Voice Actors Push Back As AI Threatens Dubbing Industry 142
Voice actors and industry associations are sounding the alarm over the growing use of AI in dubbing, calling for increased regulations to protect quality, jobs and artists' back catalogues from being used to create future dubbed work. "We need legislation: Just as after the car, which replaced the horse-drawn carriage, we need a highway code," said Boris Rehlinger, a voice actor known as the French voice of Ben Affleck, Joaquin Phoenix, and Puss in Boots. "I feel threatened even though my voice hasn't been replaced by AI yet," he said. Reuters reports: In Germany, 12 well-known dubbing actors went viral on TikTok in March, garnering 8.7 million views, for their campaign saying "Let's protect artistic, not artificial, intelligence." A petition from the VDS voice actors' association calling on German and EU lawmakers to push AI companies to obtain explicit consent when training the technology on artists' voices and fairly compensate them, as well as transparently label AI-generated content, gained more than 75,500 signatures.
When intellectual property is no longer protected, no one will produce anything anymore "because they think 'tomorrow it will be stolen from me anyway'," said Cedric Cavatore, a VDS member who has dubbed films and video games including the PlayStation game "Final Fantasy VII Remake." VDS collaborates with United Voice Artists, a global network of over 20,000 voice actors advocating for ethical AI use and fair contracts. In the United States, Hollywood video game voice and motion capture actors this month signed a new contract with video game studios focused on AI that SAG-AFTRA said represented important progress on protections against the tech.
When intellectual property is no longer protected, no one will produce anything anymore "because they think 'tomorrow it will be stolen from me anyway'," said Cedric Cavatore, a VDS member who has dubbed films and video games including the PlayStation game "Final Fantasy VII Remake." VDS collaborates with United Voice Artists, a global network of over 20,000 voice actors advocating for ethical AI use and fair contracts. In the United States, Hollywood video game voice and motion capture actors this month signed a new contract with video game studios focused on AI that SAG-AFTRA said represented important progress on protections against the tech.
No... (Score:5, Insightful)
"We need legislation: Just as after the car, which replaced the horse-drawn carriage, we need a highway code," said Boris Rehlinger
That doesn't sound about right. It sounds like after the invention of the Car you're asking for legislation to prevent companies from buying cars instead of horses.
If the technology has the merits claimed, then the need for actors of Humans manually dubbing is over. The speakers who like to call themselves "artists" are the horses.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope these people don't waste a lot of their savings trying to fight this. It is a hopeless battle, AI dubbing cost 1% of what a human does. You can't fight the future, it always wins. Save your money and look for something new to do.
Re: (Score:3)
If copyright law and unions can keep the legally available training data minimal, it will give them a couple years.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
AI slop dubbing costs 1% of what a human does, but it sounds bad. Okay, a lot of cheap human dubbing does too.
Re:No... (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't steal.. it displaces them.
And while cloning a person's natural voice and mannerisms is surely wrong if used to impersonate a live person would surely be wrong. The same is not true for character voices.
The other thing is that the dubbing companies own the relevant intellectual property with respect to All recordings of past dubbings. Voice work is a work for hire. The intellectual property regarding works for hire is owned by the employer.
For example: If I invent something while working as a mechanical engineer.. it Does not matter that it is my unique creation. The legal author of that invention is the employer, and all the rights go to them.
The human speakers on past voice dubs are hired by a corporation and paid for their work: as a result the corporation is the author of that work and owns the right to make copies of everything and use it for any purpose, and modify everything as they see fit.
Re: (Score:2)
The dubbing companies have union contracts, not full copyrights.
Re: (Score:2)
"And while cloning a person's natural voice and mannerisms is surely wrong if used to impersonate a live person would surely be wrong. The same is not true for character voices."
Exactly! In lot of cases, the real voice of actors don't fulfill the expectations when looking at his or her stature.
AI can make them sound like they actually LOOK, making it a better experience.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is "we" and with what right do they want to stop people from fucking? And why would a generated voice be stolen? You know that most AI voices aren't voice cloning, do you? And if the generated things would be shit, why would someone replace human work with it? You post reads very incoherent and emotional.
Re: (Score:2)
Or they clone the voice of the original actor, so the dubbed voice more closely matches the appearance.
Re: (Score:2)
If the original voice actor gets residuals for all translations made using their 'voice' then I think the issue of people getting paid for their work would be resolved.
Re:No... (Score:5, Insightful)
Dubbing is just making movies worse than they have to be, no matter if it's humans or AIs doing the "work".
I prefer subtitled movies.
Re: (Score:2)
> I prefer subtitled movies.
Subtitles are only useful for those who can read.
Re: (Score:2)
This is only true in limited cases, 1) you're watching cinema as an art. People watching the commercial movies e.g. Hollywood action movies don't watch cinema for the art but for entertainment. They need immersion into the story, which only happens when the characters are speaking your own language, not some unintelligible foreign verbiage.
2) A number of people can't read and follow the movie at the same time, having issues with comprehension when trying to do two things. There is no immersion in a movie if
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The map shows dubbing is used everywhere where it is economically viable. The threshold is easily found at 50 millions language users: French, German, Italian, Spanish. Polish does voice-over (cheaper dubbing, I predict they will move to AI as soon as it is available).
Belgium illustrates my argument to perfection. No dubbing in Flemish (it's a small market, dubbing would be expensive), while there is systematic dubbing in French because it's already available from France, and there is no reason not to use i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's simpler for me...I just don't watch any foreign movies....if it isn't in English, I just move on....
Re: (Score:2)
Animation is where it's nice given that all voice acting for animation is essentially "dubbing" and you dont get the visual dissonance of their mouth not moving in sync with the words.
Re: No... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dubbing is just making movies worse than they have to be, no matter if it's humans or AIs doing the "work".
I prefer subtitled movies.
I prefer dubbed movies. Unless they're directed by Christopher Nolan.
Re: (Score:2)
After the printing press there came copyright and there is still copyright, unless courts keep raping the meaning of fair. Though that might not do the voice actors much good if the studios own the copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
Protect the whip-makers, blacksmiths, livery-stable owners, saddle-makers and stagecoach-builders.
No, they weren't protected, just like the weavers when the power-loom was invented.
We called the ones trying to protect these, 'Luddites'.
Re: No... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually it will even be better than human voice actors while costing an industry in the economy.
Emphasis mine. That may not seem like much to you, but there is a societal cost to automation.
Especially while society continues to practice the maxim of "If you don't work, you don't eat." Displacing others and just expecting them to find work on their own only ends well when there are jobs that those displaced by automation can easily switch over to. That hasn't been the case for the last few years, and isn't realistically projected to get any better in the near future. Especially when AI automation is
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly what happened in some places. There were various restrictions set up to impede the spread of cars, for example requiring that someone has to walk in front of any car waving a flag.
Also why should dubbing actors receive special treatment compared to all the other professions that either have been, or will be rendered obsolete or reduced to a much smaller niche by technology?
They can't cope with being a Buggy Whip. (Score:2)
Re: No... (Score:2)
There's two element to this argument. The first is extremely reasonable: you should have to get explicit permission to use someone's voice for AI training, or to reproduce the voice of a person in media using AI, and all instances of either should be labeled/credited. Thats really not out of line with what's already done. There's maybe a little fuzziness around reproducing the voice of a "character", but its not a heavy lift to work those logistics out. Pushback against this is purely greed.
The second is mo
Re: (Score:2)
There's two element to this argument. The first is extremely reasonable: you should have to get explicit permission to use someone's voice for AI training
I am saying yes, but only if the result or purpose of that work or training is to create audio which impersonates a real person. A voice itself is not any type of intellectual property. Many of the millions of people have very similar voices, and it does not merit protection as IP. However, the likeness of a person merits protections against the
Fighting a losing battle. (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, current technology cannot completely/sufficiently replace voice actors but it can radically reduce the number of voice actors needed. What can be done currently is translating one voice to another. This means you only need one skilled voice actor and voice samples from people that aren't actors. I believe with time that there will be a collection of cadences and accents compiled that will enable even a semi-skilled voice actor to portray a wide variety of characters. Effectively, it will be like in the movie "Sim0ne" where the director was the one that speaks the line and it's translated into the desired voice.
I know they are fighting for their livelihoods but I think it's a dying profession not because of big studios trying to save a buck but rather small-time movie makers that literally don't have the budget. From there, the tools will be refined and used everywhere.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't get me wrong, current technology cannot completely/sufficiently replace voice actors
They can. Not only will the AI have the same voice as the original actors, but it will also capture the right intonations. In addition, the AI modifies the on-screen mouth movements to perfect the dubbing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why people *really* should stop fighting AI, and fight companies who try to kill open alternatives instead. Currently we *do* have open source AI, but some of the companies would rather see it gone. If you today think "let's help the company to kill at least open source AI", the company will have all the power soon. And of course you won't kill the companies AI, no matter how hard you try.
Re: (Score:3)
What is missing is empathy with our fellow humans. I have listened to podcasts about this issue, and I empathize with people. They have unique talents and now technology is pulling the rug out of under their feet. In a few years they can be copied, and they may get no $$. The people who own the AI's get the $$. I am not sure what the solution to this is, but I don't think that some dimwit like Zuck should win in the end.
I can have empathy, and I do, but this is going to happen, and it will happen hard. As in exclusion of the voice actor on the basic video, much less the dubbing.
I've made a couple videos now with total AI voice. Not perfect, but getting there. And way long ago, back in the days of the Amiga, there are little tricks that will make the voice do well.
If I can draw a simile for us, When I was a child, and was interested in electronics, it was almost all tube circuitry, with these funny little transistors s
Re: (Score:2)
Well, tubes DO still sound the best for audio related amplifiers and pre-amps.....for stereo and for guitar amps.....
Stereos that "glow" rule!!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, tubes DO still sound the best for audio related amplifiers and pre-amps.....for stereo and for guitar amps.....
Stereos that "glow" rule!!
Tubes have a distortion that makes for a sort of "warm" sound. I like it. Tubes, when they are overdriven also have a distortion many like.
They haven't gone away completely, but when NOS tubes are gone, the technology that was once the only game in town isn't going to be here any more.
Re:Fighting a losing battle. (Score:4, Insightful)
Replace "AI" with pretty much any technology.
Why should dubbing actors receive any special treatment? What about blacksmiths, factory workers, crop harvesters, and all manner of other professions that have been eliminated or severely reduced by advances in technology?
In some developing countries you get a guy in a booth who collects parking fees, in developed countries there is generally a machine. Should we rip out all those machines to protect the jobs of those who sit in booths to collect parking fees?
Re: (Score:2)
Why should you pay anyone for their time and effort? What about doctors, construction workers, teachers, politicians, and all other professions that offer people a means to pay their bills and provide for themselves?
In some post-AI countries you get a machine herding the undesirable humans into their terrafoam housing, in other post-AI countries all of the humans own and direct the machines. Should we forbid all of those humans from owning the machin
Re: (Score:2)
What is missing is empathy with our fellow humans.
Empathy is a good quality to have on a personal level, but it shall not define public policy nor the result of what others do with technology.
The fact that a new tech eliminates a necessary task and displaces workers in the economic system is not a valid cause for regulation or suggesting people not use the technology.
With that kind of thinking news websites and social media would be banned because it eliminates the need for newspapers. And computers woul
Re:Fighting a losing battle. (Score:4, Insightful)
I am not sure what the solution to this is
There are only really three solutions to this problem.
1) Butlerian Jihad. I put this first because I like it most. If we ever do actually teach computers to really think then we're cooked. Just teaching them to mimic parts of thinking is already causing big problems for society which are definitely going to get a lot worse.
2) Laws which say you cannot replace humans with software. This is not happening, because capitalism.
3) Abandon Capitalism. I put this last because it's even less likely.
As long as capital controls the means of production, which is the definition of capitalism, then the goal will always be to eliminate workers from the process so as to make more profit. There is no solution that doesn't involve seriously limiting capitalism or eliminating it altogether. Optimization is a capitalist imperative.
Re: (Score:2)
2) Laws which say you cannot replace humans with software. This is not happening, because capitalism.
Doesn't work because you can't prove that someone was going to hire a human in the first place. And for something that could be done from just about anywhere, you have no way of enforcing those laws.
3) Abandon Capitalism. I put this last because it's even less likely.
Capitalism is one way to promote efficiency in production, however it's not the only reason to have efficiency. You actually have a greater need for efficiency under socialism because there are fewer people willing to put in the long hours at work. If the total number of working hours is lower, you need a much h
Re: (Score:2)
What is missing is empathy with our fellow humans. I have listened to podcasts about this issue, and I empathize with people.
A lot of people have empathy for all kinds of artists and are ardently opposed to AI. The problem is not a lack of empathy.
The problem is that it's impossible to make the entire world not take the path of least resistance. Think about it, how many people continue to drive climate change despite knowing that hundreds of millions of people will die from it by 2100? It's unlikely you lack empathy but it's also unlikely you have gone out of your way to get an EV. The only way these kind of large problems can be
Re: (Score:2)
SAG-AFTRA's approach is purposefully insidious because it means that you cannot use public domain content to train AI. The law isn't based on copyright but rather an eternal right to not have a performance used as AI training material. I have no doubt that SAG-AFTRA will bake into their membership commitment that it has the legal right to deny that consent for all time. It's a brilliant approach to their problem.
No it's dumb and won't work. Future lawsuits will probably end up like this:
SAG-AFTRA lawyer: This video game voiceover uses a generative voice model. It was trained using performances by our members.
Video game company: No, we used a model made by XYZ. They say they only use legal sources.
SAG-AFTRA lawyer: I can prove they're using SAG-AFTRA performances. I just need to subpoena XYZ. Judge?
Judge: Granted.
SAG-AFTRA lawyer: Hey XYZ, I have a subpoena. Give me all of the data you used for training your model.
X
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It will soon replace most. Just as other techniques it will leave a market for 1% and there will be a few more who do this for hobby projects and so on. I mean the photo studios also cannot make much money with developing analog film anymore, but photo studios still exist, and some but few people also take analog photos and need someone to develop them. People who lived from developing them before now need to do other things for a living, because not many of them are needed anymore. Still nobody is starving
Re: (Score:2)
The question is why people think they will be without work. The market changes as it always does, but that doesn't mean there won't be other jobs, possibly some that were even be made possibly by the new techniques. Who is maintaining the knitting machine, who is doing QA of the products, who is programming them to do new patterns? No current AI does things on its own, it's always a human who uses it to create art with it.
There is an equation that must be followed. If AI puts everyone out of work, and no work is forthcoming, then how are they going to purchase what allows for companies to make a profit. If no one is working, of only a very few, the equation breaks.
So yes, new things will come up for people to do to make a living. Just like they always have in the past. If not, most of the human population will be surplus, and the so called fat cats will be impoverished as well - becoming surplus. I've adapted what I do wh
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and usually, things go the way that work becomes lighter.
Machines will do our work. Indeed, in some sectors, they have done so for quite some time.
They do tasks that previously caused people to become invalids at a young age because it was literally hard work. Now, these people can work at desks rather than in mines, which is a way healthier life.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and usually, things go the way that work becomes lighter.
Machines will do our work. Indeed, in some sectors, they have done so for quite some time. They do tasks that previously caused people to become invalids at a young age because it was literally hard work. Now, these people can work at desks rather than in mines, which is a way healthier life.
Funny you mention that. My male relatives worked the limestone and coal mines in Pennsylvania when I was a kid, and they were in pretty bad shape when they retired - if they made it that far. I vowed I wouldn't do that, it beats you up and wears you down to a nub.
Mining only takes a few people to do now what it used to take hundreds to do. Thank goodness for that.
I'm not certain how the voice actors are going to adapt. Even if they "win", they lose. Unless they somehow make it illegal to use synthetic
Wrong. (Score:2, Flamebait)
"When intellectual property is no longer protected, no one will produce anything anymore "because they think 'tomorrow it will be stolen from me anyway'," "
Wrong. In fact, using AI allows people to produce *more* creative items quicker, because they do not need to worry about paying actors or unions. AI is allowing for an explosion of creativity, not a reduction. Granted, a lot of it is crap, because the "quality" gatekeepers are cut out, but the cream will rise to the top over time.
This really is the hor
Re:Wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
Walt drew (or hard drawn for him) a mouse. He marketed it. Made it his brand. It became very popular. It's his mouse. Why the fuck should anyone else be entitled to have it for free
Because the mouse he drew was never his: it belongs to society. You don't own something just because you discover or invent it; that is not a natural right.
It is a thing in nature he was the first to make appear that way. As an author he is granted copyright for certain kind of work as a special legal right which is temporary. This is a sacrifice made by society in order to incentivize authors and inventors intended to encourage progress by providing economic protection temporarily excluding new creations from the public domain.
It is not justifiable to grant that forever. The cost to society is too great for too little benefit, and Walt's temporarily exclusivity to the thing should definitely expire. At that point the work belongs to the public, not Walt, and Walt's temporary right to exclusively control some rights to it are nullified.
Re:Wrong. (Score:4, Informative)
I don't see why any "artwork" should EVER enter the public domain. Walt drew (or hard drawn for him) a mouse. [...] It's his mouse
IP protection laws were created for the advancement of humanity. The default before that was no protection at all. Many musical works included copies and variations of others, without even attribution.
IP laws mean artists are encouraged to create by receiving due payment for their works. IP laws were created immediately with time limitations, again for the advancement of humanity. After the original creators have received their dues, it's time to let future artists to advance again by freely incorporating the older works into new ones, as had always been the cases in many centuries previous.
Another take: We should respect the unique contribution of the one who drew the mouse. That person was Walt, and Walt is dead. I don't see a reason this respect for the unique contribution of an artist should pass on to the ones who just happened to be brothers or sons of that one. Imagine the legacy of Confucius (83 recorded generations) or Plato or Shakespeare. Why should we pay a dime to the 3 million people known to Confucius' family tree everytime we quote him?
Re: (Score:3)
Why should we pay a dime to the 3 million people known to Confucius' family tree everytime we quote him?
There is an argument that an Author getting the right to pass on profits to livelihood of their immediate family or person of choice -- especially in the case of an untimely early death of the author can be seen as part of the incentive for creativity, but I see no possible way that copyright provides a tangible incentive past year 50 or so.
We had it right originally. Copyright should last about 20 ye
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't see why any "artwork" should EVER enter the public domain.
How about we allow copyrights to expire for the simple matter of resolving disputes on ownership of art that is many generations removed from the creators? If some creator of art has a couple kids, and those kids have a couple kids, and we keep going for generations there could be thousands of people that can claim some part ownership on some art. If someone wants to republish this work some 200 years later then who is the publisher to contact for the rights?
Now consider if this creator has no clear heirs
Re: (Score:2)
By drawing a mouse, he copied the appearance of a mouse. So he copied something that already existed and expanded upon it.
Without public domain, you have no source material to draw from, virtually everything is a derivative of something else.
Yes a mouse is a creation of nature, copyright does not exist in nature it's an artificial construct. Why should there be artificial constructs to protect some forms of work but not others?
Perhaps the copyright for all natural things should go to the government too, or
Re: (Score:2)
Stealing means that you take something physical from someone. When you take it, that person loses it.
This is not necessarily true. Some jurisdictions have "Theft of services" as a distinct crime.
AI isn't for everyone (Score:2, Insightful)
It can't replace anyone yet for anything, because it makes dumb mistakes. And then you need someone who is proficient in the art to correct it. For dubbing I guarantee it will F up an idiom or something like that and cause problems.
I mean one of my companies had recent hires who are "vibe coders" .. The code they produced fucked some shit up. And they had no clue, like none whatsoever, of what their programs were doing and how. I mean even REALLY basic shit about the architecture or how it connects to thing
Re: (Score:2)
So what did you tell them, rewrite the whole thing with actual coders? I don't expect management to see the problem and backtrack. I expect management to double down and say they weren't vibe coding with sufficiently qualified vibe coders, so they'll now include vibe coding tests in the hiring process.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true, but don't you think that it is for many tasks a problem that will be solved soon?
Take the fucked up idiom. Future models won't do that. But what do you do with current models? You asks another AI (preferably another model) to find fucked up idioms in the text, then you ask the first, the second or a third AI to fix the found problems. If you fully automate it, it comes close to what people call "agentic workflow" and you didn't even improve any of the models, but only used that they can search
Re: (Score:2)
It can't replace anyone yet for anything, because it makes dumb mistakes. And then you need someone who is proficient in the art to correct it.
That isn't particularly difficult. I've made a couple AI voiced videos now, and you feed it the script, listen carefully, then tweak it.
For dubbing I guarantee it will F up an idiom or something like that and cause problems.
Given that this is voice actors complaining about AI Dubbing - do they have to be proficient in every language the video is translated into? That AI dubbing to other languages is a real godsend. Then you need to bounce it off a speaker of that language for translation, and if it is good, you run with it.
Or do they make videos and games in one language only so no one tak
Re: (Score:2)
It can't replace anyone yet for anything, because it makes dumb mistakes. And then you need someone who is proficient in the art to correct it.
No.. You need someone who has learned how to use the tool to make corrections, And who is just good enough to recognize mistakes the average consumer of the product would spot.
If the mistake is such that it would require someone "proficient in the art" to recognize that there was an error, then the mistake can essentially be ignored, as consumers won't recogni
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
What is not subjective is the distribution of wealth. That is in dollars and cents. Are the robots and the AI's who control them going to get all of the $$? Are the Oligarchs who own the AI's going to get it all? What is the contribution to society of a consumer? Should there be a paradigm shift in thinking about an average person from them being a lazy consumer to a valuable asset who should be encouraged to express his/her unique gifts? Should we shift to a society that values self improvement over wealth creation?
Don't you know that 99.999 percent of humanity is never going to work again? How are your oligarchs going to get their billions when no one has money because they have no possible employment?
That's sort of sarcastic, but I would like to understand the business model. of incredible wealth without money coming in to buy the stuff mad that makes the oligarch class.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody stops the human from doing art. If they lose the competition with people who only look for the best art, that's how it is. If it is important to humanize art, then some people will explicitly filter for the human art.
I also think you're using the word in a uncommon way. Usually one says dehumanizing when someone treats a human like a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno...I mean, AI can't perform a live concert....unless everyone gives up on going to see live performances ,...music from people won't die...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm torn on this issue. (Score:3)
While I can feel the the loss of creative control of people in the trade I understand that there's an inherent instability in the entertainment industry, it's just not something people need to live.
People need to eat, drink, sleep, fuck, and shit. If you are in an industry that doesn't meet one of those basic needs then expect some level of job insecurity. Running a bar or restaurant is likely pretty safe because people need to eat, drink, and find people to fuck. If you are a plumber then expect to have job security as people don't like to be ankle deep in their own shit, they will call you long before that happens.
If your job is to be an entertainer then expect all kinds of ways to be replaced. Can people find entertainment in many ways. They don't much care how it happens. I entertained myself for a couple hours today by watching a movie on TV that was 70+ years old. With the large library of video and audio available to us today is there much room for anything new? Entire TV stations and radio stations exist on what was created decades ago. Am I to be upset about someone not being able to make money on something new because a computer replaced them? How is that different than being replaced by a re-release of a David Bowie music video?
I can see a need for people to have a means to create something new and creative, such as be the David Bowie for a new generation, but how much creative effort is there in being the voice of some actor in a different language? Are people going to remember this for a century like we can expect from David Bowie, the Beatles, or so much else in our culture? If we do remember some performance in some dubbed film then how much can we put on the voice actor versus the screen writer, director, face on the film, or so many other contributors to that moment?
I can see this as some kind of threat to a way of life to all kinds of creative people but if this technology of artificial voices puts an end to their income then I have to wonder about their ability as a whole. They can't find work in stage work? They can't act in advertisements? As a voice on radio or some podcast? Or find work in some industry than what their voice can take them?
If you work in something that is not related to people eating, drinking, sleeping, fucking, or shitting, then expect to be replaced easily. Go find work in plumbing, medical care, prostitution, or farming. Not that those industries are free from seeing your job disappearing, it's just that the chances are lower of being replaced by a computer.
Re: (Score:2)
While I can feel the the loss of creative control of people in the trade I understand that there's an inherent instability in the entertainment industry, it's just not something people need to live.
People need to eat, drink, sleep, fuck, and shit. If you are in an industry that doesn't meet one of those basic needs then expect some level of job insecurity. Running a bar or restaurant is likely pretty safe because people need to eat, drink, and find people to fuck.
As Garrison Keillor once said, "Why did God create alcohol? So ugly people could have sex."
Re: (Score:2)
Go find work in plumbing, medical care, prostitution, or farming.
Along with the other 8+ Billion people on the planet. Yeah, I'm sure you'll be paying your bills at the end of the month when the cost to redo the plumbing of an entire house is $0.02, when the biggest chance of work for a surgeon is reattaching the dick of a prostitute that he follows around constantly (And joins in on), or the total amount of farm land available for you to work with is measured with a yard stick.
Of course the entitled will expect the bills to be paid despite these short comings in the
Idea vs Implementation (Score:3)
A lot of doom and gloom about how AI will turn everyone into a consumer and nobody will be creating anything, etc.
That seems to ignore the difference between ideas and implementation.
Maybe AI will come up with good ideas, consistently, at some point. It's making inroads into music. But how? Someone, somewhere, is behind the scenes.
In the case of music, what are they doing? Typing into an AI program "create a hit new song in the style of Taylor Swift" and getting usable output that will generate millions of dollars? That SEEMS unlikely. But if that technology does actually exist right now, that's awesome! Imagine how many hit new songs we can get, every day, for CHEAP! But if we're not there yet, will we actually get there? How long will it take?
What's next? Typing into an AI program something like, "create a blockbuster Superman movie, about 100 minutes long" and getting usable output? That certainly SEEMS a lot harder.
But in both cases, is it really that simple? Or will the "operator" need to at least provide some ideas for the contents of the song or movie?
Will such movies have well-known AI-generated actors that become fan favorites and appear in multiple movies and have virtual careers?
Is there any limit to this tech? Will someone one day be able to tell an AI, "create an awesome 5 seater sedan that will become a best seller and make the company $5B over a ten year period, with an initial model year being produced 3 years from now" and, somehow, get a factory and assembly line capable of producing such a vehicle? Seems unlikely. Real people are going to need to be involved, and a lot of them!
My point being:
1). Even if AI can create a useful implementation (song lyrics, actor's voice, etc.), it doesn't seem like it will generate IDEAS that put the implementation techniques to use. The creation of a COMPLETE PRODUCT is going to require humans.
2). Some things will forever be beyond the capability and humans will be required. Maybe less humans than are required now, but some will still be required.
3). People may find they can no longer make a living doing what they would like to do. Maybe that sucks. But nobody has ever been guaranteed to make the kind of living they want. Maybe people will find that they will have to acquire various skills, if they want to be employed, but if they do, getting a job won't be much of an issue. If that's how things roll, well, too bad! Get some skills!
Re: (Score:2)
How are we in this selfish, war mongering era going to replace th
Re: (Score:2)
Your answer seems AI generated.
If you are being serious, why is that?
I think we as a race should move towards a Star Trek kind of universe at this point.
We should probably work on getting people to not leave their kids to die in a hot car while they visit an adult store, bar, casino, bingo parlour, etc. first. Then we can move on getting people to not freak the fuck out over stupid shit, like getting the wrong order at McDonald's. Then, MAYBE, we can work on universal goals of self-improvement.
There was an episode in the Star Trek next gen, where a rich person from this era was in stasis, and woken up in the 2400's, and tried to order people around, and was all obsessed with his money. He was a joke. He was told that self improvement was the goal now...
How are we in this selfish, war mongering era going to replace the goal of greed with the goal of self improvement?
Yeah, I remember that episode. He was only a joke because his character was written that way.
The utopia of Star Trek's Earth is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People have a fundamental desire to protect their own interests and get ahead of others. It's how humans have survived for millions of years. It's not going away anytime soon. Sure, there are bizarre exceptions like the Dalai Lama and similar individuals, and sure, there are still some small tribal societies that work in a highly cooperative fashion. Pit those tribes against other tribes for the same resources and see what happens.
This. About a million times this. Now despite claims to the contrary, humanity has gotten better at humanity over the ages.
That being said, we still have the characteristics that allowed us to survive, and they are still in play.
We still have a deep seated need to brand other groups as "The other", and then isolate or kill them. Be it color of skin, politics or other differences - many minor, it's all still there. So like it or not, ya gotta deal with it, lest you end up like sheep going to the slaug
Re: (Score:2)
Given the "Adapt to the AI World" / "You're all naysayers" mindset of many, I'd say we're on track there.
The final result - no more dubbing jobs (Score:2)
Eventually, AI will be able to use the *original* voice (e.g. speaking Japanese) and change the language to English, with all the emotion intact. Even if the result is only passable, the cost would be so low that everyone will use it.
What these voice actors are doing is similar to harbour loaders protesting against automation. The final result is building new harbours that are 100% automated from the start, then letting the old manually loaded harbours go bust.
Dubbing games will be replaced (Score:2)
NPC dialog will be replaced with LLM generated text and if the voice actor isn't ready to 24/7 voice newly generated NPC dialogue in real-time, the game studios will need to use an AI to speak for the NPCs.
So did the whip-makers (Score:2)
We used to call it 'progress' at the time.
I expect... (Score:2)
...soon tries to patent idiosyncratic cadence or unconventional prosody.
In f.ex. Christopher Walken’s case, it's marked by irregular pauses, offbeat emphasis, and unexpected rhythms.
Linguists might call it non-standard intonation or atypical stress patterns.
It’s not technically staccato, but it creates a choppy, almost musical effect.
Sometimes it's also referred to informally as a distinctive speech pattern or signature delivery.
I'll BET the Mafia will try.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry.. (Score:3)
voice acting (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm an indie game developer. My games have budgets of a few hundred bucks at best. Before AI, voice acting was simply impossible. There was no way I could pay a voice actor for even one language.
Now, with AI, I can have voice-overs in half a dozen languages easily. It has opened up something for me that was never possible before.
Yes, the AI voices are mediocre. Yes, I would prefer having an actual voice actor whom I can tell that I want THAT word stressed, or what emotion to convey. I'm sure in a few more years, the text-to-speech AI generators will allow for that as well.
But I'm not lost business. I'm still hiring the exact same number of voice actors that I did before AI. Zero, in my case. But if I had a budget, I'd still hire voice actors instead of AI because a good voice actor still beats the best AI.
There's still time enough to learn something new and get a different job, guys.
Who's the Victim? (Score:2)
As others pointed out, this is a lost cause.... in most cases. The real issue is QUALITY, not a guaranteed job. Look at Japanese anime and video games ported to the west. In Japan, Seiyu (voice actors) are highly trained actors. The producers except only top quality work, equivalent to Hollywood actors. The US (etc) actors are, well, not that good. Sorry if you have a favorite voice dubber, but you have to admit that they are NOT top tier actors. Simply, dubbed anime is shit. Again, sorry to those w
Re: (Score:2)
And if you then play a Bethesda game, you can hear the same three or four people again.
Ugh? (Score:2)
AI will not be able to understand any emotion in the text its reading. People already avoid dubbing for lack of alignment with the original. Listening to AI dubs would be a horrible way to enjoy a film.
What I'ld like ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be cool tech (Score:2)
It would be cool if AI could truly capture a speaker in one language and translate that speaker into a comparable version in another language. I don't think we're there yet, but that would be an excellent way to watch foreign movies.
Yet another front in IP abuse (Score:2)
Yes, the voice actors may lose jobs.
Weavers lost their work to automated looms, then threw wooden shoes into the machinery.
There do need to be limits placed, but in general, both the actors and the industry ask too much, and the regulatory machine has been captured; we all lose.
Bullshit analogy (Score:2)
"Highway code" Pfft. No, what you're saying is effectively "No, you can't drive a car because it will put horse-drawn buggy drivers out of business"
Authentic dubs (Score:2)
Why in the world would studios use the voice of the old voice actor for dubbing when they can just use the real actors?
Of course for animation, why waste money on voice actors at all?
Re: (Score:2)
Reading a script *is* something that AI is good at doing if you want an emotionless robot voice.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you follow the advancements in the last year? Not only the voice now has emotions, but there are already papers and proof of concept code of synchronizing this with the mimic of an avatar.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also not just reading a script, it can simultaneously have a feed of the original audio which allows it to better replicate it.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you follow the advancements in the last year? Not only the voice now has emotions, but there are already papers and proof of concept code of synchronizing this with the mimic of an avatar.
I've done a couple vids with AI voice. It's remarkably lifelike. And if the voice generation has a hiccup, there are tweaks that go a long way to take care of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait for what's to come. If you follow research a bit, you'll get more new papers than you can read. And these are research papers that show things can be done. When a commercial company starts to use these things they will get way better because they can integrate any "quick & dirty" tricks that fix things instead of doing new research how to "correctly" fix it and publishing the next paper before releasing the next demo.
Re: (Score:2)
But if you just meant translations that don't substantially alter the source material, I'd agree. They shouldn't change the source material past what's needed to make it comprehensible. Some things can't be helped, like how wordplay won't make sense if you don't fiddle with it a bit.