Submitted by carigheath t3_z5i7r7 in boston
pillbinge t1_ixwxj0i wrote
Reply to comment by Ordie100 in Say your goodbyes, it appears Frank Ogelsby’s voice will be leaving the Green Line soon by carigheath
How could it backfire? And wouldn't it by now? You're defending cost-cutting measures that just make the world a bit more sterile, and it's not like it's expensive to really record a person's voice.
Ordie100 t1_ixx0dfz wrote
Eventually Frank won't be around to record for one reason or another and we'll end up either having random words and stops be in different voices or having to replace it all then. He's 60 years old he can't keep recording new phrases forever. Also while not expensive, just think of the hassle every time the MBTA wants to move a bus stop for example, something they're going to be doing an awful lot of over the next 6 years with the Bus Network Redesign. There are literally thousands of stops
Using a computer generated voice also lets you make non-routine announcements on the fly, like voice overs announcing delays or upcoming construction work. Those already use a computerized voice.
Wonder if they could contract Frank and a third party to generate an AI voice model of him.
Silverline_Surfer t1_ixxq64c wrote
There are sensible solutions to this problem. By 2060 we could have every bus and train operated by a clone of Frank Ogelsby - with a Charlie card chip brain implant to ensure loyalty - who simply performs all of the announcements manually, thereby leading to a flawless rendition every time.
Just uhh… make sure keep an eye on bus 66.
disco_t0ast t1_ixyyxhe wrote
>There are sensible solutions to this problem. By 2060 we could have every bus and train operated by a clone of Frank Ogelsby - with a Charlie card chip brain implant to ensure loyalty - who simply performs all of the announcements manually, thereby leading to a flawless rendition every time.
>
>Just uhh… make sure keep an eye on bus 66.
This is the best thing I've read all day.
FourAM t1_ixxc40m wrote
Adobe had (never released, demo’d in 2016) software that can do it from existing samples of a person’s speech. Like an audio deepfake, in real-time on a desktop. Was called Voco and was part of Audition.
Someone’s probably got something similar out there.
ipsumdeiamoamasamat t1_ixxsxhr wrote
It was used during the Anthony Bourdain documentary to voice some of his written words, and it was pretty controversial.
disco_t0ast t1_ixyz8g8 wrote
Seems like there could be ethical and privacy issues with his voice being that easily replicated.
Imagine calling his bank? "Yes of course I'm the real slim sh...i mean frank oglesby. You think I'm some AI replication?"
pillbinge t1_ixxd04q wrote
This is a lot of mental legwork to avoid the idea that they could just hire someone else when he's done-done. They could also have several people voicing them. It isn't hard to just have someone voice all the new stops as they're created.
Teddyteddy5525 t1_ixzdgov wrote
That would be kicking the problem down the road. People would flip then instead of now that they changed the voice. Moving to an automated system means it’s future-proof, consistent and more importantly cheap (for the MBTA).
pillbinge t1_iy08drx wrote
It's not a problem that someone may leave, or that they may die. That's life. It isn't a problem to be solver.
If you think automated things are futureproof, I don't know what to tell you. The idea of being "futureproof" is only introduced by technology itself. It's futureproof until the license runs out, or something else happens behind the scene. Why the same person voicing everything wouldn't be consistent is beyond make; makes me think you're not really looking at this from a real point of view and are tossing out clichés that come with discussions about technology.
Teddyteddy5525 t1_iy13inc wrote
First of all, what is this Technology you keep mentioning? Do you mean like people in tech? Do you think it’s just a blanket term to be used when discussing new inventions?
and
> It’s not a problem that someone may leave, or that they may die. That’s life. It isn’t a problem to be solver.
People are literally complaining about it in this post. This is the fundamental issue automated announcements solve. Your voice actor can pass away or leave and you will still be able to use their voice so people like those in this post don’t lose their shit.
Futureproof is the concept of having technology that does not need to be constantly updated and overhauled. Your argument is going into semantics of it being a completely hands-off system but for example licenses can be contracted in perpetuity. My point being that the automated system is future-proof unless they wish to change it. The quality will not degrade or change like actual voice actors and adding more announcements don’t require any new costs.
I agree with you that it should be unified voice. But this again is a point for automating public announcements. A new T line in 2022 can use the same voice as the current ones and also potential new developments in 2040.
I have a feeling you have a healthy distrust of “technology” which is fine but let’s not ignore the tangible benefits of improvements.
pillbinge t1_iy5bj1n wrote
The marvelous technology of recording a voice, that's been around for a fairly long time. This issue is being overly complicated when it's simple. Just have someone voice the announcements so it's more human. It isn't difficult. That they're replacing it without word (on my end) that he wants to step down is a different but related topic.
The semantics of futureproof are very important. "Semantics" isn't a cliché to wave away a topic.
>A new T line in 2022 can use the same voice as the current ones and also potential new developments in 2040.
Why are you invested in this so strongly? This is very odd. It's like you're anxious about solving a problem that doesn't need solving.
>benefits of improvements.
This is a benefit to some bottom line, not a benefit to the service. And having someone do the voices isn't that big a deal. I'm certainly skeptical of technology is a healthy way; it has to prove useful. In this case, it proves useful to management, not designers. Or anyone, really. I have a feeling you jump way too quickly into the idea that any technological improvement is some universal good.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments