> 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

> 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