This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
We're all right to be afraid of AI. But we shouldn't be afraid that it can do voice over, we should be afraid that it will take everyone's jobs and the government won't implement UBI fast enough.
What I'm scared about is that we could all have pocket medical and legal advisors, pocket instruction manuals for any device or vehicle, we could all have a pretty great personal, financial and life planner in our pockets that could provide real equity in society by giving people access to these tools who really could benefit. But instead we will lose it because we were told to be afraid of something because other people couldn't maintain gouging us
Capitalism 101:
And so on.
I do think it will improve life for some but for others it will suck. Example: it much, much easier and cheaper to give each gig worker a micro-managing AI voice I their ear than it is to replace workers with robots (work in Amazon warehouse if you don't believe me). And job automation in white collar sectors will mean more people are taking gig economy jobs.
Maybe it will be cool. Show up at a construct site, sign in, and get told what to do to help frame a house with no real skills ("take a stack of studs to the location on your HUD"). You are now making money without needing other people to supervise that much (skilled framers still do most if it but you keep them more productive). And you could do that for two hours and hand off to the next person.
Hot take: I think there's not a great deal to fear even for most common people. Technological innovation has always stolen away jobs from somewhere, but the large majority of people are still finding work despite the human population exploding drastically over the last century as that happened.
Because realistically, if only a few people are working and earning money, then there's no one consuming to feed the shareholders' desire for unsustainable infinite growth every quarter. It would hurt the economy as much as it does the people in it, and that's the one thing that regulators actually care about.
A lot of it is how fast AI can wipe out industries. Most technological breakthroughs took time, something like this could literally be overnight. We need time to adapt.
Probably half of all office jobs out there could be replaced by a few hundred lines of javascript or python operated by one person replacing a team of 20. I had to write my email address on a paper form today. Paper. And it's been what, half a century since technology at least an order of magnitude more efficient has become accessible to companies?
Technological breakthroughs can happen at breakneck pace, but industries WILL take decades to fully adapt, because the inertia of old capital can drive established but inefficient processes for a very long time until capital dries out, while on the other hand there are only so many startups popping up every year to leverage new efficiencies (and even fewer successful ones, not least of which because VC spending is aimed at buzzword-laden bullshit rather than anything actually meaningful... crypto-metaverses ain't putting anyone out of a job any time soon).
I’m talking about the industries like the original post. I don’t foresee AI replacing office workers overnight, it’s far too costly for that.
So, its capitalism we should be afraid of...
So really it's the inevitable failure of government to be worried about.
I wonder why we didn't have a slew of articles about how "model makers and make-up artists were right to be afraid of CGI."
Could it have anything to do with the people writing the articles having an implicit bias in covering a subject that's been said to be effective at doing the same thing they do (like taking the popular post on Hacker News and mashing it up into a more clickbaity headline and 'article')?
New technology changes the status quo. But generally the status quo isn't something that we should be overly concerned with preserving over progress.
The demo is using Attenborough to get attention, but in practice this could have been a kind of Morgan Freeman and Attenborough mashup that doesn't sound exactly like either but ends up as "deep and smooth narrator voice" which isn't directly infringing on anyone's likeness.
And because it's AI, it would mean anyone else could copy it freely because AI isn't protected.
People are focusing way too much on direct infringement of IP during this early stepping stone period and not realizing that we are largely moving into a post-IP world quickly as this tech scales up. And really, that's going to be a very good thing for society.
Media is moving away from being a product to being a service, and fighting the tide of change right now is just going to lead to a bunch of quickly outdated legacy red tape like the DMCA which holds back smaller operations while the larger players move with the inevitable tides.
The status quo is that people have jobs that help them get survival necessities. The impact is to those people. The benefit is largely to corporations. That is the history of technology.
While I agree, there is nothing sacred about specific people being recognized narrators or actors or makeup artists, there is something sacred about people being able to feed and house themselves. And because our systems has no redress, it is in the working classes' best interest to protect the status quo at this time.
You might want to familiarize yourself with the economics paper "The Nature of the Firm" which in part won its author the Nobel for economics.
The premise is that the reason why large corporations make sense is because of high transactional costs in the operational elements of labor.
A decade ago this was relevant to predicting how things like Uber might displace taxi and limousine companies. If you had wanted to get paid to drive people around, there was a high transactional cost where that had to be your career effectively, until tech came along that allowed it to transition by lowering transactional costs.
But now tech is poised to lower costs for everything. For legal. For HR. For management. For marketing.
The tech is going to prove to be a death knell for large corporations as transactional costs fall. The advantages of being a mega-corp reduce significantly when the point of diminishing returns on size get scaled back to mid size organizations because costs have been decimated.
The future will be one where Mom and Pop stores can have access to legal comparable to Walmart to prevent unfair competition, or where recording artists can directly market and negotiate contracts with venues or streaming services cutting out labels.
And in terms of voice acting, the assumption that labor demand is capped to the status quo supply is quite wrong, as tech like this means orders of magnitude greater demand across what will eventually be 1:1 media.
You'll continue to see voice actors employed for key roles, increasingly with less middlemen taking a cut and more competitive negotiation for their services, while seeing voice licensing increasing as a market driving a massive increase in personalized media along the lines of being able to ask a question to your TV during a Planet Earth 2025 show about what you just saw and getting an answer narrated back by the same narrator as provided the original voiceover, with the actor themselves getting a residual or additional flat fee for having provided that capability.
The talent industry right now is a lot like the MPAA/RIAA in the early 2000s, fiercely fighting to protect the status quo of CD and DVD sales and cable/radio from the scary new Internet, and as a result of opposing it rather than embracing it for themselves out of owning the inevitable future paving the way for tech companies to restructure the market. The trade groups had very rough years because of their own idiocy opposing change while streaming has become a massive industry, when had they embraced that change early on they'd be the ones owning that streaming revenue.
Similarly, if talent unions were smart, instead of trying to fight AI becoming a thing (which will happen no matter what), they'd embrace that change and preemptively lead the changes by having their own union approved options with the cooperation of talent to create a better product than alternative services.
That article reads like it was written by AI lol. Outside of regular business hours...
Where's the video? I was promised a video!
Is that correct?
I was seeing to reroute too eager eagles comment on this thread.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
If you've ever wanted acclaimed broadcaster and documentary filmmaker Sir David Attenborough to narrate your life, you're not alone — and you don't have to keep merely wishing for it anymore.
"Here we have a remarkable specimen of Homo Sapiens, distinguished by his silver circular spectacles and a mane of tousled curly locks," says Attenborough.
The narration appears to be unscripted, autonomous, and surprisingly realistic at capturing not only the documentarian's trademark voice, but also his distinctive style of speech.
"He's wearing what appears to be a blue fabric covering, which can only be assumed to be part of its mating display," AI-Attenborough adds.
This short demo shows that AI clones aren't just a fantasy from that "Black Mirror" episode with Salma Hayek and Annie Murphy — they're the real deal.
On Saturday, Justine Bateman, the AI advisor to the union's negotiating committee, criticized the agreement for not doing enough to protect actors against the creation of their "digital doubles" and replacement by "synthetic performers."
The original article contains 466 words, the summary contains 164 words. Saved 65%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
