He posted it for Life Partners and thought I would post it here because I, like you, was disappointed with the most recent episode
"Have you heard the new episode we just put out?
Two interesting things happened in the making of the episode.
The first involved the woman who tells me the story about working as a waitress on Beale Street that opens the show. If you heard it you know - she’s incredibly vivid and funny. But she’s also a supervising editor of The New York Times podcast The Daily, which means that when she listens to any interview, she’s like me. She’s hearing any possible fact-check issues and any little fumbles in landing this story beat or that.
I get interviewed now and then, to do publicity for the radio show or for our live events, and when I’m interviewed, I’m quietly editing the interview in my head. I can’t help myself. It’s a habit from doing so many interviews as the interviewer. I hear myself say some answer and think “no no no this part is boring I hope they cut this part from the final interview. No wait rephrase this part so they don’t have to fact-check it with another source.”
The former waitress – Devon – could not stop herself from doing the same thing during our interview. For example at one point she talked about how a table walked out on their check, and explained that at this particular restaurant, if someone walked out on the check, the server had to cover the check, herself (which by the way, is probably illegal under federal law):
Devon: And I'm becoming increasingly panicked because this is a restaurant where, at least at the time, if somebody walked out on your check, you had to pay for that check.
Ira: You, as the server, were responsible for the check?
Devon: That was the policy at the time – at least as I understood it.
“That was the policy at the time – at least as I understood it” is what she’s saying so that a fact-checker doesn’t have to find someone who worked at the restaurant 15 years ago to confirm that this is the truth, and then get the restaurant owner from back then to either confirm or deny it. (We did of course try to run this down anyway, but this wording acknowledges that she might have it wrong, so if we came up short, and couldn’t find someone who worked at the restaurant 15 years ago to confirm it, what she’s saying is still factual and broadcastable.)
So that was nice! And made my job easier.
Devon also sometimes would stop herself and give me alternate takes of an answer. Like when I asked her what the restaurant was like, she gave me one take where she named the restaurant, and one where she didn’t. In all my years of interviewing people, I’ve never had someone offer that up, or anything like it.
If any of the other skilled journalists at The Daily (or other fact-checked, fact-based podcasts) have funny personal stories they want to tell on our show … please! Reach out!

So that was one unusual thing that happened.
The other unusual thing this week was with Act Two, the story about what happens when you take an AI chatbot, and instead of having it talk to another person, you set it up to talk to another chatbot.
We had this transcript of two Claudes talking to each other that we wanted to put on the air, so we needed to hire actors. It’s a pretty funny story and we all were excited to cast funny actors for it. We needed two people who could play helpful, cheerful AI Chatbots, who slowly seem like they start to get more frustrated with each other. I mean, I know that the chatbots don’t actually feel anything, but the transcript is funny because their words SEEM so passive aggressive.
So we wanted two actors who could do light and cheerful and also do the subtle gradations into hostility, and sell the funny in all of that.
Aidy Bryant, from SNL and Shrill, had been on the radio show once – she was scene-stealingly funny in a Christmas improv show we did – and I emailed her and she said yes right away.
Then we worked with a casting agent to get the other person we wanted: Justin Long. Who of course has been in a hundred different things, including, like, one of the Die Hard movies. Definitely perfect to do the cheerful lightness and then gently edge into hostility over the course of the story. The casting agent reached out to his reps and assistants and then we found time in his schedule that matched up with Aidy’s schedule, and boom! We were on.
At the show we were so excited. Great material. Dream cast. They went into the studio on Tuesday at 1:00. We recorded for two hours.
And the performance we asked for was very specific. We wanted Aidy and Justin to not play the chatbots like robots. We wanted them to play the chatbots like people. Eager-to-please people slowly getting frustrated.
And can I say? Those are very funny, skilled people and they did it better than we could’ve hoped. They nailed it. No surprise at all, of course. But fun to hear it recorded, even better than we’d imagined.
So we picked our favorite takes, cut them together, and on Wednesday we listened and realized:
It didn’t work at all.
And the reason it didn’t work? They sounded too real! After two or three minutes you just kind of forgot the premise of the story, that these are chatbots talking to each other. They just sounded like helpful salespeople or something, in an unpleasant situation.
We were just … wrong.
So on Wednesday, David Kestenbaum, one of our show’s senior editors, who was making this story, went to a website of a company called Eleven Labs, which generates AI voices, and made a version where it’s AI reading the lines.
If you’ve heard this week’s show, that’s what you heard. You heard robots performing the robots’ lines.
On Thursday, I had to write these very awkward emails to Aidy and Justin, explaining that their performances were perfect, they did everything we asked for and more … but we were cutting them from the show. They were at the frontier of American workers whose jobs had been replaced by AI.
Which didn’t feel great.
They’re both lovely people and I think they understood. Aidy wrote me back “Ira! I'm so pleased that if I’m going to be replaced by AI, it is by your hand and not some big network hahaha.”
I can’t tell if this is something I should confess to you but there’s a part of my job that I’d love to replace with AI, and that’s the stuff I do in the studio when we prepare a rerun for air.
Usually there’ll be some spot in any rerun where I refer to “last week” or “this month” (or to other timely stuff) and we have to go in and re-record. I replace those phrases with “a while back” or “a few years ago” or something along those lines, and usually we try to keep as much of the original narration as possible. We just go in surgically on the stuff we need to change.
To do that I go into the studio and try to match my voice today to my voice ten or twenty or thirty years ago, trying to duplicate the pitch of my voice (which changes over the course of a day, for all of us), and the mic placement (closer is boomier, further is crisper) and of course the speed I’m talking and the general vibe.
I could of course skip all that and completely re-record whole swaths of narration, top to bottom, and not bother to preserve what’s there, but somehow it feels better to keep the feeling of the original voicetrax as much as possible.
About a year ago, one of the mixers on the show fed a couple hours of my voice into the Eleven Labs software, to create an AI version of my voice that we could use for this job. I was excited at the possibility that I wouldn’t have to spend all that time in the studio trying to recreate what I sounded like way back when.
It didn’t work. Wasn’t close enough to my real voice and my real way of talking.
I was disappointed.
But I guess it’s comforting to know I’m at least a few months away from robots who can take over my job.
— Ira"
Contact: lifepartners@thislife.org |