if anybody could access a technology that helps them by magically destroying lives in another country far away, would you say the same thing?
Might be cruel to say it, but that’s called “progress”. The world needs to continue to evolve - latching to old jobs seems silly. We got rid off of blacksmiths because we don’t have the need anymore. Europe once had a huge horse stable industry spanning the entirety of central and western europe. We don’t have that anymore either, because we now have cars. We also don’t have any telegraph operators or switchboard operators (necessary for long distance communication back then), elevator operators or laundry washwomen - these jobs have all been made obsolete by technical advancements.
“It would be silly to ignore it as it makes things easier for me” seems quite short-sighted to me.
I think quite the opposite - it’s the long-sighted better option. Progress is never good for those negatively affected in the short term, but we can’t keep jobs around that aren’t really necessary anymore just for the sake of those people having a job.
And in this particular case, there’s not even any loss involved. They used their voice to train an AI, it was explicity part of the contract and they got paid for it. I honestly do not see the problem.
stephen01king@piefed.zip 1 month ago
You’re already using something convenient to you at the cost of exploiting other lives far away. It’s your smartphone.
Chef6652@lemmy.world 1 month ago
You are right. Now, should we then condone any kind because we condone one? It might be hypocritical to condone one and not the other. But I prefer to chose my fights instead of going for none.
stephen01king@piefed.zip 1 month ago
True, but there are far better things to fight when it comes to AI then companies that properly make contracts with voice actors to use their voice for AI training.