As we’re nearing “halftime” in 2023, an inventory of the first six months of the year would reveal A.I. and related technology has been THE radio story so far. And for good reason. It has dominated industry conversations, while stoking both enthusiasm and fear at the same time. (Chances are, it will dominate all news stories for 2023.)
There are so many unknowns about A.I., and that’s a big reason why it has been difficult to predict how it will be used today, tomorrow, and in upcoming years. Even the inventors of ChatGPT – AI Online – are concerned about its ultimate applications and effect on world societies.
Last week, the talk of the industry was Alpha Portland’s Live 95.5, the first station to use this technology on a regular basis in a rated, prime daypart. Under the guidance of Phil Becker, Alpha Media’s EVP Content, voicetracker Ashley Elzinga (Ashley Z) has moved over to let “AI Ashley” take over her midday show. Under the station’s PD, Dylan Salisbury, Ashley Z’s virtual persona has come alive, stirring a flurry of reactions, many of them negative, especially those from radio industry veterans.
But what about the audience? As you’ll learn, Live 95.5 is being completely transparent about the voice behind the mic. Do listeners understand the technology? Are they aware they’re listening to a synthetic voice? And do they care?
Phil Becker, jumped on Futuri’s RadioGPT technology, hoping to learn about it. Now he’s pioneering it for radio broadcasters. A.I. is the talk of radio, but like many new technologies, it is often misunderstood. There’s more going on here than “robot DJs” and job losses. And he, Dylan, and Ashley were kind enough to give us an exclusive look at what they’re doing – and why.
Of course, I’m interested in your feedback. But I also hope you’ll give this post your attention and thought. Then let’s have a conversation about something that’s going to become a part of the media world – and beyond – for years to come. Like it or not. – FJ
Fred Jacobs: Phil, the moment Futuri said, “Hey, we’re going to do this,” Phil Becker and Alpha said, “We’re in.” So talk about the value of being first and and why you jumped on this right out of the box. What what were you thinking?
Phil Becker: My mindset is completely different than a lot of people in the industry. I don’t look at AI as artificial intelligence. I see the “A” in AI as “additional intelligence.” And if you put it through that lens and you say, I’m going to use this to increase the content and increase the intelligence, I think you’re in a better place.
So instead of sitting in that pocket of fear that I think a lot of people are in – and let’s call it what it is – it’s a fear that people think they’re going to lose their job, that this is the beginning of the end.
Here’s what I think Ashley Z, Dylan, and I am thinking: how do I use this to plus up what we’re doing?
The real story is I got a call from Daniel Anstandig, and he said, “I want to do this. And I don’t know that most people will be willing to do this, but you might.”
I shared with our team that we would be doing this with or without Futuri. So let’s try to do it together. So the mentality that we have is it’s additional not artificial.
Fred: Phil, this is not the first time you have pioneered technology. When we started developing apps at jacapps back in 2008, you were one of our first clients in Ft. Wayne. You were early on that trend, and you were doing stuff with apps that nobody was doing.
So, my question is a simple one. Is this about better radio? Is this about more efficient radio? Is it a publicity stunt? What’s the main motivation or is it a combination of a lot of that stuff?
Dylan Salisbury: There’s the Futuri and Phil aspect. They came to us with the idea right at the right time. Ashley Z was going for a job in Traverse City, and she got it. It was a perfect storm because we really like Ashley and we didn’t want to lose her. But now we don’t get the quickness (for voicetracking) because she’s got a full-time job and responsibilities now.
So we started thinking AI might be perfect to integrate with Ashley Z. We can’t replace Ashley because she’s one of a kind. But it allows us to have a timeliness factor that we kind of lost when Ashley Z got her job in Traverse City.
If something were to happen with Taylor Swift, beforehand we would say, “Hey, Ashley, jump in and cut us a news break for Taylor.” Now she’s handling her regular duties, and we can go in ourselves and generate that content in a matter of seconds.
We have no intention of replacing Ashley Z. This is additional to Ashley Z, not in place of. And that’s where I think a lot of people are misunderstanding (the technology) because she’s real. Ashley Z is on the air today.
Fred: So let’s talk a little bit about some of the feedback you guys have gotten because not surprisingly, it’s probably mostly been about you’re taking away jobs. Can you talk about what you’re hearing and does it affect you?
Phil: The reason that we’re getting some of that feedback is because the industry doesn’t know what Dylan and Ashley and I know. They haven’t seen it. They haven’t played with it. They haven’t strategized it. And so we’ve got to give them some grace. Because to them on the outside looking in, it is, well, you know, it was good while it lasted.
I don’t think that it’s a coincidence that when the synthesizer came out, musicians tried to ban it. And yet what do we call Ashley Z’s voice when she is AI Ashley? We have a synthetic Ashley. When the technology moves faster than the business model, fear is the reaction.
The same thing happened with the drum machine where people said, “I’m never going to use a drum machine.” And now hit songs around the world are made by drum machines and new jobs are
created from synth producers and from drum programmers and all of these things.
It’s not a job eliminator. It’s a job amplifier. And the reality is, and I have an unfair advantage compared to a lot of people that love to live in the comments. I see the business scope of the industry.
Payroll and salaries of programming were eliminated 20 years ago. This is not going to be the thing that saves us from a financial standpoint. It might actually be the thing that saves us from a content standpoint.
What do you think Paul McCartney’s going through when he says he’s going to use AI to help finish an unreleased Beatles record with an AI version of John Lennon, who’s a revered songwriter who was murdered? You know, that is where we got to stop being so precious. We have to understand that all businesses are going to be disrupted.
Ashley Z: I just thought, I like getting bloody. Bring it on. To me, it’s a matter of saying yes to people that I trust. I’m a talent, and I’m not here to be phased out.
And when I get a phone call from someone who I enjoy working with, who’s on a team that I want to stay a part of, and he has this serious tone and he’s asking me a genuine question: “Would you like to be a part of this?”
And I know that this is something that the people that I work for have been interested in for a long time and speak intelligently on, such as I’ve seen Phil do for a while before they came to me with the question. I already knew that there was a bit of a background there, so it wasn’t spur of the moment for them.
And then I had to make the decision. Do I want to be a part of this? Yes. Do I want to be a part of their team? Yes. Do I trust them? Yes. And if I’m going to say yes to anyone on this, is it now? And my answer was yes.
I just wanted to be a part of an industry that I love so much. Live and local radio is my thing. If we can make the listener experience better with what we’re doing, with their intention behind this, with all of our intention behind this, to me it’s a no brainer.
And then just learning as we go and being the trailblazers and pioneering a new way that was going to happen anyway. So if it gets to be you, I just feel like that’s really cool.
Fred: So, Ashley, you just mentioned the word “trust” several times. As talent, that’s got to be there, right?
Dylan: It’s huge.
Ashley Z: It’s huge. For the first time in my career, I really feel that way. I’ve learned what it feels like when you can’t trust someone that you thought that you could. And it’s just, I mean, every
talent in this industry will joke about the fact that if you don’t know that feeling, you’re not really in radio. But if you know that feeling, you know that feeling.
I studied business with Harvard Business School online. That’s a recurring theme. I mean, trust is huge. And leadership. If you can’t have constituents who trust you, you’re not leading them anywhere.
Fred: So Dylan, are you writing a show for AI Ashley. Is it you?
Dylan: Yes, it’s me in its entirety.
Fred: So how do you do that? I mean, how do you write in her voice? I mean, how does that work?
Phil: Fred, this is the fun part.
Dylan: This is what’s going to separate one person from another is trying to be able to write from a point of view that isn’t mine.
Fred : Will it get easier?
Dylan: Yeah, I think it’s, I think, a learning process and a learning curve for me and Ashley. It’s almost going to have to be a “reverse aircheck.”
Now, she is going to have to start airchecking me. She might say to me, “I like how you wrote that, but I would never say it that way.” Or I would never use this word, so we have to take that out of the equation.”
Fred: Have you guys done any on-air disclosure of this? Does the audience know what’s going on?
Dylan: Yes, our audience and our listeners are everything to us. We are nothing without them, so we never, ever want to deceive them. So every time her virtual twin is on the air, she will always state, “Hey, it’s AI Ashley.” We will never air a break from Ashley that doesn’t identify her AI self.
Phil: Ashley’s going to do an “Ask Me Anything” where we’re going to take all of the questions, all of the fears, all of the doubts, all of the negativity (from the audience) and she’s going to address it.
If you’re telling the truth about something. Then all of that goes away, right? So she’s going to answer the questions and she’s going to answer all of these things.
I also think Ashley Z aside, this is going to give radio stations the opportunity to create additional content they formerly couldn’t. And we can evolve the Ashley character.
If Ashley Z is Eminem, AI Ashley can be Slim Shady. If Ashley is the angel, AI Ashley can be the devil and Ashley can be the angel. We can push her to do different content things than we ever could do before.
Tomorrow, Phil, Dylan, and Ashley will talk about where AI stacks up on the list of radio broadcasting key moments, other impacts AI will have on radio, and the different ways AI Ashley can sound.
Thanks to Phil and his team for being so available. And of course, your comments are appreciated. But please read Part 2 tomorrow.
I recently joined Mike McVay to discuss AI and radio on Loyd Ford’s podcast. You may find it interesting. The Encouragers: The Radio Rally podcast hosted by Loyd Ford is available wherever you hear your favorite podcasts. The episode is titled “ChatGPT & The AI Century.”
Jacobs Media has consistently walked the walk in the digital space, providing insights and guidance through its well-read national Techsurveys.
In 2008, jacapps was launched - a mobile apps company that has designed and built more than 1,300 apps for both the Apple and Android platforms. In 2013, the DASH Conference was created - a mashup of radio and automotive, designed to foster better understanding of the "connected car" and its impact.
Along with providing the creative and intellectual direction for the company, Fred consults many of Jacobs Media's commercial and public radio clients, in addition to media brands looking to thrive in the rapidly changing tech environment.
Fred was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame in 2018.
- Old Man, Take A Look At My Ratings - December 20, 2024
- In The World Of On-Demand Audio, How Do We Define Success? - December 19, 2024
- Scenes From The Classic Rock Highway – 2024 Edition - December 18, 2024
I just want to make sure I understand a couple of points in the article.
1. Ashley is putting her voice and likeness in the hands of another person who is going to actually generate the content.
2. Nobody is being hired to replace an on-air talent who left both the radio station and a market. A live body is being replaced by an AI-generated voice track who’s a different age and a different gender.
As an aside, drum machines, sampling, and looping eliminated a lot of jobs formerly held by studio musicians. The result is arguably a lot less innovative and interesting than what actual musicians created, especially when working together and inspiring each other.
Without disclosing specific dollars, how is Alpha compensating her? It’s still her voice – or is that the part where Phil says “programming dollars went away 20 years ago” and compensation is just “getting a kick” out of this?
Phil is being dishonest in his comments. He’s putting a pretty bow on an ugly package. And how can he compare what Paul McCartney is doing with the Beatles track? They are all dead? So he can’t use the real voices! Awful comparison. Here’s the real reason Phil and Alpha did this. To generate headlines. It’s a short term ratings grab. That’s it. And if he thinks that everyone at Corp agrees that jocks shouldn’t be replaced his is lying to himself.
Rich, I think Phil’s being quite transparent. As for the Beatles, they are NOT all dead. Half are dead, the other half are very much alive (unless Paul actually died in 1969). The Beatles using AI is far more blasphemous than a Top 40 station using this tech for their midday talent.
As for a ratings grab, I think most of the audience has no idea what’s going on here. “New cume” to hear AI Ashley is coming from mostly people in the radio industry.
When Paul’s mix of Now and Then comes out it will benefit from Peter Jackson’s “track separation” where they pull each instrument out of a mono recording cleanly so you can properly mix to taste. Most of us can do this now. Paul said Peter Jackson simply pulled Lihn’s voice cleanly from Yoko’s cassette. The press keeps call it AI, and folks are lumping an idea of “Faking Lennon singing new lyrics” with what they actually are doing. From what Paul said this is not the AI of a robot host automatically creating narrative content on the air. Now and Then, already had Harrison and Starkey and Paul on it from when they attempted to make it the third Anthology single. George bailed on it midway and because the Beatles have always required all 4 members to be in favor or they don’t proceed, they left it. IMO about AI for radio, there is no stopping it. And they don’t need to sample your voice and you won’t be licensing your voice to anyone for pay. They will create entirely great sounding new voices, or combine the best of James Earl Jones’s style with Morgan Freeman’s and two or three others give it a younger sound for an entirely new, great sounding normal voice that no one will have to play for. It is what it is. It’s here, and what’s coming will be better that what they have now. If this takes 60% of the work it means every real radio person will be competing for the remaining 40. Scott Galloway keeps reminding his listeners that every new Tech development that has cost people jobs, has produced even more new one’s that it took. I don’t see those jobs being in radio and I feel horrible for my friends.
Fred,
You say you think the use of AI to help make a new beatles track is blasphemous. But have you actually read what they did?
What they DIDN’T do is AI generate a new “John Lennon” vocal.
What they DID was use AI to extract ONLY the John Lennon vocal from casette recording that included instruments.
It’s not analogous to AI Ashley.
Citation.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/paul-mccartney-says-final-beatles-100000733.html#:~:text=But%20don't%20be%20alarmed,voice%20from%20an%20old%20cassette.
I read this, Zeb, when I wrote the post. And you are correct that it’s different in scope from what Alpha is doing with AI Ashley. Still, Paul is performing “duets” with AI John? Or John’s tracks? Some people are probably fine with this – or even ecstatic – but I think we can agree the various applications of AI are going to strike different people in different ways. You can see that in these many comments that have been submitted this week. I’m glad we’re having a conversation even though I’m not in lock-step with all of them. But that’s why the conversation is so valuable. Thanks for commenting.
“(AI) saves you from a content standpoint”?
Don’t understand that statement.
Pam, I hope Phil will get back to you on this.
I wonder how many listeners actually understand what A.I. Ashley means when it’s said that way in air. And of those who do understand what they’re hearing I hope to hear what the audience reaction is to listening to artificially generated Ashley in Pt. 2 of this article,
I’m going to be able to provide a glimpse of an answer to your question, Ross, in our new Public Radio Techsurvey (still in the field this week). Stay tuned.
I call bull. The job loss is literally here. this article is highlighting how someone left and took a full-time job elsewhere. Instead of hiring another person, a synthetic voice was created to fill that role. It doesn’t get more basic than that. However you want to package it, at the root, this is the situation. Is AI great in some ways? Absolutely. That “additional intelligence” you mention can be used to filter and summarize news stories so that your on-air talent can be fed prep that directly speaks to your core audience. That AI can also be used to have that story rewritten and prepped to post to your site or social media to share more details. Using AI in those ways can keep your station focused and on brand. When you’re speaking to listers in an artificial voice – that’s a job lost.
Mel, I understand how you read it that way. Phil may provide responses here after we publish Part 2. Let’s see what that looks like.
I’m invested in the fantastic comments & questions, today and tomorrow. 😂🍿
Buckle up!
You are allowing a machine to copy human “essence” and present it on-air as such regardless of transparency. I vote no.
Ashley also needs to be paid for her unique irreplaceable personality.
Embrace change. Let it play out. It’s the only way to know what will be effective. Think about the innovations you’ve seen over time just since the late 80’s. Tim Berners-Lee inventing the World Wide Web which led to the Internet, E mail, Streaming, I Phones, Smart Speakers, a robot to vaccum your floor and AI for all. Phil Becker is a very smart man. I always like his question, “What problem does it solve”?, same question you’ll hear on the TV Show “Shark Tank”. What a terrific talent in Ashley Z for the AI experiment. Nature tends to reward those who are bold enough to take risks. Congratulations Live 95.5 team. Looking forward to listening, learning and seeing where this leads. What an amazing time to be alive on this planet.
I thought Al Gore invented the World Wide Web. 😉
The Web was invented by Tim Berners-Lee at CERN in 1989 and opened to the public in 1991. It was conceived as a “universal linked information system”.
Change is essential for the survival of broadcast radio, no one can doubt that. Broadcasters have to admit and compete with a number of platforms in 2023, and not just roll over as it looks day after day. Don’t see many positive comments here and those that are on the negative side make very good sense. Fred, thanks for bringing us behind the curtain (sort of) and showing us how it works (sort of). If broadcasters could only focus in on the content rather than technology we could be much better off. (Does the listener know what “AI Ashley” means? Does the listener care?)
If AI Ashley could be “1,000 percent funnier”, you’d have an argument for “AI Ashley”. If AI Ashley could play “6 better songs every hour than Spotify”, you’d have an argument for AI Ashley. If Ashley AI could have just referenced the last bit the morning show did, you’d have an argument for “AI Ashley”. Music is the the ingredient that drives the station I guess, but Ashley’s first break was complaining how she didn’t sleep well last night. Hmmm the comment was pointing to HER and not me. That’s the one Ashley break I heard in the last 15 minutes or so. I’m hearing a spot (inserted in the stream) and just heard a spot with a control room billboard on it.
I know you can say “hey, it’s just the beginning of this”. Why should I, as the listener, be subjected to the experiment?
The middle management here is to be commended for following the instructions they’re (obviously) getting from the top to see if this will be successful or not. The pressure’s on a lot of folks (not computers) to make this work from Futuri to the programmers at Alpha and everyone in between.
In fact even companies like Jacobs Media could benefit. “Maybe AI Ashley should tighten up those song intros a little bit and talk more to the at-work listener” –and with a few keystrokes it would be done.
I know what I’d like to see here tomorrow is a really good explanation of how AI will solve broadcast media’s issues of too many commercials, outdated technology, repetitive playlists and lack of relevance to many of today’s media consumers.
Day after day readers of your blog are made hopeful with the issues you point out, and the stories you tell, Fred. We all hope that the people in charge will see them and act accordingly. Except for today (and maybe tomorrow). The smartest people I know converge here daily to read-and react. All of the negative comments about AI won’t change the mind of the CFO looking to trim the expense line of the next quarter’s expense budget. It won’t change the minds of the mangers hoping they can bring in the numbers to get that next bonus. It won’t change the fact that the middle managers (programmers, brand managers) will be encouraged to “try” AI to cut down on the cost.
I don’t see where any of us see the real benefit to the creative process, the entertainment value or the competitive nature of broadcast radio will change for the better. I hope I’m wrong.
I know you were hoping we’d wait until tomorrow to comment-but this is a much bigger challenge to many of the people involved in broadcasting, and the info here is really provocative, hence the reaction so far.
Excellent thoughts from Dave Mason. And let me clarify my point before getting some not so nice emails. I support the talent. The point of my comment is the only thing we can count on is change so we have to embrace it. I like to see calculated risks and experimentation happening. We see successful companies doing it every day. Without it there would be no innovation, or new products and advances. A positive for radio is that this experiment will play out for us all to see and evaluate, the good and the bad. The fact that Ashley’s voice will be written and directed from another person’s perspective, not her own unique personality, quirks, the way she would prep content, her chuckle, her exact words etc. is something entertaining talent should take comfort in as those are things AI cannot duplicate. If you’re talented and great at your work you’ll always have work and AI will never be able to replace the truly talented. Let’s see how this looks in six months.
The talented will always work quote just isn’t true. Living proof.
The reason I despise this kind of forum and will likely never respond again. UGH. Hmm. Thought hard befoe responding but thought it necessary. Think hard on your response my friend. “Living Proof”? If you are truly talented and want to work, there are always growth opportunities and employment opportunities. What skills do you have that can translate to today’s world that companies would want even if you’re not an “on air” talent? I know of your successful past, but what can you do in today’s world? What skills do you have and what problems can you help solve for the companies you would seek employment from to help them generate more revenue? Do you understand that all a company cares about is how you can help them solve problems and generate more revenue? If I can help you in any way I will do my best to help. Reach out. Wishing you all the best.
“Alexa -play AI Ashley. Alexa? Alexa?” Oh. My wife sold it on ebay.
I’m only going to be able to respond to a handful of these, Dave. I appreciate what you (and so many others) are saying and concerned about. And make no mistake – radio people should be concerned. No matter how you cut it, this is a disruptive technology that will require a deft hand and a sharp mind.
No one’s going to change a CFO or a CEO’s mind about AI and its tentacles. But if we better understand what it is, what it’s not, how to use it, and how it can (potentially) improve our processes, we’re the better for it.
I have no problem with you commenting yesterday but I hope you read Part 2. Phil focused a lot of his thinking on what else can AI do? Openminded broadcasters will see opportunities here, as daunting and scary this technology will be.
Thanks for this, Fred. I did read part 2- and I listened to “Live 95-5” online, the results I posted. A lot of people here are down on AI, with good reason. Most of it has to do with the elimination of jobs industry wide. Imagine Ryan Seacrest doing “local” (AI) shows for all of the stations he’s on daily. Great. Great for Ryan, great for iHeart but not great for the scores of midday (or morning) local jocks displaced already. Oh, there are more reasons to complain but they’re fruitless because AI is here and it will be here for the forseeable future.
Ashley has two strikes against her. She’s not in the market and her words are someone else’s. What I heard on Live was fairly generic and could have been created anywhere. I listened for 2 days for about 90 minutes. Someone suggested that because Monday was a holiday, that Ashley’s “writer” was off for the day. Tuesday was no different. Very little Ashley, some not so eloquent production and nothing that sounded like “Portland”. I’ve voice-tracked some major markets from miles away and despite the internet, webcams and the ability of getting “local” info, it just wasn’t the same. The programmers involved tried their best.
It’s kinda like nuclear energy. It’s here. Now, the question is how do we use it? Many people in the business have different ideas and different priorities.
I believe I have an open mind about this technology, but have yet to hear the advantage of AI over a live, local person, and judging from what I read over the last 2 days I might not be alone.
The many who follow you appreciate what you do, Fred. You consistently point out how radio can be better and better and your points are well-taken. I’m reminded of how Bill Drake and Ron Jacobs had the KHJ staff rehearse for weeks before hitting the air. I’ve been reminded how Johnny Carson and numerous other successful TV shows did rehearsals. When Randy Michaels, Marc Chase and Michael Albl launched “The Power Pig” in Tampa with a great deal of planning. I don’t know what planning went into “AI Ashley” -but the end result (so far) has not become “must listen” radio. Yet. I heard the benefits of moving from vinyl to CD. I heard the benefits of carts, CDs and vinyl to digital delivery systems. We only weeks into AI. When computer generated music logs began with “Selector” some listeners were unhappy with what they though were “computer generated” playlists. Stations didn’t make a big deal of it. Now “Live 95.5” supposedly is trying to be transparent. Not sure who’s gonna love this.
I spent some time going through about an hour of “Ashley” on “Live 95-5”. A quick skim of the (online) aircheck gave me:
One mention of “Ashley”.
Two breaks voiced by “Ashley”.
Several promos about Taylor Swift Tickets.
One artist mention by (I guess “Ashley”) about Sza-after a song that was by Sza (I guess – it wasn’t id’d).
Some long commercial breaks-separate from the on-air commercials – some were local to San Diego, one or two local to Portland. One commercial for QVC (national I guess) also nicely included the “slate” announcement.
One local area mention which included the Legal ID.
Not one mention of “AI Ashley”.
Nothing here exciting. Rather disappointing in that this technology has been promoted extensively over the past few days-and the apparent promise of something fantastic just isn’t there. How can we be dissing “AI Ashley” if she’s not even on the air as “AI Ashley”?
I did enjoy the commercial “slate” for QVC though.
Villains who twirl their moustaches and emit that evil laughter that they’ve patented so well are easy enough to spot. Those who cloak themselves in good deeds are more difficult to recognize. Artificial Intelligence as it is used in radio does NOT enhance the listening experience nor is the listener benefited in any way by it. It is primarily used because it saves the station some revenue. In other words they don’t have to pay an actual air personality to be in the studio doing a live show. There IS no other way of defining this situation. This all started with voice tracking. Now with the advent of A.I. it has become long distance voice tracking. Remember Salisbury Steak is just a fancy term for hamburger. And the word artificial still means fake. The listening public should be made aware of this. Why? Because they deserve better.
This is what happens when an industry completely and utterly debases the skill of being a music announcer. Is anyone surprised that we have now decided it’s ok to replace a real human with AI and call it innovation? Fred – you’re a smart guy, been around for a long time, worked with a bunch of talented people – how did you keep a straight face listening to these guys? This is absolutely the worst of radio – and that’s saying something, particularly in the US where the focus on the craft has been replaced long ago by the focus on the cash.
I’ve had several good mentors over the years beat this into me: “always put the audience first”. I don’t think AI Ashley (the concept) does that. I’m not a luddite, nor against technical progress. But, this one is not feeling right to me. It’s awfully convenient for those advancing this to suggest that any criticism of it is simply “a fear that people think they’re going to lose their job, that this is the beginning of the end.” This is likely not a black/white issue. And for the proponents to make it be that, is disingenuous. There are legit concerns over how this might be used. Let’s say in this example it works well. But what about the unscrupulous owners, or managers that only use it to cut costs. What about those that use Ashley’s voice, and then DO fire her, and don’t compensate her for her NIL. What if EAS is down and all you have is AI Ashley as the F5 Tornado bears down on your town. There is plenty of discussion to be had without the proponents sticking their nose in the air, and blasting away that every questioner is a “get off my lawn” person.
So to be clear, Alpha in Portland Oregon lost their midday jock to Traverse City, Michigan🤦♂️
Says a lot about what they are willing to invest in talent. AI is certainly the least expensive future for them.
And who gets blamed for the FCC fine for AI Ashley calling a person at home and not obtaining permission to put them on the air in violation of FCC Regulations? Or are you telling me that a producer had to manually assemble the entire show? So much for efficiency.
I could’ve been clearer. She’s the PD in TC.
First off, to my ear it is screamingly obvious that it’s not a live human. The affect sounds flatter than a sociopath’s.
Second, there’s a lot of “we know more than you, so trust us” hand-waving in Phil’s responses (I mean, he literally said: “the industry doesn’t know what Dylan and Ashley and I know.”) so I don’t consider that “transparent” at all. That’s called “gaslighting” by most people. Especially about that “no job losses” nonsense. Synths and drum machines have absolutely caused musicians to lose their jobs. And while it’s created jobs for other people, invariably it’s a much smaller job pool. In this case, I could easily see 100 DJ’s losing their jobs for 1 or 2 “AI techs” to manage hundreds of AI DJ’s for dozens of stations.
Third, and perhaps most importantly: we’ve seen no discussion about Ashley’s legal protections for her likeness rights. What’s to stop the Portland station from kicking Ashley out and never paying her again, and using AI Ashley for free? What’s to stop them from selling AI Ashley to her Traverse City station and she loses her job there? There cannot be any real discussion about using artificial DJ’s based on live humans without a discussion about fairly compensating those live humans for their likeness rights. Otherwise it’s just like the WGA has been saying: it’s not “Artificial Intelligence”, it’s “Plagiarism Software”.
A lot to think about, Aaron. Much of your thinking – and others – reflects an understandable cynicism about how the technology is used. Too many innovations in the past have not been used to create a better listening experience, to enhance the industry and its standing, or create more jobs that attracts bright, motivated people.
Whether you trust the Alpha Portland team – or not – My role in this (at least how I’ve decided I want it to be), is to expose people to what’s being done now and to encourage them to lean more about this new technology. There is already considerable misinformation about what it will/will not do. If I’m working for a radio station, I’d want to learn as much as I can. If AI gets as big as many predict it will, I want to be the most knowledgeable person at the station (or in the company) on this technology.
Thanks for weighing in.
When technology and money come together, watch out. Industry people ignored it in 1996. They ignored it as voice-tracking became more and more prevalent. Each time technology and money came together in the past 25 years the response heard was, “I never expected this. I didn’t see it coming.”
I often say, “Ignore demographics at your own peril.” (I just read Hispanics are now the majority demographic in Texas, which will surprise many. EDITORIAL NOTE: Hey talk radio. Keep doing the angry, white guy format – to your peril.) I will add “Ignore technology at your own peril.”
AI will only get better. As a programmer, I’d welcome it and would be using it. Don’t be one of those that say, “I didn’t see it coming.”
Good points all, Darryl. You’ve seen it coming.