4 ms·

Some strange and funny vocal aberrations here: * sublicence - "sublissence" * fitness - "fisted" * infringement - "infring-ment" * liable - "liar-ful" It's

by n4r9 3y ago

Some strange and funny vocal aberrations here: * sublicence - "sublissence" * fitness - "fisted" * infringement - "infring-ment" * liable - "liar-ful" It's also obviously not a pure human voice recording as the pitch transitions sound heavily auto-tuned or electrified (think Cher's "Believe"). I anticipate people becoming experts in detecting AI-generated vocalists in much the same way that we can currently detect AI-generated images due to abnormalities especially in details like ears or fingers.

haolez 3y ago
And I also expect that, very soon, we won't be able to tell them apart anymore (like those wine experts that fail to detect the good wines if blindfolded).
- Etheryte 3y ago
  That fail to detect even whether they're having white wine or red wine.*
  - Starman_Jones 3y ago
    This myth is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the experiment conducted. The conclusion of the experiment was that the vocabulary used to describe wine is subjective, and that the chosen descriptors are most heavily influenced by the color of wine, the perceived cost of the wine, and the taster's opinion of whether it was a good wine or not. I've participated in a blind wine tasting, and it was trivially easy for even complete amateurs to guess the right color of wine 100% of the time.
  - arketyp 3y ago
    I've heard this, and I would have been inclined to believe it. But then I watched the documentary Somm about the journey of a couple of friends reaching for the highest rankings of sommeliers. They could identify grapes, regions and year with striking accuracy. I just don't see how you could do that and then not be able to tell white and red wine apart.
    - vundercind 3y ago
      I barely know what I’m doing with wine but am 100% sure I could at least tell you which are whites and which reds if you lined up a typical Chardonnay, a typical Pinot Grigio, a typical cab sauv, and a typical Pinot noir. I am certain there exist weird wines that could fool me (I’ve had a few really weird wines) but typical shit from the grocery store, I’m gonna be able to tell at least that much. I might even ID them more precisely than red or white. It’s not exactly subtle… Then again I don’t have a clue how someone could fail to tell which is coke and which Pepsi in the “Pepsi challenge”. They’re wildly different flavors. I can tell by smell alone.
      - n4r9 3y ago
        I vaguely remember looking into this before, and it turned out that the tasters were being told (incorrectly) that it was a red wine, and asked to describe the flavour profile. They then used tasting terms more frequently associated with reds than with whites, and didn't question what they were told. So it's less a case of "they cannot distinguish red from white" and more a case of "they went along with a suggested classification". I feel like this is a weaker result, although it's still a little surprising.
        arketyp 3y ago
        Thanks. Together with GP's point about the possibility of weird wines, it seems reasonable that one could go along quite far on a false premise.
        notnaut 3y ago
        My feeling is there is the high level classification which is quite difficult to fuck up. After that it’s all adjectives and analogues, which is the fluffed up phoniness that inherently presents itself in the process of converting our subjective experiences of physical reality into abstract symbols.
        yongjik 3y ago
        Yeah, but that still shows people's perception of wine is barely above noise level, if it can be so easily misled. For comparison, imagine someone showing a piece of Picasso to art critics and saying "Could you please describe the artistic significance of this painting by da Vinci?" The critics won't start using terms commonly reserved for Renaissance era; they'll say "What the fuck are you talking about, this isn't da Vinci."
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    This one only shows you poor “expertise” more than anything, as it is standard exercise while training to become a wine expert in France (they also give students white wine that have been red-colored or otherwise tempered with), so I wouldn't expect any legit expert to be fooled this way. Though it's true that with some wines it can be tough initially for enlightened amateurs. Source: my wife's godfather did the studies for that[1] two years ago. [1]: https://www.isvv.u-bordeaux.fr/fr/diplome-universitaire-daptitude-a-la-degustation-d-u-a-d?format=html https://www.isvv.u-bordeaux.fr/fr/diplome-universitaire-dapt...
  - reducesuffering 3y ago
    I believed this myth until I actually tried it blind with a handful of wine novices, and every one could tell them apart.
- n4r9 3y ago
  As far as I can tell, AI image generation still struggles with some things after many years of research and is often detectable. Perhaps vocals is easier though.
  - ancientworldnow 3y ago
    It's like cgi, you only recognize bad examples of it while the good ones go right past you. I've got plenty of ai generations that fool professional photo retouchers - it just takes more time and some custom tooling.
    - throwup238 3y ago
      > I've got plenty of ai generations that fool professional photo retouchers - it just takes more time and some custom tooling. What’s a good place to find out the SOTA of the custom tooling and workflow?
      - zzzzzzzzzz10 3y ago
        Comfyui + civitai. 4chan and reddit threads if you want to go deep
    - ptx 3y ago
      > It's like cgi Right. Full of code injection vulnerabilities.
  - VelesDude 3y ago
    From audio video editing experience years back, it is much easier to slip some cheap audio cuts past people than visual ones.
  - Paul-Craft 3y ago
    This already sounds like something I would have listened to in the 90s, except with too much autotune.
  - Legend2440 3y ago
    "many years" lol, midjourney only came out like a year and a half ago and the quality has quadrupled in that time.
- gosub100 3y ago
  The non-singing TTS are barely discernible now. I watch a lot of narration-heavy edu-tainment on YouTube and often the only way I can detect TTS is the consistent monotone and uniform syllable cadence. There can be 15 minutes before a single mispronounced word is spoken. That could be a preview of what's to come with AI video.
- jackspratts 3y ago
  if by very soon you mean already then. yeah. i can't anyway, and i'm in the business.- js. https://soundcloud.com/rs-539916550/soul-of-the-machine?utm_source=clipboard&utm_campaign=wtshare&utm_medium=widget&utm_content=https%253A%252F%252Fsoundcloud.com%252Frs-539916550%252Fsoul-of-the-machine https://soundcloud.com/rs-539916550/soul-of-the-machine?utm_...
Traubenfuchs 3y ago
The average modern pop songs boasts a worse voice that sounds more autotuned than this AI song here. The biggest problem to me is how the voice appears to be shaky.
- Martinussen 3y ago
  I'm going to go out on a limb and say you don't listen to much "modern pop" - the production quality of the biggest mainstream pop is _extremely_ high at this point, and while "worse voice" is obviously subjective, this really wouldn't be anything stand-out in that regard even if it didn't sound like a robot.
  - n4r9 3y ago
    I mean, if you dislike the sound of an autotuned voice (which a lot of people do), then there are a lot of modern(ish?) pop artists that use it heavily who you're gonna hate: Travis Scott, Lizzo, Neo, Kesha, T-Pain, Doja Cat ...
    - Martinussen 3y ago
      I'd say that is more about hip-hop, really. (And a couple of names that aren't exactly the most relevant to this decade)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Retr0id 3y ago
And I'm sure a skilled editor could already edit out those tells.
- OmarShehata 3y ago
  At that point, is it AI generated?? That feels like an entirely different category to me (like it's sort of no difference than paying someone to voice something and share it) I think the stuff that is completely generated with no human in the loop is a different category for me because it can be used for things at scale like, bots on social media, or ads in a podcast generated just for you, etc. As long as there is still a human in the loop making the editing decisions, it feels not categorically different from the world we have today.
  - Retr0id 3y ago
    That's a fair point, but "ai does the work and humans clean up the mistakes" is generally a lot faster than humans doing all the work. Singing well takes skill (even when you have autotune), splicing together multiple "takes" into one good recording, less so.
  - gpm 3y ago
    I'm never going to have the voice to sing this, but I can easily imagine learning how to edit it. AI/Human combos can still be valuable. More broadly I'd argue that that's how almost all tech works. E.g. there are still textile workers, just many less of them producing much more clothing.
  - tombert 3y ago
    I would say it's still categorically different, just because we're automating one piece of labor that was kind of thought until about ~12 years ago to be un-automatible. Like, there's been computer-singing voices for awhile, but they always sounded pretty robotic and goofy (e.g. Microsoft Sam), and I think for a long time people just assumed that to get mostly-realistic voices, you need an actual singer. Yes, it still requires a bit of human tweaking to make it perfect, but I suspect that if put to the test it would reduce the cost of making a song substantially.
nostrademons 3y ago
Many human vocalists have similar aberrations. Remember Jimi Hendrix "Excuse me while I kiss this guy", or the notorious autotune on a number of contemporary pop artists (you gave an example yourself)? IMHO many of the successes of "artificial intelligence" come from "natural stupidity". Humans have many glitches in our perceptual mechanisms. The AIs that end up going viral and become commercially viable tend to exploit those perceptual glitches, simply because that's what makes them appeal to people.
- n4r9 3y ago
  The difference between this and Hendrix's "kiss this guy" is that you can listen to it and plausibly believe that Hendrix is actually saying "the sky". In the linked track you know the actual words but it still doesn't sound like them.
latexr 3y ago
> I anticipate people becoming experts in detecting AI-generated vocalists in much the same way that we can currently detect AI-generated images due to abnormalities especially in details like ears or fingers. People fail to identify even the most basic and obvious fakes, but somehow there’s a group of people who think that as fakes become harder to distinguish from reality, we’ll all magically become experts at it. We won’t. People’s ability to detect fakes will get worse, not better, as a consequence of more prevalent and better fakes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U1HMqtam90 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U1HMqtam90
- IanCal 3y ago
  I'm always surprised by this idea too. I can easily see an outcome of it becoming increasingly hard to convince people that real things are actually real.
- n4r9 3y ago
  Funny video :) I didn't mean to imply that everyone will become experts; I meant that some people will become very good at distinguishing AI vocals.
  - bitcharmer 3y ago
    > I meant that some people will become very good at distinguishing AI vocals Until it becomes impossible which seems to be the trajectory here, no?
thenickdude 3y ago
You can fix most misspoken words by tweaking the lyrics. e.g. in my most recent song it pronounced "pasting" from "copying and pasting" as "past-ing. I just rewrote the lyrics as "paste-ing" and it sung it perfectly afterwards.
Terretta 3y ago
> It's also obviously not a pure human voice recording as the pitch transitions sound heavily auto-tuned or electrified ... The cake is a lie, but the music is real It’s all fake when the truth is revealed > (think Cher's "Believe") Or think GLaDOS. Pretty sure that's not a coincidence.

by n4r9 3y ago

haolez 3y ago

And I also expect that, very soon, we won't be able to tell them apart anymore (like those wine experts that fail to detect the good wines if blindfolded).

Etheryte 3y ago
That fail to detect even whether they're having white wine or red wine.*
- Starman_Jones 3y ago
  This myth is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the experiment conducted. The conclusion of the experiment was that the vocabulary used to describe wine is subjective, and that the chosen descriptors are most heavily influenced by the color of wine, the perceived cost of the wine, and the taster's opinion of whether it was a good wine or not. I've participated in a blind wine tasting, and it was trivially easy for even complete amateurs to guess the right color of wine 100% of the time.
- arketyp 3y ago
  I've heard this, and I would have been inclined to believe it. But then I watched the documentary Somm about the journey of a couple of friends reaching for the highest rankings of sommeliers. They could identify grapes, regions and year with striking accuracy. I just don't see how you could do that and then not be able to tell white and red wine apart.
  - vundercind 3y ago
    I barely know what I’m doing with wine but am 100% sure I could at least tell you which are whites and which reds if you lined up a typical Chardonnay, a typical Pinot Grigio, a typical cab sauv, and a typical Pinot noir. I am certain there exist weird wines that could fool me (I’ve had a few really weird wines) but typical shit from the grocery store, I’m gonna be able to tell at least that much. I might even ID them more precisely than red or white. It’s not exactly subtle… Then again I don’t have a clue how someone could fail to tell which is coke and which Pepsi in the “Pepsi challenge”. They’re wildly different flavors. I can tell by smell alone.
    - n4r9 3y ago
      I vaguely remember looking into this before, and it turned out that the tasters were being told (incorrectly) that it was a red wine, and asked to describe the flavour profile. They then used tasting terms more frequently associated with reds than with whites, and didn't question what they were told. So it's less a case of "they cannot distinguish red from white" and more a case of "they went along with a suggested classification". I feel like this is a weaker result, although it's still a little surprising.
      - arketyp 3y ago
        Thanks. Together with GP's point about the possibility of weird wines, it seems reasonable that one could go along quite far on a false premise.
      - notnaut 3y ago
        My feeling is there is the high level classification which is quite difficult to fuck up. After that it’s all adjectives and analogues, which is the fluffed up phoniness that inherently presents itself in the process of converting our subjective experiences of physical reality into abstract symbols.
      - yongjik 3y ago
        Yeah, but that still shows people's perception of wine is barely above noise level, if it can be so easily misled. For comparison, imagine someone showing a piece of Picasso to art critics and saying "Could you please describe the artistic significance of this painting by da Vinci?" The critics won't start using terms commonly reserved for Renaissance era; they'll say "What the fuck are you talking about, this isn't da Vinci."
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  This one only shows you poor “expertise” more than anything, as it is standard exercise while training to become a wine expert in France (they also give students white wine that have been red-colored or otherwise tempered with), so I wouldn't expect any legit expert to be fooled this way. Though it's true that with some wines it can be tough initially for enlightened amateurs. Source: my wife's godfather did the studies for that[1] two years ago. [1]: https://www.isvv.u-bordeaux.fr/fr/diplome-universitaire-daptitude-a-la-degustation-d-u-a-d?format=html https://www.isvv.u-bordeaux.fr/fr/diplome-universitaire-dapt...
- reducesuffering 3y ago
  I believed this myth until I actually tried it blind with a handful of wine novices, and every one could tell them apart.
n4r9 3y ago
As far as I can tell, AI image generation still struggles with some things after many years of research and is often detectable. Perhaps vocals is easier though.
- ancientworldnow 3y ago
  It's like cgi, you only recognize bad examples of it while the good ones go right past you. I've got plenty of ai generations that fool professional photo retouchers - it just takes more time and some custom tooling.
  - throwup238 3y ago
    > I've got plenty of ai generations that fool professional photo retouchers - it just takes more time and some custom tooling. What’s a good place to find out the SOTA of the custom tooling and workflow?
    - zzzzzzzzzz10 3y ago
      Comfyui + civitai. 4chan and reddit threads if you want to go deep
  - ptx 3y ago
    > It's like cgi Right. Full of code injection vulnerabilities.
- VelesDude 3y ago
  From audio video editing experience years back, it is much easier to slip some cheap audio cuts past people than visual ones.
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  This already sounds like something I would have listened to in the 90s, except with too much autotune.
- Legend2440 3y ago
  "many years" lol, midjourney only came out like a year and a half ago and the quality has quadrupled in that time.
gosub100 3y ago
The non-singing TTS are barely discernible now. I watch a lot of narration-heavy edu-tainment on YouTube and often the only way I can detect TTS is the consistent monotone and uniform syllable cadence. There can be 15 minutes before a single mispronounced word is spoken. That could be a preview of what's to come with AI video.
jackspratts 3y ago
if by very soon you mean already then. yeah. i can't anyway, and i'm in the business.- js. https://soundcloud.com/rs-539916550/soul-of-the-machine?utm_source=clipboard&utm_campaign=wtshare&utm_medium=widget&utm_content=https%253A%252F%252Fsoundcloud.com%252Frs-539916550%252Fsoul-of-the-machine https://soundcloud.com/rs-539916550/soul-of-the-machine?utm_...

Traubenfuchs 3y ago

The average modern pop songs boasts a worse voice that sounds more autotuned than this AI song here. The biggest problem to me is how the voice appears to be shaky.

Martinussen 3y ago
I'm going to go out on a limb and say you don't listen to much "modern pop" - the production quality of the biggest mainstream pop is _extremely_ high at this point, and while "worse voice" is obviously subjective, this really wouldn't be anything stand-out in that regard even if it didn't sound like a robot.
- n4r9 3y ago
  I mean, if you dislike the sound of an autotuned voice (which a lot of people do), then there are a lot of modern(ish?) pop artists that use it heavily who you're gonna hate: Travis Scott, Lizzo, Neo, Kesha, T-Pain, Doja Cat ...
  - Martinussen 3y ago
    I'd say that is more about hip-hop, really. (And a couple of names that aren't exactly the most relevant to this decade)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Retr0id 3y ago

And I'm sure a skilled editor could already edit out those tells.

OmarShehata 3y ago
At that point, is it AI generated?? That feels like an entirely different category to me (like it's sort of no difference than paying someone to voice something and share it) I think the stuff that is completely generated with no human in the loop is a different category for me because it can be used for things at scale like, bots on social media, or ads in a podcast generated just for you, etc. As long as there is still a human in the loop making the editing decisions, it feels not categorically different from the world we have today.
- Retr0id 3y ago
  That's a fair point, but "ai does the work and humans clean up the mistakes" is generally a lot faster than humans doing all the work. Singing well takes skill (even when you have autotune), splicing together multiple "takes" into one good recording, less so.
- gpm 3y ago
  I'm never going to have the voice to sing this, but I can easily imagine learning how to edit it. AI/Human combos can still be valuable. More broadly I'd argue that that's how almost all tech works. E.g. there are still textile workers, just many less of them producing much more clothing.
- tombert 3y ago
  I would say it's still categorically different, just because we're automating one piece of labor that was kind of thought until about ~12 years ago to be un-automatible. Like, there's been computer-singing voices for awhile, but they always sounded pretty robotic and goofy (e.g. Microsoft Sam), and I think for a long time people just assumed that to get mostly-realistic voices, you need an actual singer. Yes, it still requires a bit of human tweaking to make it perfect, but I suspect that if put to the test it would reduce the cost of making a song substantially.

nostrademons 3y ago

Many human vocalists have similar aberrations. Remember Jimi Hendrix "Excuse me while I kiss this guy", or the notorious autotune on a number of contemporary pop artists (you gave an example yourself)? IMHO many of the successes of "artificial intelligence" come from "natural stupidity". Humans have many glitches in our perceptual mechanisms. The AIs that end up going viral and become commercially viable tend to exploit those perceptual glitches, simply because that's what makes them appeal to people.

n4r9 3y ago
The difference between this and Hendrix's "kiss this guy" is that you can listen to it and plausibly believe that Hendrix is actually saying "the sky". In the linked track you know the actual words but it still doesn't sound like them.

latexr 3y ago

> I anticipate people becoming experts in detecting AI-generated vocalists in much the same way that we can currently detect AI-generated images due to abnormalities especially in details like ears or fingers. People fail to identify even the most basic and obvious fakes, but somehow there’s a group of people who think that as fakes become harder to distinguish from reality, we’ll all magically become experts at it. We won’t. People’s ability to detect fakes will get worse, not better, as a consequence of more prevalent and better fakes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U1HMqtam90 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U1HMqtam90

IanCal 3y ago
I'm always surprised by this idea too. I can easily see an outcome of it becoming increasingly hard to convince people that real things are actually real.
n4r9 3y ago
Funny video :) I didn't mean to imply that everyone will become experts; I meant that some people will become very good at distinguishing AI vocals.
- bitcharmer 3y ago
  > I meant that some people will become very good at distinguishing AI vocals Until it becomes impossible which seems to be the trajectory here, no?

thenickdude 3y ago

You can fix most misspoken words by tweaking the lyrics. e.g. in my most recent song it pronounced "pasting" from "copying and pasting" as "past-ing. I just rewrote the lyrics as "paste-ing" and it sung it perfectly afterwards.

Terretta 3y ago

> It's also obviously not a pure human voice recording as the pitch transitions sound heavily auto-tuned or electrified ... The cake is a lie, but the music is real It’s all fake when the truth is revealed > (think Cher's "Believe") Or think GLaDOS. Pretty sure that's not a coincidence.