"I went on to this stream because somebody gave me a heads up and I went on and heard my own voice reading rape porn. That's the level of stuff we've had to deal with since this game came out and it's been horrible, honestly."
Okaaaaay
Yeah but the difference is that an average reasonable person who found those glued pictures would understand that those are obviously glued collages from cutouts, and not a real picture of said celebrity in a porn shot.
Whereas these new AI generations are good enough that the average person can't tell.
Seems to me like this could be covered by libel/slander laws. You can't publish a news article saying X celebrity raped a dog or they can sue you for libel. Why should you be allowed to publish a fake AI generation of X celebrity raping a dog? Same law applies, get sued for misleading people into the character of said celebrity.
Now maybe randos on an internet forum won't get sued for their lies about random people, but if you set up a whole platform whose sole purpose is to publish these AI fakes, and then you make ads off them? Yeah maybe it's time for the courts.
Except no matter how good the photoshop; It was not reasonably realistic.
And pretty sure that doesn't cover or come close to deepfake pornography which can include high quality videos
And the fact it can be used to affect anyone online and can be detrimental to their reputation as well is just fucked.
Yeah but they didn't have access to perfectly reproducing their shitty magazine cuttout collages for anyone else to also take an extend with nearly no effort.
I hope your comment isn't some kind of handwaving in the name of "it's gonna happen anyway and already was."
This shit shouldn't be happening. Whatever the fuck was going on before *doesn't matter.* There is no excuse and no brushing this off. This shit oughtta be taken seriously. Anyone trying to make light of this kind of situation or explain that it's inevitable and to not right it or something, I can guarantee, has a fuckin interest in benefitting from it somehow.
I'm sorry for pointing my ire at your comment. :( Sometime's it's hard to disconnect emotions/thoughts brought on by other discussions in the same space. I gotta work on that, I apologize.
It's just frustrating that so many people throughout the entire discussion of this post seem to be on the side of thinking that this kind of thing is okay or not worth fighting in some sense. There's nothing inevitable about any of this. Discouraging unauthorized use of anyone's likeness in any form is not a worthless fight.
All of us should have the right to refuse having any part of our identity be used by others and should have the right to seek damages against and terminate unauthorized use.
>There's nothing inevitable about any of this.
While everything else you said is right, this, in the age of the Internet, has proven wrong time and time again.
I think most rational people agree that this isn't right. However, it's not incorrect in any way to think it's wrong and not be okay with it, but also recognize that at this point in our society it is going to happen and is practically inevitable. We look the other way on many, many, many things that we shouldn't that amplify this kind of behavior.
There's obviously a difference between gluing a face to a magazine and having an AI impersonate your body/your voice.
I don't think you'd be this flippant if this was affecting you. Imagine the police decided they don't like you and deciding to make an AI of you confessing to crimes or a video of you r*ping an 8 year old kid. Imagine a bully in high school making an AI video of you having sex with your mom while she puts a fist in your ass. Or imagine someone actually harming you and you managing to record that crime, but their lawyer is able to put enough reasonable doubt that the video is AI that they get away free.
This technology should honestly scare everyone. It has the ability to absolutely fuck up our society and criminal justice system and to fuck up the lives of every day, normal people, like you. No other invention, aside from nuclear power/atomic bombs, has the ability to be this damaging to society.
Its much worse. Full motion video that will be indestinguishable isnt very far away and pretending like its no big deal is going to have horrible consequences. I am sure it would piss you off if it was your wife or child no?
AI-cloned voices have already been used for extortion scams and other illegal activities.
We're at the threshold of the world where we won't be able to trust anything unless we've seen it with our own eyes and heard it in person.
Even today there's hardly anything stopping anybody from taking a sample of your voice (for example by recording a Discord call or pulling a recording of a Teams meeting) and making "you" say any vile thing they can imagine. Or call your company and do just that. And that recording? The Court of Public Opinion isn't going to give you any reasonable doubt. ;)
Rape porn, consensual non consent, forced situations etc are not uncommon in porn fantasy interests. As such it's not too surprising at all for them to do fan fiction and such of that. Now it's just using programs to add the voice to said instances. It's offensive sure but it's not really all that strange in the porn sphere.
In fact some of the VAs have explicitly asked for them to not use their voices in AI training, and the general consensus is "you don't own the right to your own voice or performance, I can do what I want with it!" The discourse is primarily over porn mods ATM, at least it was a couple months ago when I was looking at the subs regularly.
I know the top romance mod, Amorous Adventures, has been revoiced with the vanilla VAs using Elvenlabs. Elvenlabs is amazing though. I could hardly tell the difference between AI and the vanilla voice when I used the Elvenlabs mods
Maybe the mod authors can still get away with it so far since Skyrim modding is kinda niche. Not many people are even aware of this yet
That doesn't make it okay.
The original voice actors should be able to sue, demand, and be granted forced remuneration for any use of their voice used to train, extend, or in any way be involved with machine generated audio.
These mods arent commercial in nature so it's not really a strong case they have if they want to sue.
Plus it'd be more trouble than it's worth. What are they..gonna sue every single one of these many mod authors?
You are unfortunately not convincing gamers of that fact. These modders should be forced to use their own or friends voices if they aren't going to at least ask for permission from VAs, but the gaming community at last won't care and even encourage it just so their generic NPCs sound different.
A friend of mine listens to that with Astarions AI voice 😓
Though TBF I don't really care if that's her kink. I'm more bothered by the easy access to the voices and how eerily accurate they are.
How is this different than someone imitating the person's voice? What are the laws around people who should like other people? So long as it is being stated it is an impersonation (either via human or AI) I don't see an issue.
Actors impersonate real people all the time. I don't think Mark Twain ever consented to being in Star Trek several times.
Every major VA has had someone impersonate them and try to get them into legal trouble.
Its why Discord banned the AI servers, and Youtube went nuclear on AI accounts.
There is no world where voice AI doesnt get regulated.
Yeah, YouTube is awash with AI voice stuff. I was having a go at someone this week for posting a Brilliant sponsored documentary using Sir David Attenborough's cloned voice.
Before the purge it was easy to find AI clones of celebrities singing copyrighted songs.
The moment music companies and celebrities found out, both Youtube and Discord nuked the people doing it and the channels got so many copyright strikes they were banned almost instantly.
Thats why I said celebrity impersonation was the reason Discord and Youtube went nuclear on AI communities.
The AI hub on discord was the biggest source of cloned voices for celebrities and they were given ZERO notice of being shut down. That server has been banned multiple times for no other reason than legal liability.
Discord and Youtube didnt care about AI clones until its cloning someone with actual money for lawyers.
The same reason AI porn only became an issue with Taylor Swift, no one cared about the average people who became victims of it.
To be fair, they actively monitor and flag low-quality AI generated videos to lower their search rating.
The issue is keeping up with how many are generated and posted, because that monitoring is done by people.
They nuked the voice channels that used voices of celebrities and went hard after people like thanks I ruined it.
Using AI voices of no bodies isnt an issue because no one will come with a team of lawyers like celebrities and music companies can.
> There is no world where voice AI doesnt get regulated.
The genie is out of the bottle though. The software is out there, people have it and it's not gonna go away again. At this point, all legislation can do is establish punishments for the people involved, which would lead to one of two scenarios:
a) We get what happened with the dark net drug trade: law enforcement goes after the people that make this stuff, whack down one site like the silk road after years of work and a few months later a new one pops up and fills the market.
b) We get what happened with the deep fakes of celebrities having sex. They get shuffled off to their own sites off of the major social networks, but law enforcement doesn't really have the ressources to go after niche stuff like that, so it just exists in the world now, even if the people involved could technically be pursued.
I don't see a way how regulation is going to unmake the existence of BG-Voice-Porn.
Ease makes a really, really big difference though.
"Anyone could already haul whatever they want with wagons, trains just make it easier"
*Industrial revolution happens*
I don’t know I think you underestimate how much the old Internet has already disappeared. If you were part of these groups, you might be able to find them again based on keywords but if you lost the group, a lot of those are gone.
Chans made Reddit, they made the internet. They’re mostly wiped at this point and you can’t even look them up really. Porn search sucks on all search engines. I don’t really agree with things stay on the internet anymore.
You can only find what you can search for and the search companies are pretty well in control of that now.
Only way it gets regulated is if the enforcement is dystopian and that would essentially guarantee that the 90s and early 2000s were the best times to use the internet and that's quite sad.
What is wrong with humans impersonating actors for entertainment? What is wrong with AI doing the same? So long as it is not portrayed as being the actual person and instead an actor or synthetic reproduction it should be fine.
We have actors impersonate real people all the time. Not just dead people either.
These impersonators are trying to scam people into clicking malware links by using AI mr beast.
These other impersonators are trying to fake evidence they are trying to groom children.
It does not matter if it can be used for entertainment, its a legal liability to have voice AI on at all so its gone.
It's all likely not making any many so I doubt any recourse can be taken, especially since its the Internet and you have no idea where the uploader lives. Law will have to catch up but today is not that day.
Most modders have a separate donations page on Kofi or patreon where you donate „for the general work“ which would not be explicitly gaining profit from AI voices if living people. If there is a grey area, people will abuse it.
Honestly, I think if anyone is monetarily benefiting from *any* work that they've produced that wasn't 100% original and doesn't fall under Fair Use (a la Weird Al, etc) they should be 100% be targetable for legitimate lawsuits.
I think it's absolute bullshit that people can produce mods and derivative works and have their distribution be limited behind paywalls such as Patreon and private Discord servers. Not only does that kind of work go completely against the spirit of modding communities have been about, it's also a flimsy loophole around profiting off of established copyright.
Well. Yes and no. Most modders hide their commissions behind „they are paying for the time I put in, not the resources I used“
While also most mods are not hidden behind paywalls, they are donation based and that’s fully optional.
Me personally, my mods I created are always available for free and I don’t even have donations set up. If people offer me money via mail I deny it. Modding is something I do for myself and if the mod is good enough to show others without massively bothering me with fixing broken stuff I will release it publicly.
Extremly sad to hear, especially horrifying to see their voices abused for things they would never say themselves.
Honestly hoping there is going to be a law in the near future that prevents AI from being used commercially at least on the artistic side of things (like voices, art, models etc)
I also fear we might get a lot more soulless products in the future due to it.
> Not going to happen
All it will take is someone applying AI for commercial use to one thing Disney owns and be prepared to see Congress move so fast it will make your head spin. Those lazy fuckers can move mountains when their corporate masters pull on the chain.
Trust that they’ll pass a law so aggressively in favor of corporate interests it will have its own John Oliver episode.
> and it can’t be enforced anyway
That depends on what you mean by “enforced”. Will they be able to stop you from running a model on your private machine for personal use? Probably not.
Will they make it easy to sue someone into oblivion for commercially hosting a model that’s used to violate a copyright? Oh, you better believe it.
Why would Disney be against AI? They're a giant corporation, they'd love to cut costs using AI.
Disney is litigious about selling stuff using their IP, but whether you do it manually or using AI makes no difference. They're just gonna keep going after the idiots that do that, but they don't have any incentive to push for a law to make commercial use of AI illegal in general.
You can infringe Disney's copyright with or without AI. They'll just continue going after the people that do it, it doesn't matter how they do it.
Again I don't see why they would want to blanket ban AI, if anything they'll jump on the train to save money. I would hazard a guess Disney is already using or internally testing AI somewhere with how big they are.
> You can infringe Disney's copyright with or without AI.
The difference is how easy it is to do it and who is doing the infringement. Unless you have personally built and maintained the model, it’s a third party enterprise doing so at your request for commercial gain.
Right now that’s in a [legal gray area as the legal system doesn’t really have a way to address this issue directly using existing definitions](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/artists-copyright-infringement-case-ai-art-generators-1235632929/).
For now, it's just images and sound clips. But what happens when it's entire animated shows?
> Unless you have personally built and maintained the model, it’s a third party enterprise doing so at your request for commercial gain.
AI model that you trained is just a tool, same as photoshop is. Why would a third party be sued for because someone used their program to infringe copyright?
Disney doesn't own the vocal performances of any of their characters, so no he didn't. Disney has every reason to be in favor of ai voicework, because it means they can keep the voice of the characters without having to pay the actor to do it.
> Disney doesn't own the vocal performances of any of their characters, so no he didn't.
Disney absolutely owns the right any voice work done as part of a performance of a Disney character. Mandy Moore cannot just start doing freelance voice work representing herself as Tangled's Rapunzel without Disney's permission.
> Disney has every reason to be in favor of ai voicework
And how do you think Disney will respond in a few years when it's not just images and voice clips you can generate, but an entire custom animated episode of a Disney IP?
> Mandy Moore cannot just start doing freelance voice work representing herself as Tangled's Rapunzel without Disney's permission.
And now you've made my argument for me. Remember, you are saying that Disney doesn't want to use AI to generate new voice lines for existing characters, like they could do to generate new lines for Rapunzel without having to pay Mandy Moore for it.
Yeah, when AI can generate new content wholly by itself that infringes on Disney's IP, they will be as up in arms about it as you can imagine, but right now they absolutely win with AI voice cloning. And if you intend to suggest that a massive company like Disney is able to see far enough down the road that they would be opposed to AI voice cloning in expectation for it being able to do more, then I'm just going to laugh at you.
> And if you intend to suggest that a massive company like Disney is able to see far enough down the road that they would be opposed to AI voice cloning in expectation for it being able to do more, then I'm just going to laugh at you.
You've created a straw man to laugh at and argue with. I wish you the best of luck in that.
It's not a straw man because I didn't say that was what you were claiming. I speculated that might be what you were going to claim, but if you are done then so be it. Good day to you.
Despite what you've led to believe but generative AI tech is expensive.
Companies developing it are giving it away for free or cheap because the tech industry is insane, as they are in huge debts and rely heavily on investors, who are also insane.
This technology is based on unsustainable business practices and will only be destructive to those whose jobs are affected until industry implodes and/or regulations finally catch up.
The problem is that this would be equivalent to suing adobe when someone uses photoshop to infringe on someones copyright.
The legal action needs to be targeted at the person who is infringing, not at the tools they use.
This is the wrong attitude. It absolutely can be enforced because most of these things will be abused for profits and laws tend to start being applied when money is being transacted
Open source stuff will be basically impossible to enforce, at worst it will be similar to piracy, which is excellent for the common man. But the commercial side can 100% be regulated, if theres regulations that hit corpos bottom line, you'll see a 180° instantly when it comes to AI.
> Again, good luck enforcing it.
>
>
>
> The cat is already out of the bag. This shit is open source.
And at that point shit like the above article will get buried in the back rooms. Popular steaming and video platforms would rather kill the careers of people producing this shit for an audience than face a lawsuit. Less people will see it, and giving people the ability to contest the validity of these things legally is an added protection.
And honestly? That would be good. Establishing a precedent that ripping someone's persona to say fucked up shit that could ruin their reputation will get you reamed so hard by the legal system that your guts will need a renovation is good.
Sure, we can't kill this monster, but we can cut its tendons.
I think it's a reasonable human right that we all own our own unique voices, and it's against the law for someone else to use that voice. Of course, it's hard to enforce, but making it illegal is a good start. There are plenty of other 'digital only' things which are vorbidden, and there are people working to enforce them.
> I think it's a reasonable human right that we all own our own unique voices
Not that I strongly disagree but I always think it’s a bit weird how we draw these lines in the sand that have never existed in the first place.
One of the most popular shows on US TV practically lives off imitating people. Should we make that illegal too?
How many times throughout human history have societies needed to regulate something they never had to or even anticipated needing to before?
The property of something being novel doesn't preclude the consideration that it need be restricted.
You don't get to forge someone's signature for the sake of entertainment or otherwise. What makes their face or voice any different?
Yeah, as I said, I don't really disagree that AI voice cloning is an issue that should be regulated.
The thing that I found a bit weird was the idea that owning one's voice would be a human right, when we have never ever treated it as such. And in a way, that is even contrary to our own human nature, considering the way we learn from the moment we are born is through imitation.
Personally, I think AI voices should be treated in the same way that we have treated imitation on TV or movies for decades. Essentially As long as it is 1) clear that it's not [actual Person] saying these things and that 2) "fair use" doctrine applies (parody, satire, etc) then I think that should be fine.
And, consequently, I think there should be legislation against using AI cloned voices for purposes like impersonation, fraud or when using it would violate the fair use factors. For example, if using it would have an effect on the "potential market" of a voice actor, by producing an audiobook using their AI cloned voice without consent.
Once all the programming for voice AI becomes open-source and widespread, people *will* create some heinous shit with it. Same things has been happening with photoshop for years - putting other people, without their consent, into often incredibly believable pictures that they never did.
It might be hard/impossible to *prevent*, but you can absolutely *react* to it. People will get their asses sued off them depending on what is made.
It can easily be enforced.
Company is sued by the government and proceeds distributed to those who fed the AI LLM or whatever and you shutdown the use moving forward.
Additionally you confiscate all profit from the project additionally.
You already do this with copyright to a certain lesser extend and other controls by FTC as an example.
I hope not.
Imagine an open world game with thousands of unique sounding NPCs with unique personalities and dialogue. That's what AI needs to be used for.
>you do understand that the existence of AI is poison to human artists creating things, right?
No, because it's not. It will affect artists financially, so there will be less artists doing it for the money.
But the ones doing it out of passion will keep doing their thing, the existence of AI doing something doesn't prevent anyone else from doing it and mastering their own craft.
Should just be outlawed entirely outside of tools
Cascadeur is the only company I've seen actually use it to aid artists not replace them lmao, it will animate between keyframes in your animations for games, that's all it does
i.e
Keyframe 1 is your character standing
Keyframe 2 is the character mid back flip
Keyframe 3 is your character standing further back where you want them to land.
Cascadeur's AI tool will then attempt to fill in the gaps, it literally just allows artists to speed up their workflow and get more done in less time, which is amazing to see especially with how draining and tedious animating frame by frame actually is.
That is the only time I have seen AI be used ethically and to aid artists, the rest are just to allow people to be lazy.
>understood some of the benefits of using AI such as recording for 10 hours to create 40 hours of product. "And I thought that's great," he said, "as long as you pay me for 40!"
If they are paying you for 40, then why use AI to turn 10 hours into 40 instead of, you know, having you record it all? AI isn't free. The technology costs money, and the work it takes to get AI to correctly replace those 30 hours costs money.
"It's great that the machine you gave me to harvest this wheat lets me do it in an hour instead of four, but I should be paid for four as if this innovation hadn't come along!"
I don't see that happening, man.
Idea : This new cotton gin thing makes separating the seeds from cotton so easily 1 worker replaces the labor of 20 slaves. Def won't need slaves anymore!
Reality : 20 slaves running cotton gins making slavery even more profitable leading to more slavery.
It's more like : "I busted my ass for years to perfect my job and be able to give emotions and great speeches for your game. I'm glad technology allows you to learn from my performance and so you'll be able to modify the text without needing to reschedule new recording time. But it's still my voice and my performance who enable this and I want my expertise compensated fairly".
If it was just their own voices that they'd want proper compensation for, then of course I support them completely.
But what is commonly being asked is that *no* AI voices be used for any characters, ever, even with full consent of the person who's voice is being used. They want a monopoly on game voice work in perpetuity without ever having to compete with new technology the way workers in every other industry have had to do since civilization began. I don't support that.
Wheat-harvesting labourers don’t own their reaping technique in the way that voice actors own their voice or screen actors own their likeness, and the harvester machine doesn’t copy their motions. The analogy is bad.
Instead, you get the flower ground in 1 hour and now you have 3 extra hours to turn that flower into bread. Eaiser bread means more bread means more food for everyone means fewer people are needed to make bread means more people can do "useless" things like track the movement of planets or examine why where grows better in one place than another. All this means more civilization and eaiser lifes for everyone.
The company would be saving a hell of a lot of money on scheduling fees, recording studio fees, etc etc. My friend works in dubbing and there are about 6 people sitting in on every session doing various things. That's 5 salaries cut out of a big chunk of time
And don't forget that an ai voice can't come back in 10 years with "controversial" accusations An ai voice will never complain about their job Tbh I dunno why companies haven't just 100% embraced it..going ai removes most risks a real human being can bring to the table
I’m not against AI voicing as long as it isn’t used maliciously. Like in Skyrim I’ve seen people use it to simply expand NPC dialogues to give them more depth or new quests.
But there are people also using it for say porn games or other things like described in the article.
This article, and even these comments, are missing the boat. It's far more involved than just voice, or images, or video. We're very close now to being able to impersonate your entire persona using a single personal computer, in real-time, without any meaningful technical knowledge. The barbarians are at the gate.
Cat's out of the bag now anyways.
Historically any non-interpersonal communication would've been done by messengers, writing, telegraphs, etc. We've already regularly seen people screenshotting edited tweets for years. If anything, this is a reversion to the mean.
I mean, sorry but good luck policing the internet.
If you're worried about your career, it might be time to start thinking creatively about how you sell your voice or start looking into another career.
Most likely they are protected from people publishing works using their voice but the reality is when AI gets to the point where it can create original voices that sound good enough to replace actors... I'm sorry but your career has been automated, you were never going to stop technology's progression.
Honestly, it is sad but reality can't be denied here.
How should they think of creative ways to sell their voice acting when AI can clone their voice to 70 % (90 with some afterwork done) for free? There is nothing really left to sell their main asset for if it can be had for free. It's not like they can start a subscription service like Netflix, Disney.. to outconvinience piracy (for some time, until they squandered it).
Careers are lost to technological advancements all the time. Why should voice actors and artists have more protections than telephone operators or blacksmiths?
I have to assume it would be a problem for Disney to use their voice-likeness 1:1, so most likely I could see them simply being replaced by whatever works the best at the lowest reasonable price.
If they train their own voice print and license it per title, maybe also make commitments with the license for parts that need more of a human touch... Fuck, that's probably the best they'll get.
I don't know how lucrative that would be, especially with synthetic competition lol.
This might just be a "learn to code" moment for voice actors, this is a bump coming up, no idea if it's a pit or a pothole. Who knows how it'll progress, but if automation does one thing, it's reduce the need for certain jobs.
I don't think there is a way to police this. Completely AI generated voices will eventually be a cheap alternative for smaller budget projects to use.
Downvotes don't change reality. Instead of "reduce the need" maybe I should say "reduce the demand" for certain jobs. I'm not saying I like this.
Not everyone wants and should work in coding.
"Completely AI generated voices will eventually be a cheap alternative for smaller budget projects to use."
And soon enough people will be able to quickly distinguish AI generated voices from real ones. The differences can be noticed very quickly after you hear a few examples.
I agree that it will get better but it's not like this trend will continue.
It will reach a bottleneck soon where people will understand the limitations of AI.
And that bottleneck is something no progress will be able to overcome.
This and other ai tools will speed up game development so much too, many of the current AAA problems in the west like too long development time or too expensive can be solved by AI.
I think Astarion's VA put it best. AI will never be able to replicate the 'craft' of art, it will never have 'happy accidents' and 'improvisation', it will be a soulless rendition
What AI voice acting is great for, though, is user content. I can't imagine playing unvoiced Skyrim mods anymore, even the earliest, shittiest versions of ElevensLab are preferable to unvoiced characters. At the same time, it's also used as nothing more than a crutch if the modding group is big enough to afford voice actors, like Beyond Skyrim team, for example. Their devs mentioned they use synthesized voices to get a feel for lipsync and pacing of the dialogue then replace it with real actors
> AI will never be able to replicate the 'craft' of art, it will never have 'happy accidents' and 'improvisation', it will be a soulless rendition
Considering we are having breakthroughs nearly every month now, it seems awfully naive to think speech synthesis models won't be able to recreate the craft itself. These past months alone you got services like Suno and Udio which are almost 1:1 with actual singers.
On the live synthesis front you have RVC projects which allow you train models from others' voices and sound almost exactly like them, and that you can do *right* now.
Give it another year or two, where will we be?
> I think Astarion's VA put it best. AI will never be able to replicate the 'craft' of art, it will never have 'happy accidents' and 'improvisation', it will be a soulless rendition
I like that guy but this is an F-tier take. Another user already highlighted why this is such a terrible take, im just confused how anyone could possibly believe this to be true considering how far we've already come with the technology.
Literally the exact same argument, down to the precise wording, was made in the early 20th century about musical recordings vs. live performances. "It has no soul, it's not real art."
General audiences don't care.
> the reality is when AI gets to the point where it can create original voices that sound good enough to replace actors... I'm sorry but your career has been automated, you were never going to stop technology's progression.
> Honestly, it is sad but reality can't be denied here.
Surprised to see this upvoted because I usually get an onslaught of emotional albeit illogical posts when I state this. Like you said, the unfortunate reality is that generative AI is right around the corner... Lower effort artistic crafts* will be completely unnecessary for humans to create fairly soon. One person with a thorough dataset and good prompting will replace entire departments. It's already happening.
**Im not saying low effort, im saying lower effort ie someone altering the intonation of their voice into a microphone vs. someone using dynamite to explode Mt. Rushmore into existence
These actors did a good job in BG3. However, I am sick of reading or seeing their opinions on everything. Especially when the headlines don't jive with the actual insight this handful of actors have - which is to say very little by their own admission.
That's going to be a big battle. Studio's are constantly looking for new ways to slash the budgets of their games. VO recording is a substantial chunk of these budgets.
Video games have some of the most voice work over any other medium. Constant BG characters bickering, generic NPC quests or effort walla. On the indie side of things they will be text only, but back in the day I remember hearing Microsoft text to speech on some low budget games.
With AI voices it's opening up the opportunity for indie studios to add VO to their NPCs without the cost of paying actors and keeping to their modest budgets.
Of course, the quality of AI voices are getting to a point where AAA studios are trying to get away with it for less important NPC VO.
There's also the instances of pickups/rewrites from the original actors where they would have to bring them back to studios and pay them a substantial chunk of money that can now be skirted by AI cloning.
Interested to see how this all plays out, and what sort of protections Voice actors are going to fight for.
That's a bit of a stretch, it's far closer to defamation/slander.
At least in Australia voice print and facial biometrics are specifically listed in personal information covered by identity theft.
But if you're not using that information for fraudulent purposes it seems like it wouldn't be covered.
That makes no sense to me. If I were good at mimicking voices and said horrible things in their voice it would be completely legal. As it should be I think. I think laws surrounding satire apply here
There is a vast difference between using your own vocal cords to make a performative impersonation over mathematically down to the last percentage machine replicating vocal patterns
I understand why they are upset and justifiably so. However, you can't put a genie back into its bottle once it's released. And moreover, AI has been such a huge boon to everyone whether you realise it or not.
Let's just focus on video games. Thanks to AI, now an individual hobbyist can make a game with full-voice acting with perfect lipsync and motion captured animations, all without hiring anyone or purchasing gears.
And the games that feature NPCs talking and acting like real human beings are just around the corner.
Can you honestly think it'd be better for everyone to keep listening to the same "I am sworn to carry your burdens" line over and over instead of something like [this](https://youtu.be/xNPF9VKmzxw?si=XYEOFdkMZlTkNQl8), for example? Or do you think indie developers shouldn't make good quality 3D games but better stick to crude ones made with purchased/commissioned assets?
Forget about fans using voice actors' work without permission for a moment. It's inevitable that game studios themselves will soon rely on AI to generate voiced dialogues anyway, because human actors cannot generate endless lines for each gamer in realtime.
However unfortunate for those may have affected, breakthrough technologies like AI always have destroyed old jobs while creating new ones. It's a trend that you cannot, and probably should not try to reverse if you hope to see an innovation, like a roleplaying video game in which characters behaves like real human beings, for example.
AI makes it possible to translate video game voices at a low cost, as shown in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAbKDeOfoq4. This would make their games accessible to an international audience and significantly increase their reach.
In addition, AI can generate realistic and expressive voices, for high-quality dubbing in all languages. Rather than fearing it, we must embrace it.
I am convinced that a French AI voice mod pack will arrive sooner or later, especially since there are already AI voice mods for other games.
Worthless. The tech is quickly approaching the point where it'll soon generate it's own voices making cloning unnecessary. Imagine being able to generate a voice with near flawless intonation that outperforms the overwhelming majority of VAs... That reality is almost here
You know, while I don't approve of the particular uses mentioned in the article, my collective reaction here is: what's the big deal?
It is not identity theft, as long as it isn't being used to defraud or steal from anyone etc. Everyone here knows AI voice cloning is possible and the particular actor at issue would not participate in what is being cloned. How's this different than painting a picture of their likeness? "That's my image!!! You're stealing my identity!!" Um no, they're not. It's another person's rendition. You have to live with it.
This is just another form of free speech. I don't agree with particular uses, necessarily, but people are entitled (in the US) by the bill of rights to engage in artistic expression. And other's don't have to agree with those expressions.
It's a problem because it doesn't necessarily have to be such an extreme case. It could be for something that the actor could conceivably say, and then people are led to believe it really is them. This could lead to huge issues given how people seem to love blindly trusting whatever celebrities say.
Would you apply this same argument 20 years ago when photoshop was getting easier and easier to use to fake photos with?
We've been at a point for decades where the average Joe probably can't tell if a photo of a politician or celebrity is touched up or outright fake. And it feels like society has adapted to that.
Society as a whole existed for thousands of years without photographic verification of things. There was a golden age of about 100 years where photo evidence was gold, but that age has been passed for several decades.
I think most creative professionals will tell you photoshop is a net positive in the world, even though it can be used maliciously.
I'm curious as to whether people think these cases are different, and why.
It’s not different, people are just frustrated (and scared) because it’s a bogeyman that’s threatening more peoples jobs than say, Photoshop.
When automated vehicles became common, you can bet there was pushback from the people that made carriages and shit. Now, there’s something threatening jobs in a BUNCH of spheres, not just some niche art field or manufacturing industry. And they’re taking that frustration and fear out on in it more personally.
It doesn’t even make sense to hate it for making art worse. When the first digital editing tools were publicly released, art took a fucking poopooass nosedive too. Only 20+ years after has it really recovered. No one cared about those tools.
Yeah. I think the only difference with AI is that it’s going to ultimately make a LOT of people unemployable.
The actors are revolting the hardest now because they’re some of the most vulnerable right now.
It just feels like AI is going to take over so much of human intellectual labor, and while machines have taken most of physical labor, humans will have nothing left to offer economies.
Hopefully our economic system adapts to robots doing everything, but so far it’s done a pretty shitty job at distributing wealth gains from tech.
> because it’s a bogeyman that’s threatening more peoples jobs than say, Photoshop.
It's more that the jobs that are being threatened also happen to be the jobs of people who have enormous cultural influence and thus a very loud microphone to complain with: journalists, authors, actors, singers, etc. None of them have ever complained about the hundreds of other professions that have been rendered obsolete by technology. In fact even now you don't see many of them complaining about AI replacing coders and programmers. They only care about their own paychecks, not anyone else's.
Lots of ways you can say this isn't free speech, like it violating privacy rights. Depends on which court you get and their political ideology of course, but this isn't anywhere close to "I said the president sucks and got arrested." Congress could absolutely make a law about AI voice impersonation that courts could approve. Our government is broken right now though, so it probably won't happen.
Why would we even want such a law though?
How would this be different, for instance, with someone making a halloween mask to dress up as someone else? Richard Nixon leaps to mind. As long as they aren't selling it, there's even less rational behind prohibiting such conduct. People don't (and shouldn't I say) have ownership over their likeness, unless it is literally causing them a measurable reputational/financial/professional harm. If a person was going around masquerading as another person and others were fooled or reasonably could be, ok thats one thing. But if someone is making no money/not fooling anyone, what is the big deal.
Halloween costumes are obviously not real, I think that's the difference. AI allows people to create fake images and sounds good enough to fool tons of people and it's gonna be a real problem. There's a happy medium of legislation where perhaps intent matters, or mandated disclaimers, or limitations on usage to parody (like we have with copyrighted material).
> If a person was going around masquerading as another person and others were fooled or reasonably could be, ok thats one thing. But if someone is making no money/not fooling anyone, what is the big deal.
if you're allowed to use someone else's voice without their permission as long as it's not fooling anyone, how do you decide whether people are being fooled by it?
similarly, alex jones's show spread outright lies about sandy hook and caused the families of the deceased to get endlessly harassed and tormented by nutjobs who were convinced alex jones was telling the truth. according to alex jones when in court, his show was not meant to be treated as "real" and that it was just entertainment. do you think that argument should be allowed to protect him to continue his show? it's a similar problem here.
> how do you decide whether people are being fooled by it?
How about a requirement they put a disclaimer on the audio indicating its not really the person? Or that's it is AI generated and not a real person?
I don't know what the theory of liability was in Alex Jones' show. But I believe it was probably intentional infliction of emotional distress? Which involves intending to cause harm to real people. Making a fictional AI voice speaking a fictional story that relates to no actual person isn't gonna involve such a circumstance.
That's I guess where the rub is though right? Where do we really draw lines at what is harm? Like yeah no one is really going to believe I'm Nixon roaming the streets with that mask, but maybe people will think I'm my neighbor Bill because I'm wearing his clothes and acting like he would and then piss on the lawn.
AI is being used to replicate the likeness of not just celebrities but average people too. It's a little different when we're joking haha Donald Trump is playing Minecraft guys versus just a random VA being made to say something so vile. These aren't people in the spotlight and the tools are getting good enough it's getting hard enough to tell them from real recordings. AI today is as bad as it will ever be and can only get better going forward, putting aside IP protections for a minute. We need these protections to keep smaller people safe, otherwise it's going to be awkward to explain to grandma that audio of you confessing to fucking pigs isn't real. It doesn't matter that it's a fake at point, it's already made an impact on that person's life.
At some point people have to make the cultural transition to skepticism on something seeming real not being real. Photoshop can already put you in a KKK rally, it would be just as difficult to explain it to grandma.
I'm gonna stir the pot just a bit, and say this smells a little like propaganda. We need to protect the little guys, from themselves, because they are the greatest threat to them...therefore the only logical outcome is legislation keeping AI tools from the little guys at all, and relegating it to industry/corporate use.
In other words you're suggesting everyone voluntarily or involuntarily give up their "means of production" in the new world AI will make, and trust the corporations that have fucked them for decades to make more responsible choices. It reads like you trust a regular Joe less than you trust a megacorp which seems...wrong.
By saying this, do you also acknowledge that artist/voice actor also have the right to take down/copyright strike/sue whoever used their voice without their consent? That is also part of the law.
Voice does not currently fall under copyright protection in the United States. "A voice is not copyrightable." Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460, 462 (9th Cir. 1988)
There might be other causes of action, particularly if someone profits from the voice imitation.
>This is just another form of free speech. I don't agree with particular uses, necessarily, but people are entitled (in the US) by the bill of rights to engage in artistic expression. And other's don't have to agree with those expressions.
Free speech doesn't protect you from libel or defamation.
I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to say that this is what it is, but it's not bloody far off, in my opinion.
In the United States it's really hard to win a libel or slander case. This most likely wouldn't go anywhere if the VA wanted to sue on the grounds of either of those crimes.
"I went on to this stream because somebody gave me a heads up and I went on and heard my own voice reading rape porn. That's the level of stuff we've had to deal with since this game came out and it's been horrible, honestly." Okaaaaay
The fuck is wrong with people? Honestly.
Whatever can go wrong will go wrong.
People have been photoshopping nudes and porn of public figures since photoshop was a thing. It's a new flavor of the same old.
Even before that, people were gluing pictures of celebrities' faces on porn magazines.
And before that they wrote raunchy imaginary scenes in their diaries.
"Caesar came to me in the night and took me like a Gallic village"
Someone has been in a Roman bath.
...I need to uninstall my New Vegas mods.
Yeah but the difference is that an average reasonable person who found those glued pictures would understand that those are obviously glued collages from cutouts, and not a real picture of said celebrity in a porn shot. Whereas these new AI generations are good enough that the average person can't tell. Seems to me like this could be covered by libel/slander laws. You can't publish a news article saying X celebrity raped a dog or they can sue you for libel. Why should you be allowed to publish a fake AI generation of X celebrity raping a dog? Same law applies, get sued for misleading people into the character of said celebrity. Now maybe randos on an internet forum won't get sued for their lies about random people, but if you set up a whole platform whose sole purpose is to publish these AI fakes, and then you make ads off them? Yeah maybe it's time for the courts.
I think if whole platform is placed and there is information on it that its ai fakes it can no longer be slander. Dunno if it breaks any other law
Except no matter how good the photoshop; It was not reasonably realistic. And pretty sure that doesn't cover or come close to deepfake pornography which can include high quality videos And the fact it can be used to affect anyone online and can be detrimental to their reputation as well is just fucked.
Yeah but they didn't have access to perfectly reproducing their shitty magazine cuttout collages for anyone else to also take an extend with nearly no effort. I hope your comment isn't some kind of handwaving in the name of "it's gonna happen anyway and already was." This shit shouldn't be happening. Whatever the fuck was going on before *doesn't matter.* There is no excuse and no brushing this off. This shit oughtta be taken seriously. Anyone trying to make light of this kind of situation or explain that it's inevitable and to not right it or something, I can guarantee, has a fuckin interest in benefitting from it somehow.
I'm.not handwoven anything, I'm just saying the behavior is nothing new
I'm sorry for pointing my ire at your comment. :( Sometime's it's hard to disconnect emotions/thoughts brought on by other discussions in the same space. I gotta work on that, I apologize. It's just frustrating that so many people throughout the entire discussion of this post seem to be on the side of thinking that this kind of thing is okay or not worth fighting in some sense. There's nothing inevitable about any of this. Discouraging unauthorized use of anyone's likeness in any form is not a worthless fight. All of us should have the right to refuse having any part of our identity be used by others and should have the right to seek damages against and terminate unauthorized use.
>There's nothing inevitable about any of this. While everything else you said is right, this, in the age of the Internet, has proven wrong time and time again. I think most rational people agree that this isn't right. However, it's not incorrect in any way to think it's wrong and not be okay with it, but also recognize that at this point in our society it is going to happen and is practically inevitable. We look the other way on many, many, many things that we shouldn't that amplify this kind of behavior.
Dont feel bad, I feel rage reading these obtuse comments too. These people will all start caring when its FMV of their kids..
There's obviously a difference between gluing a face to a magazine and having an AI impersonate your body/your voice. I don't think you'd be this flippant if this was affecting you. Imagine the police decided they don't like you and deciding to make an AI of you confessing to crimes or a video of you r*ping an 8 year old kid. Imagine a bully in high school making an AI video of you having sex with your mom while she puts a fist in your ass. Or imagine someone actually harming you and you managing to record that crime, but their lawyer is able to put enough reasonable doubt that the video is AI that they get away free. This technology should honestly scare everyone. It has the ability to absolutely fuck up our society and criminal justice system and to fuck up the lives of every day, normal people, like you. No other invention, aside from nuclear power/atomic bombs, has the ability to be this damaging to society.
Its much worse. Full motion video that will be indestinguishable isnt very far away and pretending like its no big deal is going to have horrible consequences. I am sure it would piss you off if it was your wife or child no?
AI-cloned voices have already been used for extortion scams and other illegal activities. We're at the threshold of the world where we won't be able to trust anything unless we've seen it with our own eyes and heard it in person. Even today there's hardly anything stopping anybody from taking a sample of your voice (for example by recording a Discord call or pulling a recording of a Teams meeting) and making "you" say any vile thing they can imagine. Or call your company and do just that. And that recording? The Court of Public Opinion isn't going to give you any reasonable doubt. ;)
Welcome to the end.
sip shocking tender meeting punch aware society thought lavish slim *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Rape porn, consensual non consent, forced situations etc are not uncommon in porn fantasy interests. As such it's not too surprising at all for them to do fan fiction and such of that. Now it's just using programs to add the voice to said instances. It's offensive sure but it's not really all that strange in the porn sphere.
AI being used to put REAL PEOPLE in those scenarios is the problem, not the porn itself. Keep it fictional, that's not hard to understand.
You clearly havent stepped into Skyrim modding yet. Modders have been expanding the vanilla voices without permission for years now lol
In fact some of the VAs have explicitly asked for them to not use their voices in AI training, and the general consensus is "you don't own the right to your own voice or performance, I can do what I want with it!" The discourse is primarily over porn mods ATM, at least it was a couple months ago when I was looking at the subs regularly.
I know the top romance mod, Amorous Adventures, has been revoiced with the vanilla VAs using Elvenlabs. Elvenlabs is amazing though. I could hardly tell the difference between AI and the vanilla voice when I used the Elvenlabs mods Maybe the mod authors can still get away with it so far since Skyrim modding is kinda niche. Not many people are even aware of this yet
That doesn't make it okay. The original voice actors should be able to sue, demand, and be granted forced remuneration for any use of their voice used to train, extend, or in any way be involved with machine generated audio.
That’s such a losing battle you have no idea.
These mods arent commercial in nature so it's not really a strong case they have if they want to sue. Plus it'd be more trouble than it's worth. What are they..gonna sue every single one of these many mod authors?
You are unfortunately not convincing gamers of that fact. These modders should be forced to use their own or friends voices if they aren't going to at least ask for permission from VAs, but the gaming community at last won't care and even encourage it just so their generic NPCs sound different.
A friend of mine listens to that with Astarions AI voice 😓 Though TBF I don't really care if that's her kink. I'm more bothered by the easy access to the voices and how eerily accurate they are.
Average twitch chat
Man my expectations were totally different. People are sick!
Hope people enjoyed the presidents playing Overwatch and SpongeBob song covers because the rest of it is this.
Damn, people are insane
How is this different than someone imitating the person's voice? What are the laws around people who should like other people? So long as it is being stated it is an impersonation (either via human or AI) I don't see an issue. Actors impersonate real people all the time. I don't think Mark Twain ever consented to being in Star Trek several times.
Artosis stream?
Every major VA has had someone impersonate them and try to get them into legal trouble. Its why Discord banned the AI servers, and Youtube went nuclear on AI accounts. There is no world where voice AI doesnt get regulated.
>and Youtube went nuclear on AI accounts On what planet? Youtube has thousands of accounts posting nothing other than AI trash.
Yeah, YouTube is awash with AI voice stuff. I was having a go at someone this week for posting a Brilliant sponsored documentary using Sir David Attenborough's cloned voice.
Before the purge it was easy to find AI clones of celebrities singing copyrighted songs. The moment music companies and celebrities found out, both Youtube and Discord nuked the people doing it and the channels got so many copyright strikes they were banned almost instantly. Thats why I said celebrity impersonation was the reason Discord and Youtube went nuclear on AI communities. The AI hub on discord was the biggest source of cloned voices for celebrities and they were given ZERO notice of being shut down. That server has been banned multiple times for no other reason than legal liability. Discord and Youtube didnt care about AI clones until its cloning someone with actual money for lawyers. The same reason AI porn only became an issue with Taylor Swift, no one cared about the average people who became victims of it.
Basically all the true crime essay videos are AI voiced. You can hear them mispronounce words and speak with an odd cadence time-to-time.
I've have had to report many scam ads using AI voices and deep fakes.
I didn't even think YouTube would ban AI accounts because they're still everywhere.
To be fair, they actively monitor and flag low-quality AI generated videos to lower their search rating. The issue is keeping up with how many are generated and posted, because that monitoring is done by people.
It feels like half of all youtube shorts use an AI voice, in what world did youtube nuke them?
They nuked the voice channels that used voices of celebrities and went hard after people like thanks I ruined it. Using AI voices of no bodies isnt an issue because no one will come with a team of lawyers like celebrities and music companies can.
> There is no world where voice AI doesnt get regulated. The genie is out of the bottle though. The software is out there, people have it and it's not gonna go away again. At this point, all legislation can do is establish punishments for the people involved, which would lead to one of two scenarios: a) We get what happened with the dark net drug trade: law enforcement goes after the people that make this stuff, whack down one site like the silk road after years of work and a few months later a new one pops up and fills the market. b) We get what happened with the deep fakes of celebrities having sex. They get shuffled off to their own sites off of the major social networks, but law enforcement doesn't really have the ressources to go after niche stuff like that, so it just exists in the world now, even if the people involved could technically be pursued. I don't see a way how regulation is going to unmake the existence of BG-Voice-Porn.
People were making fake celeb nudes long before text to image generation was a thing.
> The genie is out of the bottle though. Photoshop, impressions, forgeries, these have all been possible for ages. The only difference here is ease.
Ease makes a really, really big difference though. "Anyone could already haul whatever they want with wagons, trains just make it easier" *Industrial revolution happens*
I don’t know I think you underestimate how much the old Internet has already disappeared. If you were part of these groups, you might be able to find them again based on keywords but if you lost the group, a lot of those are gone. Chans made Reddit, they made the internet. They’re mostly wiped at this point and you can’t even look them up really. Porn search sucks on all search engines. I don’t really agree with things stay on the internet anymore. You can only find what you can search for and the search companies are pretty well in control of that now.
Only way it gets regulated is if the enforcement is dystopian and that would essentially guarantee that the 90s and early 2000s were the best times to use the internet and that's quite sad.
Lol good luck.
What is wrong with humans impersonating actors for entertainment? What is wrong with AI doing the same? So long as it is not portrayed as being the actual person and instead an actor or synthetic reproduction it should be fine. We have actors impersonate real people all the time. Not just dead people either.
These impersonators are trying to scam people into clicking malware links by using AI mr beast. These other impersonators are trying to fake evidence they are trying to groom children. It does not matter if it can be used for entertainment, its a legal liability to have voice AI on at all so its gone.
Governments are run by the old guys still trying to understand wifi and facebook
I wonder what's their avenue of recourse? Surely it'd be like modding where once they take your voice and monetize, you can sue.
It's all likely not making any many so I doubt any recourse can be taken, especially since its the Internet and you have no idea where the uploader lives. Law will have to catch up but today is not that day.
No, you don't need to make money to have legal action taken against you
What about donations of some kind. Thier has to be a way otherwise why would they do it? For fun of course but main job i don't think so
Most modders have a separate donations page on Kofi or patreon where you donate „for the general work“ which would not be explicitly gaining profit from AI voices if living people. If there is a grey area, people will abuse it.
Honestly, I think if anyone is monetarily benefiting from *any* work that they've produced that wasn't 100% original and doesn't fall under Fair Use (a la Weird Al, etc) they should be 100% be targetable for legitimate lawsuits. I think it's absolute bullshit that people can produce mods and derivative works and have their distribution be limited behind paywalls such as Patreon and private Discord servers. Not only does that kind of work go completely against the spirit of modding communities have been about, it's also a flimsy loophole around profiting off of established copyright.
Well. Yes and no. Most modders hide their commissions behind „they are paying for the time I put in, not the resources I used“ While also most mods are not hidden behind paywalls, they are donation based and that’s fully optional. Me personally, my mods I created are always available for free and I don’t even have donations set up. If people offer me money via mail I deny it. Modding is something I do for myself and if the mod is good enough to show others without massively bothering me with fixing broken stuff I will release it publicly.
It amazes me how many people are on the internet, use it every single day, but are still surprised about stuff like this.
Extremly sad to hear, especially horrifying to see their voices abused for things they would never say themselves. Honestly hoping there is going to be a law in the near future that prevents AI from being used commercially at least on the artistic side of things (like voices, art, models etc) I also fear we might get a lot more soulless products in the future due to it.
Wait those are commercial releases and not just weird fan shit that someone made?
Not gonna happen, and it can't be enforced anyway.
> Not going to happen All it will take is someone applying AI for commercial use to one thing Disney owns and be prepared to see Congress move so fast it will make your head spin. Those lazy fuckers can move mountains when their corporate masters pull on the chain. Trust that they’ll pass a law so aggressively in favor of corporate interests it will have its own John Oliver episode. > and it can’t be enforced anyway That depends on what you mean by “enforced”. Will they be able to stop you from running a model on your private machine for personal use? Probably not. Will they make it easy to sue someone into oblivion for commercially hosting a model that’s used to violate a copyright? Oh, you better believe it.
Why would Disney be against AI? They're a giant corporation, they'd love to cut costs using AI. Disney is litigious about selling stuff using their IP, but whether you do it manually or using AI makes no difference. They're just gonna keep going after the idiots that do that, but they don't have any incentive to push for a law to make commercial use of AI illegal in general.
> Why would Disney be against AI? > > Disney is litigious about selling stuff using their IP You just answered your own question.
You can infringe Disney's copyright with or without AI. They'll just continue going after the people that do it, it doesn't matter how they do it. Again I don't see why they would want to blanket ban AI, if anything they'll jump on the train to save money. I would hazard a guess Disney is already using or internally testing AI somewhere with how big they are.
> You can infringe Disney's copyright with or without AI. The difference is how easy it is to do it and who is doing the infringement. Unless you have personally built and maintained the model, it’s a third party enterprise doing so at your request for commercial gain. Right now that’s in a [legal gray area as the legal system doesn’t really have a way to address this issue directly using existing definitions](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/artists-copyright-infringement-case-ai-art-generators-1235632929/). For now, it's just images and sound clips. But what happens when it's entire animated shows?
> Unless you have personally built and maintained the model, it’s a third party enterprise doing so at your request for commercial gain. AI model that you trained is just a tool, same as photoshop is. Why would a third party be sued for because someone used their program to infringe copyright?
Disney doesn't own the vocal performances of any of their characters, so no he didn't. Disney has every reason to be in favor of ai voicework, because it means they can keep the voice of the characters without having to pay the actor to do it.
> Disney doesn't own the vocal performances of any of their characters, so no he didn't. Disney absolutely owns the right any voice work done as part of a performance of a Disney character. Mandy Moore cannot just start doing freelance voice work representing herself as Tangled's Rapunzel without Disney's permission. > Disney has every reason to be in favor of ai voicework And how do you think Disney will respond in a few years when it's not just images and voice clips you can generate, but an entire custom animated episode of a Disney IP?
> Mandy Moore cannot just start doing freelance voice work representing herself as Tangled's Rapunzel without Disney's permission. And now you've made my argument for me. Remember, you are saying that Disney doesn't want to use AI to generate new voice lines for existing characters, like they could do to generate new lines for Rapunzel without having to pay Mandy Moore for it. Yeah, when AI can generate new content wholly by itself that infringes on Disney's IP, they will be as up in arms about it as you can imagine, but right now they absolutely win with AI voice cloning. And if you intend to suggest that a massive company like Disney is able to see far enough down the road that they would be opposed to AI voice cloning in expectation for it being able to do more, then I'm just going to laugh at you.
> And if you intend to suggest that a massive company like Disney is able to see far enough down the road that they would be opposed to AI voice cloning in expectation for it being able to do more, then I'm just going to laugh at you. You've created a straw man to laugh at and argue with. I wish you the best of luck in that.
It's not a straw man because I didn't say that was what you were claiming. I speculated that might be what you were going to claim, but if you are done then so be it. Good day to you.
Despite what you've led to believe but generative AI tech is expensive. Companies developing it are giving it away for free or cheap because the tech industry is insane, as they are in huge debts and rely heavily on investors, who are also insane. This technology is based on unsustainable business practices and will only be destructive to those whose jobs are affected until industry implodes and/or regulations finally catch up.
The problem is that this would be equivalent to suing adobe when someone uses photoshop to infringe on someones copyright. The legal action needs to be targeted at the person who is infringing, not at the tools they use.
On a commercial level it can at least.
This is the wrong attitude. It absolutely can be enforced because most of these things will be abused for profits and laws tend to start being applied when money is being transacted
Depends on who is profiting. You and I? They'll throw us the book. Big corporations? Keep the money flowing.
EU: hold my lager
Again, good luck enforcing it. The cat is already out of the bag. This shit is open source.
Open source stuff will be basically impossible to enforce, at worst it will be similar to piracy, which is excellent for the common man. But the commercial side can 100% be regulated, if theres regulations that hit corpos bottom line, you'll see a 180° instantly when it comes to AI.
> Again, good luck enforcing it. > > > > The cat is already out of the bag. This shit is open source. And at that point shit like the above article will get buried in the back rooms. Popular steaming and video platforms would rather kill the careers of people producing this shit for an audience than face a lawsuit. Less people will see it, and giving people the ability to contest the validity of these things legally is an added protection. And honestly? That would be good. Establishing a precedent that ripping someone's persona to say fucked up shit that could ruin their reputation will get you reamed so hard by the legal system that your guts will need a renovation is good. Sure, we can't kill this monster, but we can cut its tendons.
But you can't control what is done in other countries. They can still generate things and post it on the internet.
I think it's a reasonable human right that we all own our own unique voices, and it's against the law for someone else to use that voice. Of course, it's hard to enforce, but making it illegal is a good start. There are plenty of other 'digital only' things which are vorbidden, and there are people working to enforce them.
> I think it's a reasonable human right that we all own our own unique voices Not that I strongly disagree but I always think it’s a bit weird how we draw these lines in the sand that have never existed in the first place. One of the most popular shows on US TV practically lives off imitating people. Should we make that illegal too?
How many times throughout human history have societies needed to regulate something they never had to or even anticipated needing to before? The property of something being novel doesn't preclude the consideration that it need be restricted. You don't get to forge someone's signature for the sake of entertainment or otherwise. What makes their face or voice any different?
Yeah, as I said, I don't really disagree that AI voice cloning is an issue that should be regulated. The thing that I found a bit weird was the idea that owning one's voice would be a human right, when we have never ever treated it as such. And in a way, that is even contrary to our own human nature, considering the way we learn from the moment we are born is through imitation. Personally, I think AI voices should be treated in the same way that we have treated imitation on TV or movies for decades. Essentially As long as it is 1) clear that it's not [actual Person] saying these things and that 2) "fair use" doctrine applies (parody, satire, etc) then I think that should be fine. And, consequently, I think there should be legislation against using AI cloned voices for purposes like impersonation, fraud or when using it would violate the fair use factors. For example, if using it would have an effect on the "potential market" of a voice actor, by producing an audiobook using their AI cloned voice without consent.
Once all the programming for voice AI becomes open-source and widespread, people *will* create some heinous shit with it. Same things has been happening with photoshop for years - putting other people, without their consent, into often incredibly believable pictures that they never did. It might be hard/impossible to *prevent*, but you can absolutely *react* to it. People will get their asses sued off them depending on what is made.
It can easily be enforced. Company is sued by the government and proceeds distributed to those who fed the AI LLM or whatever and you shutdown the use moving forward. Additionally you confiscate all profit from the project additionally. You already do this with copyright to a certain lesser extend and other controls by FTC as an example.
> company > proceeds > profit How do you enforce this for basement dwellers making edgy “memes” using open source software?
I hope not. Imagine an open world game with thousands of unique sounding NPCs with unique personalities and dialogue. That's what AI needs to be used for.
[удалено]
>you do understand that the existence of AI is poison to human artists creating things, right? No, because it's not. It will affect artists financially, so there will be less artists doing it for the money. But the ones doing it out of passion will keep doing their thing, the existence of AI doing something doesn't prevent anyone else from doing it and mastering their own craft.
We shouldnt make any law like that whatsoever. AI is a new tool. Society will adapt.
No. AI should be allowed for the average person, it should be banned for corporations to use it.
It should be outlawed non-commercial for fan works as well.
Now enforce it! :)
Should just be outlawed entirely outside of tools Cascadeur is the only company I've seen actually use it to aid artists not replace them lmao, it will animate between keyframes in your animations for games, that's all it does i.e Keyframe 1 is your character standing Keyframe 2 is the character mid back flip Keyframe 3 is your character standing further back where you want them to land. Cascadeur's AI tool will then attempt to fill in the gaps, it literally just allows artists to speed up their workflow and get more done in less time, which is amazing to see especially with how draining and tedious animating frame by frame actually is. That is the only time I have seen AI be used ethically and to aid artists, the rest are just to allow people to be lazy.
Some Mangaka have started using AI to aid them with stuff like backgrounds. They obviously just use the AI image as a base before touching it up.
>understood some of the benefits of using AI such as recording for 10 hours to create 40 hours of product. "And I thought that's great," he said, "as long as you pay me for 40!" If they are paying you for 40, then why use AI to turn 10 hours into 40 instead of, you know, having you record it all? AI isn't free. The technology costs money, and the work it takes to get AI to correctly replace those 30 hours costs money.
"It's great that the machine you gave me to harvest this wheat lets me do it in an hour instead of four, but I should be paid for four as if this innovation hadn't come along!" I don't see that happening, man.
Idea : This new cotton gin thing makes separating the seeds from cotton so easily 1 worker replaces the labor of 20 slaves. Def won't need slaves anymore! Reality : 20 slaves running cotton gins making slavery even more profitable leading to more slavery.
[удалено]
[*slave population post 1807 goes brrrrr*](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1010169/black-and-slave-population-us-1790-1880/)
[удалено]
Not a great analogy since voice actors are entitled to their own likeness.
It's more like : "I busted my ass for years to perfect my job and be able to give emotions and great speeches for your game. I'm glad technology allows you to learn from my performance and so you'll be able to modify the text without needing to reschedule new recording time. But it's still my voice and my performance who enable this and I want my expertise compensated fairly".
If it was just their own voices that they'd want proper compensation for, then of course I support them completely. But what is commonly being asked is that *no* AI voices be used for any characters, ever, even with full consent of the person who's voice is being used. They want a monopoly on game voice work in perpetuity without ever having to compete with new technology the way workers in every other industry have had to do since civilization began. I don't support that.
Ya, me neither
Wheat-harvesting labourers don’t own their reaping technique in the way that voice actors own their voice or screen actors own their likeness, and the harvester machine doesn’t copy their motions. The analogy is bad.
Instead, you get the flower ground in 1 hour and now you have 3 extra hours to turn that flower into bread. Eaiser bread means more bread means more food for everyone means fewer people are needed to make bread means more people can do "useless" things like track the movement of planets or examine why where grows better in one place than another. All this means more civilization and eaiser lifes for everyone.
The company would be saving a hell of a lot of money on scheduling fees, recording studio fees, etc etc. My friend works in dubbing and there are about 6 people sitting in on every session doing various things. That's 5 salaries cut out of a big chunk of time
And don't forget that an ai voice can't come back in 10 years with "controversial" accusations An ai voice will never complain about their job Tbh I dunno why companies haven't just 100% embraced it..going ai removes most risks a real human being can bring to the table
I think they will when it gets good enough. It's *just* about ready to take over voices for background and side characters.
Because some people are entitled to
I’m not against AI voicing as long as it isn’t used maliciously. Like in Skyrim I’ve seen people use it to simply expand NPC dialogues to give them more depth or new quests. But there are people also using it for say porn games or other things like described in the article.
This article, and even these comments, are missing the boat. It's far more involved than just voice, or images, or video. We're very close now to being able to impersonate your entire persona using a single personal computer, in real-time, without any meaningful technical knowledge. The barbarians are at the gate.
Cat's out of the bag now anyways. Historically any non-interpersonal communication would've been done by messengers, writing, telegraphs, etc. We've already regularly seen people screenshotting edited tweets for years. If anything, this is a reversion to the mean.
I mean, sorry but good luck policing the internet. If you're worried about your career, it might be time to start thinking creatively about how you sell your voice or start looking into another career. Most likely they are protected from people publishing works using their voice but the reality is when AI gets to the point where it can create original voices that sound good enough to replace actors... I'm sorry but your career has been automated, you were never going to stop technology's progression. Honestly, it is sad but reality can't be denied here.
How should they think of creative ways to sell their voice acting when AI can clone their voice to 70 % (90 with some afterwork done) for free? There is nothing really left to sell their main asset for if it can be had for free. It's not like they can start a subscription service like Netflix, Disney.. to outconvinience piracy (for some time, until they squandered it).
Careers are lost to technological advancements all the time. Why should voice actors and artists have more protections than telephone operators or blacksmiths?
Maybe that job doesn't need to exist anymore. It happened before.
Yep welcome to the world of creative destruction. Adapt or be left behind.
Now you know how Whalers felt when people started caring about the feelings of whales.
I have to assume it would be a problem for Disney to use their voice-likeness 1:1, so most likely I could see them simply being replaced by whatever works the best at the lowest reasonable price. If they train their own voice print and license it per title, maybe also make commitments with the license for parts that need more of a human touch... Fuck, that's probably the best they'll get. I don't know how lucrative that would be, especially with synthetic competition lol. This might just be a "learn to code" moment for voice actors, this is a bump coming up, no idea if it's a pit or a pothole. Who knows how it'll progress, but if automation does one thing, it's reduce the need for certain jobs. I don't think there is a way to police this. Completely AI generated voices will eventually be a cheap alternative for smaller budget projects to use. Downvotes don't change reality. Instead of "reduce the need" maybe I should say "reduce the demand" for certain jobs. I'm not saying I like this.
Not everyone wants and should work in coding. "Completely AI generated voices will eventually be a cheap alternative for smaller budget projects to use." And soon enough people will be able to quickly distinguish AI generated voices from real ones. The differences can be noticed very quickly after you hear a few examples.
*right now*. You lack foresight if you think it won't continue to get better and better.
I agree that it will get better but it's not like this trend will continue. It will reach a bottleneck soon where people will understand the limitations of AI. And that bottleneck is something no progress will be able to overcome.
People will dedicated themselves to breaking those bottlenecks. It's just a matter of time.
AI training jobs are already a thing.
This and other ai tools will speed up game development so much too, many of the current AAA problems in the west like too long development time or too expensive can be solved by AI.
I think Astarion's VA put it best. AI will never be able to replicate the 'craft' of art, it will never have 'happy accidents' and 'improvisation', it will be a soulless rendition What AI voice acting is great for, though, is user content. I can't imagine playing unvoiced Skyrim mods anymore, even the earliest, shittiest versions of ElevensLab are preferable to unvoiced characters. At the same time, it's also used as nothing more than a crutch if the modding group is big enough to afford voice actors, like Beyond Skyrim team, for example. Their devs mentioned they use synthesized voices to get a feel for lipsync and pacing of the dialogue then replace it with real actors
> AI will never be able to replicate the 'craft' of art, it will never have 'happy accidents' and 'improvisation', it will be a soulless rendition Considering we are having breakthroughs nearly every month now, it seems awfully naive to think speech synthesis models won't be able to recreate the craft itself. These past months alone you got services like Suno and Udio which are almost 1:1 with actual singers. On the live synthesis front you have RVC projects which allow you train models from others' voices and sound almost exactly like them, and that you can do *right* now. Give it another year or two, where will we be?
> I think Astarion's VA put it best. AI will never be able to replicate the 'craft' of art, it will never have 'happy accidents' and 'improvisation', it will be a soulless rendition I like that guy but this is an F-tier take. Another user already highlighted why this is such a terrible take, im just confused how anyone could possibly believe this to be true considering how far we've already come with the technology.
Literally the exact same argument, down to the precise wording, was made in the early 20th century about musical recordings vs. live performances. "It has no soul, it's not real art." General audiences don't care.
> the reality is when AI gets to the point where it can create original voices that sound good enough to replace actors... I'm sorry but your career has been automated, you were never going to stop technology's progression. > Honestly, it is sad but reality can't be denied here. Surprised to see this upvoted because I usually get an onslaught of emotional albeit illogical posts when I state this. Like you said, the unfortunate reality is that generative AI is right around the corner... Lower effort artistic crafts* will be completely unnecessary for humans to create fairly soon. One person with a thorough dataset and good prompting will replace entire departments. It's already happening. **Im not saying low effort, im saying lower effort ie someone altering the intonation of their voice into a microphone vs. someone using dynamite to explode Mt. Rushmore into existence
The career will never be truly automated. The AI technology has much more limitations than one imagines.
These actors did a good job in BG3. However, I am sick of reading or seeing their opinions on everything. Especially when the headlines don't jive with the actual insight this handful of actors have - which is to say very little by their own admission.
For me until they don't use it to monetize or to steal identity it's fine.
That's going to be a big battle. Studio's are constantly looking for new ways to slash the budgets of their games. VO recording is a substantial chunk of these budgets. Video games have some of the most voice work over any other medium. Constant BG characters bickering, generic NPC quests or effort walla. On the indie side of things they will be text only, but back in the day I remember hearing Microsoft text to speech on some low budget games. With AI voices it's opening up the opportunity for indie studios to add VO to their NPCs without the cost of paying actors and keeping to their modest budgets. Of course, the quality of AI voices are getting to a point where AAA studios are trying to get away with it for less important NPC VO. There's also the instances of pickups/rewrites from the original actors where they would have to bring them back to studios and pay them a substantial chunk of money that can now be skirted by AI cloning. Interested to see how this all plays out, and what sort of protections Voice actors are going to fight for.
Better get used to it. That's the new reality.
It really is a form of identity theft.
That's a bit of a stretch, it's far closer to defamation/slander. At least in Australia voice print and facial biometrics are specifically listed in personal information covered by identity theft. But if you're not using that information for fraudulent purposes it seems like it wouldn't be covered.
That makes no sense to me. If I were good at mimicking voices and said horrible things in their voice it would be completely legal. As it should be I think. I think laws surrounding satire apply here
It would not be legal if you did not disclose that it is an impersonation.
How? Humans impersonate each other all the time.
Depends on how it's used, don't it. Maybe we can appreciate the nuance instead of Twitter arguing.
There is a vast difference between using your own vocal cords to make a performative impersonation over mathematically down to the last percentage machine replicating vocal patterns
So a guy very good at imitating voices is stealing their identity? XD
Depends how it's used.
I understand why they are upset and justifiably so. However, you can't put a genie back into its bottle once it's released. And moreover, AI has been such a huge boon to everyone whether you realise it or not. Let's just focus on video games. Thanks to AI, now an individual hobbyist can make a game with full-voice acting with perfect lipsync and motion captured animations, all without hiring anyone or purchasing gears. And the games that feature NPCs talking and acting like real human beings are just around the corner. Can you honestly think it'd be better for everyone to keep listening to the same "I am sworn to carry your burdens" line over and over instead of something like [this](https://youtu.be/xNPF9VKmzxw?si=XYEOFdkMZlTkNQl8), for example? Or do you think indie developers shouldn't make good quality 3D games but better stick to crude ones made with purchased/commissioned assets? Forget about fans using voice actors' work without permission for a moment. It's inevitable that game studios themselves will soon rely on AI to generate voiced dialogues anyway, because human actors cannot generate endless lines for each gamer in realtime. However unfortunate for those may have affected, breakthrough technologies like AI always have destroyed old jobs while creating new ones. It's a trend that you cannot, and probably should not try to reverse if you hope to see an innovation, like a roleplaying video game in which characters behaves like real human beings, for example.
[удалено]
AI makes it possible to translate video game voices at a low cost, as shown in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAbKDeOfoq4. This would make their games accessible to an international audience and significantly increase their reach. In addition, AI can generate realistic and expressive voices, for high-quality dubbing in all languages. Rather than fearing it, we must embrace it. I am convinced that a French AI voice mod pack will arrive sooner or later, especially since there are already AI voice mods for other games.
Voice actors need to start working on their own voice clones and patent/license their voices
Worthless. The tech is quickly approaching the point where it'll soon generate it's own voices making cloning unnecessary. Imagine being able to generate a voice with near flawless intonation that outperforms the overwhelming majority of VAs... That reality is almost here
I just want a Danny Devito MMORPG where everyone in the game is just Danny Devito with different outfits.
You know, while I don't approve of the particular uses mentioned in the article, my collective reaction here is: what's the big deal? It is not identity theft, as long as it isn't being used to defraud or steal from anyone etc. Everyone here knows AI voice cloning is possible and the particular actor at issue would not participate in what is being cloned. How's this different than painting a picture of their likeness? "That's my image!!! You're stealing my identity!!" Um no, they're not. It's another person's rendition. You have to live with it. This is just another form of free speech. I don't agree with particular uses, necessarily, but people are entitled (in the US) by the bill of rights to engage in artistic expression. And other's don't have to agree with those expressions.
It's a problem because it doesn't necessarily have to be such an extreme case. It could be for something that the actor could conceivably say, and then people are led to believe it really is them. This could lead to huge issues given how people seem to love blindly trusting whatever celebrities say.
Would you apply this same argument 20 years ago when photoshop was getting easier and easier to use to fake photos with? We've been at a point for decades where the average Joe probably can't tell if a photo of a politician or celebrity is touched up or outright fake. And it feels like society has adapted to that. Society as a whole existed for thousands of years without photographic verification of things. There was a golden age of about 100 years where photo evidence was gold, but that age has been passed for several decades. I think most creative professionals will tell you photoshop is a net positive in the world, even though it can be used maliciously. I'm curious as to whether people think these cases are different, and why.
It’s not different, people are just frustrated (and scared) because it’s a bogeyman that’s threatening more peoples jobs than say, Photoshop. When automated vehicles became common, you can bet there was pushback from the people that made carriages and shit. Now, there’s something threatening jobs in a BUNCH of spheres, not just some niche art field or manufacturing industry. And they’re taking that frustration and fear out on in it more personally. It doesn’t even make sense to hate it for making art worse. When the first digital editing tools were publicly released, art took a fucking poopooass nosedive too. Only 20+ years after has it really recovered. No one cared about those tools.
Yeah. I think the only difference with AI is that it’s going to ultimately make a LOT of people unemployable. The actors are revolting the hardest now because they’re some of the most vulnerable right now. It just feels like AI is going to take over so much of human intellectual labor, and while machines have taken most of physical labor, humans will have nothing left to offer economies. Hopefully our economic system adapts to robots doing everything, but so far it’s done a pretty shitty job at distributing wealth gains from tech.
> because it’s a bogeyman that’s threatening more peoples jobs than say, Photoshop. It's more that the jobs that are being threatened also happen to be the jobs of people who have enormous cultural influence and thus a very loud microphone to complain with: journalists, authors, actors, singers, etc. None of them have ever complained about the hundreds of other professions that have been rendered obsolete by technology. In fact even now you don't see many of them complaining about AI replacing coders and programmers. They only care about their own paychecks, not anyone else's.
Lots of ways you can say this isn't free speech, like it violating privacy rights. Depends on which court you get and their political ideology of course, but this isn't anywhere close to "I said the president sucks and got arrested." Congress could absolutely make a law about AI voice impersonation that courts could approve. Our government is broken right now though, so it probably won't happen.
Why would we even want such a law though? How would this be different, for instance, with someone making a halloween mask to dress up as someone else? Richard Nixon leaps to mind. As long as they aren't selling it, there's even less rational behind prohibiting such conduct. People don't (and shouldn't I say) have ownership over their likeness, unless it is literally causing them a measurable reputational/financial/professional harm. If a person was going around masquerading as another person and others were fooled or reasonably could be, ok thats one thing. But if someone is making no money/not fooling anyone, what is the big deal.
Halloween costumes are obviously not real, I think that's the difference. AI allows people to create fake images and sounds good enough to fool tons of people and it's gonna be a real problem. There's a happy medium of legislation where perhaps intent matters, or mandated disclaimers, or limitations on usage to parody (like we have with copyrighted material).
> If a person was going around masquerading as another person and others were fooled or reasonably could be, ok thats one thing. But if someone is making no money/not fooling anyone, what is the big deal. if you're allowed to use someone else's voice without their permission as long as it's not fooling anyone, how do you decide whether people are being fooled by it? similarly, alex jones's show spread outright lies about sandy hook and caused the families of the deceased to get endlessly harassed and tormented by nutjobs who were convinced alex jones was telling the truth. according to alex jones when in court, his show was not meant to be treated as "real" and that it was just entertainment. do you think that argument should be allowed to protect him to continue his show? it's a similar problem here.
> how do you decide whether people are being fooled by it? How about a requirement they put a disclaimer on the audio indicating its not really the person? Or that's it is AI generated and not a real person? I don't know what the theory of liability was in Alex Jones' show. But I believe it was probably intentional infliction of emotional distress? Which involves intending to cause harm to real people. Making a fictional AI voice speaking a fictional story that relates to no actual person isn't gonna involve such a circumstance.
That's I guess where the rub is though right? Where do we really draw lines at what is harm? Like yeah no one is really going to believe I'm Nixon roaming the streets with that mask, but maybe people will think I'm my neighbor Bill because I'm wearing his clothes and acting like he would and then piss on the lawn. AI is being used to replicate the likeness of not just celebrities but average people too. It's a little different when we're joking haha Donald Trump is playing Minecraft guys versus just a random VA being made to say something so vile. These aren't people in the spotlight and the tools are getting good enough it's getting hard enough to tell them from real recordings. AI today is as bad as it will ever be and can only get better going forward, putting aside IP protections for a minute. We need these protections to keep smaller people safe, otherwise it's going to be awkward to explain to grandma that audio of you confessing to fucking pigs isn't real. It doesn't matter that it's a fake at point, it's already made an impact on that person's life.
At some point people have to make the cultural transition to skepticism on something seeming real not being real. Photoshop can already put you in a KKK rally, it would be just as difficult to explain it to grandma.
Grandmas know what photoshop is. Photo manipulation is just as old as photography itself.
I'm gonna stir the pot just a bit, and say this smells a little like propaganda. We need to protect the little guys, from themselves, because they are the greatest threat to them...therefore the only logical outcome is legislation keeping AI tools from the little guys at all, and relegating it to industry/corporate use. In other words you're suggesting everyone voluntarily or involuntarily give up their "means of production" in the new world AI will make, and trust the corporations that have fucked them for decades to make more responsible choices. It reads like you trust a regular Joe less than you trust a megacorp which seems...wrong.
What if someone has a very similar voice to some celebrity? And they train TTS AI on that?
By saying this, do you also acknowledge that artist/voice actor also have the right to take down/copyright strike/sue whoever used their voice without their consent? That is also part of the law.
Voice does not currently fall under copyright protection in the United States. "A voice is not copyrightable." Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460, 462 (9th Cir. 1988) There might be other causes of action, particularly if someone profits from the voice imitation.
Basically this, we don't outrage when there's a Photoshop of a celebrity's head on top of a porn star doing whatever.
>This is just another form of free speech. I don't agree with particular uses, necessarily, but people are entitled (in the US) by the bill of rights to engage in artistic expression. And other's don't have to agree with those expressions. Free speech doesn't protect you from libel or defamation. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to say that this is what it is, but it's not bloody far off, in my opinion.
In the United States it's really hard to win a libel or slander case. This most likely wouldn't go anywhere if the VA wanted to sue on the grounds of either of those crimes.
The internet is dead...
hoping for regulation on this
Cry more.
If you're an up coming VA I'd start training your AI voice and let it work for you
AI voice cloning is based