Adobe Is Working On 'Photoshop For Audio' That Will Let You Add Words Someone Never Said (theverge.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Adobe Is Working On 'Photoshop For Audio' That Will Let You Add Words Someone Never Said (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Friday November 4, 2016 @01:00AM from the ethical-implications-may-be-involved dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Adobe is working on a new piece of software that would act like a Photoshop for audio, according to Adobe developer Zeyu Jin, who spoke at the Adobe MAX conference in San Diego, California today. The software is codenamed Project VoCo, and it's not clear at this time when it will materialize as a commercial product. The standout feature, however, is the ability to add words not originally found in the audio file. Like Photoshop, Project VoCo is designed to be a state-of-the-art audio editing application. Beyond your standard speech editing and noise cancellation features, Project VoCo can also apparently generate new words using a speaker's recorded voice. Essentially, the software can understand the makeup of a person's voice and replicate it, so long as there's about 20 minutes of recorded speech. In Jin's demo, the developer showcased how Project VoCo let him add a word to a sentence in a near-perfect replication of the speaker, according to Creative Bloq. So similar to how Photoshop ushered in a new era of editing and image creation, this tool could transform how audio engineers work with sound, polish clips, and clean up recordings and podcasts. "When recording voiceovers, dialog, and narration, people would often like to change or insert a word or a few words due to either a mistake they made or simply because they would like to change part of the narrative," reads an official Adobe statement. "We have developed a technology called Project VoCo in which you can simply type in the word or words that you would like to change or insert into the voiceover. The algorithm does the rest and makes it sound like the original speaker said those words."

161 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

What a service to humanity. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 01:02 · Score: 0

I look forward to Donald Trump claiming he was its first victim on that bus.
1. Re: What a service to humanity. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 02:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yes, what a service indeed. Now we finally will have the ability to set people up like in the movie Running Man.
2. Re: What a service to humanity. by KingBenny · 2016-11-12 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  totally ...
  whats the fingerprinting here ? i mean, im not gonna go big brother on yow adobe-ass since the tek is there it will be out, under or above ground anyway.
  whats the failsafe ?
  i can think of about 50 ways to fuck people over with that unless audio becomes inadmissible in court, which again would fuck others over ?
  massive ! :)
  i would urge the pigfarm to not go ban on yow-ass cos like the cat here says : the tek is here, its too late for the pebbles to vote, constructive options would be helpful on the other hand, maybe blockchain technology to prevent forging .ulz ... can i quote the hugh on this?
  introduce some chaos
  
  --
  Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
Well, that's horrifying by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 01:04 · Score: 0

The article is relatively positive, but among other uses, there are 20+ minute audio clips available of pretty much every major politician.
1. Re:Well, that's horrifying by cayenne8 · 2016-11-04 01:44 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Yep..this will be the politicians BEST friend....at least when they want to claim they didn't say it....
  Sadly, this means likely even more revisionist history coming our way.
  This is a tool they NEVER thought of in 1984....no need for double speak and re-writing the books, just change what people say....
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
2. Re:Well, that's horrifying by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 01:48 · Score: 2
  
  It's fine for Trump though. You'll always be able to spot the fake Trump stuff because in those, he'll use a complete sentence and finish the sentence without blurting out something about ISIS or getting distracted by how angry he is at Rosie O'Donnell in the middle of it.
3. Re:Well, that's horrifying by The-Ixian · 2016-11-04 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  I am sure that there will be ways to determine whether or not it is an altered audio clip just like it is possible to identify photoshop pictures. Whether it is imperfections, algorithmically induced patterns, meta data, etc.
  As this election campaign has proved (yet again), people will believe what they want to believe. So doctored audio clips are not going to add or subtract anything to that equation.
  
  --
  My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
4. Re:Well, that's horrifying by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 02:42 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is that people have gone go jail and been convicted on Photoshopped images. Imagine what a low quality audiotape can do to someone, especially in the hands of a DA who has to make convictions or else his rival gets the private prison dough for the campaign fund? No way to prove it was doctored, especially with the attention span a jury has [1].
  [1]: A jury consists of two types of people. Those who are doing their civic duty, and those who have not found an excuse to skip it. The people who don't mind doing it actually care to render a decent verdict. The ones that just want to go home, want to render -a- verdict to get out of there.
5. Re:Well, that's horrifying by myowntrueself · 2016-11-04 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  Yep..this will be the politicians BEST friend....at least when they want to claim they didn't say it....
  Sadly, this means likely even more revisionist history coming our way.
  This is a tool they NEVER thought of in 1984....no need for double speak and re-writing the books, just change what people say....
  Have a real-time portable version that people wear around their necks and automatically edits what they say.
  No one will ever be offended again!
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
6. Re:Well, that's horrifying by cyberchondriac · 2016-11-04 03:21 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I recently saw a doctored video clip on FB (well, obviously doctored to anyone with a minimal amount of critical thinking) that purported to show Obama at public forum admitting he was born in Kenya; but you could tell that certain key words were pasted in from other speeches, and when those strings of words were said, the camera view suddenly cut to a long shot so you couldn't see his mouth; and yet there were people swearing in the comments that it was proof, "there he is saying it". I don't even like Obama but bullshit is bullshit.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
7. Re:Well, that's horrifying by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 03:33 · Score: 0
  
  I am sure that there will be ways to determine whether or not it is an altered audio clip just like it is possible to identify photoshop pictures. Whether it is imperfections, algorithmically induced patterns, meta data, etc.
  As this election campaign has proved (yet again), people will believe what they want to believe. So doctored audio clips are not going to add or subtract anything to that equation.
  They will raise the amount of effort required to fact check meaning that anyone who still even vaguely fact checks will be less likely to bother.
  The issue here is less that the Pigs can get the Sheep to chant "4 legs good 2 legs better", and more that it will mean the Agent Moulder's of the world have even less ability to act as a check to that power.
8. Re:Well, that's horrifying by slashdice · 2016-11-04 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  This sounds shopped.
  I can tell from some of the vowels and from hearing quite a few shops in my time.
  
  --
  Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
9. Re:Well, that's horrifying by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  [1]: A jury consists of two types of people. Those who are doing their civic duty, and those who have not found an excuse to skip it. The people who don't mind doing it actually care to render a decent verdict. The ones that just want to go home, want to render -a- verdict to get out of there.
  Thank you for this. The old line of "a jury consists of 12 people too stupid to figure out how to get out of jury duty" really irked me, because some of us really do recognize the importance of partaking in this civic duty.
10. Re:Well, that's horrifying by houghi · 2016-11-04 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  This is just another form of re-writing. Does it matter if the person said we were always at war with Eurasia or that it is written?
  Instead of re-writing books, it is re-writing video.
  Luckily there is a company that is in charge of most video and it has "do no evil" as slogan, so we are safe.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
11. Re:Well, that's horrifying by PRMan · 2016-11-04 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  That's why the book was called 1984 and not 2016.
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
12. Re:Well, that's horrifying by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 06:19 · Score: 0
  
  good thing social media and news outlets never jump to conclusions when evidence is lacking or falsified.
13. Re:Well, that's horrifying by The-Ixian · 2016-11-04 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  I shopped at a shop for photoshop so that I could shop some photos to display at the shop show.
  
  --
  My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
The best thing about it? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 01:05 · Score: 0

This won't be abused at all.
1. Re:The best thing about it? by hcs_$reboot · 2016-11-04 01:14 · Score: 2
  
  Difference being that so far doing such tampering requires more complex equipment used by big organisations, thus when a recording appears to be genuine it's hard to claim it's been tampered with. After such tool becomes popular, anything can be suspected to be tampered with.
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Law enforcement's gonna love this! by jenningsthecat · 2016-11-04 01:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

When recording voiceovers, dialog, and narration, people would often like to change or insert a word or a few words due to either a mistake they made or simply because they would like to change part of the narrative...
When recording suspects, police would often like change or insert a word or a few words in order to manufacture evidence by changing part of the narrative.
FTFY
OTOH, if it's really good enough to be undetectable, it might cause a lot of legitimate and unaltered recordings to be thrown out of court on the grounds of reasonable doubt.

--
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
1. Re: Law enforcement's gonna love this! by johnsmithperson123 · 2016-11-04 01:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I never said that. It was clearly SoundShopped in.
2. Re:Law enforcement's gonna love this! by Chris+Mattern · 2016-11-04 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  Police already know how to prove these sort of thing haven't been tampered with: it's called "the chain of evidence". These techniques are simply going to have to be applied to recorded testimony, that's all.
3. Re:Law enforcement's gonna love this! by TheFakeTimCook · 2016-11-04 02:19 · Score: 2
  
  Police already know how to prove these sort of thing haven't been tampered with: it's called "the chain of evidence". These techniques are simply going to have to be applied to recorded testimony, that's all.
  First, it's called "Chain of Custody", and it already exists for recorded evidence.
  
  Second, when the "Custody" continues to be in the LEA's hands, who's to say that someone at the LEA didn't replace the recording in the Evidence Bag with a SoundShopped one?
4. Re:Law enforcement's gonna love this! by TuringTest · 2016-11-04 02:26 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  It's apt that this technology is being made widespread at the same time that the blockchain is gaining adoption. What we need is to blockchain every bit of relevant public discourse, updating the concept of the "chain of custody" to the XXIst century.
  
  --
  Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
5. Re:Law enforcement's gonna love this! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  Or you know, shouting stuff that isn't happening. STOP RESISTING, GET YOUR HANDS OUT OF YOUR POCKETS, when the person is on the ground handcuffed and being beaten...
6. Re:Law enforcement's gonna love this! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 02:43 · Score: 0
  
  When recording suspects, police would often like change or insert a word or a few words in order to manufacture evidence by changing part of the narrative.
  So, don't talk to the police.
  Note: It is possible to introduce unsaid words on a recording using technology that was already around in the 2000's.
7. Re:Law enforcement's gonna love this! by myowntrueself · 2016-11-04 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  When recording voiceovers, dialog, and narration, people would often like to change or insert a word or a few words due to either a mistake they made or simply because they would like to change part of the narrative...
  When recording suspects, police would often like change or insert a word or a few words in order to manufacture evidence by changing part of the narrative.
  FTFY
  OTOH, if it's really good enough to be undetectable, it might cause a lot of legitimate and unaltered recordings to be thrown out of court on the grounds of reasonable doubt.
  It'll add a whole new level to "Its a shop. I have a lot of experience with shops and also you can tell by the audiopixels".
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
8. Re:Law enforcement's gonna love this! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 04:27 · Score: 0
  
  When recording voiceovers, dialog, and narration, people would often like to change or insert a word or a few words due to either a mistake they made or simply because they would like to change part of the narrative...
  When recording suspects, police would often like change or insert a word or a few words in order to manufacture evidence by changing part of the narrative.
  FTFY
  OTOH, if it's really good enough to be undetectable, it might cause a lot of legitimate and unaltered recordings to be thrown out of court on the grounds of reasonable doubt.
  The first nightmare scenario that came to mind when I read the summary was, "oh, shit, wait until Fox News gets a hold of this...". You're right, though -- the law enforcement angle is much worse.
9. Re:Law enforcement's gonna love this! by ausekilis · 2016-11-04 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  XXIst century.
  Well it is MMXVI, after all. Or as the kids put it these days "II 0 I VI"
10. Re:Law enforcement's gonna love this! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 06:58 · Score: 0
  
  Roman numerals don't include 0.
11. Re:Law enforcement's gonna love this! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  Such thing has likely taken place in a highly controversial conviction in Israel - the only evidence being a Russian word uttered in a police recording while everything else including all the physical evidence cleared the suspect:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
12. Re: Law enforcement's gonna love this! by dwywit · 2016-11-04 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  This sounds shopped. I can tell by the {samples/notes/octaves/pitch/frequency/timbre/vibrato}
  
  --
  They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
13. Re:Law enforcement's gonna love this! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 10:23 · Score: 0
  
  Uh... there is no 0. Stupid kids.
14. Re:Law enforcement's gonna love this! by newcastlejon · 2016-11-04 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  What's all this V stuff? It's 07E0, year of the lion.
  
  --
  If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
15. Re:Law enforcement's gonna love this! by rainmouse · 2016-11-05 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  When recording voiceovers, dialog, and narration, people would often like to change or insert a word or a few words due to either a mistake they made or simply because they would like to change part of the narrative...
  When recording suspects, police would often like change or insert a word or a few words in order to manufacture evidence by changing part of the narrative.
  heheh yeah the advertised use-case scenario is about as believable as private mode in browsers designed for shopping for gifts for your wife without her knowledge. But then again if your wife is regularly checking your internet history you probably have other issues to deal with.
16. Re:Law enforcement's gonna love this! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-07 22:59 · Score: 0
  
  Roman numerals don't include 0.
  So, make that "II nulla I VI" (or "II N I VI" for short).
Adobe Photoshop for audio? by stealth_finger · 2016-11-04 01:13 · Score: 1

Isn't that Adobe Audition?

--
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
1. Re:Adobe Photoshop for audio? by Overzeetop · 2016-11-04 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, pretty much. Though I'd argue that, at least for singers, the photoshop of audio is Melodyne (or autotune, though most pros I know use the former).
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Hit 'em with the Hein by sucko · 2016-11-04 01:20 · Score: 0

Richard and Sal's lives just got easier.

--
-linux... they can't *give* that shit away.
1. Re:Hit 'em with the Hein by show+me+altoids · 2016-11-04 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  Come on, -1? Really? This is the best comment in the thread. Bababooey to y'all.
  
  --
  I feel sorry for people that don't drink, because when they get up in the morning, that's as good as they're gonna feel
2. Re:Hit 'em with the Hein by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 04:27 · Score: 0
  
  You know Slashdot has hit rock bottom when they don't reward a quote from Rock Bottom!
Will be available... by gachunt · 2016-11-04 01:21 · Score: 1

...just in time for the next US Presidential Election cycle.
1. Re:Will be available... by dwywit · 2016-11-04 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  I imagine Bad Lip Reading will have fun with it.
  
  --
  They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
Rimjob:Adobe Photoshop for audio by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 01:23 · Score: 0

No. That was goldwave. Shareware from the '90s.
Adobe Trump! by sinij · 2016-11-04 01:24 · Score: 2

I have perfect name for this future product - Adobe Trump. This way when you use it to make people say awful things you are trumping them.
1. Re:Adobe Trump! by zuki · 2016-11-04 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  I knew someone was going to beat me to suggesting something like this...
2. Re:Adobe Trump! by sinij · 2016-11-04 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  As a side note, it will be interesting to see what this will do to politics. This gives so much plausible deniability to politicians. 47% comment? Edited! Grab by the *&$#? Edited! Then it is paid experts vs. paid shills and the public will not be able to tell the difference.
3. Re:Adobe Trump! by Gilgaron · 2016-11-04 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  Between the sheer auditability of our digital pasts and ubiquity of recording equipment, to the ease at which 'embarrassments' could be fabricated... does that lead to a post-shaming society? Or the opposite and we'll all be buying Reputation Insurance in case we become unemployable because our social media got hacked and spouted off obscenity?
4. Re:Adobe Trump! by sinij · 2016-11-04 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  does that lead to a post-shaming society?
  
  Sir, I will have you know that you are a shameless optimist. We don't tolerate your kind around these parts. Please show yourself out.
5. Re:Adobe Trump! by e3m4n · 2016-11-04 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  yes, you will have experts at lip reading and body language arguing both for and against the authenticity of a recording. So just like attorneys, these paid 'experts' are going to be the only winners in this shit. In the end you will still be as confused as ever, but a lot poorer as a result.
6. Re:Adobe Trump! by bijutoha · 2016-11-09 22:53 · Score: 1
  
  Very funny.. I would have so much fun with this application
What could *possibly* go wrong? by gti_guy · 2016-11-04 01:26 · Score: 1

See subject
nope by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 01:27 · Score: 0

file this one under "things no one is asking for"
1. Re:nope by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  "file this one under "things no one with a CONSCIENCE is asking for"
  There, fixed that for you. There are definitely people looking/hoping for this kind of software, they simply are the useless husks of human garbage who think that lies, deceit & misdirection are perfectly viable means to achieving ones goals. There may be a few legitimate uses, but they are few, far between & easily solved by other actions. If this software is going to enter the commercial sphere there needs to be safeguards, in the form of SEVERE penalties for its misuse and hopefully simple ways to determine if it was used (encoding some kind of audio watermark perhaps?)
2. Re:nope by Maritz · 2016-11-04 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  who think that lies, deceit & misdirection are perfectly viable means to achieving ones goals.
  You just described the human species.
  We can do better, of course, but we don't.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
3. Re:nope by I4ko · 2016-11-04 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  Don't ascribe traits predominant in US to the entire human race.
4. Re:nope by omnichad · 2016-11-04 03:01 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Hollywood's asking for it. They'll start making sure their contracts regarding perpetual use of likeness of actors can be used to leave actors out of payroll entirely on the next animated film. Especially low-budget direct to video sequels.
5. Re:nope by Archangel+Michael · 2016-11-04 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  He's not.
  It only happens when people care about the goal more than the means.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
6. Re:nope by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 07:50 · Score: 0
  
  This could replicate Robin Williams' voice, but not his wit.
7. Re:nope by hguorbray · 2016-11-04 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  There was a movie version of Stanislaw Lem's Futurological Congress that saw parent's point coming -
  The Congress
  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1821641/?ref_=nv_sr_1
  Robin Wright's character signs away rights to her likeness and voice and later on finds (after everyone has abandoned real life for a virtual existence) that her voice and likeness has attained cult following status and is used by many people as an avatar.
  
  The book was a bit different (more of a psychedelic fever dream) and more political, but the movie was still very good and thought provoking on some of the similar themes -especially on the use of artificial reality as an escape from a mundane or unpleasant reality....Something which we already seem headed towards....
  
  but it also means that truthiness will become more and more subjective
  
  I'm just sayin'
8. Re:nope by dwywit · 2016-11-04 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  I doubt that any actor, on their agent's advice, would sign such a contract. It would mean income from one and only one project. IOW, the agent would miss out on future income as well as the actor. Besides, studios depend on the name to promote subsequent projects, so which actors of talent (or at least bankability) are going to sign away future income?
  There might be a transition period where the A and B-listers who have sufficient clout will refuse to sign such contracts, so the studios will entice lesser-knowns into it, but then all the actors will realise that they'll never have a career that makes them any money, and they'll refuse to sign, as well.
  What am I saying? 98% of actors never have a career that makes them any money. Still, not many would willingly give up a career's worth of income.
  Studios *may* get to the point where a character is completely synthetic, i.e. completely digitally generated, but those characters can't walk the red carpet, can't interact with fans, etc, although I suppose they can't get involved in scandals, either - mind you, we have a great capacity to forgive our "stars" all but the most heinous crimes and misbehaviour. Look at Robert Downey jr, Carrie Fisher, and others. Drugs, alcohol, rock bottom, and then, to their credit, a return to popularity.
  
  --
  They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
9. Re:nope by omnichad · 2016-11-04 15:15 · Score: 1
  
  I doubt that any actor, on their agent's advice, would sign such a contract.
  Back when they signed it, they only imagined "likeness" to be pictures of their face. Future contracts might be examined more closely, but I was more referring to the ones already signed.
The ways this could be abused is immense by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 01:27 · Score: 0

It could be used by or against law enforcement agencies to alter witness statements or the confession of a suspect.
It could be used to ruin politicians or any public figure.
It could also put voice actors out of work. Why pay the talent when all you need is 20 minutes of their voice and now you can add audio to an entire movie.
1. Re:The ways this could be abused is immense by Maritz · 2016-11-04 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  A world where this exists is a world where every recording of speech is potentially (probably) fake. It would make skepticism pretty much mandatory to function. In that respect, it might actually be a good thing.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
2. Re: The ways this could be abused is immense by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 02:39 · Score: 0
  
  The sheeple will still fall for it every time.
3. Re: The ways this could be abused is immense by e3m4n · 2016-11-04 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  both for and against.
  “Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.”
  Friedrich Nietzsche
  you will have those already wanting to believe screaming vindication, and those who don't want to believe arguing vast russian conspiracies. Maybe there is some truth to this whole living in a simulation theory after all. When a copy cannot be distinguished from real, when does it start becoming real itself?
Speech syntethis by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 01:29 · Score: 0

This is nothing new under the sun. Entire public transportation system messaging in Pilsen is synthetized from small voice corpus narrated by woman who did narrated each station one by one formerly. There are two departments at univerzity of West bohemia with hard to distinguish from real speech result. The adobe's 20 minutes minimum is definitely just a safety duration so there is chance that necessary speech bits appears.
Moving to a truth-free society. by Geoffrey.landis · 2016-11-04 01:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

Yeah. Now all those photosnarks that have a picture of a politician saying something they didn't say will have audio clips attached.
We really are moving to a truth-free society.

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
1. Re:Moving to a truth-free society. by Jason+Levine · 2016-11-04 02:18 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  That was my first thought as well. How long until we have clips of "I'm Republican candidate Jack Johnson and I love eating puppies! I kill and eat them all day long. Vote for me." followed by "I'm Democratic candidate John Jackson. People have wondered how I stay so healthy. Well, I take a daily bath in the blood of newborn babies. Vote for me."
  Right now, "it feels true" spreads fast across the Internet regardless of any facts backing it. How fast would it spread if there's "audio proof" that some candidate said some horrible things? On the flip side, what if a politician actually DID say something horrible? Could they deny it, claim it was "Audio Photoshopped", and get away with it?
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
2. Re:Moving to a truth-free society. by macxcool · 2016-11-04 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, I think we're headed there anyway. Our society is already hostile to truth if it contradicts the public narrative sharply enough. There's nothing new under the sun.
3. Re: Moving to a truth-free society. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 02:35 · Score: 0
  
  Watch the movie Arnold Schwarzenegger starred in called "The Running Man". There plot line is essentially around technology like this to dupe the public.
4. Re:Moving to a truth-free society. by omnichad · 2016-11-04 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  Give it up. That word is not going to catch on no matter how hard you try to force it.
5. Re:Moving to a truth-free society. by e3m4n · 2016-11-04 03:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  “Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.”
  Friedrich Nietzsche
  People will believe what they are told because they already want to believe it. It wont even matter that the real audio source is available for independent review.
6. Re:Moving to a truth-free society. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 03:10 · Score: 0
  
  There is a significant difference between spreading lies and have people believing the crap because they want them to be true, no matter what the truth is, and backing up your lies with manufactured "evidence".
  This technology, if it does what's claimed, is poison. It's an all out assault on the glue that holds the society together. This is a really, really bad idea.
7. Re:Moving to a truth-free society. by cyberchondriac · 2016-11-04 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  I think "audioshopped" would be the more likely term to emerge.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
8. Re:Moving to a truth-free society. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 05:03 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, this technology already exists. I saw a research paper about it at Siggraph in 2014 or 2015.
  I'd have to look up the exact name. But yeah - was a video editing tool which allowed you to make a person say whatever you want.
9. Re:Moving to a truth-free society. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  That was my first thought as well. How long until we have clips of "I'm Republican candidate Jack Johnson and I love eating puppies! I kill and eat them all day long. Vote for me." followed by "I'm Democratic candidate John Jackson. People have wondered how I stay so healthy. Well, I take a daily bath in the blood of newborn babies. Vote for me."
  Right now, "it feels true" spreads fast across the Internet regardless of any facts backing it. How fast would it spread if there's "audio proof" that some candidate said some horrible things? On the flip side, what if a politician actually DID say something horrible? Could they deny it, claim it was "Audio Photoshopped", and get away with it?
  You all know damn well what would happen here if someone posted "Hillary admits she destroyed evidence" and linked it to a Rickroll clip. It would spawn a thread a hundred comments long about how she did or did not commit a crime and what's a rickroll.
  Pictures, video, audio clips - true, false, or out of context are _NOTHING_ to a juicy headline people want to believe. That's the unfortunate truth.
10. Re:Moving to a truth-free society. by labnet · 2016-11-04 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Google. Bad Lip Reading.
  Especially Ted Cruz and Bushes Of Love.
  
  --
  46137
The MSM by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 01:34 · Score: 0

must already have a patent on this.
1. Re:The MSM by Maritz · 2016-11-04 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe once the tech is out, Apple will decide that it's pretty cool, and they can invent it and patent it.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
2. Re:The MSM by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 03:45 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, we've got the idea with this 'MSM' stuff. Basically it's spouted by people who get all their 'news' from entirely partisan/conspiracy sources, who are in fact ten times more deceived/deluded than someone who reads *a variety* of 'MSM' sources.
  Got a guy right in the office here, Jeremy Corbyn supporter, denied the facts being reported by 'the MSM' about his 'no seats on the train' PR stunt. Corbyn's own people were eventually forced by the overwhelming evidence to effectively admit 'the MSM' were right (there were free, unreserved seats), but the guy in the office still denies it, because 'the MSM' said it.
MIT did this with video in 2002 by drunken_boxer777 · 2016-11-04 01:37 · Score: 1

I am pretty sure it was posted on Slashdot (can't find it), but the Boston Globe reported in 2002 that scientists at MIT could convincingly alter video to make it appear that someone said something they didn't, with only 2 minutes of footage:
http://www.rense.com/general25...
(Link to article on Boston Globe is dead.) They couldn't alter the audio convincingly, or at least didn't try. However, I also recall seeing on Slashdot (10+ years ago; also can't find it) that someone (Bell? MIT?) could take about 2,000 recorded words from an individual and create convincing audio of words and sentences not previously recorded.
Post-truth politics won't matter when someone releases convincingly altered video and audio of a public figure doing something that they never did.
1. Re:MIT did this with video in 2002 by drinkypoo · 2016-11-04 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  Post-truth politics won't matter when someone releases convincingly altered video and audio of a public figure doing something that they never did.
  There will be a need for cryptographically verifiable video, where you can prove what camera video came from, and what happened (or didn't happen) to it during the editing process. It's not impossible. It's just hard and there will be a gap between needing it (now) and when it happens.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
2. Re:MIT did this with video in 2002 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 01:57 · Score: 0
  
  SimBush, 1992.
3. Re:MIT did this with video in 2002 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 02:23 · Score: 0
  
  http://www.rense.com/general25...
  (Link to article on Boston Globe is dead.)
  Proof that, unlike the folk lore, not everything lasts forever on the Internet.
4. Re:MIT did this with video in 2002 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  Cryptographically verifiable video's been available for well over a decade from some professional DVRs. It's just not in common use. Typical IP cameras and the like don't sign their video, but a good recording device usually will.
  You can still spoof the video or audio feed into the recorder, but the path from the DVR to the courts can be demonstrated to be unaltered.
5. Re:MIT did this with video in 2002 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  I also recall seeing on Slashdot (10+ years ago; also can't find it) that someone (Bell? MIT?) could take about 2,000 recorded words from an individual and create convincing audio of words and sentences not previously recorded.
  That's nothing. Hollywood convinced us over two decades ago that we could defeat authentication mechanisms with just a handful of words in the movie Sneakers
  
  Post-truth politics won't matter when someone releases convincingly altered video and audio of a public figure doing something that they never did.
  Those in power can afford a good legal defense to disprove or discredit a false accusation. The rest of us will be rotting behind bars. THAT is the larger concern.
6. Re: MIT did this with video in 2002 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 03:59 · Score: 0
  
  http://web.archive.org/web/20050213144121/http://www.rense.com/general25/MITinvents.htm
7. Re: MIT did this with video in 2002 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  http://web.archive.org/web/20050213144121/http://www.rense.com/general25/MITinvents.htm
  Exactly! Folk lore. See?
Libel suits! Libel suits everywhere! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 01:37 · Score: 0

In the end... Only the lawyers will win.
Re:Add words someone never said by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 01:37 · Score: 0

Perfect for CNN.
Nope, CBS. "Fake but accurate" is their standard for "news" they make up.
Re: Add words someone never said by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 01:38 · Score: 0

Even more perfect for Fox.
Re: Goebbels would have loved this by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 01:41 · Score: 0

I must have missed the part of this tech which only allows it to be abused by Democrats. Pretty neat, but how well does it detect a change in Party Affiliation? And what about non affiliated parties?
NBC by sycodon · 2016-11-04 01:47 · Score: 1, Troll

I think NBC will be making use of this to accompany their film edits.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
1. Re:NBC by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 02:13 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  MSNBC will almost certainly be a customer for this as well. It'll make it way easier for them to change things fit their narrative like when they creatively edited George Zimmerman on the phone with 911.
2. Re:NBC by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 03:02 · Score: 0
  
  Faux News will be all over it. Like the grim reaper to death.
3. Re:NBC by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 04:42 · Score: 0
  
  Looks like some butthurt bleeding heart lefty nancy with mod points jumped on this.
  MSNBC edited Zimmerman's call to make him sound racist. It happened whether you like it or not.
Can do this already by The+Eight-Bit+Link · 2016-11-04 01:56 · Score: 3, Informative

I did this sort of thing for a class project with Audacity. The person I was working with constantly flubbed their lines, so I had to stitch their lines together using things they didn't screw up until I had completed lines. It's really not hard, this just automates the process.
1. Re:Can do this already by barakn · 2016-11-04 07:54 · Score: 2
  
  You apparently didn't even bother to read the summary. You stitched together things that were said. This creates things that weren't said.
  
  --
  "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
2. Re:Can do this already by sheramil · 2016-11-04 14:09 · Score: 1
  
  "Never mind, we'll fix it in Pro Tools, baby." - Dick Nubbler
Voice actors and musicians by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · 2016-11-04 01:56 · Score: 1

Others have called out how this will impact politicians and law enforcement. On a slightly different note, how many voice actors have recorded twenty minutes of dialog in the past? How many of their contracts give them control over how the movie studios use those recordings or mandate that the studios give them royalties for using "remixed" versions of their voices?

For example why pay (a bunch of money to) Mark Hamill to provide the voice for a new animated version of the Joker when you can use this tool to put Hamill's words in Joker's mouth by paying (a lot less) money to Adobe?

And if the tool becomes good enough, why not "find" a "lost" Freddie Mercury (or $YOUR_FAVORITE_ARTIST) recording that he never sang? It may sound exactly like Mercury, but the recording industry will argue that it's different enough that they don't owe Mercury's estate (or $YOUR_FAVORITE_ARTIST) anything.
1. Re:Voice actors and musicians by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 02:26 · Score: 0
  
  And if the tool becomes good enough, why not "find" a "lost" Freddie Mercury (or $YOUR_FAVORITE_ARTIST) recording that he never sang? It may sound exactly like Mercury, but the recording industry will argue that it's different enough that they don't owe Mercury's estate (or $YOUR_FAVORITE_ARTIST) anything.
  On the plus side, I'm eager to hear Al Jolson's songs crystal-clear.
2. Re:Voice actors and musicians by The-Ixian · 2016-11-04 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  Even if that were true, the voice actor certainly has control over their name.
  The studio would not be able to claim the actor plays a part in any of the promotional material for the movie.
  
  --
  My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
3. Re:Voice actors and musicians by omnichad · 2016-11-04 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  will argue that it's different enough
  I'm sure the original contracts included provisions for using the artist's "likeness." Most people assumed photos, but who's to say they can't just interpret the contract to have already included these rights?
4. Re:Voice actors and musicians by omnichad · 2016-11-04 03:04 · Score: 2
  
  Sequels.
  Especially low-budget / direct-to-video. The characters are established, so you only need to sell them on its existence. No need to use the actor's name. The actor signed away their "likeness" for promotion of the original movie. One could always argue that the sequel is "promotion" for sales of the original movie on DVD/Blu-Ray.
5. Re:Voice actors and musicians by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 05:10 · Score: 0
  
  Since the voice actor/musician didn't have to do any work for the movie/album that was created that way, I see absolutely no issue with them not getting paid for it.
  Will this change the way those jobs are going to work in the future? Yes.
  Is that some kind of unprecedented horror scenario? No, industries change all the time, old jobs change or disappear, new ones are created.
  If anything, it might bring forth a new generation of artists that write and perform their own songs and use the power of the internet to publish them without losing 90% of their income to greedy record labels.
6. Re:Voice actors and musicians by R3d+M3rcury · 2016-11-04 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  On a slightly different note, how many voice actors have recorded twenty minutes of dialog in the past? How many of their contracts give them control over how the movie studios use those recordings or mandate that the studios give them royalties for using "remixed" versions of their voices?
  "In a world..."
  (And, of course, the obligatory link. I can't hear that phrase without thinking of this. Although Pablo Francisco does a pretty good job.)
7. Re:Voice actors and musicians by dwywit · 2016-11-04 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Also, what's to stop the actor from publically stating that he or she didn't record the audio for this particular project.
  There's always contracts, I suppose, but any decent agent will include clauses prohibiting the production company from creating an entirely "synthetic" performance - small alterations would be OK, it'll save a lot of money having to do pickups.
  
  --
  They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
8. Re:Voice actors and musicians by dwywit · 2016-11-04 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  Contracts are about to get a bit more specific - you can always use a different actor in a sequel, but big names (e.g. Mark Hamill) aren't going to sign contracts allowing a production studio to continue to use their voice over someone else's face.
  
  --
  They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
Won't affect the powerful... by clonehappy · 2016-11-04 01:57 · Score: 1

Currently, politicians and the powerful elites are rarely heard from in person, anyway. We get to see the results of their secret meetings and closed-door sessions through carefully crafted press releases and the societal changes we see every day. The controllers, I'm sure, positively love this technology, because it will give them an additional outlet to turn the screws on the little guys.
Think about it, ubiquitous mobile video was probably the last tool that was still on the side of the people. Now, when a powerful elite gets caught talking about how he feels about minorities or wants to bring groups of people "to heel", they can just say the video was compromised. And when one of us proles becomes too uppity and starts criticizing them, they can easily edit us into being a racist or sexist or whatever -ist they come up with this week to suit their "two minutes hate".
Writing Comprehension Fail by tsqr · 2016-11-04 01:57 · Score: 1

Like Photoshop, Project VoCo is designed to be a state-of-the-art audio editing application.
It's in TFA, so I guess /. isn't to blame. Nice job, Verge editor.
Called it years ago.... by MitchDev · 2016-11-04 02:01 · Score: 1

Our entire historical "record" is suspect, not even audio can be believed anymore....
1. Re:Called it years ago.... by The-Ixian · 2016-11-04 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  Like it ever was...
  Clearly, people don't care about words as much as they do about actions.
  
  --
  My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
2. Re:Called it years ago.... by dwywit · 2016-11-04 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  "My name is Werner Brandis. My voice is my passport. Verify me."
  
  --
  They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 02:01 · Score: 0

How long before some political pundit, campaign or right/left wing fanatic starts outputting doctored "recordings" with this kind of software to try to discredit their rivals? This election season has seen enough off the wall conspiracy theories (Trump sniffing cocaine, Hillary having a terminal illness, plots to sabotage microphones, etc) with little to no evidence backing them let alone the firestorm will happen there are videos (even badly done ones) "proving" either sides point.
Innocent my ass. by geekmux · 2016-11-04 02:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

"...So similar to how Photoshop ushered in a new era of editing and image creation, this tool could transform how audio engineers work with sound, polish clips, and clean up recordings and podcasts."
Enough with this "innocent" sales bullshit. I am far more concerned about how this tool can and will be used against me, in a court of law, forcing me to hire enough expertise to defend against shit I never said.
The average citizen can't even remotely afford a good legal defense these days. This is going to make that even more difficult by having to hire appropriate audio experts to analyze audio recordings to determine if they've been manipulated or not.
And no, this isn't like Photoshop, where often the only tool that is necessary to validate manipulation is the human eye and common sense (yeah, I'm talking to you magazine editors, who still feel the need to digitally alter some of the most naturally beautiful humans on the planet.)
1. Re:Innocent my ass. by ghoul · 2016-11-04 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  Well this will just lead to all audio evidence being thrown out and only eyewitness accounts being considered evidence.
  
  --
  **Life is too short to be serious**
2. Re:Innocent my ass. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 04:48 · Score: 0
  
  "who still feel the need to digitally alter some of the most naturally beautiful humans on the planet"
  Ooooh...those evil magazine editors.
  So why don't you make a magazine, and sell it with covers of models with cellulite and zits and blemishes and hairy moles. Good luck with that.
  My point is, don't blame the editors. They make what sells. Blame YOURSELF and the dumb public for only buying false realities.
3. Re:Innocent my ass. by bigbang137 · 2016-11-04 05:44 · Score: 0
  
  A video recording is still considered genuine.
4. Re:Innocent my ass. by geekmux · 2016-11-04 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  Well this will just lead to all audio evidence being thrown out and only eyewitness accounts being considered evidence.
  Sorry, but you are fucking delusional.
  In a courtroom, all audio will be accepted as authentic, and the accused will be responsible for financing the experts to prove otherwise.
  This will be done in this way in order to support the business community that offers expert testimony and expert analysis to refute otherwise, much in the same way that the legal community only recognizes those with a medical degree when providing legal testimony against related cases.
  In short, a courtroom isn't going to recognize your cheesy freeware audio analysis. They will make you pay for an expert, which highlights my original argument.
5. Re:Innocent my ass. by geekmux · 2016-11-04 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  A video recording is still considered genuine.
  Yeah, right up until the point where legal precedent says it's not.
  Let's not be ignorant in our thinking that video can't be manipulated, and it's only a matter of time until it's proven to be invalid in a courtroom.
6. Re:Innocent my ass. by geekmux · 2016-11-04 07:50 · Score: 2
  
  Blame YOURSELF and the dumb public for only buying false realities.
  You ASS-U-ME that I share the same values as the "dumb public" when I do not. Don't be ignorant, as I do not support those organizations who feel a need to perpetuate false realities.
  And my point regarding natural beauty was directed at the millions companies pay for humans who are defined under the elite label of model. If you're going to pay a ton of money for models, why in the hell would you feel a need to Photoshop them? That's akin to buying a Ferrari and then spending all your time behind a video game steering wheel because you're not satisfied with what reality can bring you.
7. Re:Innocent my ass. by dwywit · 2016-11-04 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  This will lead to a new class of audio/video recording devices that will claim to be tamper-proof - probably by calculating a hash at the time of recording, so video/audio from devices that don't do this will be treated as second-class or unreliable from the court's viewpoint.
  Yes, there's all sorts of subversion possible, but at least encoding a verifiable date & time code into the hash makes recordings harder to forge.
  
  --
  They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
8. Re:Innocent my ass. by sheramil · 2016-11-04 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  Enough with this "innocent" sales bullshit. I am far more concerned about how this tool can and will be used against me, in a court of law, forcing me to hire enough expertise to defend against shit I never said.
  the solution would be to say nothing. give them nothing to work with. suddenly sign language seems more important than it was yesterday.
voice authentication systems to be bypassed with by Joe_Dragon · 2016-11-04 02:19 · Score: 2

voice authentication systems to be bypassed with ease now.
DNA Editing by ghoul · 2016-11-04 02:21 · Score: 1

How long before we get Adobe DNA editor where DNA sequences from blood found at the crime scene can be edited to match the DNA of the suspect?

--
**Life is too short to be serious**
1. Re:DNA Editing by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 03:37 · Score: 0
  
  It is already possible to produce arbitrary DNA sequences.
  http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/05/07/404460240/dna-printing-a-big-boon-to-research-but-some-raise-concerns
  However, this is probably not even necessary if you want to send someone to jail.
  I am not a biologist but I suspect that growing human cells in a petri dish is not so difficult.
  The hardest part is probably to prevent contamination from your own DNA.
Re:Goebbels would have loved this by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 02:21 · Score: 0

Are you going to cry when orange paedo hitler loses?
This sounds shopped. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 02:23 · Score: 0

I can tell from some of the harmonics and from hearing quite a few shops in my time.
Re:Goebbels would have loved this by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 02:39 · Score: 1

Your statement seems a little lopsided since most of the lies/conspiracy theories (at least in the presidential campaign) have been coming out of the Republican sphere (Hillary has a terminal illness, the press is plotting against us, Obama is a secret Muslim, etc). If such software becomes commonplace BOTH sides will abuse it, and any abusers on either side deserve SEVERE penalties when they do so.
So... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 02:54 · Score: 0

Is Fox News already using this, or is Sean Hannity really that stupid?
Subliminaly? by RogueWarrior65 · 2016-11-04 02:55 · Score: 2

Can it add subliminal suggestive messages too? Of course, I'm being facetious but when, not if, this technology is misused, wouldn't it be a good idea to embed subliminal audio watermarking so that juries and the media will know that the audio is faked?
Finally - one small step for A man !!! by ripvlan · 2016-11-04 03:06 · Score: 2

The audio from Neil Armstrong can finally be corrected.
1. Re:Finally - one small step for A man !!! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 15:52 · Score: 0
  
  Semiobligatory
Ah, yes, the eyewitness. by jeffb+(2.718) · 2016-11-04 03:08 · Score: 1

Because it's so terribly difficult to tamper with perception and memory.
Re:voice authentication systems to be bypassed wit by The-Ixian · 2016-11-04 03:10 · Score: 1

Oblig: My voice is my passport.
Any single factor authentication scheme is just begging to be bypassed...

--
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Re:voice authentication systems to be bypassed wit by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 03:12 · Score: 0

My voice is my passport. Verify me.
The wisdom of sicilian omerta proven once again! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 03:23 · Score: 1

> Project VoCo can also apparently generate new words using a speaker's recorded voice
In the Godfather saga, mafia top dog Don Vito di Corleone refused to ever speak on the phone, for fear of the FBI recording his words and editing the tapes into fake conversations. His wisdom retro-actively justifies the high position he achieved in the Cosa Nostra.
In other news:
> the software can understand the makeup of a person's voice and replicate it, so long as there's about 20 minutes of recorded speech
The same has been available for singing synthesis since about 2007, but requires several hours (for japanese or spanish) to several weeks' worth of recorded recitals (for english, since that language is not orthographic). The technology is known commercially as Cevio Alys or Yamaha Vocaloid. A very primitive home use imitation also exists called UTau and it's free but has miserable sound quality.
Re:voice authentication systems to be bypassed wit by Joe_Dragon · 2016-11-04 03:28 · Score: 1

at bell my voice is my password
Another great tool by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 03:30 · Score: 0

Another tool Progressives can use to revise history.
Governments don't need to wait for Adobe by Dex+Hex · 2016-11-04 03:31 · Score: 1

What if this technology is already available and being used in combination with man-in-the-middle attacks for the modification of communications in real time? A state-sponsored malicious actor can even start wars between unsuspected countries. Governments don't need to wait for Adobe to write software for their cyberwar arsenals.
The only way to (try and) guard against this that I can think of is cryptographically signing and verifying all important communications, whether between country leaders or between corporations. Maybe this is necessary for personal communications too.
Re:voice authentication systems to be bypassed wit by desdinova+216 · 2016-11-04 04:00 · Score: 1

my voice is my passport verify me.
Clearly this is how Skynet begins! by DeQueue · 2016-11-04 04:12 · Score: 1

So you say you have this technology that creates words that people never actually said.
But it sounds just like their voice.
Clearly this is how Skynet begins!
Sarah: "No, I can't tell you where I am mom. I was told not to say."
Mom: "Oh, but honey, I need to know where I can reach you. You tell me to hide out here in the cabin like some kind of fugitive and you won't tell me what's going on? I am worried sick dear."
Sarah: "Ok. Here's the number...."
Mom: "Ok. Go ahead.... Uh-huh. I've got it."
Sarah: "I love you mom."
Mom: "I love you too sweetheart."
And, this is just early days. Real terminators don't need to hear twenty minutes worth of a voice to duplicate it. Do you really think he sat down and spoke to Sarah's mom for twenty minutes?
Make all audio recordings inadmissable by DewDude · 2016-11-04 04:15 · Score: 1

If this happens...audio recordings should no longer be considered as valid or legal evidence. Now someone can actually not have said something but have a recording of them "saying it".

Of course, should Trump win...there will be no fair trial and just a police state of Judge Dredd's running around killing people for breathing wrong.
Somebody had to take the babysitter home... by Black.Shuck · 2016-11-04 04:19 · Score: 1

...and I notice she was sitting on her SWEET CAN I GRAB HER SWEET CAN
Re:voice authentication systems to be bypassed wit by painandgreed · 2016-11-04 04:48 · Score: 1

voice authentication systems to be bypassed with ease now.
As a great man once said, "There's nothing more useless than a lock with a voice print."
Movies with Deceased Actor Avatars by sinequonon · 2016-11-04 04:49 · Score: 1

Hopefully this will mean we'll see more John Wayne movies...

--
-Bob-
No way by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2016-11-04 04:56 · Score: 1

Lol, no way will this ever be abused or used for nefarious purposes. *cough*
It's getting to the point where no amount of "evidence" will be able to "prove" or "disprove" anything.
I have incontrovertible photos, video, and audio that show you killed Bob Smith, and you have incontrovertible photos, video, and audio that show you didn't. As for 3rd party witnesses, maybe their audio/video data was hacked and modified, and maybe it wasn't. Who can say?

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
video of the demo here by jrq · 2016-11-04 04:56 · Score: 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuZGK7QolaE

--
My UID is prime!
How is this useful? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 05:19 · Score: 0

How is this useful?
1. Re:How is this useful? by drcesteffen · 2016-11-04 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  If it can make the words sound like someone, then it must be able to get the emotions and emphasis correct. I imagine this would be useful in translating someone's voice into a foreign language with all of the correct inflections, emphasis, and emotional impact. If it could be used in real time, you could talk out loud to someone and they could hear the translated version through their ear buds. It might even sound like the person if they learned the language themselves. Of course, your gestures and facial expressions may be out of synchronization. This might be like a "babel fish" for audio. It might make travel and international communication easier. For instance, the people in call-centers would not need to know the language of the person they are helping.
2. Re:How is this useful? by dwywit · 2016-11-04 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  Words != understanding, although it should improve things a little. I find it difficult to cope with some accents (e.g. Filipino, Indian/Pakistani), so I prefer to use live chat rather than telephone.
  
  --
  They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
--Re:Moving to a truth-free society. by Geoffrey.landis · 2016-11-04 05:49 · Score: 1

Never give up, never surrender.
Today slashdot, tomorrow the world!

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Creative Cloud crap by ItsJustAPseudonym · 2016-11-04 05:59 · Score: 1

...similar to how Photoshop ushered in a new era of editing and image creation, this tool could transform how audio engineers work with sound, polish clips, and clean up recordings and podcasts.
And similar to how Creative Cloud has made vassals out of people who work on photographs, videos, websites, and presentations, Project VoCo will do the same to people who work with audio.
Data by allquixotic · 2016-11-04 06:36 · Score: 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Audacity by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 06:51 · Score: 0

This already exists. It is called Audacity.
One step for man... by fustakrakich · 2016-11-04 11:14 · Score: 2

A giant leap backwards for forensics

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:Add words someone never said by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-05 08:53 · Score: 0

Clinton News Network or was it Cia News Network, would really really love this.
All the sweet "news" to "make"! And if something is not true, so what, people will see it everywhere for 4 days, and will not see the short and only once broadcasted "news network apology" part some weeks afterwards ...
Highlighting this Capability is a Good Thing by jaa101 · 2016-11-05 11:26 · Score: 1

Releasing software allowing the editing of spoken words in audio recordings is probably the best way to ensure people know this capability exists. Everyone knows about Photoshop and the kinds of things it makes possible so that the old phrase "the camera never lies" is known to be obsolete. If audio speech editing capabilities were somehow kept from the public the potential for abuse would be much greater.