AI to voice the additional dialogue?

[Thacobell]

@BartimaeusVery well put. I can't really add anything to that.
 

19 hours ago, morpheus562 said:

The Crucible mod is going to be wading into the use of AI Voices discussion, and I've paid to use ai software from Replica Studios. First time I've personally put money down to generate a free mod, but I think it will better the mod. Of note, I have already generated 115 fully voiced lines of dialog for various net new characters the player will interact with. I estimate there will be close to 200 fully voiced lines of dialog when it is completed. Any existing character that already has voice work (e.g. Sarevok, Imoen, etc.) will be mute in their interjections as I do view it as an ethical concern to mirror the work of an existing voice actor to voice a character they are behind. I did tweet out to the original voice actor for Sarevok to see what it would take, but I doubt I will get a response as I have no people to reach out to his people to set something up.

Using ai to make voicelines for original characters? Am I understanding your post right? I'm curious. What do you see as the benefit to this versus sourcing voice work from the community? And is the ai you're using pulling samples indiscriminately or is it an algorithim made up of pieces that are being pullled with consent from the original artists? There's so many variables at play here.

[morpheus562]

4 minutes ago, Thacobell said:

Using ai to make voicelines for original characters? Am I understanding your post right? I'm curious.

Yes, using AI voices for characters I created or took from lore who are not previously seen in this game or anything other than footnotes.

6 minutes ago, Thacobell said:

I'm curious. What do you see as the benefit to this versus sourcing voice work from the community? And is the ai you're using pulling samples indiscriminately or is it an algorithim made up of pieces that are being pullled with consent from the original artists? There's so many variables at play here.

Right now I have a dozen voiced characters ranging from men, women, demons, and angels with more on the way. I don't know if this community has a dozen people with the range I am looking for. I do not have the studio equipment to properly record, the funds for proper payment, or the time as a two person mod to do full on voice production and editing. Replica Studios allows me to pick one of their voice actors, pick the emotional style the actor is trying to convey, and then record the lines that I can edit in real time. It allows me flexibility and real time adjustment that would not be timely nor realistic with a real voice actor. I'd encourage you to look at Replica Studios to assist you in gaining a better understanding for how their services work.

https://www.replicastudios.com/

[Thacobell]

@morpheus562That's very interesting. The biggest problem with AI is consent, but algorithims that have their own resources is a good way to go about it.

[morpheus562]

The tool also outputs the audio lines in the .ogg file format the game recognizes. No extra steps required to convert audio to the correct format and it really assists for people like me who want voiced lines but have zero experience in this area.

[BobT]

On 1/6/2024 at 7:43 PM, Thacobell said:

 @DavidW The thing is, a human impersonator and ai generation are fundamentally different. The impersonator is at least a person using their own voice of their volition. You aren't loading up a computer program to take that voice from another person. They aren't equivalent.

@BobT "Its not stealing, its fine!"
The actual owners of those voices disagree, as has been noted multiple times. Actors do NOT want their voices taken without consent. But you clearly do not care if it hurts anyone, because you keep ignoring this.
Also, you have been presented with legal issues that can arise from it, as it IS potentially stealing. Which is WHY actors are pushing against this so hard. But again, any reassurance you have to give that its "fine" is just a pretense. You brush everything aside saying its a bad idea, because you don't actually care. You only care what you can get out of it. It doesn't matter to you that vocie actors themselves are saying its stealing, it doesn't matter to you that there is potential legal issues with it. Anykind of justification you give is nothing but pretense.

1. The OUTCOME is the same. You are responding with an emotional argument. 
If a sound frequency is recorded from a really good impressionist and an AI, it's the same outcome.  Why does it matter how that outcome is reached when either way the voice is NOT coming from the original VA or made out to be? It just SOUNDS like it, using an existing soundset for reference. 

2. You keep saying "they don't want their voices taken without consent" etc. Ignoring the fact that it's not "taking" them, who? One, two, ALL of them? You cannot say. Plus even if they did dislike it, that would just be a personal opinion. There's nothing to stop me whipping something up using conventional audio tools that "sounds like" your voice too, and if I did, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on and your opinion would be irrelevant. AI is no different, it's just an additional tool and can make things quicker. People made arguments similar to yours when the internet came along. 
What about two people who just naturally sound the same? Does the "famous" person say to the other that they can't sound like that, and must change their voice somehow? You can't just make a claim to specific sound frequencies lol. It's how it's USED that matters, such as if it was to "impersonate" for something malicious, rather than just do an impression (and for free..). 

Also, define stealing please. As in the dictionary, legal definition. 
COPYING would be more apt, and even then it's only to a degree. Hence transformative work blabla. 

And please tell me how a hobby modder making a voice that "sounds like" an original character is "hurting" someone. Stop using emotion, start using facts please. 

Edited January 7 by BobT

[BobT]

16 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

The difference with this AI crap is that it's not anyone's new unique work because these are just programs that are using the exact likeness of someone else or their work as input in order to output in minutes/hours new content that could pass as being them/theirs, and that likeness can be made to dance to whatever tune the puppeteer likes - without another human being having ever contributed anything new to make it, without being able to attribute the work to anyone else but the person who was used as input. 

So, my friend using HER OWN VOICE to make those Edwin lines using Mangio here: 

Quote

I was talking about this with a friend and she had a go with a tool called "Mangio RVC", check out these examples: 

https://voca.ro/19y8OfnWt6zt

https://voca.ro/13wFCtt97vYZ
Of course it's not perfect, that's just a 5-min half-a-job and without any final polishing in audacity or whatevs, but it's a good start. 

Is "using the exact likeness of someone else" and "without another human being having ever contributed anything new to make it"? 
Also the whole puppeteering argument or "pass as them / theirs", that's only if it's not credited, isn't it? Anytime someone uses something for REFERENCE (as that's all AI is doing here), it's good practice to credit it, and people do. And then be transparent on what's original and what's not. 

Also I don't get why you're devolving into the "art" argument here when we're discussing voices, but I see that a lot whenever AI is discussed, emotive anti-AI arguments making statements where they CLEARLY have no idea how it even works. Do you really think Stable Diffusion models contain exact copies of everyone's art? The models would be zettabytes-big lmao.

Again as I put above, I do agree when something has been used for REFERENCE, it should be credited. But that goes for anything (even when just using own eyeballs / ears), not just AI. 

Quote

(for example, if someone takes David Warner's recordings of Jon Irenicus from BG2 to make new and free content involving him that's more or less in line with the character he portrayed - if no money is made off of it, if it's clear it's just a character portrayal set in the appropriate circumstances, if everyone who plays that content is dutifully informed of the use of AI before downloading it),

But that's literally what we're talking about, here. Free, credited and dutifully informed (transparent) where only the MODDER has done any extra work. 
Of course AI like any other tool CAN be used maliciously, but so could programs like Audacity, or your computer, or those knives in your kitchen drawer.. 
 

Quote

 But when it's an AI, well, it would literally be Melissa's voice, it can really only be attributed to her, even with the qualifier that it was AI-generated.

If it's an AI then how and why would it be attributed to her? If there's an element of IMPERSONATION intended to BRING DISREPUTE then there's existing laws and practices for that already, the same as if someone cobbled together some lines with audacity or whatever. Just like the writers would get no negative flak for someone extending their work via mods. 

Edited January 7 by BobT

[Thacobell]

I love this, potential legal troubles and actors clearly stating lack of conent "emotional response." This person clearly just wants to take advantage of others. Their way is "logical" and anything else "emotional response."

[Connelly]

6 minutes ago, Thacobell said:

I love this, potential legal troubles and actors clearly stating lack of conent "emotional response." This person clearly just wants to take advantage of others. Their way is "logical" and anything else "emotional response."

Intentional or not, feeling some "gotta shame the unbelievers" energy. And wouldn't be the first time in history "you're too emotional" has been thrown as an excuse to not listen to complains.

[BobT]

40 minutes ago, Thacobell said:

I love this, potential legal troubles and actors clearly stating lack of conent "emotional response." This person clearly just wants to take advantage of others. Their way is "logical" and anything else "emotional response."

Duke Nukem TTS voice in Teamspeak and 10,000 other things for the last 20 years, "gross" or no?  

[Bartimaeus]

I'm sure if we all just get talked at LIKE THIS enough, we'll eventually COME AROUND.

Edited January 8 by Bartimaeus
Also, see previous discussion on this topic: https://www.gibberlings3.net/forums/topic/36706-ai-emulating-voice-actors/

[DavidW]

I remain unconvinced that there is a real ethical difference (at least in an unmonetized context) between imitating a computer character's voice manually and doing it via AI - but I'm not convinced the discussion is that productive at this stage so I shan't comment further. (And having philosophical arguments is my day job - if I'm going to do it I might as well get paid for it )

[Bartimaeus]

59 minutes ago, DavidW said:

I remain unconvinced that there is a real ethical difference (at least in an unmonetized context) between imitating a computer character's voice manually and doing it via AI - but I'm not convinced the discussion is that productive at this stage so I shan't comment further. (And having philosophical arguments is my day job - if I'm going to do it I might as well get paid for it )

It was easier for me to take a stronger (although still not necessarily absolute) stance against it when I started thinking about how I personally could become uncomfortable with my voice being used against my will. I'd really just kind of prefer that other people, willingly and with cognizance to the fullest extent possible, do their own voice performances when it comes to even completely fictional characters going on and on about how hot and bothered they get whenever their eyes meet with the irresistibly attractive dog that they're currently pet-sitting...rather than using manipulated recordings of my voice to accomplish it. And if I feel uncomfortable with even the idea of something like that, I can't imagine how people who have been in the public eye for ages, with many years' worth of video/pictures and voice recordings easily found, would feel about it...especially when you throw in a rabid/unhealthy fan following. I say again: yuck!

[BobT]

1 hour ago, Bartimaeus said:

It was easier for me to take a stronger (although still not necessarily absolute) stance against it when I started thinking about how I personally could become uncomfortable with my voice being used against my will. I'd really just kind of prefer that other people, willingly and with cognizance to the fullest extent possible, do their own voice performances when it comes to even completely fictional characters going on and on about how hot and bothered they get whenever their eyes meet with the irresistibly attractive dog that they're currently pet-sitting...rather than using manipulated recordings of my voice to accomplish it. And if I feel uncomfortable with even the idea of something like that, I can't imagine how people who have been in the public eye for ages, with many years' worth of video/pictures and voice recordings easily found, would feel about it...especially when you throw in a rabid/unhealthy fan following. I say again: yuck!

Why is your mind going THERE? O_O

[Bartimaeus]

9 hours ago, BobT said:

Why is your mind going THERE? O_O

Actually, I thought of a few different ways to illustrate the point, and that was probably the less vile example I could think of. Whether it's for that or something else entirely, finding your own likeness to be used for objectionable purposes is, at the end of the day and no matter your reasons behind it, objectionable, whereas I'm not really finding any particular reason to care or get involved if someone is just doing an impression. Not my likeness, not my problem - so long as it doesn't involve or hurt anyone who shouldn't be, I'll spend nary a thought on the matter. But when you're someone where your face and voice are both already out there, and there's apparently this carte blanche attitude about the use of this kind of technology, well...suffice to say, I wouldn't really want to see what results from it, especially if I were one of the affected people.

Edited January 9 by Bartimaeus

[Thacobell]

20 hours ago, DavidW said:

I remain unconvinced that there is a real ethical difference (at least in an unmonetized context) between imitating a computer character's voice manually and doing it via AI - but I'm not convinced the discussion is that productive at this stage so I shan't comment further. (And having philosophical arguments is my day job - if I'm going to do it I might as well get paid for it )

I mean, the fact that many voice actors have already stated that it makes them uncomfortable should be a factor here. The alternative is to pretend that consent never matters.
 

 

17 hours ago, BobT said:

Why is your mind going THERE? O_O

Because PEOPLE GO THERE. The entire crux of this issue is consent. Whether you think what want to do is benign or not, nobody has the right to dictate what to do with someone's likeness, except for the person themself. What you are comfortable doing with the likeness of another person doesn't matter when the actual person is uncomfortable with what you are doing.