4 ms·
Lyrebird has real tech capable of doing what they claim, whereas Adobe's demo was completely fake. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3l4XLZ59iw&t=2m34s https://
by stevenh 9y ago
Lyrebird has real tech capable of doing what they claim, whereas Adobe's demo was completely fake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3l4XLZ59iw&t=2m34s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3l4XLZ59iw&t=2m34s
"Wife" sounds exactly the same in both places. All they did was copy the exact waveform from one point to another, like an automated cut and paste in Audacity. Nothing is being synthesized.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3l4XLZ59iw&t=3m54s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3l4XLZ59iw&t=3m54s
The word "Jordan" is not being synthesized. The speaker was recorded saying "Jordan" beforehand for this insertion demo and they're trying to play it off as though it was synthesized on the fly. That's incredibly dishonest. This is a scripted performance and Jordan is feigning surprise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3l4XLZ59iw&t=4m40s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3l4XLZ59iw&t=4m40s
Again, the phrase "three times" here was prerecorded.
This was a phony demonstration of a nonexistent product. Reporters parroted the claims and none questioned what they witnessed. Adobe falsely took credit and received endless free publicity for a breakthrough they had no hand in by staging this fake demo right on the heels of the genuine interest generated by Google WaveNet. They were hoping they'd have a real product ready before anyone else.
If Adobe had a real product then they'd have proven it with a demo as alarming, undeniable, and straightforward as Lyrebird's. Instead they relied on aesthetics and flashy, polished, deceptive performance art with famous actors and de facto applause tracks to cover up the fact that they have nothing.