According to SAG AFTRA, the deal will “enable Replica to engage SAG-AFTRA members under a fair, ethical agreement to safely create and license a digital replica of their voice. Licensed voices can be used in video game development and other interactive media projects from pre-production to final release.”

The deal reportedly includes minimum terms and the requirement for performers’ consent to use their voice for AI.

However, several prominent video game voice actors were quick to respond on X, specifically to a portion of the statement which claims the deal was approved by “affected members of the union’s voiceover performer community.”

Apex Legends voice actor Erika Ishii wrote: “Approved by… WHO exactly?? Was any one of the ‘affected members’ who signed off on this a working voice actor?”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] arquebus_x@kbin.social 16 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (5 children)

This deal solves the problem you're encountering, because it allows game companies to use real voices to generate dialogue. It will sound a hell of a lot better than the 100% AI generated voices you dislike.

And it will protect voice actors' jobs because the deal effectively requires new contracts for each use out of scope of the previous contract (i.e., the "opt out" language), and it encourages game companies to continue to rely on voice actors rather than switch to 100% AI generated.

Without this deal, game devs will just go 100% AI (and the tech will improve dramatically), and within a year or two, game voice actors will have no jobs to contract.

This is especially important in light of the trend toward dynamically generated dialogue in RPGs, etc. Without allowing an AI to train on real voice actors, dynamically generated dialogue will have to be 100% AI generated (no human voice involvement).

Voice acting in all fields is already a diminishing market because of AI generated voices. One of my coworkers had to get a job where I work because his VA jobs basically dried up. This agreement stanches the bleeding by permitting the use of AI trained on VAs (but only allowing use on a per-contract basis). Without that permission, AI would just be trained on open source / freely available voice samples, and there would be no contracts, and VAs would just .... not exist anymore.

[–] HandBreadedTools@lemmy.world 33 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I disagree with it "solving" the problem. I've yet to hear an AI voice that actually works/sounds like an actual person. I've heard sentences or two that are somewhat passable at times, but never enough for actual dialogue. Regardless, your entire comment also does not address the issue presented at all, that voice actors did not agree with this deal.

[–] XTornado@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Clearly you haven't seen the videos of Biden, Trump and others playing Minecraft.... Because man that works... And probably that wasn't the latest technology.

[–] HandBreadedTools@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I have. If you think those are perfect replicas then I have a bridge to sell you. Go listen to them again, they're close-ish but there is always something a little off that sticks out when listening to it.

[–] XTornado@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 months ago

If I have to listen close-ish then they don't stick out or they do very little so sounds good enough to me. Let again we don't need exact replicas for gaming.

Plus probably lot of usage would be to pregenerate stuff not realtime so they can fix specific cases where it sounds weird by editing or similar.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 14 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

within a year or two AI actors will have no jobs

extreeeeeme doubt. The moment an AI has to inflect emotion it really fucks it up. You'll spend 5 hours and $200 of compute costs getting it to say "Great, thanks" sarcastically, when an actor could do it in a single take as part of doing the entire script.

[–] greenskye@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Honestly I just don't think a lot of people will care. They'll just get used to the lower quality. AI only has to be 'good enough to still sell'. Do you really think that gamers are the consumers that are going to be ones to fight back against it? The same consumers that have rolled over to basically every other exploitative practice ever conceived of?

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago

at the levels we're talking - maybe an indie studio could deliberately, stylistically, pull it off. But a AAA studio? To whom their VO budget is less than what they pay an executive. It just leaves them open to competitors making a game with good voice acting, and their own game getting panned in the press.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think people will be bothered if the voice acting in their games sounds like it could have been done by Stephen Hawking (or with less exaggeration, like an actor doing their first reading of a script).

[–] greenskye@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

You aren't up to date if you think modern AI voices sound like Stephen hawking.

[–] teejay@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Blah blah blah

And this deal was vetted and approved by which working voice actors?

[–] arquebus_x@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago

Do you not understand how unions work?

[–] Ilflish@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

I agree. The key factor is getting this settled before some smart people get this working seemlessly. It's stupid to hear that there wasn't any unionised info decisions for a union though. I guess you ask the union to speak for you but it's the unions job to speak back.

[–] blunderworld@lemmy.ca 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Interesting, thanks for the clarification. Have to admit, that does sound better, at least in terms of quality