Asklemmy

43945 readers

571 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

232

Why isn't everyone talking about AI generated audiobooks? (reddthat.com)

submitted 1 year ago by PumpkinDrama@reddthat.com to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

114 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I just listened to this AI generated audiobook and if it didn't say it was AI, I'd have thought it was human-made. It has different voices, dramatization, sound effects... The last I'd heard about this tech was a post saying Stephen Fry's voice was stolen and replicated by AI. But since then, nothing, even though it's clearly advanced incredibly fast. You'd expect more buzz for something that went from detectable as AI to indistinguishable from humans so quickly. How is it that no one is talking about AI generated audiobooks and their rapid improvement? This seems like a huge deal to me.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But up until this point, you see, there has always been one medium that is difficult/expensive enough to convincingly fake that it can reasonably be used as proof that something actually happened. If technology advances to the point where a video of something happening is no more convincing than a text description that it happened, and no other more sophisticated, harder-to-fake medium steps in to replace it...

I don't want to live in a world where the truth is anything you can convince your friends of, you feel me?

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

"Up until this point" meaning maybe eighty years where unexpected events had any chance of being on film or televised, and several decades where amateur video was even theoretically possible.

And solid corroborating evidence still barely moved the needle whenever it was footage of cops trying to kill someone.

And what's going to make bodycams necessary regardless is chain-of-custody demonstrating (a) the footage matching what the victims said absolutely came from the camera strapped to the chest of the accused, or (b) some motherfucker orchestrated a cover-up that demonstrates consciousness of guilt.