There was one just yesterday where AI printed "Listening on 127.0.0.1:1234" while actually listening on "0.0.0.0:1234".
Let AI pay for them and AI listen to them too. That way we can pay for and listen to actually good ones.
Two narrators with one reading the male and one reading the female characters is usually okay but the full cast dramas are the worst.
Sound effects, music [...] improve the experience
Actually hard disagreeing on that. I absolutely hate the audio drama versions of audio books and prefer the narrator only ones since they are much clearer and require a lot less focus to listen to and work in more contexts (background noise,...). Sound effects and music (while something is read, intro or outro style music is okay) distract from the actual content.
It’s the publishers that hold any real power
It might be time to finally change that, especially considering what a piss poor job they have been doing for decades at their own part of the production of media.
So, would your opinion change if it turns out they’re going to use purchased voice rights to have a single narrator perform the whole book and then use AI to turn the narrators voice into a full voice cast?
It would make me hate it even more because I already hate the existing full cast of humans audio dramas 99% of the time and actually prefer a single (or low number of) narrator approach.
A nice rule of thumb is that the doubling time for anything growing by a specific percentage is roughly 70 divided by that percentage. So inflation of 2% annually means something will be twice as expensive every 35 years. A 2% increase in energy use means we will use twice as much energy in 35 years. And those fossil fuel deposits (or other raw materials of choice) that are going to last a couple of hundred years "at current rate of use" will be used up twice as fast at 2% increased use every year in a mere 35 years and four times as fast in 70 years at which point those "hundreds of years" of reserves are probably almost gone.
In debates it is sometimes referred to as gish gallop. Throw a huge number of things out there without regard for the likelihood of success with each of them to overwhelm the opponent.
Business as usual.
Well, by the standards of the British Empire that could very well be considered true.
But they literally can't ask you for it if it is about high volumes of data that only become useful if you have all or close to all of it like statistical analysis of rare events. It would be prohibitively expensive if you had to ask hundreds of thousands of people just to figure out that there is an increase in e.g. cancer or some lung disease near coal power plants.
Honestly, I don't need innovation in every area, I would settle for existing systems getting more robust and streamlined and better standardized and compatible to each other (e.g. in the space where IoT devices all have their own app make some standard to get rid of that).
ChatGPT Karma system that only allows limited interaction while you haven't jumped through enough hoops?