cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/40224994
I just found out that Embark used genAI to replace recalling it’s voice actors. And I am devastated. It was my GOTY and now I’m boycotting it. To the point that I decided to be vocal about it.
I don’t want any AI (not talking about machine learning for the way the Arcs move, I’m talking about the voice actors being replaced) in the work of art that I think are the video games I play.
To game developers: Stop using AI in your video games!
Je viens de découvrir que Embark a utilisé de l’IA générative pour remplacer ses acteurs. Et franchement je suis tellement déçu. C’était clairement mon GOTY, et maintenant je me retrouve à boycotter tout ça, au point de carrément en faire des posts pour toucher le plus de monde possible.
Je ne veux aucune IA (et attention, je ne parle pas du machine learning utilisé pour les déplacements des Arcs) dans les oeuvres d’art que je consomme.
Aux développeurs: Arrêtez d’utiliser de l’IA dans les jeux vidéos !
From https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/arc-raiders-use-of-ai-highlights-the-tension-and-confusion-over-where-machine-learning-ends-and-generative-ai-begins/
So no, they are not “stealing” voices. Their contracts explicity states that they are training the model. So they are getting paid, which in conclusion rules out “stealing”.
Also, from your video:
Rarely ever good if a sentence starts with “To my understanding”
No, that’s the whole point of models that are trained on a single voice - you do NOT use other voice actors because that would completely muddy the voice. The models are trained on a singular voice to mimic that person perfectly. Using other voices is like asking someone to cook a potato soup for you and then you toss in tomato and paprika.
AI is a tool, and a good one if it’s used properly. And this is definitely a good use case.
If you really want to make a point against AI, stop using windows as they are trying to push AI bullshit into everything.
Thank you for the sourced answer.
First of all, I’m not the author of the video. I’m only a concerned customer/fan.
Secondly, I am already boycotting Windows for those kind of reason. And I have been a Linux user for the better part of the last 10 years. You are right, we should fight this kind of stance. But this is a different beast imho.
Now to answer: I will copy/paste most of my answer to kate above.
I find this really cynical. Because:
I personally do understand how genAI work. But thank you for clarifying what is usually a black box for most people. Let me phrase in detail what my understanding is. And feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
What Embark did is to train a specific model on a specific voice. I agree.
But the base of this model is to be capable of understanding how any voice works in order to copy how a specific voice work. In other words. This means that the technology/model has first been built using thousands of recordings to “understand” how human voice works. And then there has been a last layer to copy a specific voice.
I am simplifying of course. But I want to express how much I am disagreeing with the “they only used one specific voice”. Technology isn’t magic, we as a society don’t understand how to make a program that can copy a single voice to make it say anything perfectly.
We can use an amalgam of thousands of them to build a neural network (what some call AI, it is a broad term often used to describe Machine Learning) to statistically mimic what a human voice is. And then feed it a single voice to mimic.
Sorry for the long response.
I have played enough games that have lasted enough time to know that it’s not uncommon to be unable to get a voice actor to come back for many reasons up to and including death or retirement. Which results in worse experiences for the player because now there’s just a sudden voice change which is unpleasant. Or your developers are now limited because of scheduling another issues which causes problems.
For them to be able to have a consistent voice throughout without having to rely on that in the voice, actor only has to do a one-time gig get paid in the potentially earn a small annual stipend from the project depending on their contract.
Genai for voices is really really good in that case. You can sell the use of your voice to train a model for a small lump sum with a yearly licensing fee or a large up front sum.
Easier in a more reliable paycheck for the voice actor. As long as the contract is fair and compensation is done correctly and the licensing is on a strictly project by project basis. So no using that trained AI from multiple projects.
Like this is probably the single best example of using genai that we can really hope for. It could be a slight bit better. Sure, but this is already leaps and bounds ahead of anything else.
Bespoke case by case trained AI with contractual agreements for payment in licensing.
And the best part of all of this since it’s contractually agreed, it means no one is forced to do s***
The didn’t have to, but it certainly makes it easier. And I find it silly to not use a technology that makes something easier if you have it available. That’s like a farmer plowing his field by hand instead of using a tractor.
First of all, we had Text-To-Speech way before any kind of generative AI. In germany, we had speech synthesized announcements on railway stations for like 15 years at least. Like this here: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/AuIkJ_UGltI. We also had vocaloids for decades now. So it’s wrong to assume we had no idea how voices work before AI.
Second, I get your stance on “I’m not using AI because somewhere up the chain it was developed by morally ambiguous ways”, but I don’t think that makes anything better. You should rate the current use-case, not something that happened earlier in the production chain. AI in itself is not bad. If used properly, it’s an incredibly helpful tool. There’s other and much better hills to die on imo.
Stop trying to reason with this person.
You can’t reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.
There are many legitimate complaints with ai. And when you confront its most fervent detractors with examples of the technology that addresses these complaints they just double down on their hatred of it, which is not an intellectually honest position to take.
If you have a problem with a model that’s been trained on the work of many artists that haven’t been compensated, then you should be okay with a model that has been trained on data for which an artist has been fairly compensated.
If you take issue with the huge power usage for training LLMs then you should be okay with a model that has been trained in such a manner that the huge power usage of LLMs does not apply (many voice models are really fucking lightweight).
Many of the complaints people have are salient, but when someone doubles down when the complaints are addressed it’s abundantly clear that the issue is “I hate this” and not “I hate this because”
To follow your analogy:
“The tractor isn’t made off of other people living wage” is what I was starting to answer but… it does a bit, so you are right in a sense. Previously, people where hired to plow the field I guess. And I don’t see this as big of a problem as genAI. But this subject touches more on mass production and capitalism.
I would like to intentionally bend your analogy by stating that it’s not inherently true: if anybody could access a technology that helps them by magically destroying lives in another country far away, would you say the same thing? “It would be silly to ignore it as it makes things easier for me” seems quite short-sighted to me.
Might be cruel to say it, but that’s called “progress”. The world needs to continue to evolve - latching to old jobs seems silly. We got rid off of blacksmiths because we don’t have the need anymore. Europe once had a huge horse stable industry spanning the entirety of central and western europe. We don’t have that anymore either, because we now have cars. We also don’t have any telegraph operators or switchboard operators (necessary for long distance communication back then), elevator operators or laundry washwomen - these jobs have all been made obsolete by technical advancements.
I think quite the opposite - it’s the long-sighted better option. Progress is never good for those negatively affected in the short term, but we can’t keep jobs around that aren’t really necessary anymore just for the sake of those people having a job.
And in this particular case, there’s not even any loss involved. They used their voice to train an AI, it was explicity part of the contract and they got paid for it. I honestly do not see the problem.
You’re already using something convenient to you at the cost of exploiting other lives far away. It’s your smartphone.
You are right. Now, should we then condone any kind because we condone one? It might be hypocritical to condone one and not the other. But I prefer to chose my fights instead of going for none.
True, but there are far better things to fight when it comes to AI then companies that properly make contracts with voice actors to use their voice for AI training.