Maybe a good balance would be hiring a person to speak lines into a microphone. It could employ a person and create art with an acceptable bare minimum quality standard. If you can’t afford that and would rather push the costs onto government subsidies for power and emissions, maybe instead just do text dialogue or pull a classic Banjo and Kazooie single dialogue line randomly jumbled up and pitch shifted for every interaction.
I assume you also only buy hand crafted porcelain items, only buy hand picked produce and generally avoid all automation amd modern convenience. Take your clothes to a local hand-wash rather than using a washing machine too do you? I agree that the energy cost should be taken into account before we declare it to be cheaper to use “AI” generated content.
Like LLMs just spontaneously create lines of audio? They need a human operator to direct them to generate audio just like machines that make most vases are human operated but allow the person to make far more and more quickly than they would by hand. An LLM is still just a tool that needs a person to wield it, it doesn’t replace them it just changes their role and makes them more efficient.
Using machine learning to clone voices required building upon millions or maybe even billions of lines of dialogue to reach the current point, and only now that it is here can you easily approximate a person’s voice without them even knowing. So yes, it does magically generate sound with minimal input, that is how that works.
The machines that are currently used to shape and paint ceramics are not Machine Learning models. They’re simple and precise automations. Like a program that packages audio to .mp3 format. The equivalent to that would be a machine that designs the vase based on thousands of older examples, designs the packaging, and designs the machinery that prepares it. It’s going to do a shit job that negatively impacts consumers but in the process it displaced thousands of workers in one go, so enjoy the profits.
You missed the point of what I said. Machines that manufacture goods put many people out of the job and yet you now very few people think that is an issue. At the time however the same kind of arguments I see made against LLMs putting people out of work were being made about these machines making soulless products that missed the human touch. LLMs are just a new tool we’ve invented to make life easier for ourselves. In time the same thing will happen with LLMs once the hype dies down and they just become part of the tool sets we all use without thinking about it.
If you understood my point why didn’t you address it rather than meandering around it asserting that somehow this particular invention is totally different to previous disruptive technologies that we accept as having been beneficial and no on opposes amymore? How exactly is it different this time in history where it never really has been previously? It may well be of course, but history is against it being so.
Maybe a good balance would be hiring a person to speak lines into a microphone. It could employ a person and create art with an acceptable bare minimum quality standard. If you can’t afford that and would rather push the costs onto government subsidies for power and emissions, maybe instead just do text dialogue or pull a classic Banjo and Kazooie single dialogue line randomly jumbled up and pitch shifted for every interaction.
I assume you also only buy hand crafted porcelain items, only buy hand picked produce and generally avoid all automation amd modern convenience. Take your clothes to a local hand-wash rather than using a washing machine too do you? I agree that the energy cost should be taken into account before we declare it to be cheaper to use “AI” generated content.
If vases at the store were Handcrafted by LLMs, as if that made any fucking sense, then I’d rather go without, yeah.
Like LLMs just spontaneously create lines of audio? They need a human operator to direct them to generate audio just like machines that make most vases are human operated but allow the person to make far more and more quickly than they would by hand. An LLM is still just a tool that needs a person to wield it, it doesn’t replace them it just changes their role and makes them more efficient.
Using machine learning to clone voices required building upon millions or maybe even billions of lines of dialogue to reach the current point, and only now that it is here can you easily approximate a person’s voice without them even knowing. So yes, it does magically generate sound with minimal input, that is how that works.
The machines that are currently used to shape and paint ceramics are not Machine Learning models. They’re simple and precise automations. Like a program that packages audio to .mp3 format. The equivalent to that would be a machine that designs the vase based on thousands of older examples, designs the packaging, and designs the machinery that prepares it. It’s going to do a shit job that negatively impacts consumers but in the process it displaced thousands of workers in one go, so enjoy the profits.
You missed the point of what I said. Machines that manufacture goods put many people out of the job and yet you now very few people think that is an issue. At the time however the same kind of arguments I see made against LLMs putting people out of work were being made about these machines making soulless products that missed the human touch. LLMs are just a new tool we’ve invented to make life easier for ourselves. In time the same thing will happen with LLMs once the hype dies down and they just become part of the tool sets we all use without thinking about it.
I didn’t miss shit, your points are just ass.
If you understood my point why didn’t you address it rather than meandering around it asserting that somehow this particular invention is totally different to previous disruptive technologies that we accept as having been beneficial and no on opposes amymore? How exactly is it different this time in history where it never really has been previously? It may well be of course, but history is against it being so.