this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024

156 points (94.8% liked)

Technology

59569 readers

4136 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

156

‘Mamma Mia!’ Stage Star Sara Poyzer Replaced By AI On BBC Show To Recreate Voice Of Dying Person — Update (deadline.com)

submitted 7 months ago by Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.”

all 22 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] brsrklf@jlai.lu 68 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 19 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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”.

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 7 months ago

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.

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 45 points 7 months ago

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?

[–] NounsAndWords@lemmy.world 38 points 7 months ago

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.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 37 points 7 months ago

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.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 28 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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!

[–] thehatfox@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] sneezycat@sopuli.xyz 11 points 7 months ago

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.

[–] Pantherina@feddit.de 8 points 7 months ago

"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.

[–] cloudless@lemmy.cafe 6 points 7 months ago

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.

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt2290780/

[–] GlitterInfection@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

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.