Comment on Spotify is going to clone podcasters’ voices — and translate them to other languages

• Grimy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  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.

  source

  • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • ScoopMcPoops@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Read the article dude, it’s the exact opposite of theft and copyright infringement.

      source
• chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  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 strictly controlled, but rarely if ever completely purged – almost all societies accept that some situations exist where the utility justifies the harm.

  To be honest, I feel really weird pushing back against this, because honestly we seem rather ideologically aligned. I think we both agree that technologies which promote economic development – by default – will disproportionately empower the rich and powerful few. With that being said, from an ideological perspective, technological developments are not in fundamental opposition to Marxist philosophy (even technological developments which render some skilled work economically 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 to 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?

  source
• 0xD@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  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.

  source

  • TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • 0xD@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      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 ;)

      source

      • CaptainAniki@lemmy.flight-crew.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        [deleted]

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Rodeo@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The government is elected by the people.

    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.

    source

    • 0xD@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      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.

      source