If the “fix” for an AI implementation in a use case is, again, to manually correct it and find a less demanding audience then… yes, by definition it’s shitty.
The point isn’t that it’s infeasible, just that it will be low quality.
Comment on Audible unveils plans to use AI voices to narrate audiobooks
Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 9 hours agoSomeone can manually go through it and correct and edit it, as one would a regular, human made recording. It’s not rocket science exactly
utopiah@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 6 hours ago
I mean you have to correct and edit human made stuff too, doesn’t mean it’s shit lol
utopiah@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
This is me just speculating here but if they follow the path of this CEO who fired his human staff to replace it by AI… then rollback admit it’s shit gizmodo.com/klarna-hiring-back-human-help-after-g… then my bet is that it’s not done to improve quality but rather margins.
If AI is done alongside professionals, and done so ethically (not stolen training data, not ignoring ecological cost by pumping water in dry areas to cool down GPUs, etc) and economically (i.e. not having it “cheap” now but once a monopoly position is obtain, raise prices for a captive set of consumers) then yes it can be potentially empowering. This though is pretty much never the case.
That being said, if one “just” want read aloud, there are plenty of FLOSS alternatives and I believe Mozilla even a TTS/STT system based solely on voluntary voices.
Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 4 hours ago
It’s a company, of course it’s done to increase profits. I’m just saying it being AI doesn’t automatically mean it’s shit, it could be done just fine. AI is a tool, the end result depends on how that tool is used.
SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee 6 hours ago
These people just want to hate AI. Read through and see how many times they complain about copywrited material stolen, but claim piracy is the solution.