seeing people saying that they did plan out this whole video beforehand and jake was in on it but it, but it also feels real at times. If it’s real, it’s messed up asf and super uncomfortable

Especially when you realize that they've been using other peoples faces without consent, IE Mark Hamill, and no one really fussed about that.

@@thomasbecker9676 The corridor crew are public figures, too. Everyone who joins the crew acknowledges that they will characters used in content creation, meaning they'll be exposed to surprises and pranks all the time. And if they ever feel legitimately uncomfortable, every crew member has the vetoing power to stop a video from being released (or at least a part of it). I, of course, am glad that people care about consent, but I think all the people bashing on corridor for this video are just devaluing the issues of actual consent, considering that this is a very clear case of friends pranking friends, and no actual pressure is happening. People just hear the word consent and immediately find something to get angry about. Sam already made it explicitly clear in the video that if Jake didn't give his consent, the video would not exist. And everyone just seemed to ignore the fact that Jake was laughing and played along with the bit when the meeting actually happened, he only turned "serious" about it when Sam was trying to "convince" him. It was obviously never in question. The mind behind the video, Dean, even said he made this video to raise moral questions about consent and AI. But at the end of the day, it is still content, and needs to be entertaining.

@@thomasbecker9676 Well it isn't exactly difficult to synthesize voice through AI, I literally discovered descript after a single google search a year ago. And its not really a tutorial on how to steal someone's voice because Jake's in several hundred podcasts. You can't just do that with any normal person's voice. (You can do it with most public personalities, but becoming a public figure comes with accepting that your privacy is breached to some extent, just like with deepfakes). I'm a long time subscriber of Corridor (formerly called Sam & Niko), and while their current content is certainly very different, the heart of exploring new technology, doing wacky experiments, and explaining difficult and interesting concepts to a larger audience are all the same. Perhaps the scripting and drama are played up, but I don't think the main draw of their content has changed at all. The only thing they don't do as much now is crafting. They used to do a lot of physical projects that we're funny and creative, which they don't do as much now. But they've been messing with AI since the beginning of their channel, there's nothing different there. They still do science discussions, Wren still produces his own VFX series, and on their website, all the behind-the-scenes things and more technical stuff is still there. I disapproved of their website at first, but the paywall is extremely low for a subscription service, and they really do put a lot of content on there. Anyway, both of your statements were phrased as personal opinions, so nothing I say will probably mean anything to you. But I do think the critical response to this video was way overboard. If you prefer Corridor's old, more personal but less action-packed content (for the record I do as well), that is fine, but criticizing their new projects and direction won't change that, and won't inspire them to make better content.

with friends like these who needs enemies

@@Jofoyo they didn't forge mark hamils consent

And a very good message it is. I was born in California and have lived in Idaho for most of my life... I'm doomed :)

Don't mess with Texas.

don't mess with texas or you will be texas smashed.

@@alainchristian Or just, ya know, have any actual human verifying the recording isn't a copy paste of existing audio files like this was.

@@Stevenwave- lol that would be such an insane job to get paid to sit around and listen to audio consent files

@@amangoduses Clearly needed though. Obviously the automated verification can't pick up the clearest of bullshit lol.

I’m glad he didn’t press charges against Sam for forging consent

Why can no one else see what happened here??? If you listen closely, you’ll realize that only 1 or 2 of them is chanting “consent”. The rest of them are saying “CONTENT”, and I’m pretty sure those few people got confused and just went along with it. And yes, they are still chanting this asking for his consent, but that still makes all of these comments worried about people chanting consent wrong. I’m glad that people are overly aware of the dangers of something like this, but that doesn’t change the fact that it was done to make an entertaining video, not to harm anyone

They’re saying content, not consent

Exactly. Specifically, it's coercion.

doesn't matter if they're saying content it still has the exact same effect

Very well said

The insanity of some people thinking that a $12-24 a month subscription model service can afford to hire people to sift through what are sure to be hundreds of applications to the site every day, people you'd have to pay an hourly wage equal to what you're being paid per subscriber per month (not including taxes, server costs, upkeep, dev time, or developing new features)... Yeah. Let me say it again. Insane. It probably comes out to about $4 (or less) per subscriber per month. And the more subscribers, the more public knowledge, the more applications. Not to mention attacks. No way in hell could you ever come anywhere NEAR checking every application with a human. NO online service currently active and public can. You couldn't even maintain 10%. Maybe you could have a system where a human checks the ones that are flagged as potentially dangerous. Like 0.01% of applications. But yeah... That's kinda the upper limit.

@@plzletmebefrank Did I say every consent message has to be checked by a human? (Which _of course_ is impossible.) Because I don't think I did. I just pointed out it's clear that this system is flawed and Descript needs to address those flaws. How they do that is up to them.

@@DaTux91 You did imply. "There is no way a human being verifying that consent message would have bought it for a second." However, true. You did not say it outright that every application should be checked. Also, scouring though the comments, I found someone claiming to be the CEO of Descript say that it took several tries from the account and a bug in the security for it to work (and a human verifying that the latest flagged attempt was okay) and that the account had since been banned. No idea if it was really them or not. The RU-vid did not look like one the CEO of a tech start-up would use to reply to comments about a security breach. Was super detailed and corporate though, so it didn't feel like just some random troll.

@@plzletmebefrank That was just to show the flaw of relying on a piece of software's voice analysis of a verbal consent message to verify the identity and consent of applicants, not an actual suggestion. But I guess you could interpret it as such if you also assume I'm an idiot. Which I'm kind of insulted by but also can't blame you given the averages of RU-vid's comment section.

He's only in trouble if Jake wanted to press charges, which he wouldn't do in all likelihood. I still think he felt uncomfortable, but was trying to be a good sport about it.

99% chance the video is scripted for exactly this reason and Jake knew beforehand.

@@willparker8498 The only reason they would have to do that is to clarify what they did and prevent wars in the comments. If they did script it, they would have no legal reason to cover their butts, because Jake would have already consented beforehand. I don't think it was a particularly good decision on their part to act as though it was without consent to make it more interesting, but I don't think they actually didn't have consent, otherwise they wouldn't have gone through with the video. They wouldn't be that stupid.

@@DeathBringer769 The service could as well.

@@Justin-sl3sb He couldve considered a voice actor and not AI doing it so theres a subtle hint that Jake was somehow informed theyre doing voice AI of him.

Oh I'm sure there was. They talked about this stuff on the podcast as well, toying with the idea before this video was ever made.

I know lmao...

😳

@@Coffee_Grind It's pretty easy to commit murder too - that doesn't make it ethical or legal. This isn't a PSA about the risks of emerging technologies, they put in the the effort to seriously open up Jake to identity theft for the lulz and the views. The actions they took, if not directly tantamount to criminal impersonation or identify theft (I'm no lawyer, but pretty sure 17:53 is a direct admission of criminal impersonation), have at least created a voice model that now exists somewhere on the internet which could come back to seriously bite Jake in the ass. Not everyone knows how to create a model like this, but now no one else needs to to use it. Frankly I'd be furious. The saving grace here as far as I'm concerned is that it's still fairly discernable which lines are Jake's and which are the AI. Soon enough though that won't be the case.

@@Insan1tyW0lf i think what hes saying is. Its pretty easy to kill with gun than with a knife, he has given us a gun, But people already had the knife, so if there is an intention to kill then they could so, but with a little extra work. The knife is the podcasts and the gun is the clean audio of consent from this video.

@@niftylittlename3929 Right, so the criminal who had a knife and could do "X" amount of harm with it now has a gun and can do "4X" the harm. Congratulations for putting in the time and effort to enable greater harm. Hope the ad revenue was worth it.

I could see a deepfake approach where they could map this voice synthesis to an actors emotional performance. Like how they map the facial image to the actors performance.

@@omgbutterbee7978 Don't know if you watched Book of Boba Fett and I won't spoil you if you don't, but they've already got this technology running. It's a lot more manually smudged into place (deliberately tweaking a deep fake with an artificial voice being tweaked audibly as well, by hand) than running on just code, but looks like they're already doing that now.

I mean, i study data science and last year i found out there's a lot of info on using deep learning to understand/find human emotions in text so i guess combining that with voice tone changes doesn't seem too far tbh hahaha

There is forgiveness and eternal life and safety in Jesus Christ. Call upon His name from all your heart and He will hear you. God bless you and your family.

@@braydynniewiadomski5454 who asked?

@@braydynniewiadomski5454 u ok?

@@SamuelSaveli I am sharing my faith in the gospel because he was speaking of being afraid of what this technology can do. Proverbs 29:25 “The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the LORD shall be safe.”

@@alenoo Yes, thank you. Are you ok? Are you forgiven of your sins and on your way to heaven? Or are you without Christ in your life and not free from death and hell yet? Have you been born again of the Holy Spirit?

I don’t get it

@@powdereyes2210 it's a scene from the 90s hacker movie Sneakers with Robert Redford and Dan Aykroyd. It's a very good movie

MF Doom was god tier 😔

NO

Yah for sures a bit of a PSA type vid talking about the dangers of this would be nice cause in general this video felt super icky once Sam was like "yah so I'm gonna go ahead and fake Jake's consent then get permission later" like even when Jake said yes later in the vid it felt super gross watching it cause they were straight pressuring him into saying yes and you could def tell he was uncomfortable with it not only that but I very much doubt that Sam actually took the time to read all the fine print of their terms of service which is superrrrrrrr dangerous especially with a company like this that is replicating a voice.

@@theninjamaster67 I strongly believe that Jake gave his consent previously, and read all the legalese; if not, faking the consent could be a huge breach or the agreement, and they wouldn't be able to release the video.

@@hansrojas9487 Honestly I'm not sure he did cause he looked hella uncomfortable when Sam told him what he did and so did Niko earlier in the video when he showed him I'm sure they probably had a deeper conversation after the fact but it does not look like they discussed it beforehand.

@@theninjamaster67 it's called ACTING. Jake obviously gave consent before hand. The video is scripted to make it more fun an entertaining. No way a channel like corridor would record themselves doing a crime and uploading it putting there channel at risk. Don't be so naive.

peer pressure is a victimism term. If you cant say no to a crowd youre weak, ultimately its your fault.

@@lordjaraxxus663 Hey bud, mind deleting your reply? You're ruining a good joke with this nonsense.

@@lordjaraxxus663 No, it isn't. It is a very effective form of manipulation. Attacking the victim of this would show poor ethical standards.

@@lordjaraxxus663 this is one of the dumbest things I’ve read

@@lordjaraxxus663 Spoken like a true abuser.

Genius but it may be illegal...

Pretty sure they did for part of the add

I knew it sounded weird

I noticed that too

That's - ama-zing. It - total-ly sounds - like- a- re-al- voice. no-bod-y - will - be- able - to- tell.

jacks and jakes, all appear same. don't they

@@vanshchani5925 lol mb

The new corridor cast vid should alleviate you from this worry

Unsubscribed for that very reason

It’s all staged. They talked about doing this in a podcast and it’s faked to look real.

TRUMP NEXT, GIVE ME 1 MONTH 😈😈😈

but..... a fun thing between friends

Nah, It's all fun and games.

I totally agree…but I also laughed my ass off. :)

@@comebackguy8892 It's all fun and games until the singularity.

I REALLY REALLY hope he gave consent before.

Willfully and purposefully crossing your coworkers boundaries, then getting the rest of your coworkers to pressure him into accepting it is seriously fucked up.

@@cameronjs222 ya, and the recorded it, and are now making money off of it!

@@cameronjs222 I imagine they are also friends and have known each other for years and have a more personal level of relationship rather than pure work.

Agreed. Felt weird trivialising, even violating some really worrying boundaries.

It was done amongst friends and colleagues, but you're right that the potential applications for this are quite troubling.

It's definitely scripted.

I agree with your take: seems really uncool to me, but standards are different in different workplaces/communities. Commenters saying that the law doesn't accept consent resulting from peer pressure seem loony to me.

That's the whole point of the video, pay attention FFS, and 'peer pressure' doesn't work like that, he's not weak.

@@DS2CV different workplaces and communities do not and should not have differing moral directives

Yep 😬

Can't manufacture consent when Jake agreed to the project months in advance. They made the video slightly controversial to bait you into commenting to drive up engagement and they do it because it works

@@xXEGPXx its still fucked up? its a horrible thing to portray for an audience of millions.