[HN Gopher] Voicebox: Generative AI model for speech that genera...
___________________________________________________________________
Voicebox: Generative AI model for speech that generalizes across
tasks
Author : OkGoDoIt
Score : 177 points
Date : 2023-06-19 16:49 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ai.facebook.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (ai.facebook.com)
| poisonarena wrote:
| > introduces state of the art AI Model for speech
|
| > narrator for the presentation is indian woman with lisp
|
| every time
| insickness wrote:
| The narration was bad. I was thinking maybe it was the head
| developer of the project and they wanted her to narrate or
| something. Why would you choose that narration?
| stan_kirdey wrote:
| seem to be already in the process of reproduction by the
| community - https://github.com/SpeechifyInc/Meta-voicebox
| aketchum wrote:
| I think that the "star trek" use case of a live translation is
| super exciting. I think that this also will force people to have
| pass phrases that they use to authenticate phone calls with. I
| normally downplay when people bring up everyone signing
| everything with a public/private key (impractical for normal
| users) but clearly there will be a need for authentication
| protocols as AI proliferates
| bool3max wrote:
| How "live" can translation ever really be? Properly translating
| anything from one language to another requires context.
| bugglebeetle wrote:
| While I'm not necessarily in favor of this, a multimodal AI
| that has access to your location, vision inputs, etc could
| obtain much of this context. People already explore foreign
| countries by hobbling together these services.
| [deleted]
| canadianwriter wrote:
| like... a pin?
| madsbuch wrote:
| In the US some phone companies have been using voice
| recognition to authenticate when their customers call. This
| will definitely have to see its end.
| zimpenfish wrote:
| HMRC in the UK also use it. Has never worked once for me
| and I don't even have any kind of accent.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| Coming to an android and iphone near you voice authentication.
| Audio streams have inaudible data produced by encrypting a
| mutually known but changeable token like the current time with
| your private key embedded in the stream for example in
| frequencies you can't hear. Your phone app queries the service
| with the time of call and the data received and if they are
| also a subscriber it is able to discern their identity with
| certainty.
|
| If this feature is standardized and built in it could be paired
| with a token like a yubikey which is on users keychain and
| authenticated even if they were using someone else's phone.
|
| All these details can be completely opaque to the user who just
| needs to see a blue check by calls made with a device
| verifiably logged in as name@provider and a red exclamation
| beside calls made with no info at all.
|
| Think fake kidnapping scams, industrial espionage, recent
| attacks involved in pretending to be in HR to redirect corp
| transfers to attacker.
|
| Just a little doubt is liable to blow up such scams.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _If this feature is standardized and built in it could be
| paired with a token like a yubikey which is on users keychain
| and authenticated even if they were using someone else 's
| phone._
|
| Remember the standard tech bait-and-switch: if this feature
| is built in, it'll not be good enough to function for
| purposes you describe, but it _will_ be good enough to track
| you by your voice for advertising purposes.
| bee_rider wrote:
| In a fake kidnapping scheme, it doesn't seem like that much
| of a stretch to say "I've been kidnapped, and they took my
| keys, so I don't have my yubikey" or something along those
| lines.
| ChatGTP wrote:
| Is Meta just operating in hope and AI moonshots now ?
|
| Everyone one of their products is just garbage to me and becoming
| less relevant by the day. When do they actually starting building
| something useful again ?
|
| Honestly Apple seems to be using "AI" much more successfully and
| actually seamlessly integrating it into their existing products
| to improve them.
|
| My theory is Mark is hoping the meta verse will pop out if Yan's
| bottom at some stage. Maybe he is right? I just can't for the
| life of my understand why the current products are just so so
| neglected?
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| [flagged]
| ChatGTP wrote:
| Do you use an iPhone ? They do pretty amazing things with
| images now. Even the search for a photo by text is quite
| amazing. I used it the other day for work for the first time
| and I found what I needed in my tens of thousands of photos.
| It almost truly felt like an extension of my memory, it was
| actually a pretty cool feeling.
|
| So sorry I don't buy the Siri attack as being proof of
| anything. I have found Siri has improved a lot. Even the
| speed at which Siri works is much faster. The other day I was
| driving in a really loud old car and used my Apple watch to
| change the music, I said to myself "there's no way Siri will
| get it", and it did.
|
| I also trust Apple with my data, at least for now. I don't
| even slightly trust Meta at all. I found Zuckerbergs
| interview on Lex Friedman more scary than before as he said
| all the same freaky stuff disguised by a more "cool" and
| polished facade. The same dystopian ideas are still there.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Sent from my iPhone
| [deleted]
| twobitshifter wrote:
| I think he's talking about the new iOS feature that allows
| your text to be read in your own voice model.
| tyrfing wrote:
| Voice commands being usable is the one thing I miss from
| having an Android phone.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| I'm no fan of Meta but I'm glad there are companies investing
| in big moonshots like AI and yes, even Metaverse.
| polyomino wrote:
| Meta products have more users than ever
| ChatGTP wrote:
| Doesn't prove much honestly. How do you even know those users
| are real ? What value are the products providing ?
|
| My Apple products continue to improve my day to day
| immensely. The meta products are just rubbish on the whole.
| How has Instagram improved in the last 5 years ?
| [deleted]
| HasanYousef wrote:
| The anecdotal fallacy
| cvhashim04 wrote:
| Any available open source APIs?
| schappim wrote:
| > we are not making the Voicebox model or code publicly available
| at this time
|
| Hopefully it'll do a LLaMA.
| treprinum wrote:
| So are they releasing it or not? It's a nice PR statement but "we
| are not making the Voicebox model or code publicly available at
| this time". Phantom release?
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| They are holding it closed for the safety of the children and
| their future profit margins.
| swader999 wrote:
| So where can we try this out?
| theptip wrote:
| > See voicebox.metademolab.com for a demo of the model
|
| They are not releasing the model (yet?) but demo samples are
| available across many tasks
| paul7986 wrote:
| Anyone know what tool is being used to create AI singing
| voices/renditions of Mariah Carey singing Whitney Houston to
| other popular songs?
|
| Here's a bunch of results on YouTube and some are really good
|
| https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mariah+carey+ai...
| jansan wrote:
| Pretty impressive, but I had the video running in the background
| and it sounded a bit too sterile for my taste. Also, the narrator
| sounds a bit like she once gave a foot massage to Marsellus
| Wallace's bride.
| moneywoes wrote:
| Is this really better than eleven labs?
| gamegoblin wrote:
| Just listening to it, it's subjectively not better, but if it's
| > 10x faster/cheaper, I would use it anyway -- it's good enough
| to be listenable.
|
| Eleven Labs is the first voice synthesis that is good enough
| that I'd listen to an audiobook generated from it, but pricing
| is such that it would cost $100 to synthesize a 10 hour
| audiobook. A little too expensive. If they could get it down to
| $10 I'd cancel my Audible subscription and just synthesize
| audio from ebook text.
|
| So if I can get a locally running voicebox model and just leave
| it running on my laptop over night transcribing an audiobook,
| that's even better.
| bavell wrote:
| > So if I can get a locally running voicebox model and just
| leave it running on my laptop over night transcribing an
| audiobook, that's even better.
|
| This is basically my dream for local AI... locals models
| trained on my own data/code/styles. Even if they're slow, as
| long as they work (V/RAM) and are of high enough quality then
| I'm happy to wait!
| siwakotisaurav wrote:
| Have you tried tortoisetts? I believe eleven labs basically
| forked that and made improvements on voice quality and speed
| there
| nannal wrote:
| tortoisetts is good to takes a long time to render audio
| even on it's fastest setting with the fast fork.
|
| Although it wasn't clear to me how voicebox compares.
| theLiminator wrote:
| How does it compare to Voicebox in quality?
| pksebben wrote:
| I would say that properly configured Tortoise is better,
| but that comes with the massive caveat that Tortoise:
|
| 1 - Is a real pain to get 'working right' - it's not even
| remotely batteries included
|
| and, more importantly:
|
| 2 - Is _incredibly slow_. I 've been turning Heart Of
| Darkness into an audiobook as a unit test and it takes
| ~30m per paragraph, on average. Add to that the
| occasional hiccup where a block gets transcribed badly
| (Tortoise occasionally 'drops out' of it's selected
| voice) and Tortoise only really works if you have a ton
| of compute and you still don't mind waiting forever.
| bdcravens wrote:
| I'm not sure. Eleven Labs requires some tweaking of the
| parameters, but I've created samples that friends and family
| are certain is me.
| nickolas_t wrote:
| Came here to find out myself, still not sure.
| ogsalman wrote:
| oh okay, so this is what they were recording me for...
|
| hehe, fun world we live in.
| cnlwsu wrote:
| I am mostly excited for cheaper audiobooks with consistent voices
| for different characters.
| dsign wrote:
| I've been working on that for my hobby writing project. I'm
| using Elevenlabs' API and homegrown scripts to automate audio-
| generation and synchronization between text and audio. I have
| separate voices for the characters (and the narrator, when the
| narrator is third-person speaker). Below, there are some links
| to a section of a chapter that you can download and judge for
| yourself.
|
| This is a huge boon for independent authors, until AIs replace
| us as well :-) .
|
| Things I have learned:
|
| * A good human narrator could do much, much better, but the
| quality obtained this way is not totally terrible.
|
| * The possibility to produce a section in a matter of minutes
| is a huge plus. The thing with a book is that it's never
| _totally_ finished. If you discover a problem after you have
| submitted your text to a human narrator and paid $ XXXX, there
| is nothing you can do.
|
| * Currently, there is no platform that I know of distributing
| and selling books like this. Audible only accepts audiobooks
| narrated by humans. To my knowledge, platforms that accept
| ebooks don't handle epub with media overlays. Well, Apple Books
| say they do but I haven't gotten it to work. There are no
| alternative platforms for audiobooks that I know of, but I
| haven't done a ton of research there.
|
| * The possibility to have more control over emotions expressed
| in the speech could be a bonus, particularly for small, overly
| dramatic parts of the narration. Coqui TTS new editor is a step
| in the right direction, but their TTS doesn't sound yet as good
| as Elevenlabs. Voicebox seems promising, but there is no way to
| use it at least for now.
|
| * Cost is a big deal 1/3. With my scripts, I pay almost nothing
| when I fix a typo, since most of the audio is stored in little
| bits in the database, and only what changes is submitted to the
| API. But the human time of a narrator costs much more, as it
| should.
|
| * Cost is a big deal 2/3. As a reader, I have learned that how
| much a book sells tells me nothing about how much I will like
| it. But only books that have a potential to sell can afford
| audiobooks. If I want to listen to a story too quirky to be
| mainstream, or from an independent author that I follow in
| Twitter, the chances I'll find it as audiobook are next to
| none.
|
| * Cost is a big deal 3/3. Voice narration is not the only
| aspect one needs to pay for. A good story needs an army of
| editors, proofreaders, and designers. Generally, the more an
| author or a publisher needs to disburse on those, the more
| bland and mainstream the book must become to sell and justify
| the investment.
|
| -----------------------------------
|
| Note that this is a WIP. Book chapter with automatic narration:
|
| An epub with media overlays. It requires an epub reader that
| supports that standard feature of the epub 3 specification.
| Currently, and that I know of, there is Thorium and BookFusion
| for iOS.
|
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U8XUB9xhu86JuketGH5WchM0obN...
|
| An MP3 track from the epub above:
|
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-u89ee52VZzGZ0oTGC_az5Uqbfs...
| hartator wrote:
| The best we can do is more robot spam.
| gcoakes wrote:
| I'm excited about them making it faster to produce. I finished
| the most recently published audiobook in a series this weekend.
| The author posts unpublished chapters to a site called Royal
| Road. I listen to books while running and driving, so it's a
| non-starter to visually read them. It would be nice to have
| that pipeline accelerated.
|
| Now, I just want to talk about my little weekend project... I
| spent a couple of hours scraping Royal Road and trying to get
| TTS working. Eventually, I settled on:
|
| 1. `wget --recursive` filtering only the chapters 2. A python
| script to strip extraneous html like advertisements and the
| headers. 3. Pipe into pandoc emitting plain text. 4. Copy it to
| my phone for TTS:
| https://f-droid.org/packages/com.danefinlay.ttsutil/
|
| I really wanted to use all local tools, but I just couldn't get
| any of the Linux tools to sound as good or work as fast as
| Google TTS services. Also, the TTS paid services I found were
| just too expensive to justify (20hr book for ~$70).
|
| _I 'm more than happy to additionally purchase the audiobook
| when it is published. I just don't want to wait._
| bee_rider wrote:
| Yeah, it isn't so much that I want publishers to have a
| cheaper way of making an audiobook that avoids the
| (apparently minimal) cost of employing a voice actor.
|
| I don't want to wait for the publisher to decide they want to
| do an audiobook.
| mjamesaustin wrote:
| Oh that is an amazing use case!
| geuis wrote:
| This is a huge issue in the voice acting community. Been
| frequent recent discussions over at
| https://www.reddit.com/r/VoiceActing/.
|
| For what its worth, most of the cost of audiobooks doesn't come
| from paying talent. For intermediate level actors, the going
| rate is around $50-$100 per finished hour (PFH) and experienced
| actors it can be around $250-$300. This page does a decent job
| of laying out pay structures for audiobooks:
| https://speechify.com/blog/whats-the-meaning-of-per-finished...
|
| An 8 hour audio book might cost the author/producer about
| $1800-$2k.
|
| Just talking about Audible exclusively, they take about %50 of
| sales. But it's kinda wishy washy about exactly how much an
| author will earn in royalties. It's not as much as you might
| think. Good article from an author here that lays out some
| sales numbers: https://selfpublishingadvice.org/how-audiobook-
| authors-are-p...
|
| The other way that a narrator can get paid is called royalty
| share. That means the author/producer doesn't pay the narrator
| anything up front and the voice actor then relies on a small
| percent of each book sale to get paid. Theoretically, if an
| audiobook ends up _really_ taking off then the narrator
| potentially could make a lot of money. But that rarely happens.
| Most audiobooks that you find on Audible have very, very low
| sales volumes.
|
| To sum it up, it doesn't occur to lost of audiobook fans but
| voice acting is a very competitive industry. It takes a _lot_
| of work to make a name for yourself, and even then the most
| successful actors probably aren 't making much more than a
| highly paid software engineer. For most wannabe voice actors
| (including myself), its something you do more for love than
| necessarily to make a career out of it. Though of course, lots
| of people do but not the majority.
|
| This is all why I'm personally not a fan of these voice
| generation models. It's going to eventually make this niche
| industry non-competitive for real humans except for the talent
| that is already established. People keep blaming the actors as
| being too expensive when most are barely making it without
| secondary jobs.
| justapassenger wrote:
| There's also a different possible take on this.
|
| Voice acting seems to be really bad career, so eliminating
| that job is desired, if you can deliver same quality/better
| product for cheaper to customers, without requiring employees
| to be underpaid.
|
| I know it sucks for people in that industry, but technical
| progress always eliminates jobs. Calculator used to be a job,
| now it's a device.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Caveat though:
|
| > _if you can deliver same quality /better product for
| cheaper to customers, without requiring employees to be
| underpaid._
|
| This almost never happens. Cheaper? Yes. Same or better
| quality? Not a chance. Automated solutions tend to allow
| reducing quality way below what humans workers would want
| to do, or even could cheaply and reliably (i.e. doing worse
| job than a careless one takes actual effort/skill). Like
| with every other case of automation replacing humans,
| expect the quality to be pushed down to minimum tolerable
| levels, as this is the point that maximizes revenue.
| theptip wrote:
| Perhaps it's not the bar the GP was applying, but I think
| "good enough at 1/10 the price" is quite empowering for
| consumers. Consider all of the people that can't
| currently afford Audible, but who would like to listen to
| audio books while they commute to work, for example.
|
| And of course, nothing stops you from paying what we pay
| now for human voice actors if there continues to be a
| quality differential that customers care about. (Though
| perhaps Baumol's Cost Disease would push the price up for
| today's human-generated quality.)
|
| Extrapolating further -- if the commoditized version of
| audio books is AI generated voice, perhaps the new job
| for voice actors is human narrating/acting of AI-
| generated content for personalized stories ('Ractives
| from Stephenson's book "The Diamond Age"). Who knows,
| human voice actors could become more in demand, not less.
| To be clear I wouldn't forecast this as the most likely
| outcome, just pointing out that there are many possible
| outcomes.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _I think "good enough at 1/10 the price" is quite
| empowering for consumers._
|
| That's the thing though - it's not as empowering as it
| seems longer-term, because the "good enough" quickly
| drops to "barely fit for purpose"/"if it were any worse,
| it would be illegal to market or sell". This has been the
| case with most established classes of products I can
| think of, including pretty much anything that's been
| fully commoditized.
|
| And so
|
| > _nothing stops you from paying what we pay now for
| human voice actors if there continues to be a quality
| differential that customers care about. (Though perhaps
| Baumol 's Cost Disease would push the price up for
| today's human-generated quality.)_
|
| Nothing stops me today. But even if the quality
| differential exists, the dropping price on the low-
| quality version will reduce demand on the moderate-
| quality version, pushing its prices up and reducing
| number of suppliers (here, voice actors). The end result
| seems to always be a bifurcation: there is not enough
| demand to sustain a business doing decent quality work
| for a reasonable price, so all companies move to
| providing either low quality work cheaply, or high
| quality work at a hefty premium. The middle disappears.
|
| In the specific context of this thread, the middle in
| question is the current quality of audiobooks with voice
| acting. The quality level available to most consumers
| will be _below_ that, and the next step up will be niche
| recordings at high cost.
| benabbottnz wrote:
| Why would they make it cheaper when they can make even more
| profit by not having to pay a voice actor?
| madsbuch wrote:
| Because it would be extremely easy to produce it cheaper or
| record it independently.
|
| This opens up for non-signed authors to release audio books.
| waboremo wrote:
| Yes, but they're not going to pass on costs from not using
| a voice actor. They're just going to charge what they
| normally would have, and not worry about having to give so
| and so a cut.
| ericd wrote:
| Sure, and then we'll get more audiobook options, as it
| becomes economically viable to make more niche stuff into
| audiobooks.
| waboremo wrote:
| Niche stuff has always been economically viable. Niche
| stuff also tends to get publisher support. Realistically
| these days the only reason why books don't have an
| audiobook format is due to not wanting to support
| Amazon/Apple, or because they just don't want it. Voice
| actors literally are not expensive for audiobooks. You
| can absolutely afford one if your tiny $9 book hits more
| than 200 copies.
|
| Unless you're talking about illegal niche, in which fair
| but I highly doubt stores are going to accept those. All
| generation helps with is content that will be free.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Get a text copy of the book and then pass it through the tool
| yourself, right? Who cares how much the publisher wants.
| trts wrote:
| If they make it better for the reader, they can potentially
| raise the price. If they can make it cheaper to produce, they
| can potentially increase their profit without raising the
| price.
|
| Usually on balance this falls somewhere in between -- more
| value for less money for the consumer, and more profit on
| each marginal unit of production for the producer, which is
| how technology progresses across most consumer goods.
| aleksiy123 wrote:
| I was wondering if it would be possible to build something like
| this right now.
|
| Use text to speech and chatgpt to tag the character text and
| timestamps.
|
| Then use a speech to speech to change the character voices or
| even the whole reader.
|
| But as a product I feel like theres some legal hurdles to
| figure out.
| theptip wrote:
| > As with other powerful new AI innovations, we recognize that
| this technology brings the potential for misuse and unintended
| harm. In our paper, we detail how we built a highly effective
| classifier that can distinguish between authentic speech and
| audio generated with Voicebox to mitigate these possible future
| risks. We believe it is important to be open about our work so
| the research community can build on it and to continue the
| important conversations we're having about how to build AI
| responsibly, which is why we are sharing our approach and results
| in a research paper
|
| Learning from the pushback on releasing LLaMA it seems. I wonder
| how hard this will be to replicate. (Trained on "60K hours of
| English audiobooks and 50K hours of multilingual audiobooks in 6
| languages for the mono and multilingual setups", this doesn't
| sound intractable.)
| fbdab103 wrote:
| Assuming 10 hours a piece, 6k books feels a very achievable
| dataset. Even Librivox claims 18k books (with many duplicates
| and hugely varying quality levels). If you wanted to get
| expansive, you could dig into the podcast archives of BBC, NPR,
| etc which could potentially yield millions of hours.
|
| [0] https://librivox.org/
| tudorw wrote:
| older BBC material when the 'standard bbc' voice reigned
| supreme might make a great training set and could/should be
| publicly accessible?
| rvz wrote:
| And the source code for this one has....
|
| ...not been open sourced and cannot be found.
|
| Sorry AI bros. Better read the paper this time.
| IshKebab wrote:
| > There are many exciting use cases for generative speech
| models, but because of the risks of misuse, we are not making
| the Voicebox model or code publicly available at this time.
| While we believe it is important to be open with the AI
| community and to share our research to advance the state of the
| art in AI, it's also necessary to strike the right balance
| between openness with responsibility.
|
| Yeah... I mean there definitely _are_ ways to misuse this
| (especially the style transfer!) I don 't think you're going to
| do anything except delay the inevitable Facebook.
| sgift wrote:
| They don't really care about misuse. They just don't want to
| say openly that they like to keep their shiny new tech and
| make money with it. No idea why, most people wouldn't bat an
| eye if you stated from the get go: We built it, we'll use it.
| IshKebab wrote:
| I agree. Though in fairness they have opened other models
| e.g. for speech recognition.
| gwern wrote:
| It won't be a big barrier. Voice stuff is not as
| computationally intense as video or LLMs, so it's still an area
| where small teams or hobbyists can make a dent.
| yewenjie wrote:
| Pretty interesting. IIUC they haven't released the model weights,
| but I think most TTS papers in the upcoming months will release
| the weights since OpenAI Whisper.
| canadianwriter wrote:
| That little stinger at the end was not as surprising as they
| thought it was :P
|
| It's very cool tech, but it's far from transparent. It has a very
| obvious "autotune" like sound to it that jumps right out. when
| they edited that one word it was obvious it had been edited.
|
| Again, super cool tech, just not going to replace voice actors or
| anything.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| > It has a very obvious "autotune"
|
| To me it has a very obvious "Hindi is my native language"
| accent. I mean after literally the first sentence: _" The
| research team at Meta is excited to share our work..."_. Ouch.
| The "our work": just ouch. I was wondering why it wasn't a
| native english speaker presenting the video when the video is
| _precisely_ about generating speech.
|
| The first seven seconds are particularly bad.
|
| Don't get me wrong: I've got a lovely french accent when I
| speak english.
|
| This has either been trained on too many audiobooks spoken by
| non-natives _or_ they 've used their own tech, where the
| "reference audio" given as input was from a non-native.
|
| In any case something is seriously off.
|
| At 1:59, the "Hi guys, thanks you for tuning in! Today we are
| going to show you..."... That is obviously an Hindi speaker
| speaking (it's an example of fixing a real voice by removing
| background sounds).
|
| I _think_ that the main voice of the video was done by the same
| person who did the example at 1:59. And I think that they used
| their example of using a "reference audio".
|
| And that person ain't a native english speaker.
|
| To compare: when the reference audio uses a proper english
| accent (the example with the "diverse ecosystem" at 0:52), then
| the output from the text-to-speech sounds native.
|
| I think they just fucked the demo video and it may already be
| ready for prime time.
| bee_rider wrote:
| The accent was obvious enough that I wonder if they might
| have not been trying to hide it at all? Maybe they just
| happened to pick somebody from the team with a very mild
| accent.
| alach11 wrote:
| I'm surprised you had such a negative reaction to the Hindi
| accent! To me, it was no more difficult to understand than my
| colleagues who speak English as a second language.
|
| To me, this is a style choice for the demo. Not evidence that
| they "fucked" it up. Accents are common - everyone has one!
| It's nice to see the model can support your personal voice
| even if it's not completely neutral English.
| kybernetikos wrote:
| Maybe they deliberately chose an accent that wasn't native
| English to demonstrate the style transfer capability. I think
| the ability of the system to output accented voices is a
| strength not a weakness, so long as it can do other accents
| too.
| Kiro wrote:
| What stinger at the end?
| az226 wrote:
| Not releasing code or weights under the false pretense of
| misuse.
| JimDabell wrote:
| No, they are referring to the end of the video, where they
| have a "surprise twist" that the video narration was
| autogenerated and not a real person.
| twelfthnight wrote:
| _SPOILER ALERT_ :p
|
| Its more surprising nowadays if an article about AI doesn't
| have a "twist" that what you read/heard/saw was AI.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| For video narration elocution, I'd say it was most of the way
| there.
|
| When. Narrating. Videos. One. Tends. To. Speak. Differently.
|
| Or, the more important case -- if I'm listening to audio-
| version-of-X, is it sufficiently human-like that I can forget
| that it's synthesized voice?
|
| To me, yes.
|
| Easy to tell if you're specifically listening for it, but to
| use an analogy one doesn't typically read novels and parse
| closely for grammar, does one? Your attention is elsewhere, on
| the content and plot.
| emehex wrote:
| I agree with you that v1 isn't a suitable replacement... right
| now. But what v2? v3?
| [deleted]
| graypegg wrote:
| I don't think GP is saying it won't improve. The thread is
| about the current state of it that meta wrote this article
| on.
| pixl97 wrote:
| For me its more like I wake up and check if humans have been
| replaced yet. Oh good, it's another day that I don't have to
| share one time pads with my mother to ensure that I'm talking
| to her and not a simulant performing fraud on a massive scale.
| gremlinsinc wrote:
| imagine when they have robots indistinguishable from humans,
| with some sort of real skin face that can be morphed to any
| existing or non existing face. I mean, it almost seems easy,
| or inevitable at least.
| ignoramous wrote:
| _Cryptographic proof of personhood_ is going to be a thing,
| is it not? Outside of BigTech, Signal is as poised as
| WorldCoin to be just that.
| waboremo wrote:
| Yes and it's going to be done through digital IDs. Unless
| something dramatic happens, we're poised to turn to digital
| IDs linked to your real ID and in turn validating access to
| apps/communication.
| pixl97 wrote:
| And authoritarians everywhere will rejoice (and they will
| give out the means to duplicate these IDs to a select few
| in case they need to generate evidence that 'you' have
| offended the state).
| kybernetikos wrote:
| The only sensible approach to this problem (assuming it
| is a real problem) is trusted individuals certifying
| others as human.
|
| There are alternatives to using the state for this, but
| they are difficult and fraught with UX issues. Perhaps a
| decentralised web of trust or some sort of blockchain
| based registrar of trust that can trace trust routes
| between mutually distrusting individuals.
|
| Unless such a system is in place, international and
| strong before states start playing in this space, there
| isn't much chance of beating a state's approach to the
| problem.
|
| Just look at https certificates. The current system
| involves browsers shipping configured to trust a whole
| bunch of entities I don't really trust, and there has
| been relatively little interest in trying to build a
| working decentralised approach to site security.
| waboremo wrote:
| I'll also add that some of the state proposals are in
| general quite nice in where their priorities are. Such as
| prioritizing working in the open, both in sharing
| research, working with standards groups, and open source
| tooling.
|
| It would be nice if we could come to a thorough solution
| that actually does cover all bases, rather than all these
| companies trying to create their own digital ID services
| that just encourage us to instead do silly things like
| photograph your ID front and back.
|
| I mean hell it's taken like 20 years for privacy by
| design to become an ISO standard? That sort of timeline
| is not something we can really tolerate as more and more
| people continue relying on online services and in turn
| wind up trusting horribly outdated techniques/general
| malaise about data.
| woeirua wrote:
| I'm just not convinced that anything not tied directly to a
| government issued ID is going to be strong enough.
| chrislikescode wrote:
| [flagged]
| bloqs wrote:
| [flagged]
| lucidrains wrote:
| can an expert in the field comment on whether the results are
| more or less impressive than Soundstorm?
| ftth_finland wrote:
| All I want is a podcast player that automatically cleans up the
| crappy audio.
| chromakode wrote:
| I've been working on an open source audio editor which uses
| Whisper to slice speech. Very exciting to see more capabilities
| on the horizon!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-19 23:01 UTC)