Hank Azaria, the actor behind many of the cherished voices in The Simpsons for decades, has an unsettling prediction. The actor, who currently plays several characters on the show, including Moe and Chief Wiggum, believes that AI will replace him soon. He says that with decades of his voice work available, machines will probably learn to do what he does, and he will inevitably be removed from the series.
Azaria expressed his concerns about AI in an op-ed for The New York Times, in which he says humans are irreplaceable in the field of voice acting because machines can’t be spontaneous. But when it comes to recreating sounds, he thinks that AI could replace him:

“I imagine that soon enough, artificial intelligence will be able to recreate the sounds of the more than 100 voices I created for characters on The Simpsons over almost four decades. It makes me sad to think about it. Not to mention, it seems just plain wrong to steal my likeness or sound — or anyone else’s.

In my case, AI could have access to 36 years of Moe, the permanently disgruntled bartender. He’s appeared in just about every episode of The Simpsons. He’s been terrified, in love, hit in the head and, most often, in a state of bitter hatred. I’ve laughed as Moe in dozens of ways by now. I’ve probably sighed as Moe 100 times. In terms of training AI, that’s a lot to work with.”

Related

10 Weirdest Episodes of The Simpsons

From “Some Enchanted Evening” to “Brick Like Me” these episodes of The Simpsons had strange premises that left fans baffled.  

There’s Only One Thing That’s More Inevitable Than AI and That’s the Controversy of Using AI

Azaria is one of hundreds of artists who have revealed their concern for AI and machines replicating what humans are perfectly capable of doing. Even though computers still haven’t been able to flawlessly imitate what humans can do, AI technology is getting closer every second. However, the human element just seems too hard to imitate (machines can’t improvise), and Azaria is confident in our ability to discern what’s “real” and what’s generated by AI:

“I’d like to think that no matter how much an AI version of Moe or Snake or Chief Wiggum will sound like my voice, something will still be missing — the humanness. There’s so much of who I am that goes into creating a voice. How can the computer conjure all that?

What will the lack of humanness sound like? How big will the difference be? I honestly don’t know, but I think it will be enough, at least in the near term, that we’ll notice something is off, in the same way that we notice something’s amiss in a subpar film or TV show.”

It adds up to a sense that what we’re watching isn’t real, and you don’t need to pay attention to it. Believability is earned through craftsmanship, with good storytelling and good performances, good cinematography and good directing and a good script and good music.

One thing’s for sure. The use of AI in the entertainment industry, specifically to recreate what humans can do, is a polarizing subject. Recently, social media users noticed something was off in a poster for The Fantastic Four: First Steps a few minutes after the artwork was published. And the 2025 Oscar season has been shrouded in controversy over multiple nominees using AI in post-production. The technology isn’t perfect and likely won’t be for some time, which begs the question: Why are filmmakers using AI if it still doesn’t look or sound perfect? If cutting costs is the reason, then producers should know that the “solution” is not working the way it should.