Would you object the idea of CBU3 using Ai voice to voice player character?

[Malthir]

Unless you are conflating "uses technology/AI" to "generative AI" this is completely false. Even lighting systems in games need human interaction to perfect. It is not an a simple algorithm that you just copy from another game and plug and play to a degree of success. Models are also not made by AI. Not even UV maps can be correctly made by AI and need humans to fix them. These things are ultimately greatly altered and refined by human artists.

Maybe I'll get banned for this language, but it would be a net positive on my life anyways so whatever. My 'hysteria' isn't because of large corps. It's because I've had my artwork stolen and co-opted by disgusting tech bros who still haven't created anything of worth. Absolutely fuck generative AI and fuck people who support it. AI is a grift and built on the hard work of people who learned a craft. It literally cannot exist without straight up stealing. It benefits no one but the greedy sods behind it. It's anti-consumer (low quality output), anti-artist, and anti-human. There is a reason why in game design they say there is no such thing as an "ideas guy". You get off your ass and learn how to do something. Plenty of great games are made on little budget - Stardew Valley, Axiom Verge, Signalis, etc etc. Those who use the AI argument to create what they dream of are lazy and creatively bankrupt.

Pandora's box has been opened but I hope people with braincells to rub together will continue to push back against leeches.

-

In any case, I don't want AI voice acting for my character.

Not even slightly true the auto unwrap features are incredibly good now days when it comes to UV's. Lighting setups are basically a tweak job of numbers it's not really art in the normal sense, I suppose you could say it's close to photography or video editing but not really. You're literally just tweaking sliders/inputs until you get what you want. Most lighting rigs are engine bound and do plug and play for any game made in that engine, you can do a custom job and make your own lighting rig inside UE or unity but honestly I can't imagine most companies bother wasting the time, they will just tweak what's there. Ultimately it's more of a coding skill than art per say. There are very much Idea guys in the games industry, designers and directors are not necessarily implementers of features, generally designers will create the bare bones and layout how the feature will function before it's passed to specialists or other programmers, alot off people who have the design role have a bunch of all around skills, bit of art and bit of tech but roles in the industry are tricky lots of companies call the same job role completely different titles, but there are people in the industry who will be given the concept of a feature, they will knock up a proof of concept for design and then it will be passed along from there. The directors job is literally the idea, the game itself as a whole, their vision and direction leading the team towards it.

Generative AI will allow people to sequence a series of Ideas incredibly quickly, trying different themes and styles and then having an artist tweak it to fit just right. That's how it will be used in games, it is functionally no different than how the modern light rigs are compared to the old school, painted light maps.

You call it stealing, but 100% you learnt using other peoples work. It's a machine that's doing the same thing we all did learning.


I'm sorry you've been taken advantage of by shady people but hating Generative AI for that is like hating cars cause you got hurt by one once. It's not the car that's the issue it's the person on the other end, same as Corps or shady business, it's the people in operation not the tool that's the problem. Hating on Generative AI is pointless learn to adapt to it, use it yourself to enhance yourwork. I would point out that if they stole your actual character design and not used it as learning but genuinely took your IP, then you can seek legal measures against them, intellectual property is a thing, there's a difference between learning styles and stealing IP's. Overall though It's not healthy and you'll do yourself serious mental harm trying to fight up the stream like this on AI, it's an inevitability. As someone pointed out before in this thread, it's like the horse and cart industry getting mad about the automotive industry.

[PyurBlue]

Unless you are conflating "uses technology/AI" to "generative AI" this is completely false. Even lighting systems in games need human interaction to perfect. It is not an a simple algorithm that you just copy from another game and plug and play to a degree of success. Models are also not made by AI. Not even UV maps can be correctly made by AI and need humans to fix them. These things are ultimately greatly altered and refined by human artists.

Maybe I'll get banned for this language, but it would be a net positive on my life anyways so whatever. My 'hysteria' isn't because of large corps. It's because I've had my artwork stolen and co-opted by disgusting tech bros who still haven't created anything of worth. Absolutely fuck generative AI and fuck people who support it. AI is a grift and built on the hard work of people who learned a craft. It literally cannot exist without straight up stealing. It benefits no one but the greedy sods behind it. It's anti-consumer (low quality output), anti-artist, and anti-human. There is a reason why in game design they say there is no such thing as an "ideas guy". You get off your ass and learn how to do something. Plenty of great games are made on little budget - Stardew Valley, Axiom Verge, Signalis, etc etc. Those who use the AI argument to create what they dream of are lazy and creatively bankrupt.

Pandora's box has been opened but I hope people with braincells to rub together will continue to push back against leeches.

-

In any case, I don't want AI voice acting for my character.

I'm with you in standing against theft and the use of AI for minimum effort project, but those aren't reasons to try to stop a useful technology. AI does not rely on theft at all. Where the inputs used for learning come from has no bearing on the output. AI art may even create more opportunities for artists by increasing demand for art for training. You could make a similar argument against computers as they make copying art very very easy but banning them would have been extremely short sighted and harmful. Ire should be directed at the people that deserve it and not at something we all stand to benefit from.

[LordMcMutton]

I don't see support for the claim that generative AI entails theft. Not even Andreessen Horowitz makes the claim that AI development is impossible without free access to copyrighted material.

"Andreessen Horowitz is warning that billions of dollars in AI investments could be worth a lot less if companies developing the technology are forced to pay for the copyrighted data that makes it work."

I'm not sure what else you could glean from the fact that they're using copyrighted material without paying for it. (That's theft)

That's also just the only thing I happened to have on hand- I'm tired of wasting my time searching up sources for people that won't listen.

Other evidence is the fact that these systems can replicate specific people's art styles- the way they work means that can only be done by feeding them files of that specific person's artwork, which is using their work in a way they do not permit, which. Is. Theft.

https://www.fairlytrained.org/blog/n...odels-march-24

If it can be done, that's fine. What we have now is absolutely not.

You need to learn how to communicate without insulting others

I most certainly do not when my opponents' position entails support for mass theft and the destruction of my discipline.

In situations where it's merely a difference of opinion on something benign, then I do

You keep yelling that learning from others like a human is incorrect, then provide no evidence on why, other than a tweet by some artists who's public against AI. It's a fact that humans learn through trial and error iteration, just like AI. It's also a fact that human art students are taught to mimic other people's styles repeatedly, then they are taught to fuse styles together.

And the only evidence you have to say that they do is your own word, and the word of a bunch of idiots that zealously support "ai" garbage, so I'm not sure what point you think you're making here.

Additionally, I'd say they're far more qualified to speak on the matter than you are.

You say I have no idea how any of this functions, I studied as an artist for years, I went into the games industry for years and then left because most of the industry is incredibly toxic and pays poorly. I have a pretty good understanding of the industry and tools. An AI sampling your style is not theft any more that me sampling someone's style. You're basically against it because, machine, That's your only argument.

And? The fact that you spent all of that time in the field and still don't understand how this works is an indictment of yourself, not an argument for generative "ai" art theft.

[blah blah blah] sound similar to anything else..... kinda exactly how generative AI works.

Nope. For the reasons that have already been explained to you.

The only issue that's really there with Gen AI, is people trying to pass off Gen AI work as their own and asking for money for it. That's a tricky territory. As in, when you use Gen AI to make yourself a bunch of different version of something, you then work from that, tweaking and adapting it manually from there. Well is that the AI's work or yours now? That's a genuine question and something that needs to be discussed in law and industry.

It's always the system's work- you just 'commissioned' it.

No matter what additions you make, it's built off of stolen work.

End of story.

[Cynric]

I'd rather them let me record my own voice than have some AI generated voice speak for me.

Besides, I'm okay with the silent protagonist thing we have going on.

[Raven2014]

If you want to hear how AI voice would work, just go look up those gazillion funny/traffic/animal.etc. compilations on youtube that were uploaded by non-English speaker using AI reading off a script. At best, they sounds like generic commercial announcers, but you listen to it for a while and you'll realize it's extremely robotic.

I also know there has been a gust of people trying to implement AIchat/voice into game mod like Lydia Skyrim and a lot of people act like it's the best thing from slice bread. However, it only feels that good because it's an improvement from basically almost ground zero standard, and two I think it's just the technical aspect (AI is the new buzzword) that kinda starstruck people. But looking at it objectively, Lydia skyrim sounds extremely un-natural and does not come anywhere close to any of the popular companion mod that use real VAs, even the semi-amateurish one.


And lastly, you NEVER want to give companies the idea you will settle for less. Business 101 is always to figure out how to provide the least amount of service the customers will accept while trying to charge them the maximum amount without driving them away. If you let them walk down the AI path, it wouldn't be about how to provide you a "better" product, rather once they realize you are "ok" with it, then THAT will be exactly what you will get from then on. This is the reason why you see that massive strike from Hollywood writers unions last years, and why so many different sectors also strikes with them in solitary.

[Swordsman]

Original post

I'd be completely ok with having AI voices for non-essential side characters. IMHO, main characters like the Scions or the main antagonists should be voiced by real and talented VAs.

[KisaiTenshi]

So, what do you guys think?

AI voices should not be used when a proper voice acted voice could exist. That includes the main player character. That said, I don't see it ever happening for FFXIV, but it would be interesting for future MMO games to actually use the AI against the voice actor's data to make characters actually able to say the player's name for the few places that the player's name is important. Just have the server re-generate the lines in the language needed.

However I think on the whole, there is no way to make AI sound even 10% as good as the voice actors, so running into a lot of NPC's that are AI voice acted would quickly get annoying. However from an accessibility POV, an ability to "hear ALL NPC speech" would be welcome, since not every one reads fast. Since none of the job NPC's are voiced during job quests, likewise nothing in Hildibrand is voiced (other than Gilgamesh in combat instances) and that would require some comedic timing to do properly.

Ultimately though, TTS is far too immature to be used this way, and LLM-guided TTS still doesn't know what it's saying in order to deliver lines in an "good enough" way. So I would object to MSQ NPC's being AI at all.

[Minali]

A human brain is not a computer with a complex cloud of tagged images.

Anyone who compares these things unironically and says "isn't this the same?" just proves they know nothing about human brains nor computers.

[OgruMogru]

It's a taste issue. As in, if you like or support "generative" AI then you suffer from a critical lack of it.

[sophie13]

genAI is theft.
Who want their devs to become thieves?
I DONT.