Article headline is clickbait. If you read it it’s actually a fairly positive way to implement it. They got permission from the family, compensated the family, and wanted to continue on the legacy of the actor who played Vector in the original.
I’ll give you that it’s probably the best way to do it, I still don’t think it should be done. They can frame it as a way to “honor their work” and all, but at the end of the day, they’re still using it for a commercial product and they have a distinct profit motive to have it sound like the original VA instead of hiring someone new.
This is literally an example of AI taking someone’s job. Without the use of the AI model, they would either have to disuse the character and pay a writer to make that make narrative sense or pay someone else to do the voice.
I mean, it sounds like you care more about the job than about the art piece. Just because writing out the character wouldn’t necessarily be good (especially without Voice lines to involve the character!), and nobody is ever happy about a recast.
I think given the circumstances any of the options would be acceptable, including the one that Saphophyte described, just because no matter which option was chosen someone was leaving the table unhappy.
Yeah, I think, in general, I’d say the livelihoods of people matter more to me than media and art.
That said, you’re right that it’s hard to think of a solution to talent dying before the end of a project that both completes the project to it’s original intent and makes everyone happy.
Yeah, I can see that. And it’s good they sought permission from and compensated the family, too.
Though I worry there’s some sneaky clause about them getting to use his voice and likeness in perpetuity or something, because that seems to be the way media production is going. I worry about the precedent it sets and if clauses requiring permission for this kind of action will become boilerplate in voice actor agreements.
I get it’s a challenge for media production teams of all kinds when talent dies and I see how the AI model offers a solution to this, but I’m not comfortable with its use, personally. Though, the world will change without my explicit permission plenty.
The point of video game development is to produce a video game for people to play. It is not to make video games as expensive as possible and create a maximum amount of make-work, employing as many people as possible.
Otherwise, heck, go build models for areas that one never actually sees, because that would require more modeling work. Build the sets in reality and record sound on them, because that would require construction workers. Disallow the graphic artists from using computers to do their work, because it requires more graphic artist work to create the artwork using only pre-computer techniques. There are an infinite number of ways to generate greater labor requirements in making a game; there’s nothing unique about synthesis of a character’s voice. The game might cost thousands of dollars a copy, but its creation would, no doubt, employ a great many people.
I dunno about all that. They’re not making a video game for the sake of our entertainment, it’s not some artistic altruism, it’s to sell a product and make money. It’s just one of the many avenues to do so.
What you’ve said is hyperbolic and ridiculous. What you’re talking about making is a movie, and, yeah, professionally built sets and models tend to look nicer on the screen than CGI.
And while there’s probably precedent for synthesizing a dead person’s likeness for use in commercial media, it’s still fucking weird to me.
You know none of the people involved. I’m certain his family knew him better than you. My family knows good and damn well if that an opportunity for me to posthumously support them that I would want them to take it.
Weird I can accept. Especially as we move into the future with this tech. I know people focus on the voice of actors being used forever, but I see something different happening. I imagine this tech getting used by deciding what they want an animated or cgi character to sound like, developing it then they can get whoever is cheapest to do the lines.
It reminds me a lot of the Luddite movement in a way. My personal feelings about the seemingly widespread industrial interest in adopting AI tech had me reexamine the Luddites through a different lens, as I had used their name, as many have, as a pejorative for people against progress.
The loom is clearly an invention of great importance and allowed greater access to goods for many people, and that is good. But the Luddites very much got the very short end of that stick and, in the moment, it was the property and business owners who profited immensely while the skilled workers were robbed of their livelihoods. The rich got richer and the people who had helped build their wealth got shafted. The Luddites weren’t barriers to progress, that’s winners rewriting history. They were disenfranchised workers trying to ensure they could keep their heads above water.
Clearly, technological progress is inevitable and likely beneficial in the long-term. But can we learn from the mistakes of the past and use them to guide our actions with this industrially revolutionary tech to help ensure that the skilled workers and talented people who rely on their honed skills to feed their families aren’t hurt in the process?
If they hire someone new then they have to re-record the old lines too and remove the original VA work. If the family got compensated then it’s not them just saving the profits, but also, in a way, paying the original VA for this work.
I wouldn’t say it’s such a bad thing in this specific case.
Article headline is clickbait. If you read it it’s actually a fairly positive way to implement it. They got permission from the family, compensated the family, and wanted to continue on the legacy of the actor who played Vector in the original.
I’ll give you that it’s probably the best way to do it, I still don’t think it should be done. They can frame it as a way to “honor their work” and all, but at the end of the day, they’re still using it for a commercial product and they have a distinct profit motive to have it sound like the original VA instead of hiring someone new.
This is literally an example of AI taking someone’s job. Without the use of the AI model, they would either have to disuse the character and pay a writer to make that make narrative sense or pay someone else to do the voice.
I mean, it sounds like you care more about the job than about the art piece. Just because writing out the character wouldn’t necessarily be good (especially without Voice lines to involve the character!), and nobody is ever happy about a recast.
I think given the circumstances any of the options would be acceptable, including the one that Saphophyte described, just because no matter which option was chosen someone was leaving the table unhappy.
Yeah, I think, in general, I’d say the livelihoods of people matter more to me than media and art.
That said, you’re right that it’s hard to think of a solution to talent dying before the end of a project that both completes the project to it’s original intent and makes everyone happy.
I think one reason I’m ok with it is because that character already existed and had a voice, and this is an update.
If they made a new game and synthesized his voice for a new character instead of hiring someone new then I’d have more of an issue.
Yeah, I can see that. And it’s good they sought permission from and compensated the family, too.
Though I worry there’s some sneaky clause about them getting to use his voice and likeness in perpetuity or something, because that seems to be the way media production is going. I worry about the precedent it sets and if clauses requiring permission for this kind of action will become boilerplate in voice actor agreements.
I get it’s a challenge for media production teams of all kinds when talent dies and I see how the AI model offers a solution to this, but I’m not comfortable with its use, personally. Though, the world will change without my explicit permission plenty.
The point of video game development is to produce a video game for people to play. It is not to make video games as expensive as possible and create a maximum amount of make-work, employing as many people as possible.
Otherwise, heck, go build models for areas that one never actually sees, because that would require more modeling work. Build the sets in reality and record sound on them, because that would require construction workers. Disallow the graphic artists from using computers to do their work, because it requires more graphic artist work to create the artwork using only pre-computer techniques. There are an infinite number of ways to generate greater labor requirements in making a game; there’s nothing unique about synthesis of a character’s voice. The game might cost thousands of dollars a copy, but its creation would, no doubt, employ a great many people.
I dunno about all that. They’re not making a video game for the sake of our entertainment, it’s not some artistic altruism, it’s to sell a product and make money. It’s just one of the many avenues to do so.
What you’ve said is hyperbolic and ridiculous. What you’re talking about making is a movie, and, yeah, professionally built sets and models tend to look nicer on the screen than CGI.
And while there’s probably precedent for synthesizing a dead person’s likeness for use in commercial media, it’s still fucking weird to me.
You know none of the people involved. I’m certain his family knew him better than you. My family knows good and damn well if that an opportunity for me to posthumously support them that I would want them to take it.
Hey, that’s fair. Maybe “shitty” is too strong a word and “weird to me” is enough.
Weird I can accept. Especially as we move into the future with this tech. I know people focus on the voice of actors being used forever, but I see something different happening. I imagine this tech getting used by deciding what they want an animated or cgi character to sound like, developing it then they can get whoever is cheapest to do the lines.
It reminds me a lot of the Luddite movement in a way. My personal feelings about the seemingly widespread industrial interest in adopting AI tech had me reexamine the Luddites through a different lens, as I had used their name, as many have, as a pejorative for people against progress.
The loom is clearly an invention of great importance and allowed greater access to goods for many people, and that is good. But the Luddites very much got the very short end of that stick and, in the moment, it was the property and business owners who profited immensely while the skilled workers were robbed of their livelihoods. The rich got richer and the people who had helped build their wealth got shafted. The Luddites weren’t barriers to progress, that’s winners rewriting history. They were disenfranchised workers trying to ensure they could keep their heads above water.
Clearly, technological progress is inevitable and likely beneficial in the long-term. But can we learn from the mistakes of the past and use them to guide our actions with this industrially revolutionary tech to help ensure that the skilled workers and talented people who rely on their honed skills to feed their families aren’t hurt in the process?
If they hire someone new then they have to re-record the old lines too and remove the original VA work. If the family got compensated then it’s not them just saving the profits, but also, in a way, paying the original VA for this work.
I wouldn’t say it’s such a bad thing in this specific case.
I mean they hired a VA to give the lines still, they just used ai to make them sound more like the original VA.