The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, the union for voice actors and creatives, recently circulated a video of voice actor Thomas G. Burt describing the impact of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) on his livelihood.
Voice actors have been hit hard by GenAI, particularly those working in the video game sector. Many are contract workers without ongoing employment, and for some game companies already feeling the squeeze, supplementing voice-acting work with GenAI is just too tempting.
View this post on Instagram
Audio work – whether music, sound design or voice acting – already lacks strong protections. Recent research from my colleagues and I on the use of GenAI and automation in producing music for Australian video games reveals a messy picture.
Facing the crunch
A need for greater productivity, increased turnarounds, and budget restraints in the Australian games sector is incentivising the accelerated uptake of automation.
The games sector is already susceptible to “crunch”, or unpaid overtime, to reach a deadline. This crunch demands faster workflows, increasing automation and the adoption of GenAI throughout the sector.
The Australian games industry is also experiencing a period of significant contraction, with many workers facing layoffs. This has constrained resources and increased the prevalence of crunch, which may increase reliance on automation at the expense of re-skilling the workforce.
One participant told us:
the fear that I have going forward for a lot of creative forms is I feel like this is going to be the fast fashion of art and of text.
Mixed emotions and fair compensation
Workers in the Australian games industry have mixed feelings about the impact of GenAI, ranging from hopeful to scared.
Audio workers are generally more pessimistic than non-audio games professionals. Many see GenAI as extractive and potentially exploitative. When asked how they see the future of the sector, one participant responded:
I would say negative, and the general feeling being probably fear and anxiety, specifically around job security.
Others noted it will increase productivity and efficiency:
[when] synthesisers started being made, people were like, ‘oh, it’s going to replace musicians. It’s going to take jobs away’. And maybe it did, but like, it also opened up this whole other world of possibilities for people to be creative.
Regardless, most participants expressed concerns about whether a GenAI model was ethically trained and whether licensing can be properly remunerated, concerns echoed by the union.
Those we spoke with believed the authors of any material used to train AI data-sets should be fairly compensated and/or credited.
An “opt-in” licensing model has been proposed by unions as a compromise. This states a creators’ data should only be used for training GenAI under an opt-in basis, and the use of content to train generative AI models should be subject to consent and compensation.
Taboos, confusion and loss of community
Some audio professionals interested in working with GenAI do not feel like they can speak openly about the subject, as it is seen as taboo:
There’s like this feeling of dread and despair, just completely swirling around our entire creative field of people. And it doesn’t need to be like that. We just need to have the right discussions, and we can’t have the right discussions if everyone’s hair is on fire.
The technology is clearly divisive, despite perceived benefits.
Several participants expressed concerns about the prevalence of GenAI may reduce collaboration across the sector. They feared this could result in an erosion of professional community, as well as potential loss of institutional knowledge and specific creative skills:
I really like working with people […] And handing that over to a machine, like, I can’t be friends with the machine […] I want to work with someone who’s going to come in and completely shake up the way, you know, our project works.
The Australian games sector is reliant on a highly networked but often precarious set of workers, who move between projects based on need and demand for certain skills.
The ability to replace such skills with automation may lead to siloing and a deterioration of greater professional collaboration.
But there are benefits to be had
Many workers in the games audio sector see automation as helpful in terms of administration, ideation, workshopping, programming and as an educational tool:
In terms of automation, I see it as, like, utilities. For example, being a developer, I write scripts. So, if I’m doing something and it’s gonna take me a long time, I’ll automate it by writing a script.
These systems also have helpful applications for neurodivergent professionals and workers who may struggle with time management or other attention-related issues.
Over half of participants said AI and automation allow more time for creativity, as workers can automate the more tedious elements of their workflow:
I suffer like anyone else from writer’s block […] If you can give me a piece of software that is trained off me, that I could say, ‘I need something that’s in my house style, make me something’, and a piece of software could spit back at me a piece of music that sounds like me that I could go, ‘oh, that’s exactly it’, I would do it. That would save me an incalculable amount of time.
Many professionals who would prefer not to use AI said they would consider using it in the face of time or budget constraints. Others stated GenAI allows teams and individuals to deliver more work than they would without it:
Especially with deadlines always being as short as they are, I think a lot of automation can help to focus on the more creative and decision-based aspects.
Many workers within the digital audio space are already working hard to create ethical alternatives to AI theft.
Although GenAI may be here to stay, a balance between the efficiencies provided should not come at the cost of creative professions.
- is a Vice-Chancellor’s Senior Research Fellow, RMIT University
- This article first appeared in The Conversation
