I found the 'Atlantic' article interesting, but there were some things that bothered me. For example, when talking about some language-learning app, it implicitly contrasted it with Duolingo by noting that the app used AI-generated voices. Actually, Duolingo does too -- and users complained about it for years (until Duolingo elminated user comments). But what really bugged me is that the audio of it was also AI-generated. Listening to it, I was confused. The intro is about how the author's AI voice was used, leading the listener to believer that this is in contrast to real self. Why, then, was she speaking as if she were an AI-generated voice? Only at the very end, was it revealed that it wasn't the writer imitating an AI voice, but in fact a real AI voice. I would have appreciated this on April first, but otherwise, I found it disingenuous and upsetting.
I found the 'Atlantic' article interesting, but there were some things that bothered me. For example, when talking about some language-learning app, it implicitly contrasted it with Duolingo by noting that the app used AI-generated voices. Actually, Duolingo does too -- and users complained about it for years (until Duolingo elminated user comments). But what really bugged me is that the audio of it was also AI-generated. Listening to it, I was confused. The intro is about how the author's AI voice was used, leading the listener to believer that this is in contrast to real self. Why, then, was she speaking as if she were an AI-generated voice? Only at the very end, was it revealed that it wasn't the writer imitating an AI voice, but in fact a real AI voice. I would have appreciated this on April first, but otherwise, I found it disingenuous and upsetting.