cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/40224994
I just found out that Embark used genAI to replace recalling it’s voice actors. And I am devastated. It was my GOTY and now I’m boycotting it. To the point that I decided to be vocal about it.
I don’t want any AI (not talking about machine learning for the way the Arcs move, I’m talking about the voice actors being replaced) in the work of art that I think are the video games I play.
To game developers: Stop using AI in your video games!
Je viens de découvrir que Embark a utilisé de l’IA générative pour remplacer ses acteurs. Et franchement je suis tellement déçu. C’était clairement mon GOTY, et maintenant je me retrouve à boycotter tout ça, au point de carrément en faire des posts pour toucher le plus de monde possible.
Je ne veux aucune IA (et attention, je ne parle pas du machine learning utilisé pour les déplacements des Arcs) dans les oeuvres d’art que je consomme.
Aux développeurs: Arrêtez d’utiliser de l’IA dans les jeux vidéos !
I don’t know what kind of work you do but let’s say your work requires you to log into some kind a system that somehow knows to track the work you do. Now imagine you start your work and your co-worker logs themselves in your place. You do the labor, they get the benefit. Are you being cheated?
The VA would do that labor if there was no TTS with their voice as a model. The VA labor goes into that model because it is their voice. They do the labor but someone else benefits from it? Are they not being cheated?
And final thought experiment. If the VA-s owned the TTS system and Embark asks for a new voiceline. Are the VA-s supposed to give that new voiceline away for free just because some TTS system generated it? Wouldn’t Embark cheat them out their pay if they said “You made it for free so we should be able to use it for free.”?
The intellectual bankruptcy comes from you because instead of actually thinking about the situation you hide behind the “But they agreed to it” argument. People also agreed with indenture servitude, doesn’t mean it’s acceptable.
deleted by creator
Apparently you do think that indentured servitude, at least to the extent where the person agrees to step into servitude, is completely fine. After all they agreed to the contract.
deleted by creator
Since you decided to ignore my argument all I can do is attack your stupid argument, which is that the signed contract is all that matters. I’m attacking it by stating you don’t have a problem with indentured servitude as long the servant accepts the contract. That is not the same thing as stating VA work is somehow indentured servitude, please be capable of telling the difference here. If the agreement is all that matters then you have to be okay with indentured servitude in the manner I originally described.
deleted by creator
The irony of calling someone a zealot who can’t be wrong, and then straight up ignoring all criticism of your argument. You are right, there is no point in arguing with someone like you.
deleted by creator
Pretty zealous of you to dictate what is or isn’t a valid argument. If my argument is so wrong why not instantly debunk it instead of playing this stupid ring around the Rosie?
We can play the same game if you want. Your argument that they signed the contract is not a valid argument because I think it’s utterly stupid and I shouldn’t be addressing it in the first place. Come back with a real argument.