> not worried ... but the creator of this website should be?

They should be worried. Hammers have many legitimate uses, voice cloning not so much. Claiming its a tool is meaningless when it has few legitimately legal uses. If there is any negligence involved at any step that violates the required duty of care, then they will have to deal with costly court battles.

If you do a little research this is not a new area in caselaw either. Napster made many arguments along these lines, we know how that turned out.

Your voice is also considered sensitive biometric data as well, often with a naturally higher degrees of protection under law in many municipalities/countries, especially when its processed without proper consent.

When you create something, you always have to be aware of the potential harms related to its use, and weigh that prior to public release. This is thoroughly covered in AI/business ethics courses.