The voice of Shinji in Evangelion says AI voice cloning is ‘heartbreaking,’ calls for Japanese government to intervene
Megumi Ogata, the Japanese voice actor known for playing Shinji Ikari in Neon Genesis Evangelion, has described AI voice cloning as “heartbreaking” and called for action by Japan’s government. The comments highlight growing concern among performers that generative AI could reproduce distinctive voices without consent, payment or meaningful control.
Ogata’s intervention reflects a wider dispute over how rapidly developing AI tools should be regulated in creative industries. Voice cloning can potentially affect voice actors’ livelihoods and ownership of their performances, particularly where recordings are used to train or imitate AI systems without clear permission.
- Evangelion’s Shinji voice actor condemns AI voice cloning.
- Megumi Ogata wants Japanese government intervention.
- The debate centres on consent, control and performers’ rights.
New here? Start with this
Megumi Ogata is a Japanese voice actor best known for voicing Shinji Ikari, the central character in the influential anime series Neon Genesis Evangelion. Voice actors in Japan are closely associated with particular characters, and their performances are an important part of anime, games and other entertainment.
AI voice cloning uses recordings to create a computer-generated imitation of a person’s voice. The technology can be used for dubbing, accessibility and new forms of entertainment, but it has also raised questions about whether performers have agreed to its use and should be paid.
Japan, like many countries, is considering how existing laws on copyright, personal rights and contracts apply to generative AI. The debate matters because rules set for voice cloning could affect how creative work is made, how performers protect their work, and how audiences know whether a voice is human or artificial.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of government intervention argue that a performer’s voice is closely bound to their identity, craft and livelihood, so cloning it without informed consent or fair payment is an unacceptable form of exploitation. Clear rules could require permission, compensation, labelling and effective remedies, giving artists practical control while preserving public trust in creative work. They contend that voluntary industry standards alone are unlikely to protect less powerful performers against rapidly advancing technology.
The case against
Those wary of new regulation argue that overly broad or hurried rules could obstruct beneficial innovation, including accessibility tools, localisation, independent production and legitimate creative experimentation. They may favour targeted safeguards against deception, impersonation and unauthorised commercial use, while allowing consensual licensing and technical development to continue. In this view, existing intellectual-property, privacy and consumer-protection laws should be assessed carefully before creating a restrictive new regime.