Also:
> This technology is incredibly powerful and useful
At what, exactly? The only "useful" case you presented is "actually, replacing voice actors with AI isn't so bad".
Edit: If you've got a cadre of volunteer voice actors that don't suck hidden somewhere, you need to share buddy. That's the only way your comments make sense.
Your vision of a world where anyone can create voice for their projects for cheap CAN NOT exist without someone getting exploited. Nor is it sustainable, really.
You said they this world would be worth some people losing their careers, but what do we gain? More games/audiobooks of questionable quality? Is this really worth fucking a whole profession over?
I really hope we can deprecate a whole bunch of professions related to fossil fuels, including coal miners and oil drillers etc.
I sympathise with the people working in those professions, I do, but times change and professions come and go, and I don't buy the argument that we should stop inventing new stuff because it might outcompete people.
As for positive uses of this technology, it might be used to immortalise a voice actor. For example Sir David Attenborough probably won't be around forever, but thanks to this technology, his iconic voice might be!
It is not unfair that, in order to have voice acting, you must have someone perform voice acting. You don't have the natural right to professional-level voice acting for free, nor do you need it to create beautiful things.
The tech is simply something that may be possible, and it has tradeoffs, and claiming that it's an accessibility problem does not grant you permission to ignore the tradeoffs.
I also don't have the natural right to work as a professional-level voice actor.
"Natural rights" aren't really a thing, the phrase is a thought-terminating cliché we use for the rhetorical purpose of saying something is good or bad without having to justify it further.
> The tech is simply something that may be possible, and it has tradeoffs, and claiming that it's an accessibility problem does not grant you permission to ignore the tradeoffs.
A few times as a kid, I heard the meme that the American constitution allows everything then tells you what's banned, the French one bans everything then tells you what's allowed, and the Soviet one tells you nothing and arrests you anyway.
It's not a very accurate meme, but still, "permission" is the wrong lens: it's allowed until it's illegal. You want it to be illegal to replace voice actors with synthetic voices, you need to campaign to make it so as this isn't the default. (Unlike with using novel tech for novel types of fraud, where fraud is already illegal and new tech doesn't change that).
Being rich to create a beautiful experience is neither required nor does it require a synthetic voice to achieve.
It does require effort and being rich can reduce that effort for sure.