The BBC has issued a statement that offers important context to Sara Poyzer’s viral social media posts. The British broadcaster said it is using AI technology in a “highly sensitive documentary” to represent the voice of a person who is nearing the end of their life.
Poyzer was penciled in for the job, but her services are no longer required as the BBC attempts to honor the wishes of the contributor’s family by dedicating a brief — and clearly signposted — section of the documentary to recreating “a voice which can now no longer be heard.”
I’m not sure what to think about that.
I’m all for shitting on replacing people with AI, but in this case it’s done with the agreement of the person, who is still able to give it, who can’t talk anymore, and for a documentary. So sure, they could have done it with a voice-over actor, and maybe I’d have preferred it too, but I can’t really say this feels wrong. At this point it feels a bit like Stephen Hawking using his voice synthesis software.
If the person was unable to agree and didn’t write what is being told with “their” voice though? That’d be shit.
Stephen Hawking grew to like his voice synthesizer. At one point, Intel, who made the device, offered to upgrade it to a more natural voice and he declined, as he identified it (as did the public) as “his voice”.
Yeah but now that they have it after this person is dead then what? They could then use it without their permission and probably will.
They could do that anyway, at least to the same extent that they could in any situation. This stuff isn’t new, it’s been possible to recreate someone’s voice for over a decade. Current generations are just getting more natural sounding, and require much, much less training material.
Reading the headline I was about to post how ridiculous it is that AI is taking over everything. Then I read that it is being used to give someone the chance to say their own words in their own voice.
This was not motivated out of using AI to replace an actress. It was motivated out of respecting the wishes and dignity of a dying person. It’s there a better use of AI than this?
I’m not making any moral judgements one way or the other, but I have a strong feeling kids today are just going to grow up with this stuff and it will be normalized and we are going to be the weird old prudes who have a weird sense of personal identity connected to our physical appearance and voice while they’re going around looking like SpongeBob and talking like The Fonz.
I think some people will just see the ‘AI’ in the title and automatically be sent into a frenzied rage, but this seems fine to me.
She can no longer sing, and is dying, but gave explicit consent for her voice to be recreated.
I don’t have an issue with this so long as there is consent.
In this specific case I am okay with and happy with AI being used this way since the subject being impersonated themself wished to be voiced by the AI. I can totally see why, it’s like technological magic that “gives your voice back” and you can sound like yourself from any point in your recorded lifetime you like!
For deceased people I don’t think AI should be used to put words into people’s mouths for commercial purposes without their permission. When AI gets good enough, why hire new actors for a movie when you can just reanimate Michael Jackson forever? Hee!
In the AI age we are going to need some way to have lasting likeness rights, in life and death.
There should be some sort of protection against having a persons appearance hijacked, especially for commercial purposes.
I don’t think Che Guevara gave permission to use his image for trendy shirts. Is it that different? They’re using the image of a dead person to sell a product.
We need better protection against companies in general.
“Recreating the voice of a dying person” is such a weird phrasing. They want to show the voice that a dying person had in the past.
This sound similar to the Black Mirror episode. “Be Right Back”
After learning about a new service that lets people stay in touch with the deceased, a lonely, grieving Martha reconnects with her late lover.
It’s amazing how context matters on these things, because I was pretty peeved for her when I saw the original article.
Her comment feels a little callous and manipulative with this context, but I am going to give the benefit of the doubt that she didn’t have these details when she made her post.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
God damn brother how many times did you post that
Lemmy glitches out sometimes, it probably wasn’t intentional.
Yup, do you still see this? For me its still spammed with “post deleted” but not actually hidden
deleted by creator
Depending on this poster’s age, this statement could have very opposite meanings.
careful now.
