Yeah, except royalties in music are almost always a joke. Those artists are going to make much less off their AI voice than if they actually appeared in studio and the end product is going to be worse. If AI cost the same or more, there would be no market for it. Relevant story about Hollywood actors who sold AI likenesses.
Even if it was actually “ethically trained”, the end result is still horrible.
Also, paying to have an AI Snoop Dogg in your song is the lamest shit I’ve ever heard.
If you’ve sold them your voice under the condition they can do whatever they like with it, I don’t see it being unethical. You walked into it informed (presumably) and accepted the “pennies” (presumably). It may be stupid. What comes out may be shit. But it’s not “unethical”.
If they stole your voice, or if you had content limits that they breached, or if they’re paying you less than you agreed for, then yes, it’s unethical.
Voice Swap was not trained on any data that wasn’t “ethically gained.”
Read the bottom of their FAQ that lists the exact databases in question.
The couple of datasets they used on top of all the data they directly pay artists to consensually provide have permissive licenses that only require attribution for use, and gathered their information directly from a group of willing, consenting participants.
They are quite literally the exception to the rule of companies claiming they’re ethical, then using non-ethically sourced data as a base for their models.
I don’t mean to “um achtually” you or diminish the point you’re making, but I would like to highlight one example of an ethnically trained AI.
Voice Swap pay artist to come in and record data for training, the artist then get royalties any time someone uses their voice. I discovered it through Benn Jordan’s video about poising music track from AI training.
Yeah, except royalties in music are almost always a joke. Those artists are going to make much less off their AI voice than if they actually appeared in studio and the end product is going to be worse. If AI cost the same or more, there would be no market for it. Relevant story about Hollywood actors who sold AI likenesses.
Even if it was actually “ethically trained”, the end result is still horrible.
Also, paying to have an AI Snoop Dogg in your song is the lamest shit I’ve ever heard.
“It’s shit” is different from “it’s unethical”.
If people want to pay for shit, let them pay for shit. They can’t make me listen.
Someone saying whatever heinous shit they want using your voice seems a bit unethical, as does getting paid pennies for it.
If you’ve sold them your voice under the condition they can do whatever they like with it, I don’t see it being unethical. You walked into it informed (presumably) and accepted the “pennies” (presumably). It may be stupid. What comes out may be shit. But it’s not “unethical”.
If they stole your voice, or if you had content limits that they breached, or if they’re paying you less than you agreed for, then yes, it’s unethical.
That AI was trained on absolute mountains of data that wasn’t ethically gained, though.
Just because an emerald ring is assembled by a local jeweler doesn’t mean the diamond didn’t come from slave labor in South Africa.
Voice Swap was not trained on any data that wasn’t “ethically gained.”
Read the bottom of their FAQ that lists the exact databases in question.
The couple of datasets they used on top of all the data they directly pay artists to consensually provide have permissive licenses that only require attribution for use, and gathered their information directly from a group of willing, consenting participants.
They are quite literally the exception to the rule of companies claiming they’re ethical, then using non-ethically sourced data as a base for their models.