8 ms·
As a viewer of the documentary, I will love that effect instead of a bland voice-over. But a note should be added on the screen that the voice is AI-generated.
by yohannparis 5y ago
As a viewer of the documentary, I will love that effect instead of a bland voice-over.
But a note should be added on the screen that the voice is AI-generated. Like when they say a war video is a reenactment.
- jamestimmins 5y agoAgreed, this whole issue could be solved with a message before the film runs about how the voiceover is created, and then a "recreation" label during that scene.
- ghaff 5y agoDisclaimers help. And it's not like they were making up words. But I still feel it was probably a poor creative choice.
- KONAir 5y agoI suppose a spoken line at the begining along the lines of it is not that person, but a generated voice, would be the best solution.
- godelski 5y agoI don't think so. There are still other ethical considerations. Bourdain likely would not have liked this, as others in the thread point out. So it is weird to honor someone with a documentary but not honor their wishes
- 37r7dyysy 5y agoWhat makes those considerations significant enough to be worth the effort of evaluating though? It's too late to stop the tech from existing, there's no individuals actually being harmed, and even if you find a framework for arguing harm that's compelling the end-game is just going to be updated contracts which demand rights to use the performer's likeness for these sorts of purposes. The dialogue just seems like a lot of opining for the sake of itself with a fashionable hint of 21st century doom-cult luddism. I guess maybe the unions might have a reason to worry but I don't have a lot of sympathy for unions representing millionaires.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoI think that is a fair question to ask but I don't agree with your conclusions. You are essentially asking why bother investigating and forming opinions and value judgements on the the use of new technology. Humans use opinions and values to decide how they want to interact with the outside world. Even if the technology exists and no living are harmed, people can find it distasteful. people can decide not to support what they find distasteful. They can decide to voice support actors unions if the issue ever comes up. They can tell their friends and family how they would like their likeness used as these technologies become more prevalent.
- godelski 5y ago> It's too late to stop the tech from existing I have no qualms with the tech existing, assuming I do is you creating an argument I don't have. In fact I work in ML generative modeling. But just because a tool exists doesn't mean you shouldn't be thoughtful about how you use it. Technology isn't really good or bad on its own. > there's no individuals actually being harmed This is debatable. I think a lot matters on how you think of dead people. I believe most people would take the stance that it is unethical to use someone's image to promote things they did not stand for. You're right that it is very difficult to impossible to harm a dead person, but there's still respect. There's also a family that lives with how you portray said person. They _can_ be harmed. > the end-game is just going to be updated contracts which demand rights to use the performer's likeness for these sorts of purposes If there's (informed) consent then what's the issue? (If we assume that said person knows what they have consented to) Forgive me if I'm wrong, but your response seems in bad faith and to operate on many assumptions about me that just do not hold true. Frankly this is not the kind of conversations I want to have on HN or expect to have. I'm happy to argue about the ethics and have differing opinions, but I do not appreciate my image being depicted with a broad brush. As long as the conversation is in good faith we can discuss a lot of controversial things and disagree all day and everything will be fine. But turning > Bourdain likely would not have liked this into > a fashionable hint of 21st century doom-cult luddism Is just ridiculous. That's far too large of a leap and such comments are not welcome here. You're welcome to try again but you'll need to update your priors.
- pankajdoharey 5y agoIt would be interesting to see if recreating songs is possible, if so i would like to hear the voice of Jim morrison and Curt Cobain.
- rbalicki 5y agohttps://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/nirvana-kurt-cobain-ai-song-1146444/ https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/nirvana-ku... I don't remember if these songs had lyrics, but there are AI generated songs in the style of Cobain and Jim Morrison
- rbalicki 5y agoYoutube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1-B3M_KaRQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1-B3M_KaRQ It does contain lyrics, but the singing is not AI generated.
- caseyohara 5y agoAI-generated Nirvana song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GogY7RQFFus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GogY7RQFFus
- genewitch 5y agoI have a machine with two GPUs and a frozen OS with a tensorflow python app that clones voices, and I'd say the quality passes if you run it through a phone bandpass filter. I've had an idea to use propellerhead recycle to chop the output cloned voice into syllables, and then "play" the chopped parts in rhythm, through autotune. The issue is you get Eifel 65 sounding autotune if your base vocals are monotonic or way off key. The only way I can think of fixing this is to use something like audacity's pitch changer that doesn't affect the speed of the sample - rough the lyrical tones in with audacity/recycle, then autotune it where it needs to go. I'd like to say I'm too busy to get this workflow going, but mostly I'm lazy and someone else will do it first - and better - I can't improve the AI cloning software.
- dkdbejwi383 5y ago
- MrMetlHed 5y agoWhy would it have to be a bland voice-over? It's an email he sent to a friend. Have the friend read it. I imagine the friend would become emotional. That's far more riveting than a computer recreation, no?