CGI? I’m sure it is. But what is the giveaway?

[Packard]

Maybe.

Or maybe the budget wasn’t enough to support a paid actor and they would have used someone’s friend or do a different style of ad.

Any policy that reduces the total amount of acting work available will eventually and effectively reduce the income of actors. Can I substantiate it with data? No. But when UBER became available in NYC, the taxi income was reduced. It made the local news at the time. I see direct parallels.

 

[Eank1954]

I heard a voice-over on a TV ad and I was certain it was computer generated. I listened to it again and the cadence and loudness was too uniform to be real. I’m sure that could be addressed, but a give-away in 2025. Of course sone TV actor lost out on some work because of this. In fact many people will end up without work if AI progresses as they say it will.

I am reminded of the movie “War Games” where the computer played games using nuclear weapons instead of pawns, rooks, bishops and queens and kings. At the end it concluded that the game was stupid as everyone lost.

More accurately (“M.A.D.” = Mutual Assured Destruction, the Cold War’s rationale.)

In the final scene of "WarGames", the computer, Joshua, reveals its "strange game" analysis, concluding that nuclear war leads to mutual assured destruction ("WINNER: NONE"). The computer then offers to play "a nice game of chess" instead.


On a lighter note, if you want a thrill where timing and strategy matter — but without the stakes of global destruction — I often turn to platforms like https://mostbett2.pk/ in Pakistan. It’s a fun way to test your decision-making skills and enjoy a game of chance safely.

You’re totally right — AI voice-overs are getting incredibly convincing, but that uniformity and lack of subtle variation can still give them away. It’s a bit uncanny, and I agree it’s going to impact work for voice actors and others in the industry if the technology keeps progressing.


I love the “WarGames” reference — it’s such a timeless reminder of the risks of over-reliance on technology and logic without human judgment. The “WINNER: NONE” moment really captures the futility of escalation, and Joshua suggesting chess instead is such a clever, subtle way to highlight strategy over destruction. Makes you wonder how much we’re still learning from those old cautionary tales.

 

[luvmytoolz]

I used AI in anger for the first time last week to generate a monogram for some laser engraving, and I must admit I was a little blown away at the complexity I was able to get it to generate. In the hands of a skilled person you could actually generate quite an income doing graphics, etc.

 

[Eank1954]

I heard a voice-over on a TV ad and I was certain it was computer generated. I listened to it again and the cadence and loudness was too uniform to be real. I’m sure that could be addressed, but a give-away in 2025. Of course sone TV actor lost out on some work because of this. In fact many people will end up without work if AI progresses as they say it will.

I am reminded of the movie “War Games” where the computer played games using nuclear weapons instead of pawns, rooks, bishops and queens and kings. At the end it concluded that the game was stupid as everyone lost.

More accurately (“M.A.D.” = Mutual Assured Destruction, the Cold War’s rationale.)

In the final scene of "WarGames", the computer, Joshua, reveals its "strange game" analysis, concluding that nuclear war leads to mutual assured destruction ("WINNER: NONE"). The computer then offers to play "a nice game of chess" instead.

The comparison to WarGames and the concept of M.A.D. is actually quite poetic when applied to the current job market. If every industry replaces humans with AI to save costs, eventually there might be no "players" left with the income to actually buy the products being advertised. It becomes a different kind of "strange game" where, economically, the winner is none.

 

[Packard]

The comparison to WarGames and the concept of M.A.D. is actually quite poetic when applied to the current job market. If every industry replaces humans with AI to save costs, eventually there might be no "players" left with the income to actually buy the products being advertised. It becomes a different kind of "strange game" where, economically, the winner is none.

And my supermarket has a robot that wanders the aisles. The management says it is looking for packages that have fallen from the shelves, but I have my doubts that is all the information that they are looking for.

The Supermarket Superstardom of Marty the Stop & Shop Robot

Inside the accidental fame of Stop & Shop’s slow-rolling sensation.

www.bostonmagazine.com

 

[Crazyraceguy]

I heard a voice-over on a TV ad and I was certain it was computer generated. I listened to it again and the cadence and loudness was too uniform to be real. I’m sure that could be addressed, but a give-away in 2025. Of course sone TV actor lost out on some work because of this. In fact many people will end up without work if AI progresses as they say it will.

I am reminded of the movie “War Games” where the computer played games using nuclear weapons instead of pawns, rooks, bishops and queens and kings. At the end it concluded that the game was stupid as everyone lost.

More accurately (“M.A.D.” = Mutual Assured Destruction, the Cold War’s rationale.)

In the final scene of "WarGames", the computer, Joshua, reveals its "strange game" analysis, concluding that nuclear war leads to mutual assured destruction ("WINNER: NONE"). The computer then offers to play "a nice game of chess" instead.

It's not just TV anymore, a large percentage of Youtube commentary (some even claiming to be news) have generated voices. A few even go as far as syncing it to a "human" face/torso, rather than just voice-over.

The message I got from War Games, was the whole point is "not to play"
But, the only real way to do that is voluntarily. You have to be "able" to play......and specifically choose not to.
Not playing, when you can't, means nothing.

Funny you mentioned supermarkets. I have been seeing a trend among some of the big ones reducing or eliminating the self-checkout registers. Many stores have had one or two, for many years, at one end or the other of the regular cashiers row. Initially, it was just grocery stores, which I somewhat understood. They often have extreme "busy times" where lines might build up, but they don't last long enough for extra staff, which would be doing nothing otherwise. Scheduling for that would be difficult. Adding one or two self-checkouts, would take off some of that pressure, especially for those with very few items.
They went wild, adding multiple new self-checkouts. Ostensibly, this was a C19 reaction, to cut down on contact. It also gave the added benefit of cutting out employees. Once again though, "unintended consequences"......shrink. They started seeing massive shoplifting. Even with all of the fancy equipment, cameras, scales, etc. it still happens. Now, they seem to be seeing the cost-benefit not working as expected. Some are removing the self-checkouts, others are holding on, probably hoping to save the cost of removal?

 

[Packard]

It's not just TV anymore, a large percentage of Youtube commentary (some even claiming to be news) have generated voices. A few even go as far as syncing it to a "human" face/torso, rather than just voice-over.

The message I got from War Games, was the whole point is "not to play"
But, the only real way to do that is voluntarily. You have to be "able" to play......and specifically choose not to.
Not playing, when you can't, means nothing.

Funny you mentioned supermarkets. I have been seeing a trend among some of the big ones reducing or eliminating the self-checkout registers. Many stores have had one or two, for many years, at one end or the other of the regular cashiers row. Initially, it was just grocery stores, which I somewhat understood. They often have extreme "busy times" where lines might build up, but they don't last long enough for extra staff, which would be doing nothing otherwise. Scheduling for that would be difficult. Adding one or two self-checkouts, would take off some of that pressure, especially for those with very few items.
They went wild, adding multiple new self-checkouts. Ostensibly, this was a C19 reaction, to cut down on contact. It also gave the added benefit of cutting out employees. Once again though, "unintended consequences"......shrink. They started seeing massive shoplifting. Even with all of the fancy equipment, cameras, scales, etc. it still happens. Now, they seem to be seeing the cost-benefit not working as expected. Some are removing the self-checkouts, others are holding on, probably hoping to save the cost of removal?

I was watching a TV show a while back and they had a flashback going some 20+ years. They used younger actors for the scene. But the voices were identical sounding to the current character’s voices.

I read lips, so I am rarely fooled by such trick. But in this instance the lip sync was perfect. I can only assume that the current actors voiced the dialogue and it was synched to the younger actors. Somehow, I assume with some computer gimmickry, they managed to get the sync perfect, something that is nearly impossible to do in real life. I would guess that a computer adjusted the voice-over to match the video. I have no idea how.

I would note that I sometimes listen to books on tape. The taped version is read at a slower pace than I would normally read. The playback allows faster playback. The 2x, 3x and 4x pace are all done by removing space between words. Faster speeds seem to alter the reading speed instead. I would guess that the syncing of the words to the video would have been done by doing the same—adjusting the spacing between words. An arduous task if done manually. I assume CGI became involved at some point.

 

[onocoffee]

It's not just TV anymore, a large percentage of Youtube commentary (some even claiming to be news) have generated voices. A few even go as far as syncing it to a "human" face/torso, rather than just voice-over.

I'll see my dad watching some of those videos and while I don't listen, I cringe to think that maybe he doesn't realize these are AI generated images and thinks their information is 100% legit.

 

[Crazyraceguy]

It's actually pretty amazing. They can get so close, but it's just not right. It's almost like "knock-off" car parts.
They look right, until you get them side by side, or fit in the same place.
Most of the talking heads are fairly easy to spot. They are too robotic, the voice is right, it is synced well, but they are too "static". Even the best "professional" speakers exhibit some form of humanness, that can be seen. AI just can't be "real"