There is an argument in support of the use of AI in films, television, and video games that we’re starting to see raised much more: that it is actually respectful, in some instances.
Luke Skywalkerhasto be Mark Hamill- he brought the character to life, after all. James Earl JonesisDarth Vader, and to recast himafter his passingwould be disrespectful to his legacy. So, in both cases, it’s only right to use AI so that these actors play their characters in perpetuity.
The problem with this argument is that it’s never been true. Plenty of other actors have portrayed Luke and Anakin. Just looking at Darth Vader alone, it was David Prowse in the suit, giving us the imposing height and movements that are just as important to the character as Jones’ voice. And then there’s Scott Lawrence, who has swapped in for Jones since 1994, playing Vader in more than a dozen video games.
In reality, it seems that the real deciding factor here is celebrity. In a sense, it’s a weaponisation of fandom, with nostalgia used as an excuse to push AI performances on audiences. If you’re a household name, your performances live on. If you are not, you may be replaced.
I’ve spoken with some of the biggest names in the industry, such as Jennifer Hale, Roger Clark, and Yuri Lowenthal, and they all feel the risk that AI poses to their livelihoods as actors. However, since I spoke with them in 2023 and 2024, things have only gotten worse. The technology has evolved to the point where its products are actually usable, shifting the discourse from stopping its use entirely to how to implement it ethically - if that is indeed possible.
“We’re not anti-AI. That’s an impossible position for us to take,” says Shannon Sailing, the official for audio and video games at the union Equity. “An increase of its use is inevitable […] but exploitation doesn’t have to be inevitable. [AI] can be done properly, and it can be done fairly.”
Unions and industry have a very different idea of what “fair” looks like. A watershed moment for the rise of this technology wasAI Darth Vader in Fortnite, because of the unique ethical concern that it put forward.
By all accounts, James Earl Jones’ voice was scraped as ethically as possible.He signed a contract with Respeecherfor his voice to be used after his retirement and eventually, his death. The family were consulted by Epic Games when it wanted to use Jones’ voice in Fortnite, and they defended it at launch.
“James Earl felt that the voice of Darth Vader was inseparable from the story of Star Wars, and he always wanted fans of all ages to continue to experience it,” reads astatementfrom the family on the Disney website. “We hope that this collaboration with Fortnite will allow both longtime fans of Darth Vader and newer generations to share in the enjoyment of this iconic character.”
But many disagree. Even if we sidestep the debate on whether Jones could reasonably have known what he was signing up for, the issue remains that this is a case of AI taking work from another actor. As previously mentioned, Scott Lawrence has played Darth Vader in video games for years. If you’ve played anything from Star Wars Battlefront 2 to Star Wars Jedi: Survivor, you’ve heard him.
SAG-AFTRA launched a complaint against Epic for this, and Equity supports this.
“We’ll always come out in support of our comrades at SAG, and their position is that although that voice was used with consent, [Epic] didn’t talk to SAG about the use of that voice,” says Sailing. “SAG really should have been consulted on that decision. [Epic] replicated the work of a human without any notice of intent and without bargaining with the union.”
Of course, the industry takes a very different approach to this. I spoke with Karen Panetta from The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), an organisation that represents electrical engineering. Panetta herself specialises in AI, and agrees that actors are getting the short end of the stick right now - she just takes a different view on the rollout of AI Darth Vader.
“[Jones] gave permission and he signed a contract, I assume, that said, ‘you may use my voice and generate it in the future’, so that’s okay,” Panetta says. “James Earl Jones' estate, are they getting money now for these future recordings? If they are, then it is ethically sourced.
“The other question is: When somebody tried to emulate him and they paid a voice-over actor to do that, did James Earl Jones agree that other people could emulate him?”
“Exploitation doesn’t have to be inevitable” - Shannon Sailing, Equity
That is just yet another debate that will have to take place between performers and the industry. Even when a voice is ‘ethically’ sourced, do the ethical concerns end there?
Sailing tells me there is more at play here. “That brings up a much wider issue for Equity members and performers about consent, and ties in to deepfakes as well, where people can be manipulated and be made to be seen to be saying or doing something that they haven’t said or done.
“Within minutes, it was just videos of Darth Vader swearing, and obviously, that could get a lot darker very quickly.”
How Will AI Be Used In Video Games?
AI Darth Vader is the most prominent use of AI voice acting that we have seen to date, and for many, the easiest to justify. But if this tech is inevitable, what does that mean for performers?
“There’s still room for artists to be able to use AI,” says Panetta. “They’re going to lose some of their jobs, but if they evolve their own skill sets to utilise [AI], I think that there’s going to be new opportunities as well as the ones that we’re replacing, the ones that we’ve lost.
“What we’re hearing is that people want to know how their skills can be upscaled […] We’re seeing a lot of people who are not engineers coming to us saying, you know, help us understand this AI thing.”
One of these jobs could involve performers training AI, helping the tech learn how to convey emotions.
“Right now, AI is having trouble with that, because what does sensitive mean? Does it mean you’re crying? Does it mean you talk softly? What does that mean?” Panetta explains. “And this is where they’re really going to shine, because AI doesn’t know what that is, and these people do.”
“There’s still room for artists to be able to use AI" - Karen Panetta, IEEE
When Ispoke to Respeecher in 2023, it also emphasised that AI could be used as a tool to help actors reach certain pitches or repeatedly do performances that cause vocal strain, such as screaming.
However, none of the actors I have spoken with in the past have expressed a desire for this. Nor has Equity.
“I spoke to some performers just before having this chat with you, and one of them said, which I thought was totally obvious, ‘What I like about being an actor is acting,’” says Sailing. “They don’t want their job to be done by something else, because they like doing it.
“That is the line that’s been fed by the tech industries, about performers being able to make passive income. But I don’t think there are many people who are finding that their diaries are so booked up through voice work that they need to make an AI version of themselves to keep up with that demand.”
Is It Already Too Late?
When Ispoke with Roger Clark in 2023, he didn’t just fear the threat of AI - he said it was already here.
“Many gaming actors have already had to deal with and address having their facial data and mo-cap footage used in perpetuity by gaming studios, even for another game at a much later date,” the Red Dead Redemption 2 actor told me at the time. “Consumers deserve better than some Frankensteined performance.”
Now, adding to these fears, Panetta explains that the cards are stacked against performers.
“There’s no law that says you need to be transparent. There are no explainability tools or metrics, or standards within AI,” says Panetta. “That’s one of the things that I’m working on at IEEE, coming up with standards of what we call ethically sourced data.
“I think that as standards evolve, companies will comply, but right now, it’s a financial gain for them not to.”
“We believe that there’s a large-scale theft that’s happened" - Shannon Sailing, Equity
This only brings us to another area of contention - what damage has been done already?
“We believe that there’s a large-scale theft that’s happened,” says Sailing, based on discussions the union has had with actors. “Performers, by nature of their job, their voice, their image, their likeness, are out in the world. AI models, AI voices, AI bots have been modelled on that work, but our members haven’t agreed to that.”
This is undeniable at this point. If you can think of a fictional character, there is almost definitely a voice bot for them online, made using an actor’s performance without their consent.
Despite this, and the lack of regulation in place, Panetta doesn’t believe that we’ll see major companies adopt this method.
“I guarantee you they’re not just scraping the web to get good audio clips,” she says. “They want real quality voices with good personalities, distinctive types of features to train their AI on. The really good companies are going to still utilise the skills and understand the talents that these people bring to the table.
“AI-generated things that are low quality might have a wow factor because AI can do it, but entertainment-wise, people reject it immediately.”
How Will This End?
The SAG-AFTRA strike against the gaming industryhas been called off, as a tentative agreement was reached. The agreement is currently being voted on by members, and if ratified, would put guardrails in place against actors having their work used to create AI-generated performances without their consent.
However, it very much leaves the door open for actors to consent to the creation of their own ‘Digital Replica’.
“AI is not going away,” says Panetta. “If you think ‘I want things to be the way they were’, that’s just not going to happen. The name of the game is: How do you use AI to your advantage? And how can you use it to evolve your art, to make your art better?
“you’re able to’t hold back time, and you can’t hold back technology. You have to move and change with it. And change is hard.”
With the technology ploughing ahead, it seems like it’s only a matter of time before we see gimmicks like AI Darth Vader turn into full AI performances.
“I just wonder whether the consumers are happy about that,” Sailing shares. “That will dictate the market of AI - how willing people are to listen to voices that they know aren’t real.
“We need the gamers on our side there. Obviously, the biggest part of this industry is the gamers themselves.”
There’s a lot of truth in that. Whatever decides the future of AI in games - whether it’s unions bargaining with companies, or groups like the IEEE sharing their advice - it will ultimately fall on the critics and gamers to assess the quality of the games that adopt this tech.
Naturally, a major deciding factor will be the agreement from SAG-AFTRA. If ratified, and if larger actors - ones who have reached the heights of Mark Hamill and James Earl Jones - sign away their performances, then it’s difficult to see a place for up-and-coming performers. And if the only work that is available is training the very tech that is taking your job to begin with, then matters will only get worse.
But if nothing else, I urge everyone to make more of an effort to remember the names of the actors who perform in the games that we play. I wonder how many times I have seen Scott Lawrence’s name in the credits, and just not taken it in? Now, his style of performance could very well be the first domino to fall as AI takes over gaming, in a way that the industry will tell us is ethical.
Epic Games declined to comment and instead linked to theannouncementandFAQabout AI Darth Vader. Here, Epic states that it was “honoured” to work with James Earl Jones' estate to make the event possible.
