This won't change anything about Western style courts which have always required an unbroken chain of custody of evidence for evidence to be admissable in court
Far more terrifying is Big Tech having access to a closed version of the same models, in the hands of powerful people with a history of unethical behavior (i.e. Zuckerberg's "Dumb Fucks" comments). In fact it's a miracle and a bit ironic that the Chinese would be the ones to release a plethora of capable open source models, instead of the scraps like we've seen from Google, Meta, OpenAI, etc.
Agreed. The only thing worse than everyone having access to this tech is only governments, mega corps and highly-motivated bad actors having access. They've had it a while and there's no putting the genii back in the bottle. The best thing the rest of us can do is use it widely so everyone can adapt to this being the new normal.
Lol what exactly do you think Zuck would do with your voice, drain your bank account??
Socratic version: how can the Chinese companies afford to make them and give them out for free? Cui bono?
n.b. it's not because they're making money on the API, ex. open openrouter and see how Moonshot or DeepSeek's 1st party inference speed compares to literally any other provider. Note also that this disadvantage can't just be limited to LLMs, due to GPU export rules.
And most of all: they're both local models. The cat is out of the box and it's never going back in. There's no censoring of this. No company that can pull the plug. Anyone with a semi-modern GPU can use these models.
There are far more good and interesting use cases for this technology. Games will let users clone their voices and create virtual avatars and heroes. People will have access to creative tools that let them make movies and shows with their likeness. People that couldn't sing will make music.
Nothing was more scary than the invention of the nuclear weapon. And we're all still here.
Life will go on. And there will be incredible benefits that come out of this.
That said, I am likewise looking forward to the cool things to come out of this.
I was with you, until
But, yeah. Life will go on.
I'm a filmmaker. I've done it photons-on-glass production for fifteen years. Meisner trained, have performed every role from cast to crew. I'm elated that these tools are going to enable me to do more with a smaller budget. To have more autonomy and creative control.
It's not so much of an issue with art for art's sake aided by AI. It's an issue with artistic work becoming unviable work.
All that is before the fact that streaming services are stuffing playlists with AI generated music to further reduce the payouts to artists.
> Yet here we are, hundreds of years later, live music is still desirable, plays still happen, and faceless voices are still around...
Yes all those things still happen, but it's increasingly untenable to make a living through it.
I listen pretty exclusively to metal, and a huge chunk of that is bands that are very small. I go to shows where they headliners stick around at the bar and chat with people. Not saying this to be a hipster - I listen to plenty of "mainstream" stuff too - but to show that it's hard to get smaller than this when it comes to people wanting to make a living making music.
None of them made any money off of Spotify or whatever before AI. They probably don't notice a difference, because they never paid attention to the "revenue" there either.
But they do pay attention to Bandcamp. Because Bandcamp has given them more ability to make money off the actual sale of music than they've had in their history - they don't need to rely on a record deal with a big label. They don't need to hope that the small label can somehow get their name out there.
For some genres, some bands, it's more viable than ever before to make a living. For others, yeah, it's getting harder and harder.
Recorded music and radio obviously reduced the demand for performers, which reduced demand for sheets.
And this itself is another tired trope. Just because you can pattern match and observe that things repeatedly went a certain way in the past, doesn't mean that all future applications of said pattern will play out the same way. On occasion entire industries have been obliterated without a trace by technological advancement.
We can also see that there must be some upper ceiling on what humans in general are capable of - hit that and no new jobs will be created because humans simply won't be capable of the new tasks. (Unless we fuse with the machines or genetically engineer our brains or etc but I'm choosing to treat those eventualities as out of scope.)
It's a bit tricky to come up with concrete examples on the spot, in particular because drawing a line around a given industry or type of work is largely subjective. I could point to blacksmithing and someone could object that we still have metalworkers. But we don't have individual craftsmen hammering out pieces anymore. Someone might still object that an individual babysitting a CNC machine is analogous but somehow it feels materially different to me.
Leather workers are another likely example. To my mind that's materially different from a seamstress, a job that itself has had large parts of the tasks automated.
Horses might be a good example. Buggies and carriages replaced by the engine. Most of the transportation counterparts still exist but I don't think mechanics are really a valid counterpart to horse tenders and all the (historic) economic activity associated with that. Sure a few rich people keep race horses but that's the sort of luxury I was referring to above. The number of related job positions is a tiny fraction of what it was historically and exists almost solely for the purpose of entertaining rich people.
Historically the skill floor only crept up at a fairly slow rate so the vast majority of those displaced found new sectors to work in. But the rate of increase appears to have picked up to an almost unbelievable clip (we're literally in the midst of redefining the roles of software developers of all things, one of the highest skilled "bulk" jobs out there). It should be obvious that if things keep up the way they've been going then we're going to hit a ceiling for humans as a species not so long from now.
Oh no.
Maybe we did frig this up.
But it does change who can be an artist in each niche,
and that’s been interesting to briefly pause and consider here with the community.
and there are even a couple SaaS options for it now.
Hatsune Miku (Fujita Saki) is arguably the most prolific singer in the world, if you consider every Vocaloid user and the millions of songs that have come out of it.
So I don't think there's any uncharted territory...we still have singers, and sampled VST instruments didn't stop instrumentalists from existing; if anything, most of these newcomer generative AI tools are far less flexible or creatively useful than the vast array of synthesis tools musicians already use.
No one was going to replace voice actors for TV and movie dubs with Miku whereas the cutting edge TTS tools seem to be nearing that point. Presumably human vocal performances will follow that in short order.
I simply think people don't really know that the new world requires a new set of rules of engagement for anything that exists behind a screen (for now).
Except that building a nuclear weapon was not available to everyone, certainly not to dumb people whose brain have been feeded with social media content.
> And there will be incredible benefits that come out of this.
Your username is echelon.
I just wanted to point that out.