I'd be curious to know how this differs from Vocode.ai, which has been around for over a year now, and has voices from Sir Mix-A-Lot to Bender from Futurama.
Cool platform! Thinking about using it for a game project I'm working on – at least for temp V/O. I was noticing that the player for voice acting doesn't play reliably on the search page – you have to go to the profile first. Might be a quick fix.
My company has hired some people for TTS voice training on Upwork. About 90% of the voice actors resented the implications that someone else could make their voice say stuff that they disagree with. But some of them also found the idea of becoming digitally immortal very attractive.
The same way some people like to put up a marble statue of their heroic deeds, others like to record themselves for the internet. In my opinion, both types of people want to avoid being forgotten and surely if you become a famous TTS voice, you'll have a Wikipedia entry...
AIs are never going to get the tone and emotional context right. TTS from Google and Samsung running locally on a phone is already listenable so I don't think minorly better AI is going to eat the audiobook market if it hasn't already.
Most actors have no ear for what the context requires. They randomize their performance until they hit something the director likes. So whether AIs will be able to replace actors or directors are two different questions.
Yea, that’s a pretty good analogy. A singing dog is impressive but not able to replace human singers. From what I’ve seen so far, AI tools create technically impressive but generic and derivative works, and on their own, can’t do what a human artist does in terms of understanding the context of what they are requested to do.
It’s possible that doesn’t matter to most people, and the art world will have to realise that mass-produced schlock is all the public really wants. We’ll see.
There's also the possibility they'll get better, possibly much better than humans. Given how much they've improved recently, that's a very very big possibility.
This "art is just a job we need done" take comes right after a comment about how voice acting is a uniquely human thing that AIs will never be able to do, and I'm finding the disconnect interesting.
Well, if AI is worse at art than us now, it means that we currently have a quality metric, otherwise "worse" means nothing. For an AI to get better than humans, it means that the humans are now the group that's worse at art.
I am impressed with the technical level of the various AI tools, absolutely. I just think they are learning the surface of art - reproduction of reality and stylisation thereof - but not the point of art, which is orthogonal to the technical skill of an artist.
https://fakeyou.com