The actor told an audience in London that AI was a “burning issue” for actors.
Poor man’s voice was stolen and now while he cannot use it anymore you make mean jokes :(
deleted by creator
I’m not a witch, I’m your wife!
I think it’s important to remember how this used to happen.
AT&T paid voice actors to record phoneme groups in the 90s/2000s and have been using those recordings to train voice models for decades now. There are about a dozen AT&T voices we’re all super familiar with because they’re on all those IVR/PBX replacement systems we talk to instead of humans now.
The AT&T voice actors were paid for their time, and not offered royalties but they were told that their voices would be used to generate synthentic computer voices.
This was a consensual exchange of work, not super great long term as there’s no royalties or anything and it’s really just a “work for hire” that turns into a product… but that aside – the people involved all agreed to what they were doing and what their work would be used for.
The ultimate problem at the root of all the generative tools is ultimately one of consent. We don’t permit the arbitrary copying of things that are perceived to be owned by people, nor do we think it’s appropriate to do things without people’s consent with their “Image, likeness, voice, or written works.”
Artists tell politicians to stop using their music all the time etc. But ultimately until we really get a ruling on what constitutes “derivative” works nothing will happen. An AI is effectively the derivative work of all the content that makes up the vectors that represents it so it seems a no brainer, but because it’s radio on the internet we’re not supposed to be mad at Napster for building it’s whole business on breaking the law.
I think a more interesting (and less dubious) example of this would be Vocaloid and to a greater extent, cevio AI
Vocaloid is a synth bank where instead of the notes being musical instruments, they’re phonemes which have been recorded and then packaged into a product which you pay for, which means royalties are involved (I think there might also be a thing with royalties for big performances and whatnot?) Cevio AI takes this a step further by using AI to better smooth together the phonemes and make pitching sound more natural (or not - it’s an instrument, you can break it in interesting ways if you try hard enough). And obviously, they consented to that specific thing and get paid for it. They gave Yamaha/Sony/the general public a specific character voice and permission to use that specific voice.
(There’s a FOSS voicebanks but that adds a different layer of complication to things like I think a lot of them were recorded before the idea of an “AI bank” was even a possibility. And like, while a paid voice bank is a proprietary thing, the open source alternatives are literally just a big file of .WAVs so it’s much easier to go outside their intended purposes)
It just the beginning for sure. This future will be the end of artists and still everyone will clapping to AI productions like fools.
Studios basically want to own the personas of their actors so they can decouple the actual human from it and just use their images. There’s been a lot of weird issues with this already in videogames with body capture and voice acting, and contracts aren’t read through properly or the wording is vague, and not all agents know about this stuff yet. It’s very dystopian to think your whole appearance and persona can be taken from you and commodified. I remember when Tupac’s hologram performed at Coachella in 2012 and thinking how fucked up that was. You have these huge studios and event promoters appropriating his image to make money, and an audience effectively watching a performance of technological necromancy where a dead person is re-animated.
Did Tupac’s estate agree? Or receive compensation?
It took me a minute to realize that you said Tupac, not Tuvok.
Great, another holodeck episode…
His voice wasn’t stolen, it’s still right where he left it.
Fair enough. It’s not theft, it’s something else.
But that’s just semantics, though.
The point is that his voice is being used without his permission, and that companies, profiteering people, and scammers will do so using his voice and the voices others. He likely wants some kind of law against this kind of stuff.
It’s emotionally charged semantics.
It’s emotionally charging to hear your own voice saying things you did not. Dismissing a victim describing what happened because they’re emotional about how they were wronged doesn’t make sense to me.
How is this different from a human doing an impersonation?
You could say it’s not, which means in US law at least, it’s settled and they could be sued.
You know what the difference is, trying to act otherwise is just being obtuse.
Can you seriously not answer that question yourself?
well, you seem to have trouble doing it
Can’t fake timbre.
If you made a painting for me, and then I started making copies of it without your permission and selling them off, while I might not have stolen the physical painting, I have stolen your art.
Just because they didn’t rip his larynx out of his throat, doesn’t mean you can’t steal someone’s voice.
Well, I just printed a picture of the Mona Lisa.
Did I steal the Mona Lisa? Or did I just copy it? Reproduce it?
You’re also not causing da Vinci to potentially miss out on jobs by copying it. You’re also not taking away his ability to say no to something he doesn’t want to be associated with.
That’s fine. I’m not arguing this is a bad thing, I’m just being pedantic about the word theft.
Having your voice used to say things you didn’t say is a terrifying prospect. Combined with deep faking takes it one step further.
But is it technically theft?
Yes, actually. In the same way as copyright infringement or identity theft could be considered so.
Wow the court obviously got this one wrong. Imitation is in no way stealing someone’s voice.
Not to mention with billions of people walking around is anyone’s voice really unique? I have met hundreds of people in my life who sound so much alike it is hard to distinguish them.
Your link didn’t say anything about theft…
The idea obviously doesn’t apply to the public domain.
What word or phrase would you have used in the headline ?
“Copied” or “mimicked” would be more accurate.
I’ll go for ‘captured’ which is both figuratively and literally accurate
Hornswaggled?
Copyright infringement, which, in this context, is still a seriously concerning crime.
It’s not copyright infringement. You can’t copyright a style, which is basically what a voice amounts to.
This is something new. It’s a way of taking something that we always thought of as belonging to a person, and using it without their permission.
At the moment the closest thing is trademark infringement, assuming you could trademark your personal identity (which you can’t). The harms are basically the same, deliberately passing off something cheap or dodgy as if it was associated with a particular entity. Doesn’t matter if the entity is Stephen fry or Pepsi Max.
It is, as a matter of fact. When Fry recorded his voice for those audiobooks, they were copyrighted. Reproducing the contents of those works as they have is, arguably a violation of copyright.
And when you compare Steven Frye to Pepsi Max, that’s a false equivalence, because you’re comparing a copyrighted material to a trademarked brand which are two different things.
Still, to your point of theft, nobody is taking anything from anyone. They are using something without permission, and that still falls squarely as copyright infringement, not theft.
Reproducing the contents of those works as they have is
This did not occur.
Removed by mod
That’s not reproduction of content so isn’t a copyright violation. Not shouldn’t be. Literally right now is not.
The whole reason people are so up in arms about this is that we do not currently have laws or even standards that accurately police this kind of thing.
“it wasn’t me planning the terrorist attack over the phone, it was someone stealing my voice with an AI”
This is, unfortunately, the world we are about to be in.
See, I’m pulling the smartest move right now: AI can’t take your job if you use AI to take your own job first.
Besides, I think Hollywood is pretty behind on tech overall. The current state of the art voice generator quality is still pretty bad, it’ll be a very long time before it can replace actors in quality (if ever): if you train the AI voice on audiobooks, the generated voice is going to sound like someone narrating an audiobook, which really doesn’t sound natural for dialogues at all.
I think then the key point isn’t to ban generative transformer based AI: once the tech out of its box, you can’t exactly put it back in again. (heh) The real question to ask is, who should own this technology so that it does good and help people in the world, instead of being used to take away people’s livelihood?
Wrong. The real question is why do we presuppose that the output of creatively driven individuals must generate profit for a capitalist economy to have sufficient value that those people be permitted the basic necessities of life? Frankly I suspect most of our most valuable contributors to culture are never given the opportunity to be bad enough long enough to develop into their potential.
This whole “oh no, AI is going to take away our liveihoods” notion fundamentally accepts the false notion that people are only deserving of a functional life so long as the primary activities of that life is ultimately to contribute towards increasing the wealth of a tiny percentage of individuals.
It’s the same mistake that leads us to massively undersupport educators and carers and will have people freaking out about how they’ll “earn a living” once robots are able to do everything we practically require to be done.
People are fundamentally entitled to a living. If someone is being denied one, then look at the system that causes that not the specifics of that particular flavour of how it’s happening.
Removed by mod
Since it is paywalled I can only guess from the title.
I don’t understand the problem. He was payed for reading books and now we all have his voice. What did he expect?
Is there an AI imitating his voice making money? Is it being represented with his name? If not, what would be the difference with some person imitating his voice, whould that be stealing too?
Basically I don’t see any problem with me buying those books training local model and give it other books to read. That can not be illegal, right?
Giving it to other people mentioning his name would definitely be fraud. But stealing? I don’t know.
Selling it to other people under other name… I don’t see a problem.
But than we come to AI generated images and I do start thinking in that way. Thou if they can find someone that looks like him, and other person sounding like him… they are all good?
Agree. The AI hate is becoming absurd and irrational. People really being played by the “think of the poor artist” propaganda.
No harm, no foul imo
I haven’t seen him in anything for ages, is being on strike a euphemism?
Not a lot on his bio since 2020…
Looks like he’s been busy with quite a few upcoming projects https://m.imdb.com/name/nm0000410/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_7_nm_1_q_stephen%2520fry
Oh cool. I knew he had a job in cricket but thought he’d retired from the media as he used to be on TV all the time
https://www.lords.org/lords/news-stories/stephen-fry-launches-mcc-campaign-to-reward-commun
He can’t do much as an actor without a voice.
Most of his work in progress is voice though
https://m.imdb.com/name/nm0000410/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_7_nm_1_q_stephen%2520fry
It was a childish joke about him conflating a violation of his rights with “stealing his voice”.
Ah
Don’t worry, ““artists”” only complain about ai when open source ai gets released.
AI can very easily be abused and I don’t see how this is related to the tech being open sourced or not. Fighting to ensure you aren’t exploited is fine and I support anyone to fight against exploitation.
I don’t get why so many people feel the need to defend big corporations this much. It’s not like they’re going to share the profits with the people who defend them, nor do they probably care.
If anything, the industry will just use whatever ammo they can to exploit more people.
Without maintaining and creating protections, they will roll back until there are almost none. Our current labor rights didn’t come for free, they were fought for.
They downvoted him because he spoke the truth.
It’s funny how all (or at least most of them) of the parents of those “artists” told them to do/learn something real and now they get their recipe for their bad choice.
I’ve discussed with someone about how pictures made by stable diffusion is not Art while there are literally “paintings” where the “artist” just jizzed on the canvas which then got declared as Art. I trolled him by sending him multiple generated anime pictures and asked him which is “Art” because he said he could recognize Art. He chose one and fell into the trap.
ChatGPT is why the public is scrambling about AI. AI art has been around awhile and there’s always been complaining because its lame compared to real artists. This has fuck all to do with it suddenly being open source AI.
