beatlegdb.com

theboxinargentina wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 1:34 pm Well this is godawful

Voice actors are increasingly being asked to sign rights to their voices away so clients can use artificial intelligence to generate synthetic versions that could eventually replace them
Those contractual obligations are just one of the many concerns actors have about the rise of voice-generating artificial intelligence, which they say threaten to push entire segments of the industry out of work.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/5d37za/ ... telligence

Yes, it is disturbing in the same way that the rise of the drum machine in the early 80s was. Instead of making good use of synthetic drums and sequencers to augment human drummers, a bunch of tedious people insisted that there was no need for real drummers any more and so we got the record labels signing up all these crap acts who played along to a drum machine... then became famous, and still didn't hire a real drummer! It took a long time for the human drummer to gain respectability again.

Now I suspect that people who should know better will go all oh gosh wow over this new technology and abuse it to the hilt. Then after a decade of having all voicovers done by a machine, people will start to long for the human touch again and the wheel will come full circle.

But why does it always have to be this way? An inferior new technology comes alongs and is abused by people who don't have a clue, and we all suffer for it.

Lord Reith wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 9:01 pm Yes, it is disturbing in the same way that the rise of the drum machine in the early 80s was. Instead of making good use of synthetic drums and sequencers to augment human drummers, a bunch of tedious people insisted that there was no need for real drummers any more and so we got the record labels signing up all these crap acts who played along to a drum machine... then became famous, and still didn't hire a real drummer! It took a long time for the human drummer to gain respectability again.

Now I suspect that people who should know better will go all oh gosh wow over this new technology and abuse it to the hilt. Then after a decade of having all voicovers done by a machine, people will start to long for the human touch again and the wheel will come full circle.

But why does it always have to be this way? An inferior new technology comes alongs and is abused by people who don't have a clue, and we all suffer for it.

I would argue this is worse! It's not just replacing the artist with something else, it's taking from them, under duress, their unique humanness. It's a machine with the human touch, that touch being appropriated from someone real.

You're right, it is worse. But I suppose it has always been like that, since The Beatles signed away all future rights to Polydor just for the privelidge of being on a record. And they're still paying for that one!

For that matter I think it is just as bad that workers are forced to adopt their bosses' views on life just to get a job. "We as a corporation believe in this, this and that, and so YOU must believe in it too if you want to work for us. No exceptions." It is totally outrageous.

Let's use the technology to get the Beatles to voice themselves in "Yellow Submarine."

I think a particularly dangerous application of this technology would be to make small changes to already existing interviews.

People will use it to slip in racist or sexist slurs into old interviews, or change names or implement other small but damaging modifications. The best place to hide a tree is in a forest, and small but significant changes to old audio may go undetected by people and machines but do enormous damage to the person's reputation.

Lord Reith wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 8:54 am You're right, it is worse. But I suppose it has always been like that, since The Beatles signed away all future rights to Polydor just for the privelidge of being on a record. And they're still paying for that one!

For that matter I think it is just as bad that workers are forced to adopt their bosses' views on life just to get a job. "We as a corporation believe in this, this and that, and so YOU must believe in it too if you want to work for us. No exceptions." It is totally outrageous.

This is the philosophy at news networks today. A glaring example is Fox News, and, I suppose, CNN. The 'personalities' are paid to express a particular opinion, or to support a particular individual. They do it because if they don't, they are easily replaced by someone even more willing to express (on behalf of the network) the same POV. It's not so much that they adopt the bosses' point of view, as we are learning. It's more to ensure that they can continue in their job.

Ok I think I found a good use for this tech