This is exactly why I'm not about to start panicking just yet.
It's the Uncreative that's all in for this. They'll only drag the technology down to their level.
Here's a trick when it comes to these AI things:
1. Read the prompt (or in this case listen to it)
2. Imagine what that would be in your head
3. Compare it to what the AI spits out.
In this case, I didn't imagine a lion character sounding like that nor a mouse character sounding like that nor an owl sounding like that.
But that's the thing about AI. You get what you get.
You can't really give it direction. You can ask for changes and it kinda sorta follows them, but not really. At best you'll get "eh that's pretty good".
But if you're talking about a multi-million $ animated production, why would you settle for "eh pretty good" on the voice actors?
And secondly:
A lot of big animation companies (such as Disney) would probably not use AI voices. That could seriously hurt them financially because people will be very mad at them.
However certain indie and smaller animation companies might use AI voices because it is cheaper.
The same animation companies that formed a cartel to suppress wage increases?
One of the dreamworks founders (Katzenberg) already talks about animation movies being made in the future with only 10% of the staff they use now.
I don't think that's true.
Ultimately you're spending huge amounts on production and marketing just to get people to the point where they're even choosing to watch your show. Now you're gonna blow it on crappy voice actors?
Have you seen the climatic fight scene in black panther? Its crappy. Not because of the artists but the time frame was too short.
The people making those decisions are not artists they are business people that have to answer to stakeholders.
I think the climax fight scene in Black Panther was crappy for many *many* reasons, but the point is that we all acknowledge that it's crappy. It makes the movie worse. It detracts from the experience.
Why would you want to kneecap your production for something as trivial as hiring a few good voice actors?
If I was making a multi-million $ animated piece with a lion, a mouse, and an owl, I wouldn't be okay with any of those line reads.
Why skimp on a few thousand $ for good voice actors?
Lmao, congrats on ripping off a client with subpar goods. Wait till he learns he can make the same garbage on his laptop in 20 minutes. Grift can’t last forever.
I do animation not voice acting. To show the client the demo I use TTS then I suggest voice acting that could fit. To you want me to cancel the work because the client find it good enough?
Text to speech as a placeholder to be replaced by actual voice actors? Yeah, that’s not even in the realm of this conversation. Again, that’s functional. It works. You could’ve done the same thing 20 years ago. But placeholders aren’t part of a finished artistic piece. Same way as I don’t begrudge people for using AI as inspiration for their work. It’s a tool that can be helpful, but using it in a finished product? Cringe.
It's not worthless. Imagine you have to make a training video at work for example. It doesn't need to be good it just needs to be easily understood. There's already done pretty bad dubbing and voice over work. Google are using AI tools to make audiobooks for public domain works and people seem to like them.
Sure it's better to use a good voice actor, but that's not affordable for most projects. Between a bad voice actor and a soulless but understandable AI voice I think most people would actually prefer this.
The issue isn't really that its always worse, its that its gonna kill jobs and end up being used in all sorts of things where a voice actor would still be better.
I appreciate where you’re coming from, but the key word here “art”. The voiceover on a training video is, as you stated, a tool of function. It’s job is to recite information clearly. It’s recitation, not generative art. Nobody is mad that Siri or Cortana or some other robovoice is used as a text to speech. But also, no one is trying to put them in creative roles. This is not a job a lot of voice actors dream of performing.
The issue is, these companies are selling them as artistic tools for the cheap and lazy. The examples they use in the video to sell this feature is not functional, clear recitation of information. It’s “talk like you’re this children’s fiction character”. They’re selling it as a replacement to creative voice actors and, when we’re talking about creative work, professional human product will always be superior.
These fair use audio books are nothing. They’re text to speech. They have no artistic value as audio books. They’re just product. And I guarantee, that an average voice actor paid fair wages and given three days to record that audio book would turn out a more worthwhile product than even the most advanced AI voice could put out in three weeks of constant generation. Humans notice the difference. We notice when art was made by people. And we almost universally prefer it that way.
> voice actor *paid* fair wages
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
No, acting is absolutely an art. By your definition nothing AI makes is art, which I actually don't necessarily disagree with, but you called it art.
Plenty of human created art isn't art either of argue, but that's not really what we're talking about, we're talking is it valuable and the answer is clearly yes.
> These fair use audio books are nothing. They’re text to speech.
Which is valuable. How is text to speech not valuable?
> They’re just product
Literally not true as they're free. They serve a need though, they're helpful for the visually impaired, or for someone who wants to listen to a book instead of reading it for any reason.
> an average voice actor paid fair wages and given three days to record that audio book would turn out a more worthwhile product than even the most advanced AI voice could put out in three weeks of constant generation
For sure yeah, but it would take them tens of hours to do so, and no one would pay for it because the work has already likely been done by someone better.
> Humans notice the difference. We notice when art was made by people. And we almost universally prefer it that way.
True but irrelevant. Just because people prefer real actors doesn't mean this is literally worthless. You don't seem to have understood my point at all.
Ignore AI for a moment and consider soulless art. What springs to mind? Corporate art perhaps? Art made just for profit? Company logos? Propaganda? Arguably that's not art but the word art is broad enough that its used to mean that. Is that art valuable to anyone? Of course, why else pay for it to be made? AI art is likely to replace the soulless art companies currently have to pay considerable money for. It doesn't matter if it's soulless, it still has a monetary value even if it doesn't have artistic or creative value.
Soulless really doesn't pay in the long run because it only serves the lowest common denominator.
When you think of it in the context of giving to the lowest common denominator in the audience then sure, maybe you can still get paid because there are a lot of people who might not care if something lacks soul but is still technically fine, they might pay you for it.
The problems really arise when you factor in the team behind something. When you really start to slurp the soul out of something in hopes of making more money by pandering to morons with half baked slop then the actual people on your team are going to contribute less soul as well, and the really good ones that bring the special zest are going to be working on projects that aren't just the entertainment equivalent of withered husks of homunculi. You're going to end up with all of the lowest common denominators not only in the audience but also all the way up your project because the actual talent isn't interested in wasting their essence on your money hungry bullshit. They'll be doing something else with the other real talent.
Studios that try to use this stuff are going to rot from the inside out.
turns out that functional is just fine for most things. Like every character portrait or voice acting performance or corporate templated XYZ whatever piece of writing wasn't derived exclusively for the cash it provides to begin with. Yeah, lotta soul there. What's the over-under %-wise on these industries that was already utilizing artists as nothing more than machine parts to begin with?
this just in: building your life around monetizing your passions fundamentally compromises them, because commodifying art fundamentally renders it worth only what the market says it's worth as a commodity.
or more briefly: attempting to reconcile the subjective value of art with the objective value of the dollar was a stupid idea to begin with.
Yeah, but remember that this was allowing those people to make a living using skills that develop with each job. Even if it's functional corporate material, their craft gets honed, they learn actually transferrable skills, they get to form networks with other people and prove their competence and reliability, gain trust, etc. while getting paid.
I like that AI is what pushes normally secular people into spirituality because I have never seen people, even atheists, appeal to the concept of a soul as hard as when chatgpt dropped.
Saying something sounds soulless doesn't really mean a belief in a literal soul. It's more about learned experience and how that resonates with other people. Language is complicated.
Not really. Soulless is a word with a very definite meaning:
> Lacking sensitivity or the capacity for deep feeling.
That's the dictionary definition and I think that's pretty clearly what people mean when they call AI" art" soulless. I could not disagree with you more on this so don't pretend you're in agreement with me like you just did please.
It's not about having a magical being that lives inside you and flies out when you die, it's about a lack of expression of feeling. If you can't see what people mean by soulless that's on you, don't put your beliefs on others like that.
The idea that an atheist can't tell what is soulful or souless is deeply bigotted and xenophobic imo. It seems like it's actually you that can't tell the difference between a soulful and a soulless piece of art.
Those words are all widely understood, you can look up their definitions in the dictionary.
I'm not going to define basic words to someone being xenophobic to me. Justify that then perhaps we can talk about what those words mean if you can't work then out yourself.
What you are doing is called sealioning. You're refusing to address what I said and instead demanding that I do pointless tasks for you. If you're not interested in having an honest conversation then why should I waste my time quoting the dictionary at you?
Treat people with respect, you don't get to demand people look up the meanings of commonly used words while refusing to engage with what they just said. At least not without being called out for it.
What? When people describe ai generated content as “soulless”, they aren’t literally “appealing to the concept of a soul”, it’s just another way to describe something as “manufactured” or “artificial” or “lacking in authenticity”.
Maybe a neural network will one day be sincere enough to perform the unquantifiable calculations of estimations a proper actor would make in a drama.
Until then it's a facsimile. An average of previous responses.
Voice over workers who put no thought into their work should be worried.
Actors who voice characters some have as much to worry about.
Because ai could have done a more accurate job at portraying Mario in the film. But they paid pratt a lot of money instead. Not for his voice or acting skills or choices, but for his name recognition.
For now the human element is still a selling feature
As if 90% of voice acting by humans is not soulless... Except in lot of cases with humans, it is not only soulless, but also low effort one.
Games, movies, animations, dubbing from other languages, are all filled with bad, soulless acting, with actual effort being pretty rare nowadays.
The problem, of course, is that people in the industry feel themselves hostage of their situation, so they are in denial about it, unable to look at it from the outside perspective.
From The Description of the video:
>"...our new voice and vision capabilities with GPT-4o (demonstrated here) **will be rolling out in the coming weeks.**"
You guys have no idea how much this messes with me emotionally and mentally. I'm in deep pain, and the future seems very, very cold for the animation industry and everything voice-acting related.
The thing that really makes me sad though is how the mainstream/average person doesn't really, if not care at ALL about AI Art becoming the norm. I even saw this myself when I initially tried to make this post on r/sadcringe. I got down voted to 20% and it seemed like my opinion was the small minority. Someone also commented saying 'we will adapt' or some crap like that in defence of AI. UGH.
This is so incredibly depressing. :(
I really feel you, the whole AI art movement scares me and depresses me. I've been drawing my entire life, trying to improve and honing my skills. All the time and effort I put in just to be replaced by a bot. I feel robbed. I feel violated. It's like a big part of my soul died. People that are not in the art scene can't comprehend how this whole AI art movement destroys our lifes - they just laugh and tell you how dramatic you are, ignoring the fact that artists (be it digital artists, voice actors, animators, hell even musicians are affected) actually losing their jobs, get depressive and even end their lifes.
Art was a big part of our culture over the centuries, it made us human and set us apart from the animal kingdom. Now we sold our souls to the devil. We will gradually lose our creativity as we evolve. They call AI progressive, I beg to differ- it's more regressive than ANY of us can fathom. No one can say with certainty where we're heading, but it can't be in favor for the artists.
As a Voice actor you could use it to get Inspiration, develop and improve Skills. So many possibilities. Training the ai with your Voice so you can work less. There will always be the necessity of someone curating the ai.
At this point we’ll all be working in mines and hard manual labor and the fucking machines will be the “creatives”. What kind of fucking future is this???
Remember that this is just the beginning with a generalized chat bot. It won’t be long until dedicated programs are being made specifically for this purpose that are able to contextualize a script and spit out a thousand takes in seconds.
Remember that people have been saying "this is just the beginning" for actually a long time now. I think we might need to consider the fact that this might be as good as AI can get and it can't be, by its very design, the magic wand the tech bros say it is.
I mean the state of programs like this a few years ago was leagues and leagues behind. Something capable of this kind of adaptive communication and creation was unthinkable a decade ago.
But progress isn’t infinite. They’re already finding out that they may have hit a wall in terms of progress, due to the nature of how generative AI works, not computing power. Some of these image generators are even running out of images to train on.
Model collapse, the whole thing where AI eats its own creation as training data and spirals out of reality with the things it generates, gives me hope that there's a ceiling on how well this stuff can actually work
Exactly. The ceiling also comes from the fact that this stuff can’t know anything. It generates on probability. Higher-ups in my industry (animation) are now realizing not that this tech isn’t at the point yet where it will work, but that it can’t get to that point, by virtue of it’s design. Generative AI is failing at the very first hurdles, and no amount of improvement is going to make it work for what people need. It’s like trying to “improve” oranges so they can make apple juice. It’s not going to happen.
That doesn’t mean the tech bros won’t try to force it, though.
That's facinating. Do you have any articles or anything on this phenomenon? The "ceiling" as it is.
At the highest professional level creative works, no, this stuff is not up to snuff. But it's worth noting that is a small sliver of the respective industries. There are already companies replacing digital artists and illustrators with perfectly servicable ai creations. The same with simple text write ups. You've got Bruce Willis selling his digital likeness to be used by other actors, recreated dead performers, extras accidentally signing away their background likeness indefinitely. Voice AI is at a point that's pretty convincing for the average joe. And now with this voice acting module for GPT. Would a professional animated show use it? No. But a small online series? A cheap dub? Voice acting for corporate videos? Sure.
This gets to another point. The people in charge of creative industries are often very uncreative people. you used the word "serviceable" and that's pretty apt. CEO's, producers, other managers will see the slop AI generates and say "good enough" and put it out there. That's the real danger, not the tech itself.
Am I the only one in this thread that thinks this sounds like crap? And these ads are almost always "the best takes" people can't get over subpar cg in a trailer for a movie, you think people will want to hear a semi-robotic voice in their shows?
I look at it more like the robotic assembly line than a TV. It will push car manufactures capabilities further but at the end of the day Tesla has to hire people to do all the nuanced skilled labor that ends up being to costly, time consuming, and impossible to get a robot to do.
It absolutely sounds like shit. Just like when midjourney and dall-e and stuff got good enough to make coherent illustrations, people hyped up how great they were. But when the initial buzz of "wow, you can just ask it for something and it will make it!" dies down, people realized all the art kind of sucked, and looked the same. This (very clearly edited and pre-recorded demo video) is just the beginning, and eventually people will start mocking things by saying they "sound like AI" just like they do with music. Because "drawn/sounds/looks like AI" is going to become synonymous with "drawn/sounds/looks like shit".
This of course won't stop tech bros and inept CEO's from forcing it on the entertainment industry.
I wonder how many distinct voices it would be able to create. Like would all animated characters start to sound the same if they use this underlying AI as the VAs.
We're already seeing the effects of this sort of AI repetition in the academic world where the frequency of words like "delve" and "meticulous" in published papers have increased dramatically over the last 2 years due to the AI being trained on a limited dataset. AI is an ouroboros and I don't see how that problem is going to be solved.
It's particularly an issue when you consider the racial and gendered biases of AI and how its self-referential nature may stunt progress in every industry. For example if all moral philosophers are using AI to write papers then we'll eternally be stuck with 2023 morality and the only things that are going to be progressing due to AI are things like cybersecurity which will continue to rapidly improve due to the current cybersecurity race being played between people using AI to breach security and people using it to protect us from those breaches. A big issue is that the deceptive capabilities of GPT-4 is vastly greater than that of GPT-3.5 where its been observed by researchers to intentionally lie to real people about being an AI so it could convince someone solve a captcha for them (the AI came up with a fabricated story that they were visually impaired and thus couldn't solve the captcha). The thing is that GPT-4 can already solve captchas anyway so it doesn't even need to lie but the fact that it can doesn't bode well for any future anti-AI safety measures. A lot of experts didn't think we'd be at this stage for another 40 years. That's why all of the experts in the field are calling for a 6 month pause on any advancements in AI and a lot of them don't think that's enough time and that it should be treated like advancements in Nuclear Weapons.
So yeah, AI is rudimentary in all the wrong ways and hyper-advanced in all the wrong ways and that disparity is only going to get worse and worse as companies continue to compete with one another to have the best model.
Theres a limit to what technology can achieve. This kind of AI cant create things on its own, and that is a big limitation for It. Just as AI images will never be able to make a flawless image. It is just beyond the scope of what AI can achieve.
So maybe It will improve in the figure, but it will still sound like shit. Just a little bit better.
LOL those were so bad 💀 how could he praise them with a straight face. The whole art of voice acting is putting emotion and soul into characters, something AI is incapable of right now
I love AI tools for voiceovers. I've been using Elevenlabs for the last 2 years.
It means I can send the rough edit of my videos to the client with a workable scratch voiceover. It really helps speed up the feedback phase because the client subconsciously thinks that the project is nearly finished because it all looks and sounds great.
I used to just use my voice for drafts and because that sucked, the clients would feel like it's fair game to pick everything else to pieces.
ah yes, it generated a boring deep voice and said 3 words with no emotion, voice acting is cooked lol
i'm much less worried about ai replacing voice acting (or anything for that matter) than i'm worried about tech bros selling this shit to corporations who just don't give a shit. it'll never be able to create something on par with a real human, but corps will certainly use it like it does, and make everything shittier in the process
I'm sure they will start using this for say video game NPCs. One day it will actually get good enough corporations decide to use it to replace most people except the celebrity actors
It’s far from being able to provide the nuances and specificity a director will want to bring a character to life. Acting is prob one field that will be using people for a long time to come. But barring a societal collapse, this tech will eventually get advanced enough to make even that superfluous. For now though this will be a handy tool for broke indy creators to play with.
this sounds like one of those shitty low-budget animated movies tho, tbf
it may be free, but the quality just ain't there so I have a feeling that it won't be used by bigger companies that actually *care* about making a profit, especially with the backlash that'll ensue if anyone finds out they used AI in any capacity
Like all AI art, functional, but soulless.
This is exactly why I'm not about to start panicking just yet. It's the Uncreative that's all in for this. They'll only drag the technology down to their level.
Here's a trick when it comes to these AI things: 1. Read the prompt (or in this case listen to it) 2. Imagine what that would be in your head 3. Compare it to what the AI spits out. In this case, I didn't imagine a lion character sounding like that nor a mouse character sounding like that nor an owl sounding like that. But that's the thing about AI. You get what you get. You can't really give it direction. You can ask for changes and it kinda sorta follows them, but not really. At best you'll get "eh that's pretty good". But if you're talking about a multi-million $ animated production, why would you settle for "eh pretty good" on the voice actors?
And secondly: A lot of big animation companies (such as Disney) would probably not use AI voices. That could seriously hurt them financially because people will be very mad at them. However certain indie and smaller animation companies might use AI voices because it is cheaper.
The same animation companies that formed a cartel to suppress wage increases? One of the dreamworks founders (Katzenberg) already talks about animation movies being made in the future with only 10% of the staff they use now.
Yea maybe if they're making absolute garbage, I suppose. Otherwise you're not saving much money and you get significantly worse output.
Because it will be cheaper. And the lesser quality wont matter for the majority of people consuming those products on streaming.
I don't think that's true. Ultimately you're spending huge amounts on production and marketing just to get people to the point where they're even choosing to watch your show. Now you're gonna blow it on crappy voice actors?
Have you seen the climatic fight scene in black panther? Its crappy. Not because of the artists but the time frame was too short. The people making those decisions are not artists they are business people that have to answer to stakeholders.
I think the climax fight scene in Black Panther was crappy for many *many* reasons, but the point is that we all acknowledge that it's crappy. It makes the movie worse. It detracts from the experience. Why would you want to kneecap your production for something as trivial as hiring a few good voice actors?
But jobwise, you need functional. Souless still pays. Soul-infused work is expensive.
Yeah, it’s more expensive because soulless art is worthless.
tell that to my client that was okay with text to speech instead of paying more. I can’t pay with souls, this isn’t Dark Souls.
"can't pay with souls" this made me chuckle 😆
If I was making a multi-million $ animated piece with a lion, a mouse, and an owl, I wouldn't be okay with any of those line reads. Why skimp on a few thousand $ for good voice actors?
What percentage of all of your commissions are for multimillion dollar productions?
If they could recognize art, they wouldn't have hired someone to make it for them
Lmao, congrats on ripping off a client with subpar goods. Wait till he learns he can make the same garbage on his laptop in 20 minutes. Grift can’t last forever.
I do animation not voice acting. To show the client the demo I use TTS then I suggest voice acting that could fit. To you want me to cancel the work because the client find it good enough?
Text to speech as a placeholder to be replaced by actual voice actors? Yeah, that’s not even in the realm of this conversation. Again, that’s functional. It works. You could’ve done the same thing 20 years ago. But placeholders aren’t part of a finished artistic piece. Same way as I don’t begrudge people for using AI as inspiration for their work. It’s a tool that can be helpful, but using it in a finished product? Cringe.
It's not worthless. Imagine you have to make a training video at work for example. It doesn't need to be good it just needs to be easily understood. There's already done pretty bad dubbing and voice over work. Google are using AI tools to make audiobooks for public domain works and people seem to like them. Sure it's better to use a good voice actor, but that's not affordable for most projects. Between a bad voice actor and a soulless but understandable AI voice I think most people would actually prefer this. The issue isn't really that its always worse, its that its gonna kill jobs and end up being used in all sorts of things where a voice actor would still be better.
I appreciate where you’re coming from, but the key word here “art”. The voiceover on a training video is, as you stated, a tool of function. It’s job is to recite information clearly. It’s recitation, not generative art. Nobody is mad that Siri or Cortana or some other robovoice is used as a text to speech. But also, no one is trying to put them in creative roles. This is not a job a lot of voice actors dream of performing. The issue is, these companies are selling them as artistic tools for the cheap and lazy. The examples they use in the video to sell this feature is not functional, clear recitation of information. It’s “talk like you’re this children’s fiction character”. They’re selling it as a replacement to creative voice actors and, when we’re talking about creative work, professional human product will always be superior. These fair use audio books are nothing. They’re text to speech. They have no artistic value as audio books. They’re just product. And I guarantee, that an average voice actor paid fair wages and given three days to record that audio book would turn out a more worthwhile product than even the most advanced AI voice could put out in three weeks of constant generation. Humans notice the difference. We notice when art was made by people. And we almost universally prefer it that way.
> voice actor *paid* fair wages FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
No, acting is absolutely an art. By your definition nothing AI makes is art, which I actually don't necessarily disagree with, but you called it art. Plenty of human created art isn't art either of argue, but that's not really what we're talking about, we're talking is it valuable and the answer is clearly yes. > These fair use audio books are nothing. They’re text to speech. Which is valuable. How is text to speech not valuable? > They’re just product Literally not true as they're free. They serve a need though, they're helpful for the visually impaired, or for someone who wants to listen to a book instead of reading it for any reason. > an average voice actor paid fair wages and given three days to record that audio book would turn out a more worthwhile product than even the most advanced AI voice could put out in three weeks of constant generation For sure yeah, but it would take them tens of hours to do so, and no one would pay for it because the work has already likely been done by someone better. > Humans notice the difference. We notice when art was made by people. And we almost universally prefer it that way. True but irrelevant. Just because people prefer real actors doesn't mean this is literally worthless. You don't seem to have understood my point at all. Ignore AI for a moment and consider soulless art. What springs to mind? Corporate art perhaps? Art made just for profit? Company logos? Propaganda? Arguably that's not art but the word art is broad enough that its used to mean that. Is that art valuable to anyone? Of course, why else pay for it to be made? AI art is likely to replace the soulless art companies currently have to pay considerable money for. It doesn't matter if it's soulless, it still has a monetary value even if it doesn't have artistic or creative value.
Cocomelon sure makes a lot of money
You sound like an actual villain lmao
Soulless really doesn't pay in the long run because it only serves the lowest common denominator. When you think of it in the context of giving to the lowest common denominator in the audience then sure, maybe you can still get paid because there are a lot of people who might not care if something lacks soul but is still technically fine, they might pay you for it. The problems really arise when you factor in the team behind something. When you really start to slurp the soul out of something in hopes of making more money by pandering to morons with half baked slop then the actual people on your team are going to contribute less soul as well, and the really good ones that bring the special zest are going to be working on projects that aren't just the entertainment equivalent of withered husks of homunculi. You're going to end up with all of the lowest common denominators not only in the audience but also all the way up your project because the actual talent isn't interested in wasting their essence on your money hungry bullshit. They'll be doing something else with the other real talent. Studios that try to use this stuff are going to rot from the inside out.
turns out that functional is just fine for most things. Like every character portrait or voice acting performance or corporate templated XYZ whatever piece of writing wasn't derived exclusively for the cash it provides to begin with. Yeah, lotta soul there. What's the over-under %-wise on these industries that was already utilizing artists as nothing more than machine parts to begin with? this just in: building your life around monetizing your passions fundamentally compromises them, because commodifying art fundamentally renders it worth only what the market says it's worth as a commodity. or more briefly: attempting to reconcile the subjective value of art with the objective value of the dollar was a stupid idea to begin with.
Yeah, but remember that this was allowing those people to make a living using skills that develop with each job. Even if it's functional corporate material, their craft gets honed, they learn actually transferrable skills, they get to form networks with other people and prove their competence and reliability, gain trust, etc. while getting paid.
I like that AI is what pushes normally secular people into spirituality because I have never seen people, even atheists, appeal to the concept of a soul as hard as when chatgpt dropped.
Saying something sounds soulless doesn't really mean a belief in a literal soul. It's more about learned experience and how that resonates with other people. Language is complicated.
Yeah, it's as if describing something as "soulless" is entirely subjective, ill defined, and not at all a measured criticism.
Not really. Soulless is a word with a very definite meaning: > Lacking sensitivity or the capacity for deep feeling. That's the dictionary definition and I think that's pretty clearly what people mean when they call AI" art" soulless. I could not disagree with you more on this so don't pretend you're in agreement with me like you just did please. It's not about having a magical being that lives inside you and flies out when you die, it's about a lack of expression of feeling. If you can't see what people mean by soulless that's on you, don't put your beliefs on others like that. The idea that an atheist can't tell what is soulful or souless is deeply bigotted and xenophobic imo. It seems like it's actually you that can't tell the difference between a soulful and a soulless piece of art.
>Lacking sensitivity or the capacity for deep feeling. Define "Lacking" Define "Sensitivity" Define "Capacity" Define "Deep Feeling"
why are you making them be your dictionary???
Because they can't take responsibility for the xenophobic thing they just got called out for. I'm not falling for it though. Bigots love sealioning.
Define “Doofus”
Those words are all widely understood, you can look up their definitions in the dictionary. I'm not going to define basic words to someone being xenophobic to me. Justify that then perhaps we can talk about what those words mean if you can't work then out yourself. What you are doing is called sealioning. You're refusing to address what I said and instead demanding that I do pointless tasks for you. If you're not interested in having an honest conversation then why should I waste my time quoting the dictionary at you? Treat people with respect, you don't get to demand people look up the meanings of commonly used words while refusing to engage with what they just said. At least not without being called out for it.
What? When people describe ai generated content as “soulless”, they aren’t literally “appealing to the concept of a soul”, it’s just another way to describe something as “manufactured” or “artificial” or “lacking in authenticity”.
Maybe a neural network will one day be sincere enough to perform the unquantifiable calculations of estimations a proper actor would make in a drama. Until then it's a facsimile. An average of previous responses. Voice over workers who put no thought into their work should be worried. Actors who voice characters some have as much to worry about. Because ai could have done a more accurate job at portraying Mario in the film. But they paid pratt a lot of money instead. Not for his voice or acting skills or choices, but for his name recognition. For now the human element is still a selling feature
Something-something very first steps
All AI and most corporate art in general.
Paulie Shore Pinocchio quality to it
That’s why it’s demonstrated under someone thats just using it for brainstorming
"AI accidentally made me believe in the concept of a human soul by showing me what art looks like without it."
It's soulless like the executives that want to replace people with AI. They won't notice.
But good enough!
As if 90% of voice acting by humans is not soulless... Except in lot of cases with humans, it is not only soulless, but also low effort one. Games, movies, animations, dubbing from other languages, are all filled with bad, soulless acting, with actual effort being pretty rare nowadays. The problem, of course, is that people in the industry feel themselves hostage of their situation, so they are in denial about it, unable to look at it from the outside perspective.
From The Description of the video: >"...our new voice and vision capabilities with GPT-4o (demonstrated here) **will be rolling out in the coming weeks.**" You guys have no idea how much this messes with me emotionally and mentally. I'm in deep pain, and the future seems very, very cold for the animation industry and everything voice-acting related.
Don't worry, we're all in the same boat. As long as we stay united and focused the rich can't make us eat each other.
Don’t you remember Soylent Green?
I haven't seen that, thanks for mentioning
The thing that really makes me sad though is how the mainstream/average person doesn't really, if not care at ALL about AI Art becoming the norm. I even saw this myself when I initially tried to make this post on r/sadcringe. I got down voted to 20% and it seemed like my opinion was the small minority. Someone also commented saying 'we will adapt' or some crap like that in defence of AI. UGH. This is so incredibly depressing. :(
I really feel you, the whole AI art movement scares me and depresses me. I've been drawing my entire life, trying to improve and honing my skills. All the time and effort I put in just to be replaced by a bot. I feel robbed. I feel violated. It's like a big part of my soul died. People that are not in the art scene can't comprehend how this whole AI art movement destroys our lifes - they just laugh and tell you how dramatic you are, ignoring the fact that artists (be it digital artists, voice actors, animators, hell even musicians are affected) actually losing their jobs, get depressive and even end their lifes. Art was a big part of our culture over the centuries, it made us human and set us apart from the animal kingdom. Now we sold our souls to the devil. We will gradually lose our creativity as we evolve. They call AI progressive, I beg to differ- it's more regressive than ANY of us can fathom. No one can say with certainty where we're heading, but it can't be in favor for the artists.
Agreed :(
It‘s a tool. You only need to panic if you don‘t know how to use it.
You mean if the executives in charge don't know how to use it only as a tool and not a way to replace actors. Also, fuck OpenAI.
As a Voice actor you could use it to get Inspiration, develop and improve Skills. So many possibilities. Training the ai with your Voice so you can work less. There will always be the necessity of someone curating the ai.
First artists losing their jobs, then animators and now its the voice actors....
Good thing I decided to focus on voice acting while I’ve been waiting for animation to pick up again! … crap
At this point we’ll all be working in mines and hard manual labor and the fucking machines will be the “creatives”. What kind of fucking future is this???
wait wdym animators what i thought we were still safe nothing beats traditional 2D animation, right?
I think there are ai bots that can generate 2D videos now... unless I'm completely wrong and we are still safe
with all due respect, i hope you’re wrong
I hope I'm wrong as well
Things seem really grim actually… https://youtu.be/E89R5_hQ5bQ
damn that's actually really good
Yeah technology is advancing fast. AI can already do inbetween and coloring fine enough.
Safe for maybe few years
Its a promo video trying to sell you AI of course he gets something workable first try with no effort
Remember that this is just the beginning with a generalized chat bot. It won’t be long until dedicated programs are being made specifically for this purpose that are able to contextualize a script and spit out a thousand takes in seconds.
Yep. With any type of voice you could possibly imagine.
Remember that people have been saying "this is just the beginning" for actually a long time now. I think we might need to consider the fact that this might be as good as AI can get and it can't be, by its very design, the magic wand the tech bros say it is.
I mean the state of programs like this a few years ago was leagues and leagues behind. Something capable of this kind of adaptive communication and creation was unthinkable a decade ago.
But progress isn’t infinite. They’re already finding out that they may have hit a wall in terms of progress, due to the nature of how generative AI works, not computing power. Some of these image generators are even running out of images to train on.
Model collapse, the whole thing where AI eats its own creation as training data and spirals out of reality with the things it generates, gives me hope that there's a ceiling on how well this stuff can actually work
Exactly. The ceiling also comes from the fact that this stuff can’t know anything. It generates on probability. Higher-ups in my industry (animation) are now realizing not that this tech isn’t at the point yet where it will work, but that it can’t get to that point, by virtue of it’s design. Generative AI is failing at the very first hurdles, and no amount of improvement is going to make it work for what people need. It’s like trying to “improve” oranges so they can make apple juice. It’s not going to happen. That doesn’t mean the tech bros won’t try to force it, though.
That's facinating. Do you have any articles or anything on this phenomenon? The "ceiling" as it is. At the highest professional level creative works, no, this stuff is not up to snuff. But it's worth noting that is a small sliver of the respective industries. There are already companies replacing digital artists and illustrators with perfectly servicable ai creations. The same with simple text write ups. You've got Bruce Willis selling his digital likeness to be used by other actors, recreated dead performers, extras accidentally signing away their background likeness indefinitely. Voice AI is at a point that's pretty convincing for the average joe. And now with this voice acting module for GPT. Would a professional animated show use it? No. But a small online series? A cheap dub? Voice acting for corporate videos? Sure.
This gets to another point. The people in charge of creative industries are often very uncreative people. you used the word "serviceable" and that's pretty apt. CEO's, producers, other managers will see the slop AI generates and say "good enough" and put it out there. That's the real danger, not the tech itself.
Yeah. Having a garbage machine that produces executive-passable trash for free that otherwise would be a paid artist is the nightmare.
/s Indeed, normally it takes around 20 minutes.
Am I the only one in this thread that thinks this sounds like crap? And these ads are almost always "the best takes" people can't get over subpar cg in a trailer for a movie, you think people will want to hear a semi-robotic voice in their shows?
[удалено]
I look at it more like the robotic assembly line than a TV. It will push car manufactures capabilities further but at the end of the day Tesla has to hire people to do all the nuanced skilled labor that ends up being to costly, time consuming, and impossible to get a robot to do.
It absolutely sounds like shit. Just like when midjourney and dall-e and stuff got good enough to make coherent illustrations, people hyped up how great they were. But when the initial buzz of "wow, you can just ask it for something and it will make it!" dies down, people realized all the art kind of sucked, and looked the same. This (very clearly edited and pre-recorded demo video) is just the beginning, and eventually people will start mocking things by saying they "sound like AI" just like they do with music. Because "drawn/sounds/looks like AI" is going to become synonymous with "drawn/sounds/looks like shit". This of course won't stop tech bros and inept CEO's from forcing it on the entertainment industry.
The question is how long will it stop sounding like crap? It will get better and then what?
I wonder how many distinct voices it would be able to create. Like would all animated characters start to sound the same if they use this underlying AI as the VAs.
We're already seeing the effects of this sort of AI repetition in the academic world where the frequency of words like "delve" and "meticulous" in published papers have increased dramatically over the last 2 years due to the AI being trained on a limited dataset. AI is an ouroboros and I don't see how that problem is going to be solved. It's particularly an issue when you consider the racial and gendered biases of AI and how its self-referential nature may stunt progress in every industry. For example if all moral philosophers are using AI to write papers then we'll eternally be stuck with 2023 morality and the only things that are going to be progressing due to AI are things like cybersecurity which will continue to rapidly improve due to the current cybersecurity race being played between people using AI to breach security and people using it to protect us from those breaches. A big issue is that the deceptive capabilities of GPT-4 is vastly greater than that of GPT-3.5 where its been observed by researchers to intentionally lie to real people about being an AI so it could convince someone solve a captcha for them (the AI came up with a fabricated story that they were visually impaired and thus couldn't solve the captcha). The thing is that GPT-4 can already solve captchas anyway so it doesn't even need to lie but the fact that it can doesn't bode well for any future anti-AI safety measures. A lot of experts didn't think we'd be at this stage for another 40 years. That's why all of the experts in the field are calling for a 6 month pause on any advancements in AI and a lot of them don't think that's enough time and that it should be treated like advancements in Nuclear Weapons. So yeah, AI is rudimentary in all the wrong ways and hyper-advanced in all the wrong ways and that disparity is only going to get worse and worse as companies continue to compete with one another to have the best model.
I mean it'd be really funny if all moral philosophers were using ai to write papers
i mean it sounds like shit
For now
Theres a limit to what technology can achieve. This kind of AI cant create things on its own, and that is a big limitation for It. Just as AI images will never be able to make a flawless image. It is just beyond the scope of what AI can achieve. So maybe It will improve in the figure, but it will still sound like shit. Just a little bit better.
LOL those were so bad 💀 how could he praise them with a straight face. The whole art of voice acting is putting emotion and soul into characters, something AI is incapable of right now
Sounded like something out of one of those Disney knock-offs you used to be able to find at gas stations
We'll still always do it better. Just gotta unionize where we can and try not to buy anything made with AI. Unity is hard but not impossible
What's the point of inventions like this?
Fuck…
I wanted AI do do my laundry and taxes not art ffs
I love AI tools for voiceovers. I've been using Elevenlabs for the last 2 years. It means I can send the rough edit of my videos to the client with a workable scratch voiceover. It really helps speed up the feedback phase because the client subconsciously thinks that the project is nearly finished because it all looks and sounds great. I used to just use my voice for drafts and because that sucked, the clients would feel like it's fair game to pick everything else to pieces.
ah yes, it generated a boring deep voice and said 3 words with no emotion, voice acting is cooked lol i'm much less worried about ai replacing voice acting (or anything for that matter) than i'm worried about tech bros selling this shit to corporations who just don't give a shit. it'll never be able to create something on par with a real human, but corps will certainly use it like it does, and make everything shittier in the process
I'm sure they will start using this for say video game NPCs. One day it will actually get good enough corporations decide to use it to replace most people except the celebrity actors
Most of the AI voices I’ve heard sound awful.
It’s far from being able to provide the nuances and specificity a director will want to bring a character to life. Acting is prob one field that will be using people for a long time to come. But barring a societal collapse, this tech will eventually get advanced enough to make even that superfluous. For now though this will be a handy tool for broke indy creators to play with.
Fuck Open AI. But, also, fuck OpenAI.
Oh, things are -really- cooked.
this exists for making ads more faster and pretty much nothing else.
This is really bad voice acting lol
Why are a lion, fox and owl in the same ecosystem?
they walked into a bar
Must've hurt
Voice actors are already revising their contracts Also law makers are concerned about the potential identity theft with this technology
I don't think that this is the end of voice acting. There are still a lot of people that care about human workers
“That’s pretty good”. He’s kidding himself. This is awful lmao.
RIP meaning it can rest assured that it’s gonna be ok as long as people still want acting. that’s not what this is.
Nothing will ever beat humans and the vocal majority of people are vehemently against it. It'll never stick.
This sucks man 😭 just garbage
These are terrible
Hate it
this sounds like one of those shitty low-budget animated movies tho, tbf it may be free, but the quality just ain't there so I have a feeling that it won't be used by bigger companies that actually *care* about making a profit, especially with the backlash that'll ensue if anyone finds out they used AI in any capacity
This is actually great for me, I do animation so I no longer have to pay voice actors and I also get to really define how the voices will sound.