I don’t know about distinct voices. The sample didn’t cover dialogue. It’s possible with AI, but I wouldn’t expect it from low-effort AI-generation.

I listened to one of the Audible samples, labeled Virtual Voice. Apple had one labeled as “Madison,” so who knows whether they’re all going to be labeled so clearly.

It sounded like a TikTok narrator, passable but at the quality level I would expect from a Netflix second-screen show. The book was at the same quality level, too. (The author does “life and business coaching with innovative and adaptable strategies, transcending traditional boundaries.”)

I consider these kinds of books and narration to be slop, so I’m definitely not the target market. My worry is that publishers will use AI narrators as virtual scabs to lowball actual creators.

The first few chapters seemed like someone took all their antisemitic conspiracy theory / murder fantasies and model-swapped aliens for Jews.

I can’t unsee it, and I wish I could suspension-of-disbelief harder, because I was initially really interested in the premise.

Edit: Maybe xenophobic / immigrants is more apt.

Well that’s a rude thing to say to your… girlfriend?

The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. … A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. … But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes ‘Boots’ theory of socio-economic unfairness. (Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms)

Culturally sensitive depiction of… what exactly? Knowing nothing, I see a person with a laser sword and a gargoyle.

Source: Solo Leveling(?)

I’m guessing based on the art style.

Fair enough. I get overwhelmed by all the ethical questions that come with being in the real world.

My partner outsourced most of that mental work and focused on trying to be a good person from moment to moment. I think she would’ve broadly agreed with you from a karma standpoint.

It looks you’re coming at this in bad faith, so I’ll ignore you.

For anyone else reading, the CIA version basically revises “brutal dictator” to “brutal ‘captain of a team’.”

As long as they punch down and kiss up to the right people, assholes can usually reduce “tit for tat” to “tit for slap-on-the-wrist”.

I agree you that they are more likely than not to produce a suboptimal future.

I just disagree with the premise that “winning less” is the same as tit for tat.

Tell me if I’m wrong, but I think tit for tat was written from the perspective of nation vs nation decision-making.

It assumes you have roughly equivalent power, i.e. person vs person or business vs business.

I don’t think it applies in person vs boss, or mom 'n pop shop vs international conglomerate.

OP’s saying that neoliberals and the CIA were/are contradicting each other, not that Stalin was a good guy.

I was going to say The Matrix was ackshually a closeted trans allegory, but it turns out it’s both (but also, whatever you want it to be, kinda).

Source: Kowloon Generic Romance?

What is TBATE?