So what I gather from this press release is that VAs can license their "AI voice" on a per-game basis? Is there any other information on what this deal actually entails? Personally, I hope it...
So what I gather from this press release is that VAs can license their "AI voice" on a per-game basis? Is there any other information on what this deal actually entails?
Personally, I hope it works out, because there's a ton of creative potential for AI voices (assuming it's not just used for cost cutting, which sadly will probably be the reality).
Imagine something like a future iteration of Dwarf Fortress, where there's an option for a voiced narrator. Or some sort of advanced RPG in the future where you can type or talk to any NPC, and they will respond with a real voice (and responses could be completely generated using a character profile and an LLM) rather than text.
The level of immersion that could be possible if AI tools are used in the right way is pretty crazy to think about. As much as this is a pipe dream, the tech has the potential to make previously impossible things a reality.
One of the issues brought up is it eliminates opportunity for the vast majority of "working" voice actors. Why seek out and pay for a "working" actor when you can get an "A-List" voice actor's AI...
One of the issues brought up is it eliminates opportunity for the vast majority of "working" voice actors. Why seek out and pay for a "working" actor when you can get an "A-List" voice actor's AI model for half the price and it gets more headline attention. It's the same problem presented with AI and the movie studios. Big actors aren't going to just let their paychecks get cut 90% by letting studios do AI recreations of them, but studios will happily do so for extras, the waitress in a diner scene, the random henchman, and so on and so forth.
I kind of don’t care though? I look forward to flawlessly realistic and infinitely customizable AI characters. Eventually everyone will be able to be a director and put their story vision on...
I kind of don’t care though? I look forward to flawlessly realistic and infinitely customizable AI characters. Eventually everyone will be able to be a director and put their story vision on screen, without having to source millions of dollars in funding.
Also, I actually like watching movies that don’t star instantly recognizable actors — it hurts the immersion. With AI generated characters, my movie can feature entirely unique people. Or, maybe it will feature popular open source characters that we will come to know and love. Who knows?
Basically, there is a paradigm shift coming. Many jobs are going to face huge upheaval and maybe elimination. That doesn’t mean we should be actually doing anything about it, any more then we should be trying to preserve the jobs of horse shoers and flint axe makers.
This is a point typically made by those that aren't farriers or axesmiths. Do you feel the same about your chosen profession? It's likely just as replaceable by AI. Since the AI isn't capable of...
Basically, there is a paradigm shift coming. Many jobs are going to face huge upheaval and maybe elimination. That doesn’t mean we should be actually doing anything about it, any more then we should be trying to preserve the jobs of horse shoers and flint axe makers.
This is a point typically made by those that aren't farriers or axesmiths.
Do you feel the same about your chosen profession? It's likely just as replaceable by AI.
Since the AI isn't capable of creating anything on it's own and has to be trained to do so, where should it gather the model to have a voice, act in a movie, etc? From public domain only? Fine with me, AI only gets to be trained on movies prior to 1929, let's see how well that works for them.
What it comes down to is there are thousands upon thousands of people whos chosen profession is at risk of being turned into just another monopoly by a few mega-corporations with the keys to the AI models. What a wonderful future where all of cinema and TV is from 3-4 AI movie studios, zero real actors, and a further concentration of wealth into the hands of those that can afford to make the AI model in the first place.
I'm an AI developer, and developing AGI to obsolete my job has been my dream for over 30 years. Literally since I was a child. This is... questionable. Let's see how that plays out. I don't think...
Do you feel the same about your chosen profession? It's likely just as replaceable by AI.
I'm an AI developer, and developing AGI to obsolete my job has been my dream for over 30 years. Literally since I was a child.
Since the AI isn't capable of creating anything on it's own
This is... questionable. Let's see how that plays out. I don't think it's going to hold up in the long run though, and maybe not even in the medium term.
What it comes down to is there are thousands upon thousands of people whos chosen profession is at risk of being turned into just another monopoly by a few mega-corporations with the keys to the AI models.
Not if I can help it, and the thousands of other people who are working on commoditizing AI.
I mean, that's how LLMs work. The next true sapient AI will be a different thing entirely with a whole other line of ethical quandries to consider. Ironically enough it may end up going right back...
I don't think it's going to hold up in the long run though, and maybe not even in the medium term.
I mean, that's how LLMs work. The next true sapient AI will be a different thing entirely with a whole other line of ethical quandries to consider. Ironically enough it may end up going right back to stronger labor laws but for these "True AI".
That's how the current generation of LLMs work. I don't know if that is actually built in to the model. Self-play algorithms spring to mind immediately.
That's how the current generation of LLMs work. I don't know if that is actually built in to the model. Self-play algorithms spring to mind immediately.
I see it exactly opposite. Virtually the only people who can make a new film nowadays are franchise rehashers and nepobabies. Meanwhile there are millions of talented artists who have amazing...
I see it exactly opposite. Virtually the only people who can make a new film nowadays are franchise rehashers and nepobabies. Meanwhile there are millions of talented artists who have amazing stories to tell who are effectively locked out because of the high barrier to entry. A friend of mine went to film school years ago and has, while working as a prop designer in film on many high end projects, been trying to raise the funds to make a movie for over a decade now, and it would be awesome — he has self published several well received graphic novels already, but getting a film done is a huge investment. I like to imagine what he would be capable of with accessible AI actors. Probably that level of technology will arrive too late for him though.
I'm gonna be honest, I was pretty high when I responded and I tend to lack my filter when I'm high so I apologize for coming off so rude. I think the main thing I'm worried about is I view art as...
I'm gonna be honest, I was pretty high when I responded and I tend to lack my filter when I'm high so I apologize for coming off so rude.
I think the main thing I'm worried about is I view art as the ultimate way to share with people. F we are only making art specifically for ourselves with little to no effort then we won't learn or grow.
I love consuming my own movies but consuming my peers art is just as if not more important to me. If everyone is making stuff for themselves it takes away one of the main purposes of art for me.
I also seem to have maybe misinterpreted what you said. Are you saying using AI tools to HELP create the movies. I assumed you meant making movies only for oneself.
Mind elaborating what you mean? I am sympathetic toward those who are against AI on the basis of their livelihoods being threatened. That's completely different from saying that giving everyone...
Mind elaborating what you mean? I am sympathetic toward those who are against AI on the basis of their livelihoods being threatened. That's completely different from saying that giving everyone the means to generate artistic works via AI is an overall negative. Why is it a bad thing if anyone can direct the movie of their dreams?
The reality is that not everyone will direct a movie. Similar to how any person in the first world can make a burger but will grab fast food. It'll still veer towards Disney or whatnot just...
Why is it a bad thing if anyone can direct the movie of their dreams?
The reality is that not everyone will direct a movie. Similar to how any person in the first world can make a burger but will grab fast food.
It'll still veer towards Disney or whatnot just churning out dozens of works a month of questionable quality for nothing but profit. The bar won't magically lower, it'll just let corporations scale up even more.
Copy and pasting my other reply btw. I think the main thing I'm worried about is I view art as the ultimate way to share with people. F we are only making art specifically for ourselves with...
Copy and pasting my other reply btw.
I think the main thing I'm worried about is I view art as the ultimate way to share with people. F we are only making art specifically for ourselves with little to no effort then we won't learn or grow.
I love consuming my own movies but consuming my peers art is just as if not more important to me. If everyone is making stuff for themselves it takes away one of the main purposes of art for me.
I don't think AI will take away the desire to share creative works. Just look at people going around posting their AI generated works in the current day. Whether hand-drawn or prompted, that's...
I don't think AI will take away the desire to share creative works. Just look at people going around posting their AI generated works in the current day. Whether hand-drawn or prompted, that's still the same urge to express one's thoughts or imagination to the world. AI may not be specific in that person's vision, but that's no different from an artist not being skilled enough to paint exactly what's in their head.
Now will AI decrease the desire for the average person to seek out other people's works? I'd dare say yes, but no one has the right to dictate other people's preferences in terms of what they enjoy. If someone doesn't care to distinguish between AI or human art, finding both to be equal, that isn't a wrong opinion.
As long as they are properly compensated, sure. The issue with the horse shoer metaphor is that cars and machine don't require horses and axes. These AI training models do. And that training from...
That doesn’t mean we should be actually doing anything about it,
As long as they are properly compensated, sure. The issue with the horse shoer metaphor is that cars and machine don't require horses and axes. These AI training models do. And that training from artists should be compensated proportionately.
Big issue for artists is that artists rarely are, and we're seeing it happen yet again.
No, legally speaking, the commercial nature of a work is only one of four prongs, and it is not absolute —the key element here is whether the work is transformative, which I would argue is...
No, legally speaking, the commercial nature of a work is only one of four prongs, and it is not absolute —the key element here is whether the work is transformative, which I would argue is obvious: LLMs are clearly transformative in a way that direct copying is not.
But whatever way the courts eventually rule, I find this to be a moral issue. I see no meaningful difference between my personally reading a book or watching a movie and then creating my own work while being inspired by my experiences and an AI system doing that same thing. If an AI duplicates a work verbatim, that’s infringing just as it would be for me to do it, but identically, my simply having that knowledge is clearly permissible so long as I don’t use it to infringe. Infringing must necessarily involve the making of works. The encoding of a model that has knowledge should not, itself, constitute an infringing with, any more than my reading a book should constitute infringing.
In any case, I do not believe that fair use should only be for non commercial uses.
We probably align closer than you suspect. Sure, if it's fair use then it's well, fair game to grab. If it's not fair use, then you need to license it for usage like any other copyright material....
We probably align closer than you suspect. Sure, if it's fair use then it's well, fair game to grab. If it's not fair use, then you need to license it for usage like any other copyright material.
But I imagine have very different lines on what qualifies as "fair use". I can't just scrape Deviant art for thousands of pieces of art for use in my own procedural generation algorithm. My scraper will be throttled, if I get around that I can't have those images in my tool itself (especially if I host the tool anywhere, easy DMCA target), and there's also stipulations about making too many network requests (which costs DA server traffic) even if I don't scrape. Legalities of scraping are still all over the place (even if the product being scraped for isn't commercialized) and are now going to get more complex with the NYT lawsuit.
If I'm that limited on what I can do as a human making network requests, why would I think differently about an LLM bankrolled by a trillion dollar company? A company that could literally pay got everything it has extracted so far? At least from a financial POV I as a singular person can only store so many images on my 2TB laptop
These roadblocks you mention seem to be basically logistical in nature. Counterpoint: I (not a trillion dollar company) have scraped well over a hundred terabytes of data with no significant...
These roadblocks you mention seem to be basically logistical in nature. Counterpoint: I (not a trillion dollar company) have scraped well over a hundred terabytes of data with no significant difficulty. Why shouldn’t I be able to use that data now?
I mean, if it's all completely public domain, sure. Go crazy. If it's not, then it falls into fair use clauses. I would find it hard to argue that if you scraped the entire website of data. Fair...
I mean, if it's all completely public domain, sure. Go crazy.
If it's not, then it falls into fair use clauses. I would find it hard to argue that if you scraped the entire website of data. Fair use laws have blurry lines, but when your space is a complete superset of the material you "use" I don't see an angle here.
It feels like arguing about eating an entire buffet at an all-you-can-eat buffet (if we ignore that those buffets have fine print for that very reason). The operation of this establishment comes with an assumption that you will only eat X threshold of food to break even, and you may be able to get away with 3x or 5x because several others will barely eat a "non-profitable" amount. But at some point you'd be cut off simply so the restaurant doesn't shut down and remove its service for everyone. Because everyone eating 100x means everyone will eventually get 0x. Tragedy of the commons.
It seems we're already approaching "closure" as more of the internet puts up guards, removes itself from indexing, or outright puts stuff behind a paywall. Excessive scraping and usage like this will only accelerate that result.
They'll only be used for cost-cutting. The AI voices will be prerecorded, as generating them in real time would incur server costs or expose the models (a huge no-no from even before voice AI was...
They'll only be used for cost-cutting. The AI voices will be prerecorded, as generating them in real time would incur server costs or expose the models (a huge no-no from even before voice AI was a thing) and increase user hardware requirements.
Sure, that may be the reality right now. But eventually, compute power will either be cheap enough to make the costs minimal (as in similar to services that most games already use) or able to run...
Sure, that may be the reality right now. But eventually, compute power will either be cheap enough to make the costs minimal (as in similar to services that most games already use) or able to run seamlessly on consumer hardware.
Exposing the models should not really be an issue, there are plenty of ways to encrypt data that can't be bypassed under ordinary circumstances
No thank you. I like my handcrafted RPGs. You'll never get a game as resonent and impactful as Disco Elysium with that. Art should be made by humans/actual intelligence/emotion not a learning model.
Or some sort of advanced RPG in the future where you can type or talk to any NPC, and they will respond with a real voice (and responses could be completely generated using a character profile and an LLM) rather than text.
No thank you. I like my handcrafted RPGs. You'll never get a game as resonent and impactful as Disco Elysium with that. Art should be made by humans/actual intelligence/emotion not a learning model.
I don't think it's a case of either/or though, is it? Procedural generation has been around for years, and there's still room for games that have handcrafted settings, plots, and worlds. I don't...
I don't think it's a case of either/or though, is it? Procedural generation has been around for years, and there's still room for games that have handcrafted settings, plots, and worlds. I don't think Disco Elysium would be as good if it were all automatically generated, but equally, I don't think Minecraft or Dwarf Fortress would have been as good if everything that could happen was predetermined.
Point taken, but I'm eager to see how an intersection between the two might be achieved. In theory, a team of skilled artists and writers could fine-tune a model to fit a cohesive vision. The...
Point taken, but I'm eager to see how an intersection between the two might be achieved. In theory, a team of skilled artists and writers could fine-tune a model to fit a cohesive vision. The generative parts could be constrained to a particular tone or motif; whatever tech underpins the dynamic narrative could be instructed to build story arcs that conform to specific dramatic themes.
I think in the near term we'll see some "RPGs" where all the character interactions are like talking to ChatGPT. But looking beyond those early efforts, as the tech matures, of course we'll see real impactful art emerge that is still built on AI to bolster immersion in a way that surpasses what's possible with hand-crafted worlds. Seems inevitable to me.
It's on the way. I can't help but notice the timing, that this article comes out a day after that demo. I don't see why this technology can't complement what is currently done. Sure, some AAA...
Imagine something like a future iteration of Dwarf Fortress, where there's an option for a voiced narrator. Or some sort of advanced RPG in the future where you can type or talk to any NPC, and they will respond with a real voice (and responses could be completely generated using a character profile and an LLM) rather than text.
It's on the way. I can't help but notice the timing, that this article comes out a day after that demo.
I don't see why this technology can't complement what is currently done. Sure, some AAA studios will abuse it to make some soulless husk of a live service game. But folks can still make their Disco Elysiums, this won't stop them any more than photorealistic 3D graphics stopped folks from making successful games with 2D pixel graphics. And folks could complement their traditional story craft with NPCs that don't have the same canned lines and scripted actions, that are capable of emergent interaction.
Besides the current legalities? Sure, TTY existed for decades so it was possible for a while to auto voice everything. The main technological issue is the amount of data processing needed. You...
I don't see why this technology can't complement what is currently done
Besides the current legalities? Sure, TTY existed for decades so it was possible for a while to auto voice everything.
The main technological issue is the amount of data processing needed. You either need the game to be always online (which is exactly what these companies would love to do) or suddenly an ancient relic like Dwarf Fortress needs the power of a modern high end gaming computer. Which they won't do anyway because their LLM being hacked is way worse than a game.
Well, yes and no. It'll be used to cut payments to workers. In return that money can be used by C-suites and invenstors to buy more yachts and political influence.
assuming it's not just used for cost cutting, which sadly will probably be the reality
Well, yes and no. It'll be used to cut payments to workers. In return that money can be used by C-suites and invenstors to buy more yachts and political influence.
A couple voice actors were quoted in the article. I would appreciate if anyone wants to quote some more replies here because xformerlytwitter no longer shows replies to logged-out users.
A couple voice actors were quoted in the article. I would appreciate if anyone wants to quote some more replies here because xformerlytwitter no longer shows replies to logged-out users.
Tip: You can see tweets normally by changing twitter.com to nitter.net. A lot of very angry replies, though I can't identify which are voice actors versus regular commenters since I'm not overly...
So what I gather from this press release is that VAs can license their "AI voice" on a per-game basis? Is there any other information on what this deal actually entails?
Personally, I hope it works out, because there's a ton of creative potential for AI voices (assuming it's not just used for cost cutting, which sadly will probably be the reality).
Imagine something like a future iteration of Dwarf Fortress, where there's an option for a voiced narrator. Or some sort of advanced RPG in the future where you can type or talk to any NPC, and they will respond with a real voice (and responses could be completely generated using a character profile and an LLM) rather than text.
The level of immersion that could be possible if AI tools are used in the right way is pretty crazy to think about. As much as this is a pipe dream, the tech has the potential to make previously impossible things a reality.
One of the issues brought up is it eliminates opportunity for the vast majority of "working" voice actors. Why seek out and pay for a "working" actor when you can get an "A-List" voice actor's AI model for half the price and it gets more headline attention. It's the same problem presented with AI and the movie studios. Big actors aren't going to just let their paychecks get cut 90% by letting studios do AI recreations of them, but studios will happily do so for extras, the waitress in a diner scene, the random henchman, and so on and so forth.
I kind of don’t care though? I look forward to flawlessly realistic and infinitely customizable AI characters. Eventually everyone will be able to be a director and put their story vision on screen, without having to source millions of dollars in funding.
Also, I actually like watching movies that don’t star instantly recognizable actors — it hurts the immersion. With AI generated characters, my movie can feature entirely unique people. Or, maybe it will feature popular open source characters that we will come to know and love. Who knows?
Basically, there is a paradigm shift coming. Many jobs are going to face huge upheaval and maybe elimination. That doesn’t mean we should be actually doing anything about it, any more then we should be trying to preserve the jobs of horse shoers and flint axe makers.
This is a point typically made by those that aren't farriers or axesmiths.
Do you feel the same about your chosen profession? It's likely just as replaceable by AI.
Since the AI isn't capable of creating anything on it's own and has to be trained to do so, where should it gather the model to have a voice, act in a movie, etc? From public domain only? Fine with me, AI only gets to be trained on movies prior to 1929, let's see how well that works for them.
What it comes down to is there are thousands upon thousands of people whos chosen profession is at risk of being turned into just another monopoly by a few mega-corporations with the keys to the AI models. What a wonderful future where all of cinema and TV is from 3-4 AI movie studios, zero real actors, and a further concentration of wealth into the hands of those that can afford to make the AI model in the first place.
I'm an AI developer, and developing AGI to obsolete my job has been my dream for over 30 years. Literally since I was a child.
This is... questionable. Let's see how that plays out. I don't think it's going to hold up in the long run though, and maybe not even in the medium term.
Not if I can help it, and the thousands of other people who are working on commoditizing AI.
To be fair, if you do this you'll be filthy rich.
I mean, that's how LLMs work. The next true sapient AI will be a different thing entirely with a whole other line of ethical quandries to consider. Ironically enough it may end up going right back to stronger labor laws but for these "True AI".
That's how the current generation of LLMs work. I don't know if that is actually built in to the model. Self-play algorithms spring to mind immediately.
This is such a fucked up and sad world view. Everyone being their own director and only absorbing low quality basically reality TV with no soul. Ick.
I see it exactly opposite. Virtually the only people who can make a new film nowadays are franchise rehashers and nepobabies. Meanwhile there are millions of talented artists who have amazing stories to tell who are effectively locked out because of the high barrier to entry. A friend of mine went to film school years ago and has, while working as a prop designer in film on many high end projects, been trying to raise the funds to make a movie for over a decade now, and it would be awesome — he has self published several well received graphic novels already, but getting a film done is a huge investment. I like to imagine what he would be capable of with accessible AI actors. Probably that level of technology will arrive too late for him though.
I'm gonna be honest, I was pretty high when I responded and I tend to lack my filter when I'm high so I apologize for coming off so rude.
I think the main thing I'm worried about is I view art as the ultimate way to share with people. F we are only making art specifically for ourselves with little to no effort then we won't learn or grow.
I love consuming my own movies but consuming my peers art is just as if not more important to me. If everyone is making stuff for themselves it takes away one of the main purposes of art for me.
I also seem to have maybe misinterpreted what you said. Are you saying using AI tools to HELP create the movies. I assumed you meant making movies only for oneself.
Yeah, I'm talking about artists using AI to make movies on a low budget for the purposes of distributing them to other people.
Mind elaborating what you mean? I am sympathetic toward those who are against AI on the basis of their livelihoods being threatened. That's completely different from saying that giving everyone the means to generate artistic works via AI is an overall negative. Why is it a bad thing if anyone can direct the movie of their dreams?
The reality is that not everyone will direct a movie. Similar to how any person in the first world can make a burger but will grab fast food.
It'll still veer towards Disney or whatnot just churning out dozens of works a month of questionable quality for nothing but profit. The bar won't magically lower, it'll just let corporations scale up even more.
Copy and pasting my other reply btw.
I think the main thing I'm worried about is I view art as the ultimate way to share with people. F we are only making art specifically for ourselves with little to no effort then we won't learn or grow.
I love consuming my own movies but consuming my peers art is just as if not more important to me. If everyone is making stuff for themselves it takes away one of the main purposes of art for me.
I don't think AI will take away the desire to share creative works. Just look at people going around posting their AI generated works in the current day. Whether hand-drawn or prompted, that's still the same urge to express one's thoughts or imagination to the world. AI may not be specific in that person's vision, but that's no different from an artist not being skilled enough to paint exactly what's in their head.
Now will AI decrease the desire for the average person to seek out other people's works? I'd dare say yes, but no one has the right to dictate other people's preferences in terms of what they enjoy. If someone doesn't care to distinguish between AI or human art, finding both to be equal, that isn't a wrong opinion.
As long as they are properly compensated, sure. The issue with the horse shoer metaphor is that cars and machine don't require horses and axes. These AI training models do. And that training from artists should be compensated proportionately.
Big issue for artists is that artists rarely are, and we're seeing it happen yet again.
A lot of this hinges on one's own personal view of how fair use should operate. I suspect we don't align very closely on that.
No, legally speaking, the commercial nature of a work is only one of four prongs, and it is not absolute —the key element here is whether the work is transformative, which I would argue is obvious: LLMs are clearly transformative in a way that direct copying is not.
But whatever way the courts eventually rule, I find this to be a moral issue. I see no meaningful difference between my personally reading a book or watching a movie and then creating my own work while being inspired by my experiences and an AI system doing that same thing. If an AI duplicates a work verbatim, that’s infringing just as it would be for me to do it, but identically, my simply having that knowledge is clearly permissible so long as I don’t use it to infringe. Infringing must necessarily involve the making of works. The encoding of a model that has knowledge should not, itself, constitute an infringing with, any more than my reading a book should constitute infringing.
In any case, I do not believe that fair use should only be for non commercial uses.
We probably align closer than you suspect. Sure, if it's fair use then it's well, fair game to grab. If it's not fair use, then you need to license it for usage like any other copyright material.
But I imagine have very different lines on what qualifies as "fair use". I can't just scrape Deviant art for thousands of pieces of art for use in my own procedural generation algorithm. My scraper will be throttled, if I get around that I can't have those images in my tool itself (especially if I host the tool anywhere, easy DMCA target), and there's also stipulations about making too many network requests (which costs DA server traffic) even if I don't scrape. Legalities of scraping are still all over the place (even if the product being scraped for isn't commercialized) and are now going to get more complex with the NYT lawsuit.
If I'm that limited on what I can do as a human making network requests, why would I think differently about an LLM bankrolled by a trillion dollar company? A company that could literally pay got everything it has extracted so far? At least from a financial POV I as a singular person can only store so many images on my 2TB laptop
These roadblocks you mention seem to be basically logistical in nature. Counterpoint: I (not a trillion dollar company) have scraped well over a hundred terabytes of data with no significant difficulty. Why shouldn’t I be able to use that data now?
I mean, if it's all completely public domain, sure. Go crazy.
If it's not, then it falls into fair use clauses. I would find it hard to argue that if you scraped the entire website of data. Fair use laws have blurry lines, but when your space is a complete superset of the material you "use" I don't see an angle here.
It feels like arguing about eating an entire buffet at an all-you-can-eat buffet (if we ignore that those buffets have fine print for that very reason). The operation of this establishment comes with an assumption that you will only eat X threshold of food to break even, and you may be able to get away with 3x or 5x because several others will barely eat a "non-profitable" amount. But at some point you'd be cut off simply so the restaurant doesn't shut down and remove its service for everyone. Because everyone eating 100x means everyone will eventually get 0x. Tragedy of the commons.
It seems we're already approaching "closure" as more of the internet puts up guards, removes itself from indexing, or outright puts stuff behind a paywall. Excessive scraping and usage like this will only accelerate that result.
They'll only be used for cost-cutting. The AI voices will be prerecorded, as generating them in real time would incur server costs or expose the models (a huge no-no from even before voice AI was a thing) and increase user hardware requirements.
Sure, that may be the reality right now. But eventually, compute power will either be cheap enough to make the costs minimal (as in similar to services that most games already use) or able to run seamlessly on consumer hardware.
Exposing the models should not really be an issue, there are plenty of ways to encrypt data that can't be bypassed under ordinary circumstances
No thank you. I like my handcrafted RPGs. You'll never get a game as resonent and impactful as Disco Elysium with that. Art should be made by humans/actual intelligence/emotion not a learning model.
I don't think it's a case of either/or though, is it? Procedural generation has been around for years, and there's still room for games that have handcrafted settings, plots, and worlds. I don't think Disco Elysium would be as good if it were all automatically generated, but equally, I don't think Minecraft or Dwarf Fortress would have been as good if everything that could happen was predetermined.
Point taken, but I'm eager to see how an intersection between the two might be achieved. In theory, a team of skilled artists and writers could fine-tune a model to fit a cohesive vision. The generative parts could be constrained to a particular tone or motif; whatever tech underpins the dynamic narrative could be instructed to build story arcs that conform to specific dramatic themes.
I think in the near term we'll see some "RPGs" where all the character interactions are like talking to ChatGPT. But looking beyond those early efforts, as the tech matures, of course we'll see real impactful art emerge that is still built on AI to bolster immersion in a way that surpasses what's possible with hand-crafted worlds. Seems inevitable to me.
It's on the way. I can't help but notice the timing, that this article comes out a day after that demo.
I don't see why this technology can't complement what is currently done. Sure, some AAA studios will abuse it to make some soulless husk of a live service game. But folks can still make their Disco Elysiums, this won't stop them any more than photorealistic 3D graphics stopped folks from making successful games with 2D pixel graphics. And folks could complement their traditional story craft with NPCs that don't have the same canned lines and scripted actions, that are capable of emergent interaction.
Besides the current legalities? Sure, TTY existed for decades so it was possible for a while to auto voice everything.
The main technological issue is the amount of data processing needed. You either need the game to be always online (which is exactly what these companies would love to do) or suddenly an ancient relic like Dwarf Fortress needs the power of a modern high end gaming computer. Which they won't do anyway because their LLM being hacked is way worse than a game.
Well, yes and no. It'll be used to cut payments to workers. In return that money can be used by C-suites and invenstors to buy more yachts and political influence.
SAG-AFTRA Press Release
SAG-AFTRA Tweet which garnered some... explosive replies from English voice actors.
A couple voice actors were quoted in the article. I would appreciate if anyone wants to quote some more replies here because xformerlytwitter no longer shows replies to logged-out users.
Tip: You can see tweets normally by changing twitter.com to nitter.net. A lot of very angry replies, though I can't identify which are voice actors versus regular commenters since I'm not overly familiar with prolific voice actors.
Oh cool, thanks; I thought it had stopped working.