| ▲ | simonw 7 hours ago |
| > Voice replication: Recreate consistent vocal profiles from just a 30-second audio sample of your voice or a voice you have the rights to use, backed by built-in consent verification, SynthID watermarking, and C2PA credentials to protect both developers and their vocal talent. I guess voice cloning is widely enough available now from other providers that Google are no longer hesitant to ship it. |
|
| ▲ | kingstnap 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Yesterday night I was doing a project with QwenTTS 1.7B. After some debugging, making a clean dataset with clean recordings, and experimenting with a good fine tune recipe (much props to the new GPT models yesterday being cheaper). I was able to make a robo-me that sounds absurdly good, family was shocked, all in a matter of a few hours. So yeah the cat is out of the bag for sure. |
| |
| ▲ | MacNCheese23 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah I was doing that at the beginning of this year with voice samples locally from hollywood-stars with Qwen3-TTS. It took like 1min - capture something from a youtube or video and put in your own text. It worked also really good for a german test. Made a voice message for my wife from one of our favorite actors, telling here how nice it would be to make some breakfast :D | |
| ▲ | rpastuszak 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Any chance you could share a bit more detail? I’d love to try this myself but could use some proven structure / approach. | | | |
| ▲ | yieldcrv 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Its so crazy to me how prevalent bad AI voices are, when local models can do such good AI voices | | | |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | Multicomp 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They probably do something similar to GPT-Live where they expect a given voice profile to send them a sample saying 'This is the owner of this voice and I consent for synthetic samples to be made of it' and/or local voice cloning is good enough as is so Google doesn't grant a uniquely liable ability? |
| |
| ▲ | gruez 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | >and/or local voice cloning is good enough as is so Google doesn't grant a uniquely liable ability? Probably the latter. Cat's already out of the bag to the extent that you can synthesize with a specific voice in one go and it sounds decent. Even if you need commercial models for better intonation or whatever, you can probably get the commercial models to first generate with a generic voice, then use a local model to transfer that to voice you're cloning. That'll probably get rid of any C2PA watermarks too. |
|
|
| ▲ | throwa356262 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This has been possible for quite a long time (probably 1-2 years). There are multiple open models that can do this quite well. Recent example from my YT feed: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WENMgQE9tws |
|
| ▲ | miltonlost 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | imjonse 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | voice cloning is a tool, it is not necessarily evil, even though the scenarios it can be used for nefarious purposes outnumber the legitimate ones. | | |
| ▲ | bakies 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | is the legit ones just like... putting carrie fisher in star wars? | | |
| ▲ | gegtik 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | usually people bring up anyone who is losing physical control of their voice faculties, so they can have a synthetic voice that matches their natural voice | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | kmoser 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Google granted themselves the authority be evil back in 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil | | |
| ▲ | hbn 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's still in their code of conduct, as the wikipedia article you linked mentioned https://abc.xyz/investor/board-and-governance/google-code-of... ctrl/cmd+f "evil" I don't know why this argument is brought up all the time anyway, it literally means nothing. They can name themselves "Don't Be Evil Inc" and continue to do evil stuff cause evil isn't an objective measure. If squeezing juice out of puppies made money, any business can just say it's "not evil." And if you think they're evil why would you trust them to follow their own guideline of not doing evil? An evil corp would be more likely to just hide behind that phrase, not quietly remove it as some subtle hint that they want to be openly and proudly evil all of a sudden. |
| |
| ▲ | gruez 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean yeah? If google offers a cloud nmap tool, should everyone get in a tizzy about how google is "evil", even though it saves baddies maybe 5 minutes of work? |
|
