this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2025
75 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
38155 readers
265 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No. It's innovation. As was horse carriages and other technologies/jobs being out of date
Valid Argument!! Training AI based on existing voice actor recordings is true valid concern. But this won't stop the industry with eventually having really good vocaloids, or finding people willing to donate their voice or sell it on the cheap.
Bullshit. There's no reason any AI training needs to happen at 100% duty cycle. It can run straight off pure solar with no batteries. Trains only when the sun shines. That said, the power source is irrelevant to the argument. Not all nations rely on fossil fuels.
Whining that society is moving forward and a old job is being obsoleted makes you look like a rube. Want to take your voice acting to the next level? Do something like the Critical Role folks did and adapt.
Even countries can't yet rely on clean energy alone to power everything they have, and for what we know the electric cost for AI has already matched the consumption of some countries. Google promised they would rely only on clean energy for their own AI, only to admit the task is yet impossible. You also don't mention water consumption, wich is so big it has been made illegal in several countries to prevent shortages.
Tbh it is actually the biggest argument here, because not one AI compagny has ever made a single dime, they all run at an unprecedented loss, without investors continuously wasting money in them they would all have died. The value of AI doesn't outmatch such costs, to a point a lot of economists think it might be a bubble that will eventually explode.
For it to be innovation, it would need to bring real value, something that eleviate the costs, so far it has none, the only thing AI companies really sell isn't innovation but the idea of it. Funny enough, the tech in itself isn't the problem here, it might sure have real usefull cases and real value, but not in the way we are applying it today and surely not how we are selling it.
You're confusing AI Training with AI implementation.
AI Training is the big cost.
AI implementation is where the money is made, and lots is being made.
Are you fucking kidding me? Are you that obtuse to the millions of subscriptions people are dishing out?
Are you not aware of the AI vision systems being used in the past 5 years making fucking $$$$$$$$ ?
All of us gamers out there... all that $$$ into hardware to have DLSS is just 'no real value' ??
Why are you commenting on a topic you clearly have no idea how or where its being used?
True, the training is what needs the most power and water, for the implementation it highly depends on what kind of AI we are talking about and how many people use it per day, stable diffusion for instance is also costly when used. But in the end companies still need to regularly train their AI to stay relevant so the issue remains.
"Money is made" yes, "lots" no absolutly not, the money AI companies made are in the small millions per year, while their expenses are in the billions, for instance Anthropic made an impressive 900 mill last year for a ridiculus 5 billions in cost, ChatGPT is in the 6 billions and its only an advanced chatbot.
Actually all that I said take these subscriptions into acount, the amount of money it generates is simply not enough compared to the cost of AI.
The way you are mentioning techs that are nothing alike even though it has AI in the name tells me you know far less than I do.
Please list some countries that run on 100% renewables that are massively building AI datacenters, I'll wait. Meanwhile, consider that useful things could be done with the energy required for AI. Even other uses for AI would be better, like automating menial labor or detecting cancer. Instead AI voices replace and devalue human artistic expression, not because they are better, but because they are cheaper.
I halfway agree, but the issue with that is, that's not what happens in reality. In reality these things don't run on renewable energy. And not utilizing datacenters at capacity is just a waste of resources. And they could find people who donate their voices, which would be fair... But they're not doing that. So I think half the arguments still apply. It is innovation though, we shouldn't be opposed just for the sake of it. It needs some proper argumentation.
"it's innovation" and so is letal injection. this is hyperbole to quickly demonstrate to you that technology is not absent ethical considerations.