Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lyrebird Claims It Can Recreate Anyone's Voice Based On Just a 1 Minute Sample (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the he-said-she-said dept.

Artem Tashkinov writes: Today, a Canadian artificial intelligence startup named Lyrebird unveiled its voice imitation deep learning algorithm that can mimic a person's voice and have it read any text with a given emotion, based on the analysis of just a few dozen seconds of audio recording. The website features samples using the recreated voices of Donald Trump, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. A similar technology was created by Adobe around a year ago but it requires over 20 minutes of recorded speech. The company sets to open its APIs to the public, while the computing for the task will be performed in the cloud.

13 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. AI killing industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Goodbye, voice actors.
    Film actors, you're next.

    1. Re:AI killing industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not yet, at least. They current sound like Robama and the Trumpinator.

      Word verification: rejector

    2. Re:AI killing industry by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't think so. Stars still have legal rights over their likeness. I think you'd have a lot of trouble getting away with saying something like "Starring... a voice like Paul Rudd's, a voice like Carrie Fisher's, etc...".

      Star power isn't going anywhere. There's really no logical reason that famous film stars are also billed prominently for animation, and yet that's what we have.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:AI killing industry by grumling · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People don't realize the amount of effort people are willing to put into CGI. Same thing will happen with voices. Photorealistic actors are already here, we see them all the time but don't realize it. Just about every action movie made in the 2000's has heavy doses of CGI, often times in surprising scenes where one wouldn't expect to see it.

      Hollywood bean counters will love it because it means higher profits. Cable networks will love it because they can crank out cheap product. Producers and directors will love it because they can program actors like the program CGI. Actors will love it because they can get back on the stage and forget about that movie stuff. Viewers will love it because we really just want to look at pretty pictures and are happy to suspend our beliefs if the face is pretty enough.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
  2. How long before estates of dead entertainers sue ? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If this true I imagine Hollywood would jump on this -- they now have one less reason to be inconvenienced when an (popular) actor dies.

    Someone uses a reconstruction of someone else's popular, but now dead voice, as a marketing ploy -- much like Natalie Cole hijacked her father's song -- are we going to have lawsuits over unauthorized sound-a-likes now?

    I also imagine the music industry would go crazy over it as well. First with their Auto-Tune shenanigans I'm now waiting for the inevitable "Auto-Sing" -- "we can recreate the voice of any dead singer!"

  3. Imagine when the dishonest and corrupt CIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    gets their hands on this. With photorealistic CGI and manufactured voices, they can manufacture any recorded situation and evidence they want, and pass it off as real.

    I think we will eventually reach a point in the world where every person of notability has a private encryption key, and any statement or appearance they make will be signed so people know what is real and what is not.

    1. Re:Imagine when the dishonest and corrupt CIA by pushing-robot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I suspect more the reverse; it will be a convenient way to deny anything inconvenient.

      1. Leader: 'X'
      2. Leader: 'I never said X'
      3. Opposition: 'But hundreds of people heard you say X'
      4. Leader: 'Either they are my enemies, in which case they are liars, or they are my supporters, and know in their heart I didn't say X'
      5. Opposition: 'We even have a video of you saying X'
      6. Leader: 'And you just made that up, with your computers and things! Enemies! Off with your heads!'

      There seems to be a global current these days, away from the principles of Enlightenment and Absolutism, back toward Authoritarianism and the denial of objectivity. When facts become subjective, all viewpoints are equally valid and 'truth' can be determined by vote or decree. Quite Nineteen Eighty-Four (although it predated Orwell by thousands of years).

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  4. Re:How long before estates of dead entertainers su by The+Raven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is true in the same way that auto-tune removes the need for musical singing ability. Sure, you can force a certain note, but it sounds artificial. Similarly this tool can replicate a voice at standard timbres and emotions well enough to be recognizable, but not well enough to be undetectable as a digital emulation.

    It's not until it's undetectable (such as some of the best modern CGI) that we'll actually have made actors obsolete. Except... amazingly, CGI costs more than the actors, it's less flexible, and slower. I think it will be quite a while before we have something that is both on-par for quality and cheaper than a skilled live human.

    --
    "I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
  5. Can it do ... by PPH · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... Fran Drescher?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  6. Are you guys actually listening to these samples? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    While this technology does a decent job capturing some of the voice characteristics, it still sounds like a damn generated voice. Im no sound expert but its the reverb or something like that in the generated voice that makes it sound just like all other generated voice. Hell if you didn't tell me that was Obama I might not even have put 2 and 2 together - sounds like a drunk (lacking enunciation) Obama I suppose. The Hillary, barely even recognizable as her. Sorry but I cant hear past the "robot" voice attenuation, which is what plagues all generated voice.

  7. Voice Analyzer? by Z80a · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hello, i am the system administrator. My voice is my password, verify me.

  8. Re:Are you guys actually listening to these sample by platinummyr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The point of this isn't that they can recreate 100% believable audio yet, but that they can get really close, and that it's going to happen relatively soon, so we should stop relying on audio recording as authentic.

  9. scammers rejoice by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 3, Informative
    Now you don't even have to trick your victim into saying yes, you can just keep them talking for a minute. If you're unfamiliar with the scam, here's a description:

    http://fortune.com/2017/03/28/...