5 ms·

I wonder if one of the reasons Hawking was so tied to that specific voice and hardware was so that there could be a way to verify that a recording was actually

I wonder if one of the reasons Hawking was so tied to that specific voice and hardware was so that there could be a way to verify that a recording was actually him. If nobody else had that hardware and software combo, it wouldn't be possible for anyone else to put words into his mouth. With that in mind, it was nice to read that the original CallText boards as well as the emulator are with the family. That should provide the security to ensure that nobody can impersonate him in the future.

mockingbirdy 8y ago
> it wouldn't be possible for anyone else to put words into his mouth. You can copy normal voices, you can copy his voice and you can fully impersonate people and even create fake videos. If security was his intent, he should have used cryptographic signatures for his texts or voice recordings, but even that can be compromised. I think he just liked his voice and wanted it to be unique. It's understandable and most people would do the same.
- shagie 8y ago
  From https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/why-stephen-hawkings-voice-computer-spoke-with-an-american-accent/news-story/d4529ffb6341278d8c1b33e06cd3099c https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/why-stephen-ha... > He also explained that he was able to change the accent of his computer when the technology advanced, but he decided against it. > Hawking added: “My old system worked well and I wrote five books with it, including A Brief History Of Time. > “It has become my trademark and I wouldn’t change it for a more natural voice with a British accent. > “I am told that children who need a computer voice want one like mine.”
overcast 8y ago
He was so tied to that specific voice, because that was his voice. If someone told you that today, you get a completely new voice, would you? It just so happens that this particular synthetic voice was attached to an extremely popular person, and it was his identifying trait.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  Lots of people do. Politicians are well known for changing their speech later in life in order to convey a different feeling, usually "confident and statesman-like". Personally I modify my speech by context, just as I modify my writing. When I'm "home" (where I grew up, my parent's house) I emphasise my accent a little more, just as I use local slang. Some people, subconsciously echo a speaking-partners accent - changing the tone, timbre, inflections, and such between conversations. But yes, you're right that voice was strongly linked to his identity as is often the case for prolific public speakers.
  - AckSyn 8y ago
    Speech != voice. One can definitely train to speak better with coaching, but your voice and most specifically your voice “ID” is unique to you. That can’t be changed.
    - lucb1e 8y ago
      Can't it? I have no idea but if you can train to speak in a different voice, how is that not changing your voice? Maybe I won't be able to speak like someone of the opposite gender because I don't have vocal chords like that, but learning to speak like someone with a similar body should be doable, no? Or can speech recognition systems really pick this out somehow and is there really the concept of a unique voice to a person?
    - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
      English word choice is confusing here because voice can be "the style of speech/writing". By changing [style of] their speech I mean the frequency, timbre, intonations, accent, nasality, etc., and NOT words, or content (which obviously can also be changed). There are often key elements that match based on morphology of the vocal apparatus, but if I speak like a toff with a cold vs. a barrel-chested Nor'n Irelander there's little ID left. Good mimics, those who have radio/TV shows for example, can if they choose leave nothing for a normal listener to distinguish their speech from that of the subject of their mimicry. Impressionists tend to charicateur their subjects somewhat, however. In UK it used to be relatively common to have a "telephone choice" that would sometimes confuse even close acquaintances in to thinking you were someone else. Another common example is when taking different languages one has a different voice.
theoh 8y ago
Actually, though, the voice was a standard, default part of the DECTalk system, called "Perfect Paul". There were a few other options. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8pewe2gPDk4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8pewe2gPDk4 In general, there's no security to be had in unique the sound of someone's voice. It is too easy to impersonate.
mwcampbell 8y ago
I know of one other commercial synthesizer based on the Klatt model, DECtalk. (In fact, DECtalk is the product that Dennis Klatt went on to create after his research at MIT.) I wonder if DECtalk is close enough that it would fool most people. Here's a clip I made with DECtalk 4.50 (the last good version of that synth IMO, from the 90s): https://mwcampbell.us/tmp/faux_hawking.mp3 https://mwcampbell.us/tmp/faux_hawking.mp3
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  It is very close. I'm sure I heard a closer one somewhere though ...

mockingbirdy 8y ago

> it wouldn't be possible for anyone else to put words into his mouth. You can copy normal voices, you can copy his voice and you can fully impersonate people and even create fake videos. If security was his intent, he should have used cryptographic signatures for his texts or voice recordings, but even that can be compromised. I think he just liked his voice and wanted it to be unique. It's understandable and most people would do the same.

shagie 8y ago
From https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/why-stephen-hawkings-voice-computer-spoke-with-an-american-accent/news-story/d4529ffb6341278d8c1b33e06cd3099c https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/why-stephen-ha... > He also explained that he was able to change the accent of his computer when the technology advanced, but he decided against it. > Hawking added: “My old system worked well and I wrote five books with it, including A Brief History Of Time. > “It has become my trademark and I wouldn’t change it for a more natural voice with a British accent. > “I am told that children who need a computer voice want one like mine.”

overcast 8y ago

He was so tied to that specific voice, because that was his voice. If someone told you that today, you get a completely new voice, would you? It just so happens that this particular synthetic voice was attached to an extremely popular person, and it was his identifying trait.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
Lots of people do. Politicians are well known for changing their speech later in life in order to convey a different feeling, usually "confident and statesman-like". Personally I modify my speech by context, just as I modify my writing. When I'm "home" (where I grew up, my parent's house) I emphasise my accent a little more, just as I use local slang. Some people, subconsciously echo a speaking-partners accent - changing the tone, timbre, inflections, and such between conversations. But yes, you're right that voice was strongly linked to his identity as is often the case for prolific public speakers.
- AckSyn 8y ago
  Speech != voice. One can definitely train to speak better with coaching, but your voice and most specifically your voice “ID” is unique to you. That can’t be changed.
  - lucb1e 8y ago
    Can't it? I have no idea but if you can train to speak in a different voice, how is that not changing your voice? Maybe I won't be able to speak like someone of the opposite gender because I don't have vocal chords like that, but learning to speak like someone with a similar body should be doable, no? Or can speech recognition systems really pick this out somehow and is there really the concept of a unique voice to a person?
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    English word choice is confusing here because voice can be "the style of speech/writing". By changing [style of] their speech I mean the frequency, timbre, intonations, accent, nasality, etc., and NOT words, or content (which obviously can also be changed). There are often key elements that match based on morphology of the vocal apparatus, but if I speak like a toff with a cold vs. a barrel-chested Nor'n Irelander there's little ID left. Good mimics, those who have radio/TV shows for example, can if they choose leave nothing for a normal listener to distinguish their speech from that of the subject of their mimicry. Impressionists tend to charicateur their subjects somewhat, however. In UK it used to be relatively common to have a "telephone choice" that would sometimes confuse even close acquaintances in to thinking you were someone else. Another common example is when taking different languages one has a different voice.

theoh 8y ago

Actually, though, the voice was a standard, default part of the DECTalk system, called "Perfect Paul". There were a few other options. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8pewe2gPDk4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8pewe2gPDk4 In general, there's no security to be had in unique the sound of someone's voice. It is too easy to impersonate.

mwcampbell 8y ago

I know of one other commercial synthesizer based on the Klatt model, DECtalk. (In fact, DECtalk is the product that Dennis Klatt went on to create after his research at MIT.) I wonder if DECtalk is close enough that it would fool most people. Here's a clip I made with DECtalk 4.50 (the last good version of that synth IMO, from the 90s): https://mwcampbell.us/tmp/faux_hawking.mp3 https://mwcampbell.us/tmp/faux_hawking.mp3

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
It is very close. I'm sure I heard a closer one somewhere though ...