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

[–] SmoothLiquidation@lemmy.world 55 points 10 months ago (12 children)

This is one sector where I am actually happy for AI to be available. I want to play a game where the NPC's can say my character name.

That being said, I also want the voice actors to be compensated fairly. Maybe the guilds can set up a deal where using someone's voice for training data is included.

[–] Tetra@kbin.social 70 points 10 months ago (5 children)

I feel like the solution is pretty simple: if you want to AI copy someone's voice and put it in your project, you have to hire them and pay them as normal, and they have to give consent to let the AI use their likeness.

Otherwise it's theft.

[–] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

And this has to be on a per-game basis, to. Studios licensing a voice in perpetuity will eventually come back to the same issues.

For AI to truly be a net benefit to our society, it should be used as a tool by the artists to augment the output from the artists. It shouldn't be a way of replacing them.

If a voice actors job goes from recording each and every line to recording samples for AI and helping to tweak the output, that's fine. But the compensation stays the same.

That's how it improves our world. Makes the human's job easier without replacing them or affecting their compensation.

The way it's currently on track to be used is how it improves the lives of the wealthiest at the expense of everyone else. No amount of futurist techno-jerking should distract from that. These are not tools for us to benefit from in any significant sense.

[–] Tetra@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago

Agreed.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)