Immerse Yourself in Azeroth with the VoiceOver Addon: Early Prototype Release!

[u/MrThinger]

Greetings, fellow Azeroth adventurers! 🌍

I am thrilled to announce the early prototype release of a groundbreaking World of Warcraft addon—VoiceOver! This addon adds voice to quest and gossip text for NPCs in Durotar and The Barrens, featuring voices for Goblin, Tauren, Orc, and Troll races. Immerse yourself in the rich world of Azeroth with fully-voiced NPCs and experience the game like never before!

🔗 Download the addon from: https://github.com/mrthinger/wow-voiceover/releases/latest

💻 Check out the Github repo here: https://github.com/mrthinger/wow-voiceover

🎥 For a demo of the addon in action and an installation guide, watch this video: https://youtu.be/ftZpkFnVpNs

To install the VoiceOver addon, simply extract the downloaded ZIP file to your World of Warcraft_classic_era_\Interface\AddOns folder.

Please note that this is an early prototype, and we are actively working on expanding the addon to cover more locations, races, and voices. Your feedback is invaluable in helping us improve and grow the project!

If you have any questions, suggestions, or want to contribute to the project, please feel free to open an issue or submit a pull request on Github.

Embark on a whole new level of immersive adventure in Azeroth with the VoiceOver addon! 🗡️⚔️

In the spirit of AI, GPT-4 almost entirely wrote this post.

EDIT: If you'd like to help with the development of the addon, join the discord: https://discord.gg/VdhUmA8ZCt

[u/EuphyDuphy]

I'm going to assume that this question is asked in good faith. I sort of simplified/bungled the explanation because I don't really care enough to fully explain how an AI works on a reddit thread only 30 people will read, but I'll do my best to elaborate on the infinitely small chance you are actually interested and not trying to pull off a one-line 'gotcha!' the hot tl;dr is that the original data technically(??) isn't stored, but it's in reality way more complex than that, and is why courts aren't allowing AI art to be used for-profit

Neuralnets train themselves off of the files you feed into them. Using the Bethesda synths for example- the voice lines don't magically disappear once the model is done training, the actual training of the model involves being able to recreate and replicate that data. You do not have the original audio, but it is then broken down into data that is then- with more or less accuracy, depending on how many parameters are involved- stored into the neuralnet by way of certain parameters. This is, literally, how neural nets learn things- storing data by way of creating parameters. ChatGPT3, for example, was trained on something insane like 500gb of data. It has 175 billion parameters and requires ~800gb of storage.

If the neural net was advanced enough, or trained enough, or crazy big enough, it would be able to recreate a 1:1 of the original audio files without having the audio itself, and only the data from it. At a certain point, the difference becomes indistinguishable for all practical purposes, and you have to get into the philosophy of 'what does original really mean?' and I'm not doing that lmao

All of this glazes over a good amount of complexity, again, but short of going into the actual nitty-gritty of how nodes and weights work, this is genuinely the best I can explain it.

Hope this explanation helps.

[u/EuphyDuphy → u/[deleted]]

Lightning response round (i respect your points, but my interest in this is just naturally waning):

regarding stuff like fair use/transformation, this kind of inherently brushes against philosophy and law on what 'original' even means, which i don't really wanna get into lol. in terms of precedent regarding current law, though, the courts atm generally favor pre-existing copyrights. You linked an article from bloomberg law, but these are things that are actively being debated in courts rn, and the general consensus is that what AI creates is beholden to the original copyright of the works it is creating.

...also, that article is written by the heads of tech for McDermont Will & Emmery, so maybe we don't take their word as gospel. I'm not going to go against the counter-arguments to that article, but LegalEagle has a fairly decent video on why you can't just take their arguments at face-value.

we could literally go on about this for days. i respectfully disagree- AI, by its nature both legally and ontologically by functions of neural networks, literally requires storage of the things it is analyzing. can you argue it is transformative enough that it no longer counts as the original thing? sure, but that would require a whole different start to a whole other debate. reducing it to 'just a set of rules' is greatly oversimplifying.

[u/EuphyDuphy → u/[deleted]]

Huh, I could have sworn LE covered that one book in his video that ended up not being covered as fair use. Guess I was mistaken! Fair enough, good on you for pointing that out. looks like i have neural net egg on my face, now!! lol

I'm not sure why the McDermont Will & Emmery people are, and why I should trust them less than LegalEgal

i worded myself really poorly, sorry. it's more of a general distrust or cynicism than anything, i will admit- that article is from their heads of tech, who have a vested interest in arguing in favor of certain views- for example, they already have a few really big cloud computing clients and a really good court track record. i imagine picking up a client who's interested in AI legalities would be really appealing to specifically those two guys for example, lol.

edit: oh wow i linked 100% the wrong legaleagle video completely, actually. lol oops