Voice actors are training the AI which will be their replacement
Nowadays, voice actors are training the AI, ready to take their place in the industry, and some actors are furious about the change because they think it will take their jobs.
Technology has evolved incredibly in the past several years with the rise of artificial intelligence tools. AI is becoming increasingly popular, and its effects are felt in different industries from movies to teaching. Recently, AI-based voicing has been a hot topic that people have argued about. There are two sides to the story: some think it is better because of fair prices, while some voice actors are furious about it, like the Argentinian voice actor Alejandro Graue.
Graue used to read texts for a self-improvement channel on YouTube, and he recently received a notification that a new video had been uploaded to the channel. He then realized that the voice wasn't his in the video, and he learned that the channel owners decided to use an AI-based voice software instead of hiring the voice actor. In a tweet, he furiously said: "Thanks to all the actors and actresses who are lending their voices to create this shit that will eventually render all of us obsolete."
One of the YouTube channel technicians said: "It's cheaper, and they don't have to pay your rates," and this is where the "two sides" started. Voice actors are training the AI software that Graue was furious about, so he called them out in his tweet, according to Rest of World.
Voice actors are training the AI that might replace them in the future, but a larger community is threatened by the development of the technology. Voice actors have been complaining about AI software taking their jobs, which has become a real concern for the majority. This could potentially lead to the industry's extinction, meaning thousands of people could lose their jobs. It is also known that the famous music producer David Guetta also uses AI to create music.
For some, AI technology is also a threat to ethics. Lately, deep fake videos of celebrities have started to take place on the internet, where actors lip-sync to computer-generated voices that sound exactly like them. These issues bring many questions marks, but on the other hand, the owners of the companies defend their product's price and performance and how good of an alternative they are to human voice actors.
Besides, voice actors are training the AI software creates another debate among colleagues. If technology threatens people's jobs, why do other voice actors help the companies demolish the industry? This question is being asked by some of their colleagues, and the debate will continue to spark more fire in the upcoming days.
Advertisement
Thank you @Tom Hawack and thank you all guys, I still don’t know why my comment were erased, however I tried to be as much polite as I could be in such this article according that I was answering a single apparently polite comment too. I am tired of watching videos at Youtube with women dancing and singing with very few clothes and very uncommon movements (please, I am being polite). However in such these videos the singer is a women, and when this is in this way they won’t ever have a problem. The problem starts when the singer is a male. That’s the problem that I was trying to expose without success due the censorship that currently is dumping the non-straight opinions here. In this way, in recent days Shakira, a singer woman, has sang a song that was talking about “to kill her ex-boyfriend and also at the new girlfriend of her ex-boyfriend”: no problem. What could have happened if the singer was a male singer? That’s sexism too? AI should be trained in such these kind of contents just to apply censorship too? We are humans and we have different opinions, AI chatbots just act like a programmed software that applies the things that they got, provided by the humans. The problem is not the AI but the humans, always the humans and their deep necessity to trimm and to cut every kind of disident opinion. Thanks for the article again, and please, before to delete an entire comment, just cut the part you dislike. Thanks.
@Tom Hawack thanks for your response.
I’ve seen ya here for years and read everyone’s comments.
Since All the dystopic AI threads have been cranked out by the truckload, I decided to politely comment a few times and most all were blocked.
It’s really a shame Others have been blocked over the same endless AI threads…BTW Tom, AI ‘is’ everywhere, most folks just don’t realize it cuz they’re addicted to their ball and chain > tracking-device.
Thanks fer readin
11r20 From Texas
@11r20,
Some blogs have an ideology, an editorial line, others process plain news blogs, some try try to combine both.
Propagation of information (true or fake) is nowadays quasi immediate.
Masses always react 1- quickly, 2- excessively.
In this context the incredible amount of articles about the chatbot phenomenon, here, there, everywhere is understandable because logic.
This may bother but unless to prefer ideological news to opportunistic ones, fact is AI is at this time the big thing.
No idea if we’re at a peek or if the AI (and mainly chatbot) will decrease in the coming weeks. My opinion is that it will deflate.
I remain surprised to discover that comments would have been censored here : Ghacks has never been an ideological blog. You can think, say whatever you wish about the owner of the site but not that it’d be led by an ideology which would bring it to commit censorship : it’s business and the company believes that modifying the shape may be beneficial for its business, business which is always based on the number of visitors, to the point that the company privileges the number of visitors and the number of comments to anything else, even should they include nasty words concerning itself : bad or good comments, but come on in and comments as you like it! (within of course the limits of obvious unacceptable wordings).
Not one website owes its users anything. I truly believe that a pragmatic approach is the wisest approach, here as elsewhere : interested by a title, then by the first paragraph’s description, off we are — or not — to read it all and sometimes to comment. I’ll avoid emphasizing on whatever hypothetical subliminal technique and express only the idea that the multiplicity of articles processing a same topic with sometimes little differences from one author’s writing to another is maybe not, IMO, a wise approach. But I’m neither a journalist neither in the journalism business.
“The grass is green, the sky is bluen deep in the heart of Texas ..” – Greetings to ya all :=)
Digital and traditional artists, voice, actors will all be out of jobs soon. AI can do lot of their work for less money.
@11r20,
The “you’re posting too fast” appears occasionally. A simple ‘Go back” re-displays the comment and a “Post Comment’ (again) fixes the issue, at least in my experience.
Concerning deliberately removed comments, or at least perceived as such, my experience shows two things:
1- In over a decade I’ve noticed very few comments removed. Ghacks, when martin Brinkman was the boss but also afterwards. Of course I may have missed some, especially that never any of mine.
2- Concluding that AI may have anything to do with this is IMO a marvelous fantasist explanation :=)
Maybe too many articles on Ghacks since a week or so. I don’t know who decides of what, who is authorized to remove users’ comments (only Martin or authors independently?). Maybe speed + amount = technical issues?
Whatever, Ghacks would be IMO happily inspired to provide an explanation, especially for comments’ removal. I know that Martin Brinkman usually does, but ever since Ghacks has been sold to a Spanish sunshine I admit being confused on who does what, who decides of what around here.
For when actors themselves, blood flesh and voice, to be fully handled by AI and VR?
I’m not ready, or too old, for such a huge cultural shift.
> “Sexism only exists when feminism decides that it is sexism”
No feminism means no sexism? Not sure I can agree with that.
The point IMO is that some feminists may perceive sexism where non-feminist women do not; also the latter, mainly seniors educated with the standards of another time, may perceive no sexism where others, feminists or not, men as women of the new generations will consider certain attitudes and behaviors as definitely sexist ones.
Consider this business woman evoking a man’s gallantry to invite her to exit the lift before himself as that of a “pig”. Some feminists consider gallantry as sexism, some of which make an exception for the restaurant bill.
Now, is there a universal definition of sexism, world-wide standards? Not sure. Looks like cultures and generations may have their own. What is disturbing is when sexism becomes a woman’s problem only. I believe whatever segregation should concern all and not only those who are themselves victime, and that includes sexism.
But as usual with extremism there will always be purists, absolutists who are unable to differentiate equality and similitude. I never forget a citation from La Rochefoucauld I think it is, who mentioned, concerning men and women : “in what they have in common they are equal, in what they have different they are not comparable”. Long live differences, especially when it comes to genders :=) The point is not, has never been and never will be in spotting, enumerating differences, but only and for always in daring state that one is inferior, that one is superior to the other.
This was a reply to John G.’s comment, presently removed, by mistake I believe or at least hope.
Hello Tom,
Here’s my original message, to which John replied – unfortunately, I believe my my original post was the “safe” one, and John’s the one which got the thread closed.
“Reminds me of the old question: Why do women agree to appear in music videos where they are portrayed derogatively and the lyrics are sexist? The answer is the same: Because people will do just about anything for money, and think only about the short term.”
————–
You see, I didn’t mean to start any kind of conversation about the genders, or make any kind of political social commentary, I was just making an extended point about the “voice actors” topic, however that is the direction John decided to take it in – I don’t blame him for that, it’s his choice, but I think that kind of discussion might be considered “off-topic” here, or “not advertiser friendly”.
@basingstoke, indeed, and I have those very two comments within my RSS feeds updated before the removal.
Must be a technical issue, personally I see nothing worth being removed for valid reasons.
For those concerned for themselves, for those who don’t understand the comments’ history because of the removals, because I believe these removals can be but the result of a technical issue, here are the comments :
[https://paste.i2pd.xyz/?66bbd036d64f29ad#5cmzCdrYLtcEQbS9BvDm6E8JVmRv8wADVVictENRJEHS]
A word of explanation by Ghacks would be welcomed.
Very nice, Tom,
I like your style :)
Wow, mine and John G’s comments were removed… for no reason!
I mean… I agree, but I wasn’t talking about that at all, just using it as an example for the point I was actually making :)