Offline
This is actually good news for those who are worried about Artificial Intelligence taking over everything. Turns out when surveyed, listeners overwhelmingly reject being presented with A.I. generated voices and content.
It comes at a time when the industry is in flux and the temptation for stations to simply turn on a bot and play music looks like a money-saving choice.
But they might do so at their own peril, as the already shaky audience continues to shrink.
"While 62% believe AI will improve workplace productivity and 53% expect it to boost economic growth, 61% worry it will destroy more jobs than it creates. These concerns particularly resonate in creative industries like radio, where human talent has traditionally been irreplaceable. 77% of on-air talent were concerned about losing jobs to AI in 2024, per Jacobs Media’s AQ6."
Studies Reveal Growing Listener Disdain For AI Use In Audio
Offline
I have only heard a couple of AI generated on-air talent and it all cases, it has been fairly horrible. No doubt it will improve, but it could take a while. My main criticism is that it always seems flat/soulless, probably because it is!
Offline
I trust 'surveys' less and less. They're so biased and I've experienced the 'expand the sample till we get the result we need' syndrome.
If the great unwashed general audience can tell content is AI then it's crap. AI has the potential to deliver the best, most entertaining, and prepared radio hosts on the planet, but only if they are correctly programmed. It's no different than the early days of voice tracking. Some people did it and it sounded like they were live 24/7 and others couldn't do one break that was believable.
It will happen, 'broadcasters' will hate it, but listeners will inevitably end up with far smoother, more informed and targeted content, and they will win in the end.
ig.
Offline
Shorty Wave wrote:
I have only heard a couple of AI generated on-air talent and it all cases, it has been fairly horrible. No doubt it will improve, but it could take a while. My main criticism is that it always seems flat/soulless, probably because it is!
There are enough flat/soulless humans on the air currently, no need for AI.
Offline
In the last few decades, when has the radio industry really cared about what their listeners think?
Offline
I suspect most radio owners aren't going to pay attention to surveys like that and just plow ahead with whatever saves the most amount of bucks.
Not to mention, listeners don't hold radio hosts in as high regard as they did many moons ago. With a few exceptions, most listeners tend to look upon the DJ as the dummy that talks in between the songs and likely couldn't care less whether it's human or computer-generated.
PJ
Offline
I can't say that I've heard any of this on the radio, but I've seen/heard plenty of YouTube videos with text-to-speech narration (which isn't technically AI, but soulless all the same).
It seems pretty easy to catch with weird inflections, or none at all. Strange pronunciations are also an easy tell.
Offline
Ai is good if you don't have fill-in hosts and you still want your station to be hosted.
I found 11 labs is the most human sounding.
But, stations should still have human hosts.
AI should be kepped to overnights, early weekend mornings, and christmas and only on music stations.
And they should only be alowed to say song tytle and artists, the weather, and the time and have humans for the rest including programming/teaching the AI and not let AI takover programming.
Who ever's dumb enuf to use it for news, you made mistakes.