Offline
Artificial Intelligence is here, like it or not, but what does the audience think of the use of the technology on the radio stations they listen to? Turns out, a small majority of those asked don't mind it at all. In a survey done by Futuri, 31% actually said use of a fake announcer on air would make them more likely to listen. Only 28% thought it was a tune-out.
Maybe it's because I fear for the jobs of so many talented people, but that number really worries me.
Another stat: a majority of people believed a live human broadcaster was AI generated. That's also pretty frightening if the technology is so good, most can't tell the difference.
A lot think AI can help radio make better choices about the music it plays. (So good luck with variety from one station to another if this happens!)
But this one is inexplicable to me:
"The willingness to hear AI-generated voices was greater for listeners to talk programming and podcasts than to who listen to music radio."
Talk radio is filled with opinions about controversial subjects. If ever you needed an actual honest-to-goodness real live person behind the mic talking about issues, it's in that format. How does a robot know which side to take?
The future has arrived. But if listeners don't care whether there's a person on the air or not, things could be looking even worse for jobs in an already shrinking industry. How could a Bell or Rogers not be tempted to take advantage of having one of their most important assets be free in perpetuity?
One-in-Five Listeners Thinks They Hear AI On Air
Offline
While AM talk radio may tackle "controversial" subjects, the host's take on these subjects usually sets the the tone for the response from callers, who are the life blood of any talk radio audience. People are not listening to AM talk radio to hear nuanced debate on economic policies or to get updates on the global geopolitical climate. They are listening to hear people get mad and stay mad, whether its about taxes, education, traffic problems or the weather. Anger is the fuel of talk radio. What Andy Barrie used to call the "great, unfocused rage" of people who believe that somehow, somewhere, someone is getting a better deal than they are and, boy oh boy, are they mad about it.
Given the rapid advances in AI technology, it sounds perfectly feasible to me to create artificial hosts who can parrot appropriate talking points on a variety of subjects designed to trigger angry responses from callers and the listening audience. Using call screeners and delays, it's also perfectly feasible to filter out any calls where the host's viewpoint might be challenged. Is it right or ethical? That's debatable. But as Barry, the talk radio host in Oliver Stone's 1988 film "Talk Radio" put it" I'm providing a public service."
Offline
I'm not going to dispute what you say, necessarily, but I'd rather hear whatever vitriol comes in from a live person than a pre-programmed robot. At least they can be argued with.
And then there's this: if the talk show host can be A.I., how long before the "callers" are, too?
Soon we'll have radio stations that only robots listen to.
Offline
For CHFI, maybe it's time to retire John Tesh and toss on the AI system. It will be more entertaining (and more local to Canada) than John Tesh.
For Boom maybe it can be more effective than "the machine".
It would be just plain weird hearing AI on Today radio though...
Offline
RadioActive wrote:
Soon we'll have radio stations that only robots listen to.
Not if the advertisers can help it. A line is drawn if there's nobody to advertise to.
Offline
RadioActive wrote:
I'm not going to dispute what you say, necessarily, but I'd rather hear whatever vitriol comes in from a live person than a pre-programmed robot. At least they can be argued with.
And then there's this: if the talk show host can be A.I., how long before the "callers" are, too?
Soon we'll have radio stations that only robots listen to.
If you mean the concept of two individuals exchanging in a rational debate about ideas and concepts based on a common understanding of the world, you'll be surprised to learn that few of the current crop of AM radio talk show hosts are interested in arguing. Few people who are interested in a genuine exchange of ideas can be bothered to call into talk radio shows. Even if they did, hosts are taught not to lose control of a call and often resort to overriding a negative caller or simply hanging up. Talk radio is first and foremost entertainment.
I think I can say without fear of contradiction that the future you've envisioned is already under consideration by some radio execs. Why bother with the expense of hiring a real person and run the risk of real callers uttering illegal or libelous rants on-air when you can just create two hours of pre-programmed chatter on any topic under the sun using technology? Sure beats working for a living.
Last edited by BowmanvilleBob (April 16, 2024 7:15 pm)
Offline
RadioActive wrote:
I'm not going to dispute what you say, necessarily, but I'd rather hear whatever vitriol comes in from a live person than a pre-programmed robot. At least they can be argued with.
And then there's this: if the talk show host can be A.I., how long before the "callers" are, too?
Soon we'll have radio stations that only robots listen to.
Maybe the AI would change the topics of talk radio more often and talk radio would rise from the ashes , If I hear the term Carbon Tax one more time . Apparently human hosts and programmers are not .