They should have gone the other route and just had the woman from 2 point Museum/Campus so it, complete with sarcastic remarks.
"The train is delayed, but you know that already"
this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2025
281 points (96.7% liked)
Technology
72362 readers
2675 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- 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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Pay the lady!
This is stealing her voice. It's just plain wrong.
What I really don't understand is, even if you think AI voice is okay, why not just make an original voice? Why you got to steal somebody's voice? Or if you don't want to do that, why not just get consent for the specific thing you're doing? Don't take advantage of the fact that she previously recorded her voice as an aid for the blind and steal her voice because of some small text in a contract. That's dishonest and pathetic.
You're the railway. Do you know how many people love and obsess over trains and railways? There are probably tons of people who would pay to hear an AI version of their voice coming from the train speakers. How did it come to this? How incompetent can you be?
What you really don't understand is, AI making an original voice is a pipe dream. You can average out voices of many different people who all had their content stolen. Originality is outside of its training set.
There are different things we're calling AI. One is engaging in endeavors that are traditionally seen as creative, like text or image generation.
The AI we are talking about for this story is a text to speech engine that creates a believable voice. The voice parameters may be created by a human or AI or whatever. But that creation of the parameters of a voice is not the type of AI that we are talking about in this story.
There are probably tons of people who would pay to hear an AI version of their voice coming from the train speakers.
Yeah, but it needs to be clear, and as much as I love Dave from the pub, he tends to mumble.
why not just get consent for the thing that you’re doing
I would imagine because consent would require opening the door to paying someone for use of their likeness, and if they were going to pay someone fairly they could just pay a voice actor. The whole thing is a means of getting what they want without paying for it
That's not disturbing; that's completely fucked up.
If they want to buy data to use for AI, they can pay someone to license their voice for its use. What they've done is no different to bootlegging, but it's worse because it's personally identifiable data.
Bro, do you really want to ruin tech bros because they would suddenly have to PAY for the data they use? Mark and Jeff would have to sell some of their yachts and Private jets to afford paying fair prices for AI data!
Are you trying to imply that large corporations should play by the same rules us plebes are held to? How cute.
Do they pay people for use of their voice when they get a cheaper voice actor in who sounds just like them?
No.
But often those people sue and win. Midler v. Ford, for example.
Frankly I'm horrified that it would go that way and wasn't aware there were cases like this with sound alike voice actors unless the voice was misleading stated to be of someone it wasn't.
Yes, the use of the voice was intentionally misleading. That's why it was decided the way it was.