There are uses of AI that are proving to be more than black and white. While voice actors, have protested their performances being fed into AI against their will, we are now seeing an example of this being done, with permission, in a very unique case.
Permission from the family, not the person who died. Is it okay for ai actors if the actors are dead and the family wants to get paid?
I really don’t like the idea of doing it for entirely new performances but it doesn’t seem about the money in this case.
Well, that’s where we are going.
The reaction this is getting is simply going to fuel execs who now see that people are okay with it. And if they are okay with dead actors, they will be okay with live actors in a few years after they are used to that.
The correct answer to all of this was the same answer we have had for as long as humans have performed, everyone acknowledges that the character won’t continue and the media pays respect in some way for the performance the actor actually gave.
This resurrects the actor without the permission of the actor just of their family who may or may not have understood what was happening. Which is likely going to be the norm from here on out.
I don’t want an AI ressurectiin of Lance Riddick in the next Horizon game either. Do you want that?
To be fair it is notoriously difficult to get permission from someone who has died.
If we can’t have necromancy in real life, then this will be the best we can get to bringing the dead back to life.
Do you have a problem with the family of a deceased writer who inherited the rights to their work given the writer’s will deciding on the publishing agreements for that writer’s work?
Should we have to resort to necromancy in order to even touch any new agreements regarding the work of the deceased?
This isn’t the creators work. This is using ai to create new things. This is akin to having an ai write a new lord of the rings sequel.
Oh, so you’d take issue with something like writing Lord of the Rings scripts based on the books, and then making movies based on the scripts?
Or maybe you have a problem with something like the family agreeing to the creation of a TV series covering time periods outside the author’s original scope of work?
What a horrid world we might end up living in if things like that were allowed to happen…
I likely lead you astray by being short on my phone, let me alter my statement to say
which is more directly comparable to this situation. “J.R.R Tolkens new book, The Lord of the Rings: 2 electric boogaloo”
No, it really isn’t.
The actor agreed to voice the character in the base game. As far as I’m aware there is no evidence of a soured relationship with the developers, no reason to deduce he would have refused to continue voicing the character were he still alive.
It would be unethical to use a dead actor’s voice in a way they would have a good reason to object to if they could, but this doesn’t seem to be the case here.
I disagree with this entirely. You can not say"well they worked with them in the past so they must have been totally okay with an ai resurrection post death"
That’s not what I’m saying at all.
This is not an AI resurrection.
This is an advanced voice changer.
They are hiring another actor to play the character, and then using a voice changer to make the new actor sound like the previous one. Were it not for the permission of the family, they would have re-cast the part, and re-recorded all of Reczek’s lines from the base game to be consistent with the re-casting. The decision is between scrubbing his previous work, or using a voice changer.
In 2016 Disney released Rogue One, a film which featured a digital recreation of Peter Cushing, who had been dead for 22 years prior to the film’s release. Do you consider that more or less unethical than Miłogost Reczek’s voice being redone in the Cyberpunk DLC?
I reject your statement about it not being ai resurrection, it absolutely is. 100%. you can try and weasel out of it by saying “Oh but they had another actor provide the base that the ai model ran against”, it doesn’t change a single thing.
It’s the same exact problem.
I reject your assumption that he is against this. So many people have spent their lives creating art in a vein attempt to be remembered beyond their own lifetime. You are disrespecting the dead by assuming, without evidence, that he must have been against this, simply because you find it distasteful.
Peter Cushing died in 1994. He died well before any of this technology was possible. He couldn’t possibly foresee the advances of technology in the two decades beyond his death. Cushing couldn’t make his opinion on this subject known during his life because this technology wasn’t even close to existing. However, Reczek could.
Reczek died in 2021. Technology to re-create dead actors was around for many years of his life. This was a well known fact, and a matter of public debate. Discussions on the ethics of this have been going for years before his death. He had every reasonable opportunity to make an informed opinion on this subject, and make that view known.
I have found no evidence that Reczek objected to this sort of thing. I have seen no evidence that the family or the studio are violating any stated or implied objection, nor are they doing this in a disrespectful way.
Similar situations come all the time for deceased musicians and writers. that get work released after they die. You can also see the family being proud of the legacy. It’s always a mix of greed and pride, some cases go more to one side that other.