zlacker

>>panark+(OP)
I don't like @sama just as much as the next person, but come on, in what world is ScarJo's voice unique? There are many people who sound like her. Does she imply that she "owns" this voice so no one else can use it? Excuse me, that's not how it works.

Edit: IMO OpenAI should just make their voice engine open source. Then we'll see if ScarJo or anyone else can stop the open-source community. I expected more from her.

>>behnam+n1
you have to be willfully missing the point when he said Her was his favorite movie, tweeted just “her” when the Sky voice was announced, and when they repeatedly tried to get the voice actor from Her. People who do underhanded things don’t just come out and say “look at me, doing the bad thing!”

>>zemo+T1
> you have to be willfully missing the point when he said Her was his favorite movie

So what? It's one of my fav movies too.

> they repeatedly tried to get the voice actor from Her.

She didn't do it. So they went ahead and made a voice that sounds like her. It's not like she contributed to making the voice and then decided not to have it used.

>>behnam+z2
I'm not sure you're aware of the ramifications of all of this, or else you just don't care. The voice acting industry is now entirely dead thanks to your opinions on this matter. Nobody is going to reach out to Liam Neeson for his voice, they'll just have some voice tool recreate it and read the script as long as the tool can recreate the same emotional tones they're looking for, and it's cheaper than hiring the actual actor. There's tangible damages here. But I guess you don't mind because you're not a voice actor and this doesn't directly affect you.

And before you try this rebuttal, this is different from machinery taking the jobs away from manufacturing plant workers, it's much bigger than that. With manufacturing plant workers, at least humans were still needed for recognizing a fault in the machinery and stopping the line. Humans still needed to maintain the machines. Humans needed to design and build the machines. In this scenario, a couple of central parties are creating these tools, and then nobody is needed to ensure a quality product any further down the chain than that. There either needs to be a legal consequence to this, or a 4.4 billion dollar industry is now just closing their doors. That's all well and good until all of those peoples' families need to eat their next meal or sleep in a home. But I guess their lives aren't your problem.

It won't be anytime all that soon, in my opinion. But generative AI is coming for many (most? all?) sectors of work. And if history is any indicator, millions of people will have to suffer and/or die before governments step in to do much of anything about it. Probably especially-so in the US, since we tend to lean towards "free markets" that benefit the massive companies that have already made it, and allow them to chew through human resources (the people, not the department) mostly any way they see fit. So many people are going to lose their jobs and never find work in their field again, and they will all either die or retrain for all the same laborer positions and end up with a massive surplus of workers in those fields too. And that's only until we become skilled enough in robotics and generative AI to automate the trades too.

>>startt+Y5
Getting rid of AI so people can do the work instead is another incarnation of the fallacy of the broken window.

>>Walter+3d
All depends what lens you're looking through. From the perspective of advancement of the human race, AI is almost definitely a good thing. From the perspective of humans being employed at least in the short term, it's going to be very, very bad before anyone thinks to say, "maybe it's not necessary that all humans need to work if we don't have enough jobs to give them all. Maybe we need systems for allowing humans without a job function to continue to survive." But you don't need to listen to me, we'll all just see for ourselves because cat's already out of the bag and I don't think it's going to go back in. And the people that don't think it's going to happen won't willfully notice it's already happening to others until it also happens to them.

>>startt+Nq
The Luddites said the same thing about textile machinery.

>>Walter+9C
I already kind of replied to this rebuttal in advance in my first comment that you replied to. But I’ll refute it again a second way. Textile machinery impacted a very specific sector of work. We’re talking here about an advancement in technology threatening to substitute the creativity of humans one day. With textile machinery, other technological advancements eventually created new jobs which helped to displace the jobs that were lost. Will we manage to displace all of the creative roles we may lose to artificial intelligence at the same rate that the human workers are becoming obsolete? Time will tell. You seem very confident we will, and I wish I shared that confidence. But I’ll grant that I consider it’s possible we succeed in this. I find it wild that other people don’t consider it’s possible we fail though. All I’m saying is that we need to be mindful of it, mindful enough to notice it if it happens, as I’d argue is happening with ScarJo here, and the greater voice acting industry. Because in my opinion the overconfidence displayed to the contrary in this thread is exactly how I expect most of humanity will be blindsided by it happening instead.

>>startt+8E
The US cannot suppress AI. There's a lot of other countries which would love to pick up the AI flag if we drop it, and then they'll bury us.

I've used AI in my programming work. After you get used to it, you see its limitations. It's not that clever, it's mostly mush. It's better than stackoverflow, though :-/

I've seen AI written articles, and they're pretty much drivel. Of course, most articles are drivel anyway, but the AI ones seem to have a peculiar drivelness about them that I recognize but cannot really describe.

I view it as simply removing some of the drudgery of my work, just like textile machines removed much of the drudgery of making cloth.

What I fear about AI is not their economic uses, but their use in warfare. Do you want a terminator drone hunting you? I sure don't.

>>Walter+RL
> What I fear about AI is not their economic uses, but their use in warfare.

AI has been used in warfare in the form of computer vision for like 20 years now. That's the scariest application of AI you will ever have to worry about; putting ChatGPT in a GBU-12 isn't going to make it any more dangeorus.