Voice Actors Push Back As AI Threatens Dubbing Industry
- Reference: 0178517440
- News link: https://slashdot.org/story/25/07/30/227205/voice-actors-push-back-as-ai-threatens-dubbing-industry
- Source link:
> 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 [2]signed a new contract with video game studios focused on AI that SAG-AFTRA said represented important progress on protections against the tech.
[1] https://games.slashdot.org/story/25/07/10/2119204/video-game-actors-end-11-month-strike-with-new-ai-protections
[2] https://games.slashdot.org/story/25/07/10/2119204/video-game-actors-end-11-month-strike-with-new-ai-protections
In the AI voice of Nicol Williamson... (Score:1)
I never expected _this_! Sarcasm.
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
what you just said seems like the very definition of dehumanizing.
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: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
One thing AI is actually good at (Score:1)
Aside from the debate about whether movie companies should be allowed to use AI to replace voice actors...
Reading a script *is* something that AI is good at doing, making voice acting a job that is especially in danger.
Similarly:
- Creating audio books
- Real-time voice translation of phone calls
- Closed captioning for live events
I can see AI doing these jobs better than humans, and cheaper.
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.
Wrong. (Score:1)
"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: (Score:1)
We can expect intellectual property laws to drive creativity so long as the protections last for some reasonable amount of time. We can debate on what that means for ages. Is 20 years enough? A lifetime? A lifetime plus 20 years?
As I recall the protections are something like a lifetime plus 20 years, enough time for someone successful in a creative endeavor to provide for their family into the lives of their grandchildren. After that their creative efforts should fall into the public domain. Again, if
Re: (Score:3)
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 tempor
Re: (Score:3)
> 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 t
Re: (Score:2)
> 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
AI isn't for everyone (Score:3, 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 things and how it picks up configuration parameters etc. They had to ask the AI everything. They don't even know it to the level of which files to look in or what to grep for (something you should be able to guess at).
I was like fuck you guys .. paste me all the prompts and shit you used. That turned out to fuckball of dick words, and so we looked at the code and saw that the AI was on a crack cocaine level shroom hallucination binge.
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
End of Intellectual Property a Good Thing (Score:4, Interesting)
> 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."
So what? AI will produce it instead. Does anyone care whether the video game created by a computer are dubbed by human beings or created by a computer?
We may well be seeing the end of "intellectual property". The real complaint here is that AI is going to make intellectual property very cheap. Before recorded music there were thousands of people performing music professionally. They mostly disappeared with the exception of relatively few "stars" who made recordings and occasionally performed, mostly to promote their recordings.
Re: (Score:2)
To me, the future is kind of 'scary' in this way: we will all become consumers. There won't be any outstanding people, who have a trait that many people adore. There will be no Humphrey Bogart, nor a Michael Jackson. There will just be AI's cranking out material, and the top 0.1% of randomly generated "art" will be appreciated. Somehow, it "feels" de-humanizing.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. But I think you need to remember that what we value is subjective. People still buy handmade furniture. In fact, they pay a premium for it because it is handmade. People still go to listen to live music even though it often is not as good as the recorded music available. Einstein did not come up with his theory of relativity because he was trying to create "intellectual property". There are plenty of other reasons for people to be creative than money. And many ways people will appreciate those thin
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
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.
I'm torn on this issue. (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. If you are a plumber then expect to have
Re: (Score:1)
but how much creative effort is there in being the voice of some character in a different language?
Tell us you're a creativityless hack with no talent, without using those words...
Idea vs Implementation (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Your answer seems AI generated. I think we as a race should move towards a Star Trek kind of universe at this point. That will take a change in mindset from a lot of people. 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 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)
That seemed like a human response. To pick up on one of your responses, I think the utopia of Star Trek could be achieved. I feel that energy inside of me even at an advanced age. A feeling that Humans are Unique, special, and we can be more than we seem to be. Our society can be utopian. It only takes some thought, some ideals, and some will.
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.
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:2, Flamebait)
Or maybe we draw the line and stop fucking people over with generative shit that STEALS THEIR VOICES AND ART. You fucking Nazi cunt.
Re: (Score:2)
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
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:3)
If copyright law and unions can keep the legally available training data minimal, it will give them a couple years.
Re: (Score:3)
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: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)
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'.