REVIEW 2 cited by
People are poorly equipped to detect AI-powered voice clones
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
As generative artificial intelligence (AI) continues its ballistic trajectory, everything from text to audio, image, and video generation continues to improve at mimicking human-generated content. Through a series of perceptual studies, we report on the realism of AI-generated voices in terms of identity matching and naturalness. We find human participants cannot consistently identify recordings of AI-generated voices. Specifically, participants perceived the identity of an AI-voice to be the same as its real counterpart approximately 80% of the time, and correctly identified a voice as AI generated only about 60% of the time.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
SecureSpeech: Prompt-based Speaker and Content Protection
A dual anonymization pipeline that uses an LLM to replace sensitive entities and a prompt-driven TTS to generate speech with a new, unrelated voice.
-
The Age of Sensorial Zero Trust: Why We Can No Longer Trust Our Senses
A position paper argues that organizations should apply Zero Trust verification principles to human sensory perception to defend against deepfake and voice-clone fraud.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.