I definitely do not want to support this practice, but there’s no way to filter these out 😠.

  • Please_Do_Not@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I very much understand the misgivings about this, and certain parts make me uncomfortable with it, too. But this could be revolutionary for media accessibility, and in my mind could easily be worth it for the ability to make new media immediately accessible to folks with vision challenges, deaf and hard of hearing individuals, and a lot of other folks for whom most media is not easily interactive/accessible. For many people in this situation, you wait months after a traditional version of something is published before an accessible version is released, if it ever is. Often, it’s just not seen as worth a publisher’s time to make their content accessible to an audience they don’t see as significantly profitable.

    Like the printing press took jobs from scribes, but had far more significant impacts democratizing information and education, so might AI in the long run.

    • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      But this could be revolutionary for media accessibility, and in my mind could easily be worth it for the ability to make new media immediately accessible to folks with vision challenges, deaf and hard of hearing individuals, and a lot of other folks for whom most media is not easily interactive/accessible

      As an accessibility add-on / upgrade to standard TTS, sure. Sounds great, even. But I will not accept soulless, robotic, AI-generated voices for something being sold as an audiobook. I just won’t.