Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenVoice: Versatile Instant Voice Cloning

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 207 posts

Re: OpenVoice: Versatile Instant Voice Cloning

#111

Post by thorum »

z991 wrote: post #75

I commend the authors on making this easy to try! However it doesn't work very well for me for general voice cloning. I read the first paragraph of the wikipedia page on books and had it generate the next sentence. It's obviously computer generated to my ear. Audio sample: https://storage.googleapis.com/dalle-party/sample.mp3 Cloned voice (converted to mp3): https://storage.googleapis.com/dalle-party/output_en_defaul…

My experience with other tools like xtts is you really need to have a studio-quality voice sample to get the best results.

Re: OpenVoice: Versatile Instant Voice Cloning

#112

Post by fieldcny »

IshKebab wrote: post #104
peddling-brink wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you call that security theater? I found and provided the information, but didn’t make it clickable. Anyone can decide for themselves to navigate there. Your comment comes off as passive aggressive.

I think he's referring to your "defanging" which you implied was security related but doesn't actually achieve anything at all.

They are making you think about what you are doing before you click the link. that’s not theatre that’s keeping people from clicking arbitrary links to zip files which can auto-execute code once downloaded.

I’d suggest that those who think it is theatre probably don’t understand the implications of that action.

Re: OpenVoice: Versatile Instant Voice Cloning

#113

Post by amluto »

thorum wrote: post #111
z991 wrote: post #75

I commend the authors on making this easy to try! However it doesn't work very well for me for general voice cloning. I read the first paragraph of the wikipedia page on books and had it generate the next sentence. It's obviously computer generated to my ear. Audio sample: https://storage.googleapis.com/dalle-party/sample.mp3 Cloned voice (converted to mp3): https://storage.googleapis.com/dalle-party/output_en_defaul…

My experience with other tools like xtts is you really need to have a studio-quality voice sample to get the best results.

The most obvious problem to my ears is the syllable timing and inflection of the generated speech, and, intuitively, this doesn’t seem like a recording quality issue. It’s as if it did a mostly credible job of emulating the speaker trying to talk like a robot.

Re: OpenVoice: Versatile Instant Voice Cloning

#114

Post by janalsncm »

peddling-brink wrote: post #66
crazysim wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the link to the repo. It's very useful. As for the checkpoint, I'm not allergic and I don't do security theater: https://github.com/myshell-ai/OpenVoice?tab=readme-ov-file#i... links to https://myshell-public-repo-hosting.s3.amazonaws.com/checkpo...

Why do you call that security theater? I found and provided the information, but didn’t make it clickable. Anyone can decide for themselves to navigate there. Your comment comes off as passive aggressive.

What is the threat vector of the functional https link that hxxps solves?

Re: OpenVoice: Versatile Instant Voice Cloning

#115

Post by chrisweekly »

peddling-brink wrote: post #95
dotancohen wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does allergic mean in this context?

That file could contain anything. I don't know the authors or have any idea of their reputation. I wanted to expose it so people didn't have to comb through the github, but decided to make it unclickable out of an abundance of caution. This appears to have offended people. I would not have hesitated to link to hugging face. That is a known quantity.

FWIW I appreciate the courtesy and context; agreed that it's not the best idea to link directly to zip files (let alone those of questionable provenance).

Re: OpenVoice: Versatile Instant Voice Cloning

#116

Post by arccy »

fieldcny wrote: post #112
IshKebab wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he's referring to your "defanging" which you implied was security related but doesn't actually achieve anything at all.

They are making you think about what you are doing before you click the link. that’s not theatre that’s keeping people from clicking arbitrary links to zip files which can auto-execute code once downloaded. I’d suggest that those who think it is theatre probably don’t understand the implications of that action.

just downloading a zip file won't auto execute anything. and you can't meaningfully review it without downloading it, so it pretty much is security theatre

Re: OpenVoice: Versatile Instant Voice Cloning

#117

Post by hwillis »

amluto wrote: post #113
thorum wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience with other tools like xtts is you really need to have a studio-quality voice sample to get the best results.

The most obvious problem to my ears is the syllable timing and inflection of the generated speech, and, intuitively, this doesn’t seem like a recording quality issue. It’s as if it did a mostly credible job of emulating the speaker trying to talk like a robot.

The biggest trip-up is the pronunciation of "prototypically", and you had "typically" in your original. Maybe it's overfitting to a stilted proto-typically? Could try with a different, less similar sentence

Re: OpenVoice: Versatile Instant Voice Cloning

#118

Post by jamespattn »

grayhatter wrote: post #62
jamespattn wrote: post #46

Can someone give me a practical use case where this adds a net benefit to society?

No. The real answer is yes, I could probably come up with some contrived examples, like I lost my voice in a freak LLM accident and now want to clone my old voice. But this doesn't (you don't?) really need a net benefit reason to figure it out and publish it. Because why? I assume, because "this shouldn't exist!" which is just a more palatable wa to phrase "won't someone think of the children". Society doesn't benefi…

My question wasn't to imply that I don't think a given technology should or shouldn't exist.

I was curious to see if anyone could name at the top of their head some practical use cases that they feel net out the potential harms of cloning and misusing someone else's voice.

There's some nice and certainly practical examples, but I don't feel any of them would net out the harms.

Perhaps there's a use case that we can't even comprehend yet that would though!

Re: OpenVoice: Versatile Instant Voice Cloning

#119

Post by ilikehurdles »

smt88 wrote: post #98
diggan wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trust nothing > This is a society-destroying idea. Believe it or not, this is how much of the population saw The Internet when it first came close to being mainstream. Everyone and their mother said "Don't believe anything you read on the cybernet", which ended up ironic as everyone and their mother ended up being the ones to believe anything on the cybernet anyways. > everyone will live in a warped and fragile alt…

It's vastly different than today because today (or at least a few years ago), I could trust videos and voices delivered digitally. I can't do that anymore.

Technology and society will adapt, just as we adapted encryption to verify credentials and secure banking data online, we'll end up with a validation signal for video and audio.

Re: OpenVoice: Versatile Instant Voice Cloning

#120

Post by ben_w »

haroldp wrote: post #110
ben_w wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

George Orwell — 'If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.' I think this is closer to the direction of Huxley in Brave New World, where a deeper understanding of how to manipulate without brute force creates a very different dystopian society than 1984.

"Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."

Censorship by itself doesn't stop people thinking (or even expressing) forbidden thoughts, it stops a person's words reaching other people.

BNW had a similar effect by conditioning, rather than by applying the strong form of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis.

Post reply on HN