General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsActor Stephen Fry's voice was stolen via AI from audiobooks he'd narrated & used for a documentary
A number of news stories on this.
From Deadline: https://deadline.com/2023/09/harry-potter-uk-audiobooks-narrator-stephen-fry-warns-ai-ripoff-1235548993/
Speaking at the CogX Festival in London on Thursday, Fry played a clip of an AI system mimicking his voice to narrate a historical documentary.
I said not one word of thatit was a machine. Yes, it shocked me, he said. They used my reading of the seven volumes of the Harry Potter books, and from that dataset an AI of my voice was created and it made that new narration.
-snip-
What you heard was not the result of a mash up, this is from a flexible artificial voice, where the words are modulated to fit the meaning of each sentence, Fry said.
More on his acting background and what he said, from another article: https://winteriscoming.net/2023/09/18/documentary-uses-ai-steal-stephen-frys-voice-harry-potter-books/
-snip-
Reading all seven of the Harry Potter books aloud and recording it represents a fair amount of work, but modern AI systems can replicate someones voice very quickly, and then have them read whatever it is the person who replicated it wants. We can argue over how well the digital clone compares to the real thing, but the technology is there.
-snip-
The implications of this are troubling, as Fry had no difficulty imagining. What you heard was not the result of a mash up, this is from a flexible artificial voice, where the words are modulated to fit the meaning of each sentence, he said. It could therefore have me read anything from a call to storm parliament to hard porn, all without my knowledge and without my permission. And this, what you just heard, was done without my knowledge. So I heard about this, I sent it to my agents on both sides of the Atlantic, and they went ballisticthey had no idea such a thing was possible.
We dont know what this documentary is, possibly because Frys agents got on the case and crushed it. But at this point theres basically nothing stopping people from using AI to clone someones voice and then using it for whatever they feel like doing. You aint seen nothing yet, Fry warned. This is audio. It wont be long until full deepfake videos are just as convincing.
I looked at a number of stories on this and couldn't find anything on who had misused AI and Stephen Fry's voice that way, whether it was some dimwitted AI enthusiast with no respect for actors, or a legit professional filmmaker who really should have known bettter and who should have to pay for this ripoff. And have their identity publicized as well.
FakeNoose
(34,771 posts)In a way, this doesn't surprise me at all.
I'm sure the publishers are already thinking about how much money they can save by using AI instead of professional narrators. The stories are human-written (for now) but the narration will be taken over by automation.
That doesn't make it right, and I hope Stephen Fry is able to sue the companies who are doing this.
intrepidity
(7,737 posts)Not by, of course, stealing them from people, but from some technological means that no doubt.is soon to be possible.
So, so many audiobooks and podcasts are rendered unlistenable (for me) because of issues with the speaker's voice.
If AI uses someone's voice, they should be compensated with residuals or something. But having that option would be really great for listeners. I'd always choose British or Welsh or Scottish or Aussie voices for my audio products, if/when I have a choice.
Pantagruel
(2,580 posts)Suppose all parties agree on the topic and script. Fry is paid let's say 70% of his normal fee ? Producers get the product they want at an assumed discount? Lower production costs might mean the public pays less for product although I'm not holding my breath on that one?
obamanut2012
(27,422 posts)He should get both 100% of teh fee, plus a hefty settlement, plus the documentary being shelved iindefinitely.
You are kinda okaying theft and fraud here.
Pantagruel
(2,580 posts)My guess was based on the fact he did no actual work, thought 70% was generous given he would have avoided probably months in a studio.
I'm not advocating anything, just spitballing. AI clearly needs regs but maybe benefits could be attained.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)pay 100% of fines assessed to compensate the plaintiff.
As for "actual work," of course publishing his voice was actual work.
obamanut2012
(27,422 posts)I am really perplexed by your reasoning he did no work.
Ligyron
(7,825 posts)The Producers wanted to pay an actor a flat fee and thereafter be entitled to use the actor's voice and image for all eternity.
Because yeah, a person's whole AI generated image and persona will soon be indistinguishable from the real thing.
marble falls
(60,219 posts)... in AI. Of course.
dickthegrouch
(3,456 posts)There are multiple recordings of tens of thousands of people all over the world.
All it takes is for person x to be faked denigrating person/group/country y and we could all be at war with each other in seconds.
This TERRIFIES me.