• Cryophilia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    we’re pretty good at exploring dystopian sci-fi and don’t want to end up there ourselves

  • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    I love how upset people get about things like this

    Your coffee is made by enslaved children and people shrug

    Your clothes were made in a sweatshop and people shrug

    Your music is owned by corporate monsters who impose absurd copyright to steal culture from those that live in it and people shrug

    A theoretical voice actor misses out on a small role and you go wild calling for boycotts and making unhinged tweets at the company?

    Very weird priorities.

    Almost like it’s totally unserious and nothing but self Important performative nonsense.

  • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    The technology was created to replace voice actors. That’s the actual purpose. Its very existence hurts their profession and benefits studios. You can not be a studio, use this technology, and claim to care about ethics, anymore than Amazon can claim to care about the workers as it invests in the machines to replace them.

    No one is holding a gun to their head forcing them to us AI. They made a choice. There is no “ethical” way to cripple the livelihood of working class people for the benefit of your business. Just stop using the word.

    It doesn’t matter if you compensate or get their approval, because the fact is the existence of the technology in the industry effectively compels all voice actors to agree to let it use their voice, or they can’t get work. It becomes a false choice.

    If there was no financial benefit, if it truly made no difference in how much a studio pays in labor or the amount the artists make, there would be no reason for studios to want to use it.

      • hirtiganto@szmer.info
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        yea, see i just don’t like how we first automated creativity instead of like, idk, manual labor???

            • Womble@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              And do you wash your clothes in a bucket, wring them out in a mangler before beating your rugs with a stick to get the dust out of them?

              • Pxtl@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                And I don’t make my own paints either when doing art. I still agree with the basic original point:

                It is disappointing that we’re currently automating creativity far faster than manual labour. I’m angry that my art is getting automated away faster than my folding of laundry.

                • Billiam@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  It’s not; you’re just looking at the beginning of automating creativity when labor automation has been going on for over a hundred years. The introduction of new tech is always more disruptive than refining established tech. Besides which, VA is particularly sensitive to disruption because every VA does essentially the same job- one AI can be programmed to speak in thousands (millions?) of different voices, whereas one manual labor job doesn’t necessarily require the same actions as another.

                  Also it’s funny you complain about laundry, given how much doing laundry has been automated.

  • Blaster M@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    While everyone here is screeching about jerbs, I would like to point out that using AI voices to voice an AI is an artistic genius in itself.

    • Stamau123@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yeah it’s real luddite hours here

      “How will voicebot 2.0 pay for his child’s oil now?”

      • trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Are you an idiot?

        People are worried about the actual voice actors who voice act the characters.

        Do you think GLaDOS was voiced by a potato battery?

      • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        The Luddites ruled actually:

        The Luddites were members of a 19th-century movement of English textile workers who opposed the use of certain types of cost-saving machinery, and often destroyed the machines in clandestine raids. They protested against manufacturers who used machines in “a fraudulent and deceitful manner” to replace the skilled labour of workers and drive down wages by producing inferior goods.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

        It’s very similar to protesting the use of AI to make an obviously inferior product, but apparently you think it’s an insult.

        • nuzzlerat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          I’m sick of the Luddite slander. They were completely right and people need to know

        • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          They were idiots trying to maintain a poverty based system simply because they weren’t on the very lowest rung. They were also proven very wrong, demand for textiles increased dramatically as prices fell and areas where there had been nothing but privation flourished into affluent communities with longer lifespans, better wages and improved living conditions for everyone even the lowest classes - this resulted in improvements literacy amoung the poor and resulted in the erosion of the class system as the early industrial era matured.

          If the luddities had won we’d all be far worse off now.

          • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            You are conflating technology and its benefits with the owning class’s misuse of that technology. Capitalist apologists love to do this because otherwise the crimes of capitalism would have to stand on their own and there would be no defending them.

            It’s exactly this conflation that lets people claim that the luddites were entirely anti-technology, but they weren’t. Again this is a lie that has been spread by capitalists to defend their own image.

            The luddites were killed and suppressed by the military and the government made industrial sabotage a capital offense, and then slandered them. Maybe if they’d won we’d live in a world where reporters weren’t murdered over the Panama papers for instance.

            • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              So your argument is that their stated aims were a lie and speeches claimed to be from notable figures in the movement were fabricated after the fact? Further that their violent actions should have been overlooked and if they had been there would be no corruption in the world today?

              Surely you can see how that argument is about as credible as flat earth?

              I don’t understand why people think they can just rewrite history to suit their needs.

                • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  You want me to give you a history lesson? Funny that when you wanted people to believe an inversion of the history everyone knows you didn’t see any need for sources but now you expect me to meticulously demonstrate every word? and yes we all know it’ll never be enough…

                  It doesn’t matter though because you’re not serious about what you’re saying and literally no one would belive your nonsense.