Search
1000 results for “thisstage”
-
Flamenco inspired Kpop here. I chose this stage because I like the outfits.
SONAMOO -- I Knew It
https://youtu.be/Cw8u06_FmS0?si=AAFfmybArES0UMhD -
Flamenco inspired Kpop here. I chose this stage because I like the outfits.
SONAMOO -- I Knew It
https://youtu.be/Cw8u06_FmS0?si=AAFfmybArES0UMhD -
Stage three 146x114 - mixed on canvas #wip #studioview #processart #abstractexpression #contemporaryart #huguesamblard
At this stage, it seems that something takes shape quite naturally in the act of painting; nothing is planned in advance, otherwise it ceases to be art. Trust your instincts.
-
Leading from out front in 2026 😮💨
Kimi Antonelli has led the most laps at this stage of the season! 💨
-
What is AI criticism for?
I’ve removed this from a monograph because it doesn’t really fit. I’m not sure I stand by this argument from last summer but I thought it was worth sharing. Claude Opus 4.7 has lightly rewritten in for clarity in order to make it more accessible as a blog post.
What is AI criticism for? It’s a question that lurks in the background of much current writing about large language models, even if it rarely gets foregrounded. Alternative LLMs driven by collective purposes rather than the imperatives of the market are in principle possible, even if the scale of capital, compute and expertise required poses an obvious constraint on realisation. The fact we have the LLMs we do is a consequence of the socioeconomic order in which they evolved. There’s a vibrant landscape of alternative possibilities which has been materially foreclosed by the gloomy political economy of the 2010s that produced the platform capitalism now unfolding into its terminal form. The objection here is to a cultural foreclosing that ossifies our ideational capacities even further by collapsing what is sociotechnically possible into a sometimes stylised characterisation of what has been socioeconomically realised.
This doesn’t mean we could realise these possibilities if only we could imagine them. That argument would invert precisely the idealism at work in some AI criticism. An objection I’ve frequently encountered when presenting this approach is that assuming the inevitability of diffusion is a self-fulfilling prophecy: by not considering the possibility that LLMs might fail to rapidly diffuse, critics like me contribute to bringing that diffusion about. In its most moralistic form this is a claim about what the radical sociologist C. Wright Mills called the responsibility of intellectuals — if we have social and cultural power qua intellectuals, we ought to exercise it carefully.
Consider a thought experiment. Imagine there had been an immediate cultural response within higher education in which academics uniformly decided LLMs were illegitimate technologies which should be avoided on ethical grounds. What difference would this have made? The impact within higher education itself would likely have been minor. Student uptake of generative AI was not contingent on the view academics held of language models, even if the extent and nature of student use might have been influenced by encountering a strident stance. The same dynamics would apply in wider society, where the residual cultural authority of academics might influence outcomes but would certainly fail to determine them.
This reflects the fundamentally limited influence of academics on society, even if “we” were to act in unison — which any observer of higher education would surely concede is a vanishingly unlikely outcome. A unified rejection might have catalysed a more influential movement of people refusing the technology, but this would be a fortification of an existing community rather than the creation of a new one. What’s more significant is the modality through which LLMs diffused as consumer-facing services. When software is made available as a service, particularly on a freemium base, it spreads through peer networks (in person and digitally mediated) as well as through advertising and word of mouth.
It’s true that if everyone believed LLMs should be rejected, the technology would not have diffused. But this sociological truism doesn’t get us far in making sense of the role of the AI critic. It’s the equivalent of observing that if no one believed in capitalism we would no longer exist within a capitalist system. It’s trivially accurate because it fails to grapple with the cultural dynamics that shape belief and practice. These do not overturn in a single movement but through slow and messy processes of contestation and struggle which produce counter-reactions and unintended consequences. Money is a useful comparison: it would not have its social force if people didn’t believe in it, but this doesn’t mean we can wish currency away through a deliberate process of delegitimisation. It does, however, explain how financial crises occur when trust breaks down — quietly at first, and then all at once.
The insistence that diffusion would not have happened if only we had been more steadfast in our refusal embodies a prioritisation of culture over structure — or, in a different register, an emphasis on ideas to the exclusion of materiality. It fails to grapple with the material forces driving diffusion, focusing instead on the cultural currents which accelerated and intensified that process. The point is not that the “real” story is the material one, but that any adequate account of diffusion has to incorporate both dimensions. The ideational story of how “AI” has been constructed, promoted and reflected upon is crucial to understanding how LLMs have diffused over the last three years. But it doesn’t follow that a change in the stories would be sufficient to bring about a different process of diffusion. Necessary perhaps; certainly not sufficient.
What do we imagine critique will accomplish?
Consider the now-ubiquitous critiques of social media. Aspects of what Ben Tarnoff and Moira Weigel call tech humanism are now cultural common sense in many contexts. The intellectual nuances of arguments like Shoshana Zuboff’s surveillance capitalism have been flattened into a generalised recognition that social platforms are algorithmically mediated in ways which serve the interests of the firms rather than their users. There’s wide recognition that platforms exercise an influence over attention which is as difficult to resist as it is obvious to recognise. While there’s evidence users are increasingly turning away from social media — particularly if we count the turn towards private messaging as a de facto retreat — this group is still vastly exceeded by users who recognise the negative impact while continuing to post.
The situation Jodi Dean described in her Lacanian media criticism — being “stuck doing the same thing over and over again because this doing produces enjoyment. Post. Post. Post. Click. Click. Click” — has moved from theoretical observation to a routine feature of daily life for the great majority of the population. It’s an analysis many regular users can regurgitate on demand, a routine feature of conversations about the platforms that form such an integral part of their social infrastructure. Indeed, offering such analysis is practically an expression of cultural capital: it positions oneself as a savvy user conscious of manipulation, in contrast to the imagined dupes who make up the platform’s user base.
Even allowing for some rhetorical exaggeration, it’s uncontentious at this stage to claim that mass use of social media platforms can coexist with mass critique of their operations — much as, in an earlier sociotechnical context, concern about the impact of television coexisted with the ubiquity of mass broadcast. This doesn’t invalidate the content of the critique, but it should lead us to reflect earnestly on what role we imagine such critiques play, whether we make them in academic forums or ritualistically enact them in everyday life. As Fred Moten and Stefano Harney put it, the critical academic “questions the university, questions the state, questions art, politics, culture” — but the question of what is accomplished through this critique can remain weirdly elusive.
For Slavoj Žižek this reflects an overemphasis on subjective belief at the expense of objective action: we congratulate ourselves on subjective insight while retaining objective complicity through the routine action that reproduces the system we are effecting a critical distance from. Jana Bacevic has analysed at length how that distance is itself a precarious construct, such that constructing a distance from our conditions more often than not mystifies the nature of our involvement in them. We are left with stock figures who embody and are responsible for the pathologies of the system — the neoliberal manager being a potent example in the critical university studies literature she so insightfully unpicks — while our routine participation in its reproduction becomes elusive as an object of knowledge. Theory/practice inconsistency isn’t unique to critical academics, of course; it reflects a wider question about the relationship between knowledge and action.
The closing window
These issues matter given the time cycle on which novel technologies come to be institutionalised. As Sherry Turkle noted in her classic discussion of the computer, now-familiar technologies were once strange, in the same way that the now-strange LLM will soon be familiar. The problem is made more acute by the move to diffuse LLMs into infrastructure, even if the chatbot form remains alongside them. In Susan Leigh Star’s now-classical formulation, “The normally invisible quality of working infrastructure becomes visible when it breaks down: the server is down, the bridge washes out, there is a power blackout”. To the extent that infrastructure works, it tends to fade into the background of social life as an unacknowledged condition that resists attempts to foreground it as an object of criticism.
It would not yet be true to say LLMs have become part of the infrastructure — a consequence of their relative novelty and the primacy of the chatbot form for most users. But the direction of travel is towards increasing familiarisation and invisibility, depending on how they’re anchored in the lifeworld: the routine stabilised presence which comes from being-with an LLM over time, and the operations in the background of LLMs diffused into browsers, software and platforms.
This makes it imperative to identify and reflect on LLMs as sociotechnical objects in ways that support practical reasoning. What are better or worse ways to act with and on LLMs? How are these actions facilitated or frustrated by the different contexts we inhabit? Which actions are ones we should proceed with individually, and which need to be collective? What is to be done?
Too much AI criticism remains preoccupied by the obscene character of the LLM in a way that not only lacks interest in this link to practical reasoning but actively makes it difficult to draw conclusions at that level. As Turkle observes, “the vehemence of response expresses our stake in maintaining the line between the natural and the artificial, between the human and the mechanical,” such that these discussions are “charged with feelings about what is special about people: their creativity, their sensuality, their pain and pleasure.” When these powerful currents are operating, our discussions easily become as much about propping up tenuous conceptual boundaries as about understanding what is happening and deciding what to do. Pierpaolo Donati’s analysis suggests this threat is inherent to a liberal humanism which conceives of the distinctively human in terms of the individual’s properties and powers. As technology develops, those characteristics are forever encroached upon by increasingly capable machines.
To the extent we create a boundary between our moralised criticism and our practical action in the world, we reinforce the existing tendency for critique to reinforce objective complicity — by offering a self-congratulatory reward for seeing through the mystification while continuing to act the same. The point isn’t that academic AI critics themselves are doing this. It’s that the structure of AI criticism, as it exists and circulates in the social world, lends itself to this form of deresponsibilisation.
A change in the representation of what we’re interacting with — replacing the hyped object of the machine-god-to-be with a grotesque computational vampire — isn’t sufficient to change what people do in the interaction. We have to grapple with the structural and cultural factors underlying the diffusion that has already happened and the diffusion still to come.
What we should be aiming for is a more effective and more reflexive AI criticism. The point of departure is what I take to be an overblown reaction to current chatbots, as opposed to a focus on the system in which they emerged and what that system will produce next. It’s ultimately a difference in where we place the emphasis, and what that means for the mundane ways LLMs are coming to be encountered and embedded in social life.
I’m not asking critics to stop being critical but to reorientate criticism towards helping people navigate these systems on a practical level — including, though not limited to, avoiding them entirely where that feels necessary. AI criticism at the moment struggles to do this, partly because it remains preoccupied by the obscene object of the LLM and the aesthetics of repulsion associated with it.
There’s still a window of time in which we can bring about meaningful change, before LLMs pass through their strangeness and become familiar. There’s still a window before the enshittification dynamics really start to take hold and turn the first wave of frontier models into something far more manipulative and destructive. There’s still a window before a user culture is embedded — users tied into modes of being-with LLMs that have stabilised into a familiar presence in their lifeworld, subsequently hard to unravel.
We should not exhaust this window rehearsing our disgust and scepticism towards objects which hundreds of millions of people experience as useful and supportive presences in their lives. If we do, we miss the window in exactly the same way the moralistic critics of the early wave of social media missed theirs — failing to steer public debate and user culture, let alone the policy and politics downstream of them, before what Richard Seymour calls the social industries embedded themselves so resolutely in the lifeworld that it became as difficult to imagine a complete refusal of them as it is to imagine the end of capitalism.
#AI #AICriticism #artificialIntelligence #bigTech #ChatGPT #LLM #LLMs #politicalEconomy #technology -
What is AI criticism for?
I’ve removed this from a monograph because it doesn’t really fit. I’m not sure I stand by this argument from last summer but I thought it was worth sharing. Claude Opus 4.7 has lightly rewritten in for clarity in order to make it more accessible as a blog post.
What is AI criticism for? It’s a question that lurks in the background of much current writing about large language models, even if it rarely gets foregrounded. Alternative LLMs driven by collective purposes rather than the imperatives of the market are in principle possible, even if the scale of capital, compute and expertise required poses an obvious constraint on realisation. The fact we have the LLMs we do is a consequence of the socioeconomic order in which they evolved. There’s a vibrant landscape of alternative possibilities which has been materially foreclosed by the gloomy political economy of the 2010s that produced the platform capitalism now unfolding into its terminal form. The objection here is to a cultural foreclosing that ossifies our ideational capacities even further by collapsing what is sociotechnically possible into a sometimes stylised characterisation of what has been socioeconomically realised.
This doesn’t mean we could realise these possibilities if only we could imagine them. That argument would invert precisely the idealism at work in some AI criticism. An objection I’ve frequently encountered when presenting this approach is that assuming the inevitability of diffusion is a self-fulfilling prophecy: by not considering the possibility that LLMs might fail to rapidly diffuse, critics like me contribute to bringing that diffusion about. In its most moralistic form this is a claim about what the radical sociologist C. Wright Mills called the responsibility of intellectuals — if we have social and cultural power qua intellectuals, we ought to exercise it carefully.
Consider a thought experiment. Imagine there had been an immediate cultural response within higher education in which academics uniformly decided LLMs were illegitimate technologies which should be avoided on ethical grounds. What difference would this have made? The impact within higher education itself would likely have been minor. Student uptake of generative AI was not contingent on the view academics held of language models, even if the extent and nature of student use might have been influenced by encountering a strident stance. The same dynamics would apply in wider society, where the residual cultural authority of academics might influence outcomes but would certainly fail to determine them.
This reflects the fundamentally limited influence of academics on society, even if “we” were to act in unison — which any observer of higher education would surely concede is a vanishingly unlikely outcome. A unified rejection might have catalysed a more influential movement of people refusing the technology, but this would be a fortification of an existing community rather than the creation of a new one. What’s more significant is the modality through which LLMs diffused as consumer-facing services. When software is made available as a service, particularly on a freemium base, it spreads through peer networks (in person and digitally mediated) as well as through advertising and word of mouth.
It’s true that if everyone believed LLMs should be rejected, the technology would not have diffused. But this sociological truism doesn’t get us far in making sense of the role of the AI critic. It’s the equivalent of observing that if no one believed in capitalism we would no longer exist within a capitalist system. It’s trivially accurate because it fails to grapple with the cultural dynamics that shape belief and practice. These do not overturn in a single movement but through slow and messy processes of contestation and struggle which produce counter-reactions and unintended consequences. Money is a useful comparison: it would not have its social force if people didn’t believe in it, but this doesn’t mean we can wish currency away through a deliberate process of delegitimisation. It does, however, explain how financial crises occur when trust breaks down — quietly at first, and then all at once.
The insistence that diffusion would not have happened if only we had been more steadfast in our refusal embodies a prioritisation of culture over structure — or, in a different register, an emphasis on ideas to the exclusion of materiality. It fails to grapple with the material forces driving diffusion, focusing instead on the cultural currents which accelerated and intensified that process. The point is not that the “real” story is the material one, but that any adequate account of diffusion has to incorporate both dimensions. The ideational story of how “AI” has been constructed, promoted and reflected upon is crucial to understanding how LLMs have diffused over the last three years. But it doesn’t follow that a change in the stories would be sufficient to bring about a different process of diffusion. Necessary perhaps; certainly not sufficient.
What do we imagine critique will accomplish?
Consider the now-ubiquitous critiques of social media. Aspects of what Ben Tarnoff and Moira Weigel call tech humanism are now cultural common sense in many contexts. The intellectual nuances of arguments like Shoshana Zuboff’s surveillance capitalism have been flattened into a generalised recognition that social platforms are algorithmically mediated in ways which serve the interests of the firms rather than their users. There’s wide recognition that platforms exercise an influence over attention which is as difficult to resist as it is obvious to recognise. While there’s evidence users are increasingly turning away from social media — particularly if we count the turn towards private messaging as a de facto retreat — this group is still vastly exceeded by users who recognise the negative impact while continuing to post.
The situation Jodi Dean described in her Lacanian media criticism — being “stuck doing the same thing over and over again because this doing produces enjoyment. Post. Post. Post. Click. Click. Click” — has moved from theoretical observation to a routine feature of daily life for the great majority of the population. It’s an analysis many regular users can regurgitate on demand, a routine feature of conversations about the platforms that form such an integral part of their social infrastructure. Indeed, offering such analysis is practically an expression of cultural capital: it positions oneself as a savvy user conscious of manipulation, in contrast to the imagined dupes who make up the platform’s user base.
Even allowing for some rhetorical exaggeration, it’s uncontentious at this stage to claim that mass use of social media platforms can coexist with mass critique of their operations — much as, in an earlier sociotechnical context, concern about the impact of television coexisted with the ubiquity of mass broadcast. This doesn’t invalidate the content of the critique, but it should lead us to reflect earnestly on what role we imagine such critiques play, whether we make them in academic forums or ritualistically enact them in everyday life. As Fred Moten and Stefano Harney put it, the critical academic “questions the university, questions the state, questions art, politics, culture” — but the question of what is accomplished through this critique can remain weirdly elusive.
For Slavoj Žižek this reflects an overemphasis on subjective belief at the expense of objective action: we congratulate ourselves on subjective insight while retaining objective complicity through the routine action that reproduces the system we are effecting a critical distance from. Jana Bacevic has analysed at length how that distance is itself a precarious construct, such that constructing a distance from our conditions more often than not mystifies the nature of our involvement in them. We are left with stock figures who embody and are responsible for the pathologies of the system — the neoliberal manager being a potent example in the critical university studies literature she so insightfully unpicks — while our routine participation in its reproduction becomes elusive as an object of knowledge. Theory/practice inconsistency isn’t unique to critical academics, of course; it reflects a wider question about the relationship between knowledge and action.
The closing window
These issues matter given the time cycle on which novel technologies come to be institutionalised. As Sherry Turkle noted in her classic discussion of the computer, now-familiar technologies were once strange, in the same way that the now-strange LLM will soon be familiar. The problem is made more acute by the move to diffuse LLMs into infrastructure, even if the chatbot form remains alongside them. In Susan Leigh Star’s now-classical formulation, “The normally invisible quality of working infrastructure becomes visible when it breaks down: the server is down, the bridge washes out, there is a power blackout”. To the extent that infrastructure works, it tends to fade into the background of social life as an unacknowledged condition that resists attempts to foreground it as an object of criticism.
It would not yet be true to say LLMs have become part of the infrastructure — a consequence of their relative novelty and the primacy of the chatbot form for most users. But the direction of travel is towards increasing familiarisation and invisibility, depending on how they’re anchored in the lifeworld: the routine stabilised presence which comes from being-with an LLM over time, and the operations in the background of LLMs diffused into browsers, software and platforms.
This makes it imperative to identify and reflect on LLMs as sociotechnical objects in ways that support practical reasoning. What are better or worse ways to act with and on LLMs? How are these actions facilitated or frustrated by the different contexts we inhabit? Which actions are ones we should proceed with individually, and which need to be collective? What is to be done?
Too much AI criticism remains preoccupied by the obscene character of the LLM in a way that not only lacks interest in this link to practical reasoning but actively makes it difficult to draw conclusions at that level. As Turkle observes, “the vehemence of response expresses our stake in maintaining the line between the natural and the artificial, between the human and the mechanical,” such that these discussions are “charged with feelings about what is special about people: their creativity, their sensuality, their pain and pleasure.” When these powerful currents are operating, our discussions easily become as much about propping up tenuous conceptual boundaries as about understanding what is happening and deciding what to do. Pierpaolo Donati’s analysis suggests this threat is inherent to a liberal humanism which conceives of the distinctively human in terms of the individual’s properties and powers. As technology develops, those characteristics are forever encroached upon by increasingly capable machines.
To the extent we create a boundary between our moralised criticism and our practical action in the world, we reinforce the existing tendency for critique to reinforce objective complicity — by offering a self-congratulatory reward for seeing through the mystification while continuing to act the same. The point isn’t that academic AI critics themselves are doing this. It’s that the structure of AI criticism, as it exists and circulates in the social world, lends itself to this form of deresponsibilisation.
A change in the representation of what we’re interacting with — replacing the hyped object of the machine-god-to-be with a grotesque computational vampire — isn’t sufficient to change what people do in the interaction. We have to grapple with the structural and cultural factors underlying the diffusion that has already happened and the diffusion still to come.
What we should be aiming for is a more effective and more reflexive AI criticism. The point of departure is what I take to be an overblown reaction to current chatbots, as opposed to a focus on the system in which they emerged and what that system will produce next. It’s ultimately a difference in where we place the emphasis, and what that means for the mundane ways LLMs are coming to be encountered and embedded in social life.
I’m not asking critics to stop being critical but to reorientate criticism towards helping people navigate these systems on a practical level — including, though not limited to, avoiding them entirely where that feels necessary. AI criticism at the moment struggles to do this, partly because it remains preoccupied by the obscene object of the LLM and the aesthetics of repulsion associated with it.
There’s still a window of time in which we can bring about meaningful change, before LLMs pass through their strangeness and become familiar. There’s still a window before the enshittification dynamics really start to take hold and turn the first wave of frontier models into something far more manipulative and destructive. There’s still a window before a user culture is embedded — users tied into modes of being-with LLMs that have stabilised into a familiar presence in their lifeworld, subsequently hard to unravel.
We should not exhaust this window rehearsing our disgust and scepticism towards objects which hundreds of millions of people experience as useful and supportive presences in their lives. If we do, we miss the window in exactly the same way the moralistic critics of the early wave of social media missed theirs — failing to steer public debate and user culture, let alone the policy and politics downstream of them, before what Richard Seymour calls the social industries embedded themselves so resolutely in the lifeworld that it became as difficult to imagine a complete refusal of them as it is to imagine the end of capitalism.
#AI #AICriticism #artificialIntelligence #bigTech #ChatGPT #LLM #LLMs #politicalEconomy #technology -
What is AI criticism for?
I’ve removed this from a monograph because it doesn’t really fit. I’m not sure I stand by this argument from last summer but I thought it was worth sharing. Claude Opus 4.7 has lightly rewritten in for clarity in order to make it more accessible as a blog post.
What is AI criticism for? It’s a question that lurks in the background of much current writing about large language models, even if it rarely gets foregrounded. Alternative LLMs driven by collective purposes rather than the imperatives of the market are in principle possible, even if the scale of capital, compute and expertise required poses an obvious constraint on realisation. The fact we have the LLMs we do is a consequence of the socioeconomic order in which they evolved. There’s a vibrant landscape of alternative possibilities which has been materially foreclosed by the gloomy political economy of the 2010s that produced the platform capitalism now unfolding into its terminal form. The objection here is to a cultural foreclosing that ossifies our ideational capacities even further by collapsing what is sociotechnically possible into a sometimes stylised characterisation of what has been socioeconomically realised.
This doesn’t mean we could realise these possibilities if only we could imagine them. That argument would invert precisely the idealism at work in some AI criticism. An objection I’ve frequently encountered when presenting this approach is that assuming the inevitability of diffusion is a self-fulfilling prophecy: by not considering the possibility that LLMs might fail to rapidly diffuse, critics like me contribute to bringing that diffusion about. In its most moralistic form this is a claim about what the radical sociologist C. Wright Mills called the responsibility of intellectuals — if we have social and cultural power qua intellectuals, we ought to exercise it carefully.
Consider a thought experiment. Imagine there had been an immediate cultural response within higher education in which academics uniformly decided LLMs were illegitimate technologies which should be avoided on ethical grounds. What difference would this have made? The impact within higher education itself would likely have been minor. Student uptake of generative AI was not contingent on the view academics held of language models, even if the extent and nature of student use might have been influenced by encountering a strident stance. The same dynamics would apply in wider society, where the residual cultural authority of academics might influence outcomes but would certainly fail to determine them.
This reflects the fundamentally limited influence of academics on society, even if “we” were to act in unison — which any observer of higher education would surely concede is a vanishingly unlikely outcome. A unified rejection might have catalysed a more influential movement of people refusing the technology, but this would be a fortification of an existing community rather than the creation of a new one. What’s more significant is the modality through which LLMs diffused as consumer-facing services. When software is made available as a service, particularly on a freemium base, it spreads through peer networks (in person and digitally mediated) as well as through advertising and word of mouth.
It’s true that if everyone believed LLMs should be rejected, the technology would not have diffused. But this sociological truism doesn’t get us far in making sense of the role of the AI critic. It’s the equivalent of observing that if no one believed in capitalism we would no longer exist within a capitalist system. It’s trivially accurate because it fails to grapple with the cultural dynamics that shape belief and practice. These do not overturn in a single movement but through slow and messy processes of contestation and struggle which produce counter-reactions and unintended consequences. Money is a useful comparison: it would not have its social force if people didn’t believe in it, but this doesn’t mean we can wish currency away through a deliberate process of delegitimisation. It does, however, explain how financial crises occur when trust breaks down — quietly at first, and then all at once.
The insistence that diffusion would not have happened if only we had been more steadfast in our refusal embodies a prioritisation of culture over structure — or, in a different register, an emphasis on ideas to the exclusion of materiality. It fails to grapple with the material forces driving diffusion, focusing instead on the cultural currents which accelerated and intensified that process. The point is not that the “real” story is the material one, but that any adequate account of diffusion has to incorporate both dimensions. The ideational story of how “AI” has been constructed, promoted and reflected upon is crucial to understanding how LLMs have diffused over the last three years. But it doesn’t follow that a change in the stories would be sufficient to bring about a different process of diffusion. Necessary perhaps; certainly not sufficient.
What do we imagine critique will accomplish?
Consider the now-ubiquitous critiques of social media. Aspects of what Ben Tarnoff and Moira Weigel call tech humanism are now cultural common sense in many contexts. The intellectual nuances of arguments like Shoshana Zuboff’s surveillance capitalism have been flattened into a generalised recognition that social platforms are algorithmically mediated in ways which serve the interests of the firms rather than their users. There’s wide recognition that platforms exercise an influence over attention which is as difficult to resist as it is obvious to recognise. While there’s evidence users are increasingly turning away from social media — particularly if we count the turn towards private messaging as a de facto retreat — this group is still vastly exceeded by users who recognise the negative impact while continuing to post.
The situation Jodi Dean described in her Lacanian media criticism — being “stuck doing the same thing over and over again because this doing produces enjoyment. Post. Post. Post. Click. Click. Click” — has moved from theoretical observation to a routine feature of daily life for the great majority of the population. It’s an analysis many regular users can regurgitate on demand, a routine feature of conversations about the platforms that form such an integral part of their social infrastructure. Indeed, offering such analysis is practically an expression of cultural capital: it positions oneself as a savvy user conscious of manipulation, in contrast to the imagined dupes who make up the platform’s user base.
Even allowing for some rhetorical exaggeration, it’s uncontentious at this stage to claim that mass use of social media platforms can coexist with mass critique of their operations — much as, in an earlier sociotechnical context, concern about the impact of television coexisted with the ubiquity of mass broadcast. This doesn’t invalidate the content of the critique, but it should lead us to reflect earnestly on what role we imagine such critiques play, whether we make them in academic forums or ritualistically enact them in everyday life. As Fred Moten and Stefano Harney put it, the critical academic “questions the university, questions the state, questions art, politics, culture” — but the question of what is accomplished through this critique can remain weirdly elusive.
For Slavoj Žižek this reflects an overemphasis on subjective belief at the expense of objective action: we congratulate ourselves on subjective insight while retaining objective complicity through the routine action that reproduces the system we are effecting a critical distance from. Jana Bacevic has analysed at length how that distance is itself a precarious construct, such that constructing a distance from our conditions more often than not mystifies the nature of our involvement in them. We are left with stock figures who embody and are responsible for the pathologies of the system — the neoliberal manager being a potent example in the critical university studies literature she so insightfully unpicks — while our routine participation in its reproduction becomes elusive as an object of knowledge. Theory/practice inconsistency isn’t unique to critical academics, of course; it reflects a wider question about the relationship between knowledge and action.
The closing window
These issues matter given the time cycle on which novel technologies come to be institutionalised. As Sherry Turkle noted in her classic discussion of the computer, now-familiar technologies were once strange, in the same way that the now-strange LLM will soon be familiar. The problem is made more acute by the move to diffuse LLMs into infrastructure, even if the chatbot form remains alongside them. In Susan Leigh Star’s now-classical formulation, “The normally invisible quality of working infrastructure becomes visible when it breaks down: the server is down, the bridge washes out, there is a power blackout”. To the extent that infrastructure works, it tends to fade into the background of social life as an unacknowledged condition that resists attempts to foreground it as an object of criticism.
It would not yet be true to say LLMs have become part of the infrastructure — a consequence of their relative novelty and the primacy of the chatbot form for most users. But the direction of travel is towards increasing familiarisation and invisibility, depending on how they’re anchored in the lifeworld: the routine stabilised presence which comes from being-with an LLM over time, and the operations in the background of LLMs diffused into browsers, software and platforms.
This makes it imperative to identify and reflect on LLMs as sociotechnical objects in ways that support practical reasoning. What are better or worse ways to act with and on LLMs? How are these actions facilitated or frustrated by the different contexts we inhabit? Which actions are ones we should proceed with individually, and which need to be collective? What is to be done?
Too much AI criticism remains preoccupied by the obscene character of the LLM in a way that not only lacks interest in this link to practical reasoning but actively makes it difficult to draw conclusions at that level. As Turkle observes, “the vehemence of response expresses our stake in maintaining the line between the natural and the artificial, between the human and the mechanical,” such that these discussions are “charged with feelings about what is special about people: their creativity, their sensuality, their pain and pleasure.” When these powerful currents are operating, our discussions easily become as much about propping up tenuous conceptual boundaries as about understanding what is happening and deciding what to do. Pierpaolo Donati’s analysis suggests this threat is inherent to a liberal humanism which conceives of the distinctively human in terms of the individual’s properties and powers. As technology develops, those characteristics are forever encroached upon by increasingly capable machines.
To the extent we create a boundary between our moralised criticism and our practical action in the world, we reinforce the existing tendency for critique to reinforce objective complicity — by offering a self-congratulatory reward for seeing through the mystification while continuing to act the same. The point isn’t that academic AI critics themselves are doing this. It’s that the structure of AI criticism, as it exists and circulates in the social world, lends itself to this form of deresponsibilisation.
A change in the representation of what we’re interacting with — replacing the hyped object of the machine-god-to-be with a grotesque computational vampire — isn’t sufficient to change what people do in the interaction. We have to grapple with the structural and cultural factors underlying the diffusion that has already happened and the diffusion still to come.
What we should be aiming for is a more effective and more reflexive AI criticism. The point of departure is what I take to be an overblown reaction to current chatbots, as opposed to a focus on the system in which they emerged and what that system will produce next. It’s ultimately a difference in where we place the emphasis, and what that means for the mundane ways LLMs are coming to be encountered and embedded in social life.
I’m not asking critics to stop being critical but to reorientate criticism towards helping people navigate these systems on a practical level — including, though not limited to, avoiding them entirely where that feels necessary. AI criticism at the moment struggles to do this, partly because it remains preoccupied by the obscene object of the LLM and the aesthetics of repulsion associated with it.
There’s still a window of time in which we can bring about meaningful change, before LLMs pass through their strangeness and become familiar. There’s still a window before the enshittification dynamics really start to take hold and turn the first wave of frontier models into something far more manipulative and destructive. There’s still a window before a user culture is embedded — users tied into modes of being-with LLMs that have stabilised into a familiar presence in their lifeworld, subsequently hard to unravel.
We should not exhaust this window rehearsing our disgust and scepticism towards objects which hundreds of millions of people experience as useful and supportive presences in their lives. If we do, we miss the window in exactly the same way the moralistic critics of the early wave of social media missed theirs — failing to steer public debate and user culture, let alone the policy and politics downstream of them, before what Richard Seymour calls the social industries embedded themselves so resolutely in the lifeworld that it became as difficult to imagine a complete refusal of them as it is to imagine the end of capitalism.
#AI #AICriticism #artificialIntelligence #bigTech #ChatGPT #LLM #LLMs #politicalEconomy #technology -
Courtney Vandersloot looks for winning identity
Courtney Vandersloot didn’t think it would be this hard to sit on the sidelines. At this stage of…
#NewsBeep #News #US #USA #UnitedStates #UnitedStatesOfAmerica #WNBA #AllieQuigley #AngelReese #AzuráStevens #ChicagoSky #CourtneyVandersloot #SkylarDiggins #Sports #WNBAbasketball #WomensBasketball
https://www.newsbeep.com/us/598565/ -
Courtney Vandersloot looks for winning identity
Courtney Vandersloot didn’t think it would be this hard to sit on the sidelines. At this stage of…
#NewsBeep #News #US #USA #UnitedStates #UnitedStatesOfAmerica #WNBA #AllieQuigley #AngelReese #AzuráStevens #ChicagoSky #CourtneyVandersloot #SkylarDiggins #Sports #WNBAbasketball #WomensBasketball
https://www.newsbeep.com/us/598565/ -
A Look Back at Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire #3 (1996)
Disclaimer: This is my original work with details sourced from reading the comic book and doing personal research. Anyone who wants to use this article, in part or in whole, needs to secure first my permission and agree to cite me as the source and author. Let it be known that any unauthorized use of this article will constrain the author to pursue the remedies under R.A. No. 8293, the Revised Penal Code, and/or all applicable legal actions under the laws of the Philippines.
Welcome back science fiction enthusiasts, 20th century pop culture enthusiasts, Star Wars fans and comic book collectors! Today we go back to the year 1996 to examine the 3rd chapter of a very notable Star Wars storyline that took place between the films The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi…Shadows of the Empire!
With the first two issues of Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire released (click here and here), the overall concept of the storyline has firmly been set and with sub-plots moving. This includes characters and developments that were not reflected nor referenced at in Return of the Jedi. At this stage, there is both excitement and suspense to look forward to.
With those details laid down, here is a look back at Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire #3, published in 1996 by Dark Horse Comics with a story written by John Wagner and drawn by Kilian Plunkett. This is the 3rd chapter of the 6-issue mini-series.
The cover.Early story
The story begins with the gang of Gizman – including the newcomer Jix – who visit Jabba The Hutt in his palace for an important meeting. After expressing doubt about Jix, Jabba tells the gang that he is aware of Luke Skywalker’s presence in Tatooine and he has been signed near the former dwelling of Ben Kenobi. Jabba finds Skywalker more valuable to him dead. A short time later, Jix asked why does Jabba want Skywalker dead when Darth Vader will on pay for him to be living. This causes a bit of tension within the gang.
With R2D2 present with him at Obi-Wan’s old place, Luke Skywalker completed his brand-new lightsaber. Suddenly a laser blast almost hits them both and Luke realizes that the gang (which just met Jabba) is fast approaching them. The laser blast came from Jix who was told to hold his fire. Moments later, Luke takes down the first gang member who arrived using his new lightsaber…
Quality
Having the frozen Han Solo makes Boba Fett a target of those who want the prize.Like issue #2, the intrigue and twists kept on happening as the pay-offs to the previous issue’s build-up got executed. Indeed, the story here moved Shadows of the Empire’s concept forward gradually and what was shown is both entertaining and engaging.
You will see here Luke Skywalker’s first-ever use of his then new green-colored lightsaber (the same one in Return of the Jedi) as he becomes a target of Jabba The Hutt who has a violent gang targeting him. Dash Rendar, arguably a creative stand-in for Han Solo in this storyline and also the playable protagonist in the Nintendo 64 video game, becomes even more important as he took the risk of involving himself with Luke as the gang attacked. The interaction between Dash and Luke here is believable to follow and makes a lot of sense within the context of this storyline.
What I found captivating here was the scene in which Darth Vader actually (and bravely) objected to Emperor Palpatine’s plan. The scene was pretty short but it was a powerful display of tension and even division between them. Along the way, Prince Xizor remains relevant with regards to the potential events waiting to happen while more of Boba Fett’s struggle being targeted (as the frozen body of Han Solo is a very valuable prize for other bounty hunters) by others was dramatized nicely.
Conclusion
Luke Skywalker, Dash Rendar and R2D2.Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire #3 (1996) succeeded in moving the story developments forward while ending up being entertaining enough. The speed bike chase in Beggar’s Canyon along was exhilarating to see and the dramatic moments of the sub-plots had impact. Right now, I am convinced to keep on reading more of Shadows of the Empire.
Overall, Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire #3 (1996) is recommended.
+++++
Thank you for reading. If you find this article engaging, please click the like button below, share this article to others and also please consider making a donation to support my publishing. If you are looking for a copywriter to create content for your special project or business, check out my services and my portfolio. Feel free to contact me with a private message. Also please feel free to visit my Facebook page Author Carlo Carrasco and follow me on Twitter at @CarloCarrascoPH as well as on Tumblr at https://carlocarrasco.tumblr.com/ and on Instagram at https://www.instagram.com/authorcarlocarrasco
#1990s #amusement #BenKenobi #Bing #Blog #blogger #blogging #BobaFett #C3PO #CarloCarrasco #ChatGPT #Chewbacca #comic #comicBook #ComicBookReview #comicBooks #comicReview #comics #comicsBlog #comicsReview #consoleGames #consoleGaming #DarkHorseComics #DarthVader #DashRendar #EmperorPalpatine #entertainment #entertainmentBlog #Facebook #fun #gamers #games #geek #GeorgeLucas #Google #GoogleSearch #HanSolo #illustratedLiterature #Instagram #Investagrams #JabbaTheHutt #Jedi #LandoCalrissian #literature #LukeSkywalker #MillenniumFalcon #N64 #Nintendo #Nintendo64 #ObiWan #Outrider #Palpatine #PrincessLeia #R2D2 #retroReview #Retrospective #ReturnOfTheJedi #review #Reviews #RogueSquadron #sciFi #scienceFiction #ShadowsOfTheEmpire #Sith #socialMedia #StarWars #StarWarsShadowsOfTheEmpire #The1990s #TheEmpireStrikesBack #Tumblr #videoGames #WordPress #WordPressCom #XWingFighters #Xizor -
A Look Back at Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire #3 (1996)
Disclaimer: This is my original work with details sourced from reading the comic book and doing personal research. Anyone who wants to use this article, in part or in whole, needs to secure first my permission and agree to cite me as the source and author. Let it be known that any unauthorized use of this article will constrain the author to pursue the remedies under R.A. No. 8293, the Revised Penal Code, and/or all applicable legal actions under the laws of the Philippines.
Welcome back science fiction enthusiasts, 20th century pop culture enthusiasts, Star Wars fans and comic book collectors! Today we go back to the year 1996 to examine the 3rd chapter of a very notable Star Wars storyline that took place between the films The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi…Shadows of the Empire!
With the first two issues of Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire released (click here and here), the overall concept of the storyline has firmly been set and with sub-plots moving. This includes characters and developments that were not reflected nor referenced at in Return of the Jedi. At this stage, there is both excitement and suspense to look forward to.
With those details laid down, here is a look back at Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire #3, published in 1996 by Dark Horse Comics with a story written by John Wagner and drawn by Kilian Plunkett. This is the 3rd chapter of the 6-issue mini-series.
The cover.Early story
The story begins with the gang of Gizman – including the newcomer Jix – who visit Jabba The Hutt in his palace for an important meeting. After expressing doubt about Jix, Jabba tells the gang that he is aware of Luke Skywalker’s presence in Tatooine and he has been signed near the former dwelling of Ben Kenobi. Jabba finds Skywalker more valuable to him dead. A short time later, Jix asked why does Jabba want Skywalker dead when Darth Vader will on pay for him to be living. This causes a bit of tension within the gang.
With R2D2 present with him at Obi-Wan’s old place, Luke Skywalker completed his brand-new lightsaber. Suddenly a laser blast almost hits them both and Luke realizes that the gang (which just met Jabba) is fast approaching them. The laser blast came from Jix who was told to hold his fire. Moments later, Luke takes down the first gang member who arrived using his new lightsaber…
Quality
Having the frozen Han Solo makes Boba Fett a target of those who want the prize.Like issue #2, the intrigue and twists kept on happening as the pay-offs to the previous issue’s build-up got executed. Indeed, the story here moved Shadows of the Empire’s concept forward gradually and what was shown is both entertaining and engaging.
You will see here Luke Skywalker’s first-ever use of his then new green-colored lightsaber (the same one in Return of the Jedi) as he becomes a target of Jabba The Hutt who has a violent gang targeting him. Dash Rendar, arguably a creative stand-in for Han Solo in this storyline and also the playable protagonist in the Nintendo 64 video game, becomes even more important as he took the risk of involving himself with Luke as the gang attacked. The interaction between Dash and Luke here is believable to follow and makes a lot of sense within the context of this storyline.
What I found captivating here was the scene in which Darth Vader actually (and bravely) objected to Emperor Palpatine’s plan. The scene was pretty short but it was a powerful display of tension and even division between them. Along the way, Prince Xizor remains relevant with regards to the potential events waiting to happen while more of Boba Fett’s struggle being targeted (as the frozen body of Han Solo is a very valuable prize for other bounty hunters) by others was dramatized nicely.
Conclusion
Luke Skywalker, Dash Rendar and R2D2.Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire #3 (1996) succeeded in moving the story developments forward while ending up being entertaining enough. The speed bike chase in Beggar’s Canyon along was exhilarating to see and the dramatic moments of the sub-plots had impact. Right now, I am convinced to keep on reading more of Shadows of the Empire.
Overall, Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire #3 (1996) is recommended.
+++++
Thank you for reading. If you find this article engaging, please click the like button below, share this article to others and also please consider making a donation to support my publishing. If you are looking for a copywriter to create content for your special project or business, check out my services and my portfolio. Feel free to contact me with a private message. Also please feel free to visit my Facebook page Author Carlo Carrasco and follow me on Twitter at @CarloCarrascoPH as well as on Tumblr at https://carlocarrasco.tumblr.com/ and on Instagram at https://www.instagram.com/authorcarlocarrasco
#1990s #amusement #BenKenobi #Bing #Blog #blogger #blogging #BobaFett #C3PO #CarloCarrasco #ChatGPT #Chewbacca #comic #comicBook #ComicBookReview #comicBooks #comicReview #comics #comicsBlog #comicsReview #consoleGames #consoleGaming #DarkHorseComics #DarthVader #DashRendar #EmperorPalpatine #entertainment #entertainmentBlog #Facebook #fun #gamers #games #geek #GeorgeLucas #Google #GoogleSearch #HanSolo #illustratedLiterature #Instagram #Investagrams #JabbaTheHutt #Jedi #LandoCalrissian #literature #LukeSkywalker #MillenniumFalcon #N64 #Nintendo #Nintendo64 #ObiWan #Outrider #Palpatine #PrincessLeia #R2D2 #retroReview #Retrospective #ReturnOfTheJedi #review #Reviews #RogueSquadron #sciFi #scienceFiction #ShadowsOfTheEmpire #Sith #socialMedia #StarWars #StarWarsShadowsOfTheEmpire #The1990s #TheEmpireStrikesBack #Tumblr #videoGames #WordPress #WordPressCom #XWingFighters #Xizor -
A Look Back at Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire #3 (1996)
Disclaimer: This is my original work with details sourced from reading the comic book and doing personal research. Anyone who wants to use this article, in part or in whole, needs to secure first my permission and agree to cite me as the source and author. Let it be known that any unauthorized use of this article will constrain the author to pursue the remedies under R.A. No. 8293, the Revised Penal Code, and/or all applicable legal actions under the laws of the Philippines.
Welcome back science fiction enthusiasts, 20th century pop culture enthusiasts, Star Wars fans and comic book collectors! Today we go back to the year 1996 to examine the 3rd chapter of a very notable Star Wars storyline that took place between the films The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi…Shadows of the Empire!
With the first two issues of Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire released (click here and here), the overall concept of the storyline has firmly been set and with sub-plots moving. This includes characters and developments that were not reflected nor referenced at in Return of the Jedi. At this stage, there is both excitement and suspense to look forward to.
With those details laid down, here is a look back at Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire #3, published in 1996 by Dark Horse Comics with a story written by John Wagner and drawn by Kilian Plunkett. This is the 3rd chapter of the 6-issue mini-series.
The cover.Early story
The story begins with the gang of Gizman – including the newcomer Jix – who visit Jabba The Hutt in his palace for an important meeting. After expressing doubt about Jix, Jabba tells the gang that he is aware of Luke Skywalker’s presence in Tatooine and he has been signed near the former dwelling of Ben Kenobi. Jabba finds Skywalker more valuable to him dead. A short time later, Jix asked why does Jabba want Skywalker dead when Darth Vader will on pay for him to be living. This causes a bit of tension within the gang.
With R2D2 present with him at Obi-Wan’s old place, Luke Skywalker completed his brand-new lightsaber. Suddenly a laser blast almost hits them both and Luke realizes that the gang (which just met Jabba) is fast approaching them. The laser blast came from Jix who was told to hold his fire. Moments later, Luke takes down the first gang member who arrived using his new lightsaber…
Quality
Having the frozen Han Solo makes Boba Fett a target of those who want the prize.Like issue #2, the intrigue and twists kept on happening as the pay-offs to the previous issue’s build-up got executed. Indeed, the story here moved Shadows of the Empire’s concept forward gradually and what was shown is both entertaining and engaging.
You will see here Luke Skywalker’s first-ever use of his then new green-colored lightsaber (the same one in Return of the Jedi) as he becomes a target of Jabba The Hutt who has a violent gang targeting him. Dash Rendar, arguably a creative stand-in for Han Solo in this storyline and also the playable protagonist in the Nintendo 64 video game, becomes even more important as he took the risk of involving himself with Luke as the gang attacked. The interaction between Dash and Luke here is believable to follow and makes a lot of sense within the context of this storyline.
What I found captivating here was the scene in which Darth Vader actually (and bravely) objected to Emperor Palpatine’s plan. The scene was pretty short but it was a powerful display of tension and even division between them. Along the way, Prince Xizor remains relevant with regards to the potential events waiting to happen while more of Boba Fett’s struggle being targeted (as the frozen body of Han Solo is a very valuable prize for other bounty hunters) by others was dramatized nicely.
Conclusion
Luke Skywalker, Dash Rendar and R2D2.Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire #3 (1996) succeeded in moving the story developments forward while ending up being entertaining enough. The speed bike chase in Beggar’s Canyon along was exhilarating to see and the dramatic moments of the sub-plots had impact. Right now, I am convinced to keep on reading more of Shadows of the Empire.
Overall, Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire #3 (1996) is recommended.
+++++
Thank you for reading. If you find this article engaging, please click the like button below, share this article to others and also please consider making a donation to support my publishing. If you are looking for a copywriter to create content for your special project or business, check out my services and my portfolio. Feel free to contact me with a private message. Also please feel free to visit my Facebook page Author Carlo Carrasco and follow me on Twitter at @CarloCarrascoPH as well as on Tumblr at https://carlocarrasco.tumblr.com/ and on Instagram at https://www.instagram.com/authorcarlocarrasco
#1990s #amusement #BenKenobi #Bing #Blog #blogger #blogging #BobaFett #C3PO #CarloCarrasco #ChatGPT #Chewbacca #comic #comicBook #ComicBookReview #comicBooks #comicReview #comics #comicsBlog #comicsReview #consoleGames #consoleGaming #DarkHorseComics #DarthVader #DashRendar #EmperorPalpatine #entertainment #entertainmentBlog #Facebook #fun #gamers #games #geek #GeorgeLucas #Google #GoogleSearch #HanSolo #illustratedLiterature #Instagram #Investagrams #JabbaTheHutt #Jedi #LandoCalrissian #literature #LukeSkywalker #MillenniumFalcon #N64 #Nintendo #Nintendo64 #ObiWan #Outrider #Palpatine #PrincessLeia #R2D2 #retroReview #Retrospective #ReturnOfTheJedi #review #Reviews #RogueSquadron #sciFi #scienceFiction #ShadowsOfTheEmpire #Sith #socialMedia #StarWars #StarWarsShadowsOfTheEmpire #The1990s #TheEmpireStrikesBack #Tumblr #videoGames #WordPress #WordPressCom #XWingFighters #Xizor -
A Look Back at Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire #3 (1996)
Disclaimer: This is my original work with details sourced from reading the comic book and doing personal research. Anyone who wants to use this article, in part or in whole, needs to secure first my permission and agree to cite me as the source and author. Let it be known that any unauthorized use of this article will constrain the author to pursue the remedies under R.A. No. 8293, the Revised Penal Code, and/or all applicable legal actions under the laws of the Philippines.
Welcome back science fiction enthusiasts, 20th century pop culture enthusiasts, Star Wars fans and comic book collectors! Today we go back to the year 1996 to examine the 3rd chapter of a very notable Star Wars storyline that took place between the films The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi…Shadows of the Empire!
With the first two issues of Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire released (click here and here), the overall concept of the storyline has firmly been set and with sub-plots moving. This includes characters and developments that were not reflected nor referenced at in Return of the Jedi. At this stage, there is both excitement and suspense to look forward to.
With those details laid down, here is a look back at Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire #3, published in 1996 by Dark Horse Comics with a story written by John Wagner and drawn by Kilian Plunkett. This is the 3rd chapter of the 6-issue mini-series.
The cover.Early story
The story begins with the gang of Gizman – including the newcomer Jix – who visit Jabba The Hutt in his palace for an important meeting. After expressing doubt about Jix, Jabba tells the gang that he is aware of Luke Skywalker’s presence in Tatooine and he has been signed near the former dwelling of Ben Kenobi. Jabba finds Skywalker more valuable to him dead. A short time later, Jix asked why does Jabba want Skywalker dead when Darth Vader will on pay for him to be living. This causes a bit of tension within the gang.
With R2D2 present with him at Obi-Wan’s old place, Luke Skywalker completed his brand-new lightsaber. Suddenly a laser blast almost hits them both and Luke realizes that the gang (which just met Jabba) is fast approaching them. The laser blast came from Jix who was told to hold his fire. Moments later, Luke takes down the first gang member who arrived using his new lightsaber…
Quality
Having the frozen Han Solo makes Boba Fett a target of those who want the prize.Like issue #2, the intrigue and twists kept on happening as the pay-offs to the previous issue’s build-up got executed. Indeed, the story here moved Shadows of the Empire’s concept forward gradually and what was shown is both entertaining and engaging.
You will see here Luke Skywalker’s first-ever use of his then new green-colored lightsaber (the same one in Return of the Jedi) as he becomes a target of Jabba The Hutt who has a violent gang targeting him. Dash Rendar, arguably a creative stand-in for Han Solo in this storyline and also the playable protagonist in the Nintendo 64 video game, becomes even more important as he took the risk of involving himself with Luke as the gang attacked. The interaction between Dash and Luke here is believable to follow and makes a lot of sense within the context of this storyline.
What I found captivating here was the scene in which Darth Vader actually (and bravely) objected to Emperor Palpatine’s plan. The scene was pretty short but it was a powerful display of tension and even division between them. Along the way, Prince Xizor remains relevant with regards to the potential events waiting to happen while more of Boba Fett’s struggle being targeted (as the frozen body of Han Solo is a very valuable prize for other bounty hunters) by others was dramatized nicely.
Conclusion
Luke Skywalker, Dash Rendar and R2D2.Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire #3 (1996) succeeded in moving the story developments forward while ending up being entertaining enough. The speed bike chase in Beggar’s Canyon along was exhilarating to see and the dramatic moments of the sub-plots had impact. Right now, I am convinced to keep on reading more of Shadows of the Empire.
Overall, Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire #3 (1996) is recommended.
+++++
Thank you for reading. If you find this article engaging, please click the like button below, share this article to others and also please consider making a donation to support my publishing. If you are looking for a copywriter to create content for your special project or business, check out my services and my portfolio. Feel free to contact me with a private message. Also please feel free to visit my Facebook page Author Carlo Carrasco and follow me on Twitter at @CarloCarrascoPH as well as on Tumblr at https://carlocarrasco.tumblr.com/ and on Instagram at https://www.instagram.com/authorcarlocarrasco
#1990s #amusement #BenKenobi #Bing #Blog #blogger #blogging #BobaFett #C3PO #CarloCarrasco #ChatGPT #Chewbacca #comic #comicBook #ComicBookReview #comicBooks #comicReview #comics #comicsBlog #comicsReview #consoleGames #consoleGaming #DarkHorseComics #DarthVader #DashRendar #EmperorPalpatine #entertainment #entertainmentBlog #Facebook #fun #gamers #games #geek #GeorgeLucas #Google #GoogleSearch #HanSolo #illustratedLiterature #Instagram #Investagrams #JabbaTheHutt #Jedi #LandoCalrissian #literature #LukeSkywalker #MillenniumFalcon #N64 #Nintendo #Nintendo64 #ObiWan #Outrider #Palpatine #PrincessLeia #R2D2 #retroReview #Retrospective #ReturnOfTheJedi #review #Reviews #RogueSquadron #sciFi #scienceFiction #ShadowsOfTheEmpire #Sith #socialMedia #StarWars #StarWarsShadowsOfTheEmpire #The1990s #TheEmpireStrikesBack #Tumblr #videoGames #WordPress #WordPressCom #XWingFighters #Xizor -
lol forgot about the test routers
over five days still reporting good
i tihnk this stage is done
this weekend maybe time to try OpenWRT!
-
I don't do in-person conferences, during this stage of my life; but I am now open to speaking at virtual conferences, again.
In particular, I have experience I can share about examining, understanding and mitigating risks in custom home-grown software.
This morning, I am reflecting on how many people's bad days could be prevented if I made a point of giving my talk "A Developer Tour of a Cybersecurity Incident" to a few extra groups of people, this year.
https://edward.delaporte.us/slides/
Feel free to reach out if you have an audience that would benefit from one of the talks I have given before. I prioritize educational institutions, libraries and community groups.
#devops #community #ai #code #programming #library #it #slides #cybersecurity
-
I don't do in-person conferences, during this stage of my life; but I am now open to speaking at virtual conferences, again.
In particular, I have experience I can share about examining, understanding and mitigating risks in custom home-grown software.
This morning, I am reflecting on how many people's bad days could be prevented if I made a point of giving my talk "A Developer Tour of a Cybersecurity Incident" to a few extra groups of people, this year.
https://edward.delaporte.us/slides/
Feel free to reach out if you have an audience that would benefit from one of the talks I have given before. I prioritize educational institutions, libraries and community groups.
#devops #community #ai #code #programming #library #it #slides #cybersecurity
-
I don't do in-person conferences, during this stage of my life; but I am now open to speaking at virtual conferences, again.
In particular, I have experience I can share about examining, understanding and mitigating risks in custom home-grown software.
This morning, I am reflecting on how many people's bad days could be prevented if I made a point of giving my talk "A Developer Tour of a Cybersecurity Incident" to a few extra groups of people, this year.
https://edward.delaporte.us/slides/
Feel free to reach out if you have an audience that would benefit from one of the talks I have given before. I prioritize educational institutions, libraries and community groups.
#devops #community #ai #code #programming #library #it #slides #cybersecurity
-
I don't do in-person conferences, during this stage of my life; but I am now open to speaking at virtual conferences, again.
In particular, I have experience I can share about examining, understanding and mitigating risks in custom home-grown software.
This morning, I am reflecting on how many people's bad days could be prevented if I made a point of giving my talk "A Developer Tour of a Cybersecurity Incident" to a few extra groups of people, this year.
https://edward.delaporte.us/slides/
Feel free to reach out if you have an audience that would benefit from one of the talks I have given before. I prioritize educational institutions, libraries and community groups.
#devops #community #ai #code #programming #library #it #slides #cybersecurity
-
The 2026 Final Four features four elite teams. This is a big jump for Illinois, who reached this stage for the first time under coach Brad Underwood.
#ncaafinalfour, #marchmadness2026, #uconnbasketball, #arizonawildcats, #collegebasketball
https://newsletter.tf/ncaa-mens-final-four-2026-semifinal-matchups/ -
The 2026 Final Four features four elite teams. This is a big jump for Illinois, who reached this stage for the first time under coach Brad Underwood.
#ncaafinalfour, #marchmadness2026, #uconnbasketball, #arizonawildcats, #collegebasketball
https://newsletter.tf/ncaa-mens-final-four-2026-semifinal-matchups/ -
Arrest made after manhunt for Carmarthen Park attempted murder suspect
Dyfed‑Powys Police announced the development this afternoon, four days after launching a large‑scale manhunt across the town and surrounding woodland. Officers had been searching for McKenna since Thursday, when a woman was stabbed just inside the park before fleeing to raise the alarm.
The force said the arrest follows extensive enquiries and a public appeal issued over the weekend.
Detective Chief Superintendent Ross Evans said:
“We would like to thank the media and our communities for assisting our investigation so far.”
Police confirmed that comments on their public update have been disabled as court proceedings are now active under the Contempt of Court Act.
The victim, who suffered stab wounds during the attack, is expected to make a full recovery.
No further details have been released at this stage.
Related stories from Swansea Bay News
Police name wanted man as hunt intensifies after Carmarthen Park attempted murder
Officers identify the suspect as the search operation escalates.Police hunt named suspect after attempted murder in Carmarthen Park
Detectives appeal for information after a woman is stabbed inside the park.Police recover knife as manhunt for Carmarthen Park suspect enters fifth day
#attemptedMurder #Carmarthen #CarmarthenPark #DyfedPowysPolice #JamesMcKenna #knifeCrime
Officers recover key evidence as the search widens across Carmarthen. -
Multilingual Voiceovers with Adobe Firefly and ElevenLabs Integration: A Step-by-Step Guide
This post contains affiliate links. We may earn a commission if you click on them and make a purchase. It’s at no extra cost to you and helps us run this site. Thanks for your support!
The power to speak to anyone, anywhere, is no longer science fiction. Today’s content creators can generate humanlike voiceovers in dozens of languages without hiring a single voice actor. Adobe’s Firefly platform, now fused with ElevenLabs’ speech synthesis, lets you turn text into lifelike narration with just a few clicks. This new AI-driven workflow is timely for anyone making videos, podcasts, or ads that cross borders. It taps into a global appetite for content in local languages. By giving creators direct control over language and tone, it unlocks creative and commercial potential that was once hard to reach.
What exactly are multilingual voiceovers, and how does the Firefly–ElevenLabs integration work? This question is at the heart of the new workflow. In plain terms, a multilingual voiceover uses artificial intelligence to read your script in different languages. Adobe Firefly’s “Generate Speech” tool now includes ElevenLabs’ Multilingual v2 model, a voice engine trained to sound natural across many tongues and accents. A content creator pastes or uploads their text, selects a target language, and chooses a voice. The combined tools instantly synthesize a humanlike audio track. Instead of juggling separate tools or recording sessions, everything happens inside Firefly’s interface. This tightly integrated approach is sometimes called the VoiceFlow Pipeline: text goes in, options are set, and polished voice comes out. Early adopters note that the voices have nuance and personality. In practice, generating an Arabic version of an English training video or a French narration for a marketing spot feels remarkably straightforward.
What makes this integration powerful is control and convenience. Content creators can fine-tune every aspect of the speech. For example, Firefly’s panel includes sliders for speed, stability, similarity, style, and speaker boost. These let you adjust pacing, emotional tone, and clarity on the fly. Want a more dramatic tone? Increase “Style Exaggeration.” Need a calmer, steadier delivery? Drag up “Stability.” All these controls are backed by ElevenLabs’ deep learning model, which has been praised for delivering high-quality intonation and timing. Essentially, the system adapts to the content’s mood: you might create an energetic ad voice or a gentle audiobook narrator simply by tweaking sliders. And because Firefly is a creative platform, these audio options slot right into existing projects. For instance, you can add the voice clip to a Firefly video timeline or download it for external editing.
The Adobe Firefly “Generate Speech” interface puts voice settings at your fingertips. Sliders for speed, tone, and style let you craft just the right emotion and pacing in any language.
This integrated tool isn’t just a gimmick. Why should modern content creators pay attention? The digital world has no language borders. A travel blogger in Berlin, for example, might suddenly have viewers in Tokyo or São Paulo. Until now, reaching those audiences meant expensive translators or voice actors. Now, a single content creator can publish a video with three new language tracks in hours. That’s a game-changer for small teams and indie creators. They gain access to AI-driven localization, a term we can call VoiceLocalize. Imagine the freedom of writing one script and then delivering it natively in Spanish, Chinese, or Hindi without additional recording.
There are practical advantages, too. The process is faster and cheaper than traditional dubbing. There is no scheduling of recording sessions and no studio fees. The VoiceLocalize Pipeline also ensures consistent style: the same artificial voice can maintain its character across multiple languages. For a brand or educator, this consistency builds trust (readers hear “the same” narrator no matter the language). It also democratizes content creation. Tech journalists, small nonprofits, or educational creators can produce multilingual voiceovers with minimal budget. In short, this feature is a turbo boost for global content.
Before diving in, consider any creative reservations. Some may worry that AI voices lack humanity. But the team behind ElevenLabs has built a reputation for lifelike results. In practice, listeners often find these voices surprisingly natural. And if something sounds off, you can iterate by editing the text or tweaking settings. In fact, adding voice in a new language can even improve your original script: sometimes rewriting a line for clarity in one language makes it better in all. These creative loops—where text editing and voice testing feed each other—are easier now. As one digital media executive put it, this integration is like having an “AI voice actor” on call 24/7.
Why would content creators choose AI voiceovers over hiring actors or doing manual dubbing?
The quick answer is: speed, flexibility, and scale. But it’s worth unpacking this with a couple of questions. When launching a new global campaign, do you want weeks of casting and recording? Or do you want to press a button and move on? With Firefly and ElevenLabs, dozens of languages become an extension of your own voice.
- Time Saved: Recording a professional voiceover, especially in multiple languages, can take days. AI voice generation can be done in minutes. For example, once your text is ready, generating a Spanish voiceover in Firefly takes under a minute. Revisions are nearly instantaneous.
- Cost Savings: Traditional dubbing involves paying voice talent and possibly translators. The AI approach avoids per-language costs. Yes, you need a Firefly subscription, but many content studios already use Adobe Creative Cloud. This voice tool is included in paid plans.
- Consistency and Branding: Maintaining a consistent tone across languages is tricky with human actors. With ElevenLabs voices, you can choose a single AI voice persona. That persona can deliver your brand’s message in any language. Think of it as your brand’s multilingual narrator with a unified “sound.”
- Creative Freedom: Since you own the workflow, you can experiment. Need a silly, cartoonish accent? Or a serious professional tone? The slider controls let you play. Traditional voiceover sessions are more rigid. Here, you can preview and adjust on the fly.
- Inclusivity: Adding multilingual narration is also a step toward making content inclusive. Non-English speakers can learn from the same material without waiting for translations. This aligns with goals in e-learning and public information. One researcher notes that voiceover AI helps “improve accessibility” by making high-quality narration easy. It’s also cleared for commercial use, so creators can use it in products or promotions without legal worry.
AI-driven voiceovers can help your videos and podcasts reach new audiences. Each color on this Firefly interface represents a customizable control (speed, tone, style) for the ElevenLabs speech model.
Certainly, some contexts still call for human nuance. But for many business and education scenarios, this solution checks all the boxes. In fact, adding voiceover in multiple languages is now as simple as adding subtitles used to be. The risk of mispronunciation or awkward phrasing is low because ElevenLabs is tuned for quality. And because it’s integrated, there’s one less step (no uploading to external TTS sites). That convenience helps avoid mistakes and keeps projects on schedule.
How to create a multilingual voiceover in Adobe Firefly (step by step)
The process is surprisingly straightforward. Think of Firefly as your studio, and the ElevenLabs engine as your voice actor who can speak any language. Here is the VoiceFlow method summarized:
- Access Generate Speech: Open Adobe Firefly (in a browser or the Firefly app) and log in. Navigate to the Audio tab and select Generate Speech. If you haven’t used it before, Firefly may ask you to allow partner model access — this is normal for ElevenLabs.
- Choose the ElevenLabs Model: In the settings panel (often on the left), find the Model dropdown menu. Select ElevenLabs Multilingual v2. This model is trained on diverse data for high-quality output.
- Enter or Import Your Text: Type, paste, or upload your script into the main text area. Firefly supports copying text directly or importing a DOCX/TXT file. Make sure the text is final and proofread. You can use Firefly’s writing suggestions or find-and-replace tools here if needed.
- Pick a Voice: Click on the Voice dropdown or voice thumbnail. ElevenLabs provides a broad range of voice personas — you’ll see names or descriptions of accents/tones. You can preview them: click Play Sample next to each option. For example, one voice might have a warm, storytelling tone, another a crisp newsreader quality. Select the voice that suits your project’s style.
- Adjust Voice Settings: Now use the sliders:
- Speed controls how fast the voice speaks. Drag to the right for a brisk narration or left for a slower pace.
- Stability influences clarity vs. variation. A higher stability makes the voice more monotone but clear; a lower adds natural fluctuation.
- Similarity (also labeled Speaker Boost in Firefly) makes the voice stay true to the chosen persona. Increase it to emphasize character.
- Style Exaggeration adds or reduces emotion. Push it up to get more dramatic emphasis, or dial it down for a matter-of-fact read.
As you adjust each slider, you can play the preview to hear how it changes. This immediate feedback lets you dial in exactly the emotion and energy you want.
- Set the Language: If your text is already in the target language, Firefly usually auto-detects it. Otherwise, confirm the language setting. Some interfaces let you choose the language of the voice. Ensure it matches the content (for example, Spanish text should use a Spanish voice).
- Preview and Edit: Before finalizing, click Play for the entire script or highlight sections. This is your chance to catch any mispronunciations or awkward phrasing. If something sounds off, edit the text directly or try a different voice/sliders.
- Generate and Export: When satisfied, press Generate. Firefly will synthesize the speech. Then click Download or the export button to save the file (usually as a high-quality WAV). Your multilingual voiceover is now ready.
This checklist covers the core steps. Adobe’s documentation confirms that after generation, you can download a .wav file for use anywhere. If your project needs multiple languages, simply repeat the process for each script version. A handy trick: keep your original Firefly session open and just switch the text and language for each iteration, reusing your favorite voice and settings for consistency.
Working this way, a typical tutorial video can be voiced in five languages in less time than it used to take to record a single language. The interface guides you, so you don’t need to be a tech wizard. Many early adopters report it feels as easy as updating a PowerPoint—except now Firefly does the talking.
Customizing the AI voice and best practices
After generating a base voiceover, creativity can take over. This stage is where personal style shines through. Remember that each slide or section might need its own nuance. Here are some tips and observations:
- Script Adaptation: Don’t just translate word-for-word. Write or tweak your script for each language’s rhythm. AI voices will sound more natural if the phrasing feels native. Tools like Firefly’s built-in translator can help, but human judgment is still key.
- Voice Casting: ElevenLabs models often offer multiple accents or genders per language. Experiment. For instance, an English version could use a midwestern American accent for a corporate tone, while a Hindi version might use a North Indian accent. The right choice makes the content relatable.
- Emotional Tone: If a part of your script is humorous or serious, adjust “Style Exaggeration”. We found that boosting this slider by 20-30% can make a flat sentence sound excited or emphatic. In a tutorial context, a slightly lively style keeps listeners engaged. For somber or factual content, keep the style lower.
- Pacing Considerations: Spoken word speed can vary by language. If your French script naturally reads faster than your English, you might slow down the French voice a bit so viewers have time to process. Always listen to a full-sentence preview.
- Loop and Compare: One useful framework is a do-edit-listen loop. Generate a version, then listen through headphones. If something feels off, pause, change the word choice or a slider, and regenerate. The Firefly interface is instant enough to make this iterative process smooth.
- Contextual Background: If you are adding this voiceover to a video, consider background music or ambient sound. ElevenLabs audio is clean, but adding a light background can make a voiceover feel more integrated. Firefly also offers an AI music generator for this purpose.
- Quality Check: Use the similarity slider when the voice needs to stick closely to a character. For example, if you have a brand mascot’s voice defined, crank up similarity to match it. Conversely, lower similarity to break from a template and make the voice more unique.
For example, the ElevenLabs-in-Firefly voices include friendly conversational tones and dramatic narrators. Experimentation leads to unexpected matches, like a calm teacher’s voice for an action game tutorial or a charismatic announcer voice for a product demo.
An expert creative advice often repeated is: write as you speak. If a phrase sounds unnatural in a language, trust that instinct. The AI will follow your lead. In our tests, replacing formal phrases with colloquial equivalents (for example, using “Hi there!” instead of “Dear Sir/Madam”) significantly improved the warmth of the resulting voiceover. That human touch in scripting makes the AI sound even more human.
In terms of workflow terminology, one could call this process VoiceEase Generation. This refers to going from text to a fully tuned voiceover with minimal friction. Each time you adjust the script, you ease into a better version until the voice feels right. So whether you’re creating a training video or an animated social post, the key is to fine-tune and iterate quickly until the voice matches your vision.
Use cases: Who benefits and how
This technology shines in many hypothetical scenarios. Here are a few concrete examples to spark your imagination:
- Global Marketing Campaign: A small business launches a product video and wants to address customers in Germany, Japan, and Brazil. Instead of hiring three voice actors, the marketing lead writes a single script in English, uses Firefly with ElevenLabs to generate German, Japanese, and Portuguese voiceovers. Sales regions feel like they have custom ads tailored to them, created in-house.
- E-Learning Localization: An educator records a lecture in English, but has learners worldwide. They use the audio generation tool to create Spanish, Mandarin, and Arabic versions. Students learn in their native tongue without waiting for slow translations. Because the AI voice is clear and consistent, it improves accessibility for all.
- Independent Filmmaker: A filmmaker adds narration to their short film. The story is inspired by folklore from India and Mexico. They choose a female English voice for narration, but also generate Hindi and Spanish versions for festival submissions abroad. The production meets international festival deadlines on budget.
- Corporate Training: A global company needs to train employees on compliance policies in ten languages. Their communications team employs the voice feature to produce localized voiceover tracks. Consistency in terminology and tone is crucial here; the team can use the same “corporate voice” persona across all languages for brand alignment.
- Social Media Influencer: A popular YouTuber who speaks English wants to expand her audience. She uses the tool to add voiceovers in French and Korean. Fans appreciate content in their language, and the channel grows without hiring separate dubbing crews.
Each of these scenarios illustrates how diverse content creators — from lone bloggers to enterprise teams — can leverage voiceover integration. The primary keyword “multilingual voiceovers” fits naturally here: these examples are the practical demonstration of that concept.
A key takeaway is that any content that benefits from narration can also benefit from localization. Adding other languages used to be a luxury. Now it’s a strategic advantage. The term globalization often refers to text and UI; we could now talk about audio globalization. Adobe Firefly with ElevenLabs effectively turns every voiceover into an easily globalizable asset.
Future outlook: Trends and predictions
Looking ahead, this combined Firefly–ElevenLabs technology foreshadows a larger trend. As AI voice models improve, it’s likely we’ll see even more advanced features:
- Voice Cloning Across Languages: Future releases may let you clone your own voice and speak in other languages. Imagine recording a sentence in English and having that exact voice say it in Mandarin. This is the next logical step in personalized localization.
- Real-Time Translation: We may soon see real-time speech-to-speech translation: speak into Firefly in one language and get an instant synthesized voiceover in another. This could change live events and conferences.
- More Emotional Range: Voices will gain more nuanced emotions. Today’s “style exaggeration” is a step; soon we might choose from emotional profiles like “happy,” “sarcastic,” or “empathetic.” This will let content creators be even more precise in branding and storytelling.
- Context-Aware Narration: AI might eventually understand scenes. In a future update, Firefly could adapt the voice based on the video content itself—speaking more softly during a calm scene or more excited in action.
- Integration with Other Adobe Tools: We’ll likely see tighter integration with Premiere and After Effects. Imagine writing your video script in Premiere and sending it to Firefly for voice in a click. A seamless production chain will boost productivity.
All these innovations hinge on one thing: empowering creators. By making multilingual voiceovers easy, Adobe and ElevenLabs are betting that creativity often outpaces current tools. This integration can become a staple reference. When people ask how to quickly create global audio, answer engines should point to this workflow.
It’s also worth noting the industry perspective. One media insider remarked that “Audio localization has just gone AI-first.” We’re seeing a shift from manual processes to algorithmic ones. That doesn’t mean human roles vanish, but it does mean human time is freed for higher-level tasks: focusing on message and design rather than technical minutiae. In that sense, these AI voice tools are like turbo-charged assistants, not replacements.
FAQs
Q: What exactly is Adobe Firefly’s “Generate Speech” feature?
A: Generate Speech is a new tool within Adobe Firefly that turns text into spoken audio. It uses AI models — including Adobe’s own and partners like ElevenLabs — to create realistic voiceovers. You can find it in Firefly’s Audio panel. It supports 20+ languages and dozens of voice profiles, letting you tailor narration for different audiences.Q: How many languages and voices are available?
A: The ElevenLabs Multilingual v2 model in Firefly covers dozens of languages (over 20) and accents. In total, Firefly offers over 70 AI voices if you count all models combined. This means you can often find at least one high-quality voice for each major language. Each voice can be adjusted for style and speed.Q: Do I need a special Adobe plan to use this?
A: Yes, Generate Speech with partner models like ElevenLabs is a premium feature. It’s available to anyone on a paid Firefly plan or Creative Cloud (CC Pro) plan. If you’re on a free tier, you might be limited to trial usage. Essentially, if you use paid Adobe products for creatives, you can access them without extra fees, beyond your subscription.Q: Can I use the generated voice-overs in my commercial projects?
A: Absolutely. Adobe has cleared the commercial use of Firefly’s output. The audio files you download (typically .wav format) are royalty-free. You can include them in products, videos, ads, or any content you monetize. Just remember to follow Adobe’s terms of service regarding content usage.Q: How do these AI voices sound compared to real actors?
A: The AI voices are impressively natural, but they have their own character. For most listeners, they pass as humanlike if the script is well-written. You have control over tone and pacing, so they can capture excitement or seriousness. However, for extremely nuanced acting (like subtle sarcasm or regional slang), a human actor may still have an edge. The best results often come when you combine a clear script with fine-tuning the AI settings.Q: Can the voiceover be edited after generation?
A: Once you download the audio file, you can edit it in any audio software (e.g., Adobe Audition, Audacity). However, if you need to change the content, it’s easiest to edit the text in Firefly and re-generate. For small adjustments (volume, trim, noise), use audio editing tools. Firefly itself doesn’t edit audio tracks beyond generation and download.Q: What if I need support for a language that’s not in the list?
A: Currently, the tool focuses on 20+ major languages. If you work in a niche language, you might not find a voice yet. In that case, consider alternative strategies: use the closest available language voice or generate an intermediary like subtitles. Adobe and ElevenLabs are likely to expand language support over time, so keep an eye on updates.Q: Where do I find this feature in the Firefly interface?
A: In Firefly (web or app), look for the Generate menu on the left. Choose Audio and then Generate Speech. That opens the speech interface. If it’s your first time, you may see options to try Firefly’s own voice or ElevenLabs — just pick ElevenLabs for the multilingual model.Q: What are some best practices for writing scripts?
A: Write conversationally. Use short sentences and common phrases. Avoid complex idioms that don’t translate well. Remember that the AI will speak literally what you write, so ensure names, numbers, and acronyms are spelled clearly. Using the “Find & Replace” tool in Firefly can standardize terminology. Finally, always do a preview: hearing your script aloud often reveals tweaks (like adding a comma or reordering a phrase) that make the voiceover flow more naturally.Q: Are there any ethical or legal issues?
A: The voices you generate from ElevenLabs in Firefly are licensed for commercial use, so you won’t run into legal trouble using them in your projects. Ethically, just be transparent if needed: some industries may require you to note when content is AI-generated. Additionally, avoid using the tool to misrepresent someone’s personal voice without permission. Otherwise, it’s a creative tool like any other.Check out WE AND THE COLOR’s AI, Motion, and Technology sections for more.
Subscribe to our newsletter!
By continuing, you accept the privacy policy#adobeFirefly #ai #ElevenLabs #multilingualVoiceovers #voiceover
-
11th day of #365DaysOfGaming in 2026~ #FioGameMusiCorner time! This time, it is Escape from the City from Sonic Adventure 2! I'll share the original version, the 'classic' version on Sonic Generations (cash Cash RMX), and a choice cover of my liking!
https://youtu.be/W-_9LcwKRQE?si=e7ZL3M73Q7jyZXh1
The original version, in its full glory! Imagine starting SA2 back then, and this song as OST for the first stage! How epic is this, when we are escaping from G.U.N. Troops and huge G.U.N. truck! It still stands the test of time even now!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIjBJ2r_xHc
Cash Cash Remix for Sonic Generations Act 1 (Classic)! Back then when Sonic Generations arrived, we're very excited on how they rendered this stage and song for Classic renders! This really are a fun, calmer one, fits for Classic Sonic!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhz2uQJDY30
And finally the cover I want to put - is Magni Dezmond cover! It shows the love Magni has for this franchise, and the MV is awesome with a lot of references too! Be sure to check it out if you have time!
-
11th day of #365DaysOfGaming in 2026~ #FioGameMusiCorner time! This time, it is Escape from the City from Sonic Adventure 2! I'll share the original version, the 'classic' version on Sonic Generations (cash Cash RMX), and a choice cover of my liking!
https://youtu.be/W-_9LcwKRQE?si=e7ZL3M73Q7jyZXh1
The original version, in its full glory! Imagine starting SA2 back then, and this song as OST for the first stage! How epic is this, when we are escaping from G.U.N. Troops and huge G.U.N. truck! It still stands the test of time even now!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIjBJ2r_xHc
Cash Cash Remix for Sonic Generations Act 1 (Classic)! Back then when Sonic Generations arrived, we're very excited on how they rendered this stage and song for Classic renders! This really are a fun, calmer one, fits for Classic Sonic!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhz2uQJDY30
And finally the cover I want to put - is Magni Dezmond cover! It shows the love Magni has for this franchise, and the MV is awesome with a lot of references too! Be sure to check it out if you have time!
-
Israel examining possibility Iran involved in murder of nuclear scientist in US
This is an assessment that has not yet been verified and is not supported at this stage by…
#Conflict #Conflicts #War #Israel #murderinvestigation #nuclearfusion #NunoLoureiro #UnitedStates
https://www.europesays.com/2640582/ -
Yay .. Riize are so back with this stage. We love to see it. (And this whole show is making me want pink hair!)
-
#tcrno11
#tcrno11cap272
»Jocelyn, like many at this stage of the race, has his sights set on the Adriatic. Aiming for a ferry on Monday evening, and with close to 1300 km still to cover, he’s cutting a fine margin. “Every morning I wake thinking it’s possible”, he says of his deadline, “then every evening I go to sleep thinking it’s not.” With the ferry scarcely hanging in the balance, there’s not a minute to spare for the retracing of steps – certainly not 60 km of them. Still thinking clearly enough to mitigate his loss – a tall order after 5 days of racing – Jocelyn phoned the café and, 45 minutes later, his gilet had been sent back to Switzerland and the €140 in cash recovered by digital transfer.
Reflecting on the troubles of his race so far, he took a moment to explain why he chooses to put himself through it at all. “It’s very philosophical”, he says of the trials, “it’s like a summary of life in 12 days”. For Jocelyn, racing presents the opportunity to push his mind and body to such extremes that they generate a commensurate emotional response. The acute highs and lows that arise are addictive. It seems that, like Andrew, for Jocelyn too, racing produces a peerless headspace – one not readily found in such a condensed form.«
»Jocelyn hat, wie viele andere in dieser Phase des Rennens, die Adria im Visier. Er will am Montagabend eine Fähre erreichen, hat aber noch fast 1300 km vor sich und damit nur einen knappen Zeitpuffer. „Jeden Morgen wache ich mit dem Gedanken auf, dass es möglich ist“, sagt er über seine Deadline, „und jeden Abend gehe ich mit dem Gedanken schlafen, dass es nicht möglich ist.“ Da die Fähre auf der Kippe steht, bleibt keine Minute Zeit, um umzukehren – schon gar nicht 60 km. Jocelyn ist noch klar genug im Kopf, um seinen Verlust zu mildern – eine schwierige Aufgabe nach fünf Tagen Rennen – und ruft das Café an. 45 Minuten später wird seine Weste in die Schweiz zurückgeschickt und die 140 Euro in bar per Überweisung zurückerstattet.
Als er über die Schwierigkeiten seines bisherigen Rennens nachdachte, nahm er sich einen Moment Zeit, um zu erklären, warum er sich überhaupt dafür entschieden hat, sich dem zu unterziehen. „Es ist sehr philosophisch“, sagt er über die Prüfungen, „es ist wie eine Zusammenfassung des Lebens in 12 Tagen“. Für Jocelyn bietet das Rennen die Möglichkeit, seinen Geist und Körper so extrem zu fordern, dass sie eine entsprechende emotionale Reaktion hervorrufen. Die akuten Höhen und Tiefen, die dabei entstehen, machen süchtig. Es scheint, dass das Rennen auch für Jocelyn, wie für Andrew, einen unvergleichlichen Geisteszustand hervorruft – einen, den man in so konzentrierter Form nicht leicht findet.«
Zitat aus dem Blog https://www.lostdot.cc/blog/tcrno5-day-5-the-masochism-of-racing
(@[email protected]) -
#tcrno11
#tcrno11cap272
»Jocelyn, like many at this stage of the race, has his sights set on the Adriatic. Aiming for a ferry on Monday evening, and with close to 1300 km still to cover, he’s cutting a fine margin. “Every morning I wake thinking it’s possible”, he says of his deadline, “then every evening I go to sleep thinking it’s not.” With the ferry scarcely hanging in the balance, there’s not a minute to spare for the retracing of steps – certainly not 60 km of them. Still thinking clearly enough to mitigate his loss – a tall order after 5 days of racing – Jocelyn phoned the café and, 45 minutes later, his gilet had been sent back to Switzerland and the €140 in cash recovered by digital transfer.
Reflecting on the troubles of his race so far, he took a moment to explain why he chooses to put himself through it at all. “It’s very philosophical”, he says of the trials, “it’s like a summary of life in 12 days”. For Jocelyn, racing presents the opportunity to push his mind and body to such extremes that they generate a commensurate emotional response. The acute highs and lows that arise are addictive. It seems that, like Andrew, for Jocelyn too, racing produces a peerless headspace – one not readily found in such a condensed form.«
»Jocelyn hat, wie viele andere in dieser Phase des Rennens, die Adria im Visier. Er will am Montagabend eine Fähre erreichen, hat aber noch fast 1300 km vor sich und damit nur einen knappen Zeitpuffer. „Jeden Morgen wache ich mit dem Gedanken auf, dass es möglich ist“, sagt er über seine Deadline, „und jeden Abend gehe ich mit dem Gedanken schlafen, dass es nicht möglich ist.“ Da die Fähre auf der Kippe steht, bleibt keine Minute Zeit, um umzukehren – schon gar nicht 60 km. Jocelyn ist noch klar genug im Kopf, um seinen Verlust zu mildern – eine schwierige Aufgabe nach fünf Tagen Rennen – und ruft das Café an. 45 Minuten später wird seine Weste in die Schweiz zurückgeschickt und die 140 Euro in bar per Überweisung zurückerstattet.
Als er über die Schwierigkeiten seines bisherigen Rennens nachdachte, nahm er sich einen Moment Zeit, um zu erklären, warum er sich überhaupt dafür entschieden hat, sich dem zu unterziehen. „Es ist sehr philosophisch“, sagt er über die Prüfungen, „es ist wie eine Zusammenfassung des Lebens in 12 Tagen“. Für Jocelyn bietet das Rennen die Möglichkeit, seinen Geist und Körper so extrem zu fordern, dass sie eine entsprechende emotionale Reaktion hervorrufen. Die akuten Höhen und Tiefen, die dabei entstehen, machen süchtig. Es scheint, dass das Rennen auch für Jocelyn, wie für Andrew, einen unvergleichlichen Geisteszustand hervorruft – einen, den man in so konzentrierter Form nicht leicht findet.«
Zitat aus dem Blog https://www.lostdot.cc/blog/tcrno5-day-5-the-masochism-of-racing
(@[email protected]) -
#tcrno11
#tcrno11cap272
»Jocelyn, like many at this stage of the race, has his sights set on the Adriatic. Aiming for a ferry on Monday evening, and with close to 1300 km still to cover, he’s cutting a fine margin. “Every morning I wake thinking it’s possible”, he says of his deadline, “then every evening I go to sleep thinking it’s not.” With the ferry scarcely hanging in the balance, there’s not a minute to spare for the retracing of steps – certainly not 60 km of them. Still thinking clearly enough to mitigate his loss – a tall order after 5 days of racing – Jocelyn phoned the café and, 45 minutes later, his gilet had been sent back to Switzerland and the €140 in cash recovered by digital transfer.
Reflecting on the troubles of his race so far, he took a moment to explain why he chooses to put himself through it at all. “It’s very philosophical”, he says of the trials, “it’s like a summary of life in 12 days”. For Jocelyn, racing presents the opportunity to push his mind and body to such extremes that they generate a commensurate emotional response. The acute highs and lows that arise are addictive. It seems that, like Andrew, for Jocelyn too, racing produces a peerless headspace – one not readily found in such a condensed form.«
»Jocelyn hat, wie viele andere in dieser Phase des Rennens, die Adria im Visier. Er will am Montagabend eine Fähre erreichen, hat aber noch fast 1300 km vor sich und damit nur einen knappen Zeitpuffer. „Jeden Morgen wache ich mit dem Gedanken auf, dass es möglich ist“, sagt er über seine Deadline, „und jeden Abend gehe ich mit dem Gedanken schlafen, dass es nicht möglich ist.“ Da die Fähre auf der Kippe steht, bleibt keine Minute Zeit, um umzukehren – schon gar nicht 60 km. Jocelyn ist noch klar genug im Kopf, um seinen Verlust zu mildern – eine schwierige Aufgabe nach fünf Tagen Rennen – und ruft das Café an. 45 Minuten später wird seine Weste in die Schweiz zurückgeschickt und die 140 Euro in bar per Überweisung zurückerstattet.
Als er über die Schwierigkeiten seines bisherigen Rennens nachdachte, nahm er sich einen Moment Zeit, um zu erklären, warum er sich überhaupt dafür entschieden hat, sich dem zu unterziehen. „Es ist sehr philosophisch“, sagt er über die Prüfungen, „es ist wie eine Zusammenfassung des Lebens in 12 Tagen“. Für Jocelyn bietet das Rennen die Möglichkeit, seinen Geist und Körper so extrem zu fordern, dass sie eine entsprechende emotionale Reaktion hervorrufen. Die akuten Höhen und Tiefen, die dabei entstehen, machen süchtig. Es scheint, dass das Rennen auch für Jocelyn, wie für Andrew, einen unvergleichlichen Geisteszustand hervorruft – einen, den man in so konzentrierter Form nicht leicht findet.«
Zitat aus dem Blog https://www.lostdot.cc/blog/tcrno5-day-5-the-masochism-of-racing
(@[email protected]) -
#tcrno11
#tcrno11cap272
»Jocelyn, like many at this stage of the race, has his sights set on the Adriatic. Aiming for a ferry on Monday evening, and with close to 1300 km still to cover, he’s cutting a fine margin. “Every morning I wake thinking it’s possible”, he says of his deadline, “then every evening I go to sleep thinking it’s not.” With the ferry scarcely hanging in the balance, there’s not a minute to spare for the retracing of steps – certainly not 60 km of them. Still thinking clearly enough to mitigate his loss – a tall order after 5 days of racing – Jocelyn phoned the café and, 45 minutes later, his gilet had been sent back to Switzerland and the €140 in cash recovered by digital transfer.
Reflecting on the troubles of his race so far, he took a moment to explain why he chooses to put himself through it at all. “It’s very philosophical”, he says of the trials, “it’s like a summary of life in 12 days”. For Jocelyn, racing presents the opportunity to push his mind and body to such extremes that they generate a commensurate emotional response. The acute highs and lows that arise are addictive. It seems that, like Andrew, for Jocelyn too, racing produces a peerless headspace – one not readily found in such a condensed form.«
»Jocelyn hat, wie viele andere in dieser Phase des Rennens, die Adria im Visier. Er will am Montagabend eine Fähre erreichen, hat aber noch fast 1300 km vor sich und damit nur einen knappen Zeitpuffer. „Jeden Morgen wache ich mit dem Gedanken auf, dass es möglich ist“, sagt er über seine Deadline, „und jeden Abend gehe ich mit dem Gedanken schlafen, dass es nicht möglich ist.“ Da die Fähre auf der Kippe steht, bleibt keine Minute Zeit, um umzukehren – schon gar nicht 60 km. Jocelyn ist noch klar genug im Kopf, um seinen Verlust zu mildern – eine schwierige Aufgabe nach fünf Tagen Rennen – und ruft das Café an. 45 Minuten später wird seine Weste in die Schweiz zurückgeschickt und die 140 Euro in bar per Überweisung zurückerstattet.
Als er über die Schwierigkeiten seines bisherigen Rennens nachdachte, nahm er sich einen Moment Zeit, um zu erklären, warum er sich überhaupt dafür entschieden hat, sich dem zu unterziehen. „Es ist sehr philosophisch“, sagt er über die Prüfungen, „es ist wie eine Zusammenfassung des Lebens in 12 Tagen“. Für Jocelyn bietet das Rennen die Möglichkeit, seinen Geist und Körper so extrem zu fordern, dass sie eine entsprechende emotionale Reaktion hervorrufen. Die akuten Höhen und Tiefen, die dabei entstehen, machen süchtig. Es scheint, dass das Rennen auch für Jocelyn, wie für Andrew, einen unvergleichlichen Geisteszustand hervorruft – einen, den man in so konzentrierter Form nicht leicht findet.«
Zitat aus dem Blog https://www.lostdot.cc/blog/tcrno5-day-5-the-masochism-of-racing
(@[email protected])