• Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    112
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    8 months ago

    Technology making labour obsolete is the goal we should all be wanting.

    Attack capitalism not the technology.

      • Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        8 months ago

        That’s kind of the point though isn’t it? It’s not the car’s fault we can’t afford the gas. We need to stop arguing about the ethics of using AI and start arguing about the ethics of the people using it unethically.

        There is a person in that studio that suggested using AI, there is a person who gave the go ahead to do it. Those people need to be the problem, not the toy they decided to play with.

        • Kaldo@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          8 months ago

          That’s a very naive perspective though. We’re not blaming the guns for gun violence, it’s the people, but restricting access to guns is still the proven way to reduce gun incidents. One day when everyone is enlightened enough to not need such restrictions then we can lift them but we’re very far from that point, and the same goes for tools like “AI”.

            • Kaldo@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              8 months ago

              Very easy time if it’s about commercial use (well, at least outside of china). Companies need to have licenses for the software they use, they have to obey copyright laws and trademarks, have contracts and permissions for anything they use in their day to day work. It’s the same reason why no serious company wants to even touch any competitor’s leaked source code when it appears online.

              Just because AI tech bros live in a bubble of their own, thinking they can just take and repurpose anything they need, doesn’t mean it should be like that - for the most case it isn’t and in this case, the law just hasn’t caught up with the tech yet.

            • fcSolar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              It’d be dead easy, actually. Don’t even have to actually ban it: For image generating models, every artist whose work is included in the training data becomes entitled to 5 cents per image in the training data every time a model generates an image, so an artist with 20 works in the model is entitled to a dollar per generated image. Companies offering image generating neural networks would near instantly incur such huge liabilities that it simply wouldn’t be worth it anymore. Same thing could apply to text and voice generating models, just per word instead of per image.

              • msgraves@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                8 months ago

                disregarding the fact that the model learns and extrapolates from the training data, not copying,

                have fun figuring out which model made the image in the first place!

        • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          That said, this choice wasn’t actually a problem right?

          I mean this game doesn’t use voice actors normally. If they used ai voice actors for this update only to represent the ai characters… isn’t that just appropriate?

          Previously all characters in this game were represented only by text, so literally nobody is being replaced here.

          Another way to think about it would be via representation. We get worked up when an ethnic character on screen is played by a different ethnicity, an actor in blackface for example. And in that vein using ai for organic characters could be seen as offensive, but using ai for ai characters would not. In contrast could we see using human voices for ai characters to be insensitive? That may sound far fetched, but this is sci-fi, the ai characters in the game are fully sentient and in their fictional universe would have rights, the whole point is to make the player think about what that means.

          Well I guess I have my takeaway, I may consider boycotting any game that uses human actors for ai characters. Just get an ai actor… seriously.

          • Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Honestly, I’d argue that that’s exactly what AI should be for. Either being used by that one guy to give voices to his passion project because he can’t afford to hire voice actors, or to add a touch of the uncanny to an AI character.

    • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      In practice, capitalism will use technology to subjugate others instead of allowing technology to free us from work.

      • Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yes, as long as people keep focusing on fighting the technology instead of fighting capitalism, this is true.

        So we can fight the technology and definitely lose, only to see our efforts subverted to further entrench capitalism and subjugate us harder (hint: regulation on this kind of thing disproportionately affects individuals while corporations carve out exceptions for themselves because ‘it helps the economy’)…

        Or we can embrace the technology and try to use it to fight capitalism, at which point there’s at least a chance we might win, since the technology really does have the potential to overcome capitalism if and only if we can spread it far enough and fast enough that it can’t be controlled or contained to serve only the rich and powerful.

    • hirtiganto@szmer.info
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      8 months ago

      yea, see i just don’t like how we first automated creativity instead of like, idk, manual labor???

          • Womble@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            And do you wash your clothes in a bucket, wring them out in a mangler before beating your rugs with a stick to get the dust out of them?

            • Pxtl@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              And I don’t make my own paints either when doing art. I still agree with the basic original point:

              It is disappointing that we’re currently automating creativity far faster than manual labour. I’m angry that my art is getting automated away faster than my folding of laundry.

              • Billiam@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                8 months ago

                It’s not; you’re just looking at the beginning of automating creativity when labor automation has been going on for over a hundred years. The introduction of new tech is always more disruptive than refining established tech. Besides which, VA is particularly sensitive to disruption because every VA does essentially the same job- one AI can be programmed to speak in thousands (millions?) of different voices, whereas one manual labor job doesn’t necessarily require the same actions as another.

                Also it’s funny you complain about laundry, given how much doing laundry has been automated.

              • Womble@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                The original point being:

                yea, see i just don’t like how we first automated creativity instead of like, idk, manual labor???

                emphasis mine, but this is just incorrect. Technology has been reducing the need for manual labour (or rather increasing the amount of useful work done with manual labour) since the wheel and the plow.

        • Don_alForno@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          And people still have to lift heavy shit, crawl around in dangerous spaces and generally harm their health to make a living.