4 ms·

I've seen the demos of AI systems that can be trained on an individual's voice, and generate new speech in the same voice. If I was waterprinting a meeting, I w

I've seen the demos of AI systems that can be trained on an individual's voice, and generate new speech in the same voice. If I was waterprinting a meeting, I would train a system like this on the fly on the people in the meeting and use it to dynamically insert filler words (um...) in a unique pattern into the audio stream for each member of the meeting. That would defeat any audio filter tricks or recreating the meeting from scratch, so you would want to summarize/rephrase the meeting too.

bobthepanda 6y ago
How would you explain these filler words if the lips don’t match?
- irjustin 6y ago
  I think in this case you don't always have the visual recording of the speaker.
- eru 6y ago
  Zoom's quality ain't that great. You often have random lags and delays, and I don't think audio and video are always 100% in sync anyway.
loa_in_ 6y ago
But if certain frequencies are in the training data, they still will be in the output. Won't you end up with watermarked audio still?
ardy42 6y ago
> I've seen the demos of AI systems that can be trained on an individual's voice, and generate new speech in the same voice. If I was waterprinting a meeting, I would train a system like this on the fly on the people in the meeting and use it to dynamically insert filler words (um...) in a unique pattern into the audio stream for each member of the meeting. That would defeat any audio filter tricks or recreating the meeting from scratch, so you would want to summarize/rephrase the meeting too. But wouldn't doing something like that make the recording seem like a deepfake, potentially reducing it's credibility? To an outside observer, it may make a genuine recording appear to be fake. I'm reminded of the controversy over the faked Bush Texas ANG documents. They were discovered by randos on the internet realizing the text looked like the output of a modern version of Word than the 70s typewriter they should have been written on if genuine. Imagine a similar but genuine document where the content was deliberately retyped using anachronistic equipment to obscure the leaker's identity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy
- semi-extrinsic 6y ago
  I don't remember the details, but there was a lawsuit (in India IIRC) over some contractual documents, which were proven to be fake since they used Microsoft's Calibri font, but were supposed to be from before Calibri et al. was released.
  - eru 6y ago
    Calibri comes up surprisingly often. There were lawsuits and scandals in other countries, too.
  - netsharc 6y ago
    Imagine getting caught through an even more obscure difference, like different default margins/spacing in new Word, or... letter kerning!
Haemm0r 6y ago
you could let your recreation algorithm do the same thing. add and remove filler words randomly. This way in the end you can't be sure whos audio it was :)

bobthepanda 6y ago

How would you explain these filler words if the lips don’t match?

irjustin 6y ago
I think in this case you don't always have the visual recording of the speaker.
eru 6y ago
Zoom's quality ain't that great. You often have random lags and delays, and I don't think audio and video are always 100% in sync anyway.

loa_in_ 6y ago

But if certain frequencies are in the training data, they still will be in the output. Won't you end up with watermarked audio still?

ardy42 6y ago

> I've seen the demos of AI systems that can be trained on an individual's voice, and generate new speech in the same voice. If I was waterprinting a meeting, I would train a system like this on the fly on the people in the meeting and use it to dynamically insert filler words (um...) in a unique pattern into the audio stream for each member of the meeting. That would defeat any audio filter tricks or recreating the meeting from scratch, so you would want to summarize/rephrase the meeting too. But wouldn't doing something like that make the recording seem like a deepfake, potentially reducing it's credibility? To an outside observer, it may make a genuine recording appear to be fake. I'm reminded of the controversy over the faked Bush Texas ANG documents. They were discovered by randos on the internet realizing the text looked like the output of a modern version of Word than the 70s typewriter they should have been written on if genuine. Imagine a similar but genuine document where the content was deliberately retyped using anachronistic equipment to obscure the leaker's identity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy

semi-extrinsic 6y ago
I don't remember the details, but there was a lawsuit (in India IIRC) over some contractual documents, which were proven to be fake since they used Microsoft's Calibri font, but were supposed to be from before Calibri et al. was released.
- eru 6y ago
  Calibri comes up surprisingly often. There were lawsuits and scandals in other countries, too.
- netsharc 6y ago
  Imagine getting caught through an even more obscure difference, like different default margins/spacing in new Word, or... letter kerning!

Haemm0r 6y ago

you could let your recreation algorithm do the same thing. add and remove filler words randomly. This way in the end you can't be sure whos audio it was :)