Comment on Amazon’s AI ‘Banana Fish’ Dubs Are Hilariously, Inexcusably Bad

• mo_lave@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  According to the beta testers, and the Internet, listeners abhorred the LLM localization & actual tone-deaf Speech audio dubbing. Keeping the original dubbings is simply what folks want, esp. if it’s labeled abridged.

  Yes, at its current state. Will it stay that way? The tech companies are burning cash in attempts to make it not so. My hunch says even Vocaloid-tier AI dubbing will be enough for a large sector of the audience. Then the human vs. AI dubbing debate could be analogous to debates between lossy (more accessible) vs. lossless (higher quality) audio.

  source

  • AntiBullyRanger@ani.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    The only thing funny about mentioning Vocaloid is the fact that Vocaloid synthesis has to be manually pitched, tempod, and toned🤣. Glad you honestly believe capitalists want to invest more on disqualifying tone deafening pitchless speech waveforms.

    But please, never stop supporting espeak!

    source

    • mo_lave@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      espeaks looks pretty cool. Thanks for sharing.

      source
  • Unboxious@ani.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Now, LLM localization is the greater challenge. I highly doubt those, including the classic machine-learning models, can reach N1-level localization quality.

    There’s no chance it’s happening any time soon. Many manga and anime lean heavily on visual context to clear up situations where the language would otherwise be ambiguous, so until the translation software can also use that visual context it’s basically impossible.

    source
  • Susaga@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    It’s amusing to me how long people have been saying “yes, AI is crap, but it might not be crap some day, so just you wait!” Despite all the money tech companies have thrown at AI, it’s still as crap as it ever was, and I don’t see any reason to think it’ll get better.

    Meanwhile, Crunchyroll doesn’t care if it’s crap, so long as they can get around the cost of paying humans (which is another can of worms). If they’re willing to buy this level of quality, what incentive is there for quality to improve?

    source

    • mo_lave@reddthat.com ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      yes, AI is crap, but it might not be crap some day, so just you wait!”

      I mean, there’s a gap between the capabilities of Cleverbot and ChatGPT, as referenced in this very comments section. As much as one wishes it not be so, it would be foolish to ignore past technological leaps—and how people back then laugh them off as impossible.

      source

      • Susaga@sh.itjust.works ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        I don’t see any significant differences between ChatGPT and Cleverbot, if I’m honest. It might have a wider array of responses to pick between, but it’s still making the same mistakes.

        It would be foolish to ignore past tech bubbles, and how people back then claimed they’d fix all their problems in the near future and you need to jump on now or you won’t survive (and how none of them survived).

        source

        • -> View More Comments