[nubg]

The problem being? If the content is good enough and the narration fine (it took you a while to even notice), why does it matter?

> Like is it really easier to generate a video with fake AI narration than just narrating it yourself?

Yes?

Also, they can iterate quicker (don't have to rerecord if content changes).

[MiroslavPokorny]

Maybe its me, but having a human narrate the text is one part of a guarantee that shows an actual team of a few experts took the time to prepare the text and review the finished product.

[B-Con]

A human reader for a popular product is generally a paid actor who reads the script nearly verbatim, not a domain expert, so it has no bearing on the technical quality of the script.

[dannersy]

You may be correct, but from a user experience and product standpoint, you'll never get around the fact that if something doesn't feel real then it will also feel less quality and thus less valuable. Whether you like this about the human experience or not is irrelevant, since they are selling something they expect humans to use and buy, and one would hope they'd want their customers to come away from it feeling like they got their money's worth.

[ffsm8]

there is definitely a cost of doing either.

because if its human narrated, the likelihood of it being up-to-date drops because _updating it after changes costs actual money_, whereas the ai naratted likely only needs to have its script adjusted to kick of the generation pipeline.

it really depends on how well its actually implemented imo - and i have no idea how well this particular case is in parctice, as i've never worked with perforce.

nonetheless, charging for such a video is kinda incredible. i was just adressing the difference between human anrrated and ai narrated.

[dannersy]

I mean, yeah, if I'm going off the cuff it seems like a scam either way. What you describe is just regular product stuff, AI doesn't change that much here. Though, what I do see that is different from the usually is companies attempting to cut corners but not reducing prices. They're keeping prices high that may have reflected a cost to production and that has suddenly taken a nose dive.

[thrance]

A human voice is just a marker that some effort and care went into the making of this video. With AI voices, it's lazy slop more often than not.

[jstanley]

I too judge books by their covers.

[HPsquared]

It's all information that feeds into the Bayesian.

[mattmaroon]

Everyone does. That’s why publishers put care into cover art.

[wkjagt]

I recently bought a book I've been wanting to read at a thrift store. I almost didn't buy it because it was a later reprint with an uglier cover that now says "Now a major motion picture starring Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock".

[iamsaitam]

Commitment. The chances it's sloppy content are much higher when the presentation costs very little.

[dspillett]

> If the content is good enough and the narration fine (it took you a while to even notice), why does it matter?

I tend to assume that the production has been cheaper but they aren't passing any of the saving on to me. They are pushing the human out of the loop for the bottom line, and there is no benefit to anyone but the company.

ML/AI is a bonus for society in many things like medical scanning, helping the blind interact with the world, etc, but nobody is using AI voiceovers like this example for anything other than helping the company's bottom line by avoiding paying people.

The great displacement isn't just coming, it is here and happening all around us. I for one am doing what (very little) I can to avoid helping it along and that includes refusing AI generated content wherever practical. I'll accept it from a small local business that possibly has little other choice ATM, because of they pay for someone to do the job they'll probably use generative AI anyway, but not from a larger company.

[tjpnz]

It's a strong signal that the person or organization "creating" said video views the person consuming it with open contempt.

[TZubiri]

I would argue it's fraudulent. There's loads of text to speech synthesizers that work just fine but sound robotic. The huge technological advancement of tihs technology is that it 'sounds human', even if it isn't.

LLMs are great, but we should stop bundling fake image generation and fake voice generation with it and calling it AI.

If you truly believe that there's no problem, and that it's fine, then use a TTS technology that didn't spend a gigajillion dollars on trying to sound like it's not what it actually is.

It's like selling soy pellets with synthetic meat flavour and making it look like meat and selling it in butcher shops and not clarifying that it's not actually meat.

On the one hand, I personally believe that meat is better, yes, but on the other hand, that's not what I am going to discuss and it's a disservice to argue about how meat is better, all you need to know is that if you try to pull this off, you will be indistinguishable from unethical fraudsters. Not saying you or Perforce are one at this point, we are all dazzled and confused by the technology, but down the line, when regulations settle in, there will be no gray area, do not do this shit if you care about your reputation. Only do this shit if you want to make quick bucks during during the boom and before the bust.

[dolebirchwood]

I've subscribed to paid courses in the past, and sometimes the speaker's voice would be so off-putting that it would really drag down the quality of the experience (looking at you, Steve Kinney). I'd have paid extra to have an option to replace with an AI voice.

[paganel]

The problem is that I personally have a visceral hate against AI-voices.

[wkjagt]

Same for me. And it's not even rational. Even if I know the information is good, I'm just so put off by it that I am unable to follow.