519
Spotify is going to clone podcasters’ voices — and translate them to other languages
(www.theverge.com)
this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
519 points (96.3% liked)
Technology
58013 readers
3378 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As long as money's involved, there's no way AI tech benefits society.
That kinda shit will only benefit the wealthy and the owning classes.
Might as well go back to the fields the with all the other Luddites then.
We live in a capitalist society, every bit of progress benefits the rich first. It's always been like that, it has nothing to do with the AI part.
You'd better get into the factory with the other 1984 drones then. 🤷
We all can play that stupid game. Theft and copyright infringement aren't progress.
Read the article dude, it's the exact opposite of theft and copyright infringement.
So, like... a claim so broad as "As long as money’s involved, there’s no way AI tech benefits society" is obviously untrue, right? Even if we accept a premise like "On the whole, AI will hurt society more than it helps", it's basically just dogma to blanket deny any practical usefulness. Take firearms, for example: they're often strictly controlled, but rarely if ever completely purged -- almost all societies accept that some situations exist where the utility sufficiently justifies the harm.
To be honest, I feel really weird pushing back against this because we seem rather ideologically aligned. I think we both feel that technologies which promote economic development will -- by default -- disproportionately empower those rich and powerful few. With that being said, from an ideological perspective, technological developments are not in fundamental opposition to Marxist philosophy (yes, even technological developments which render some skilled labor obsolete).
On the contrary; if we are to believe that the next step of economic development lies in casting aside class division, then we must necessarily concede that the only way forward is to recruit novel technological developments toward that purpose. It is self-undermining and shortsighted to argue that simply allowing a development will inherently undermine anti-capital interests, because how then could such a system so apparently incompatible with future technologies also claim to itself be the future?
Unless, you know, it's properly regulated and stuff. Regulation works through laws. Laws are passed by the government. The government is elected by the people.
So get the proper people into government.
That's naive and delusional. At least in the USA, there's no chance of such regulations coming about, regardless of who is put in power. The RNC and DNC both are far more swayed by the money of those eliminating their work force than the plight of the worker. That isn't changing any time soon.
I'll eat my hat if they pass a law that actually protects workers and bans use of AI to replace human jobs.
And now refer back to my first comment, let that defeatist attitude go, and work on getting those things changed. If you were right, we'd still be living under kings and owning classical slaves ;)
I'm not saying it's easy or quick, I'm saying that your thinking makes it reality because you just accept getting assfucked... Which is exactly "their" goal.
Exactly, so just spread your asscheeks and accept it!
And controlled by the wealthy. You don't really think your local representative cares what you think, do you? Because that would be laughably naive.
They care what their lobbyists and major donors think.
First of all that is a very simplistic and therefore incomplete view of the things. Second of all, that's why you work on getting people there who do care and want to fix that.