2 ms·

I agree with everything you said. But this is 2023. The laws, when not actively hostile to human wellbeing, are at the very least unconcerned with it. 'The che

• Riverheart 4y ago
  Well another way to look at it is human society and its laws should tend to the needs of its citizens and the job loss implications of this and other AI tech should concern the state which likely doesn’t want a bunch of idle people dependent on the their coin purse. Some protection of human workers seems warranted. I don’t think think copyright or public rights even need to come into play. Arbitrary or not, this technology serves companies more so than workers. It’s not clear the benefits outweigh the cost to society. The cool factor is not a compelling enough argument to allow it unrestricted. Everyone needs work, that’s a basic fact of life. We should be mindful knowing one day we will be targets of replacement. As consumers, we should avoid supporting, where possible, commercial uses of AI voices and as citizens, support new laws that curtail their commercial use. Not sure what else can be done as people will use this stuff commercially if able and people will consume it because it exists. It would be nice if people who lost their voice could get it back. Although he would be less iconic, speech synthesis like this could have given Stephen Hawking his voice back. That harms no one so I can see exceptions for such cases.